Bizarre wide screen lawsuit (1 Viewer)

[Will Krupp]

I'm a regular visitor to Martin Hart's site, but can't for the life of me find his opinion on the lawsuit. Would anybody be kind enough to tell me exactly where this is posted within the museum???

Thanks in advance!

 

[Nick_Scott]

Damn I never knew that about Ben-Hur, and I own the thing.

There were a few threads here about it. Its a messy debate because nobody agrees on what the "OFFICIAL" ratio is. It was shown theatrically in many ratios (2.20,2.35,2.5,2.7).

Ben-Hur was famous for its 2.7 transfer, but only "good" 2.5 prints existed. So, the studio cut the 2.5 to a 2.7 ratio, then ZOOMED (cutting all sides) to make it look good on small TVs.

The cutting of the 2.5:1 print to makes a 2.7:1 print was likely to make the critics happy.
The zoomboxing was likely to make consumers happy

And honestly, I'm not sure how I feel. The transfer looks good, and its watchable. It might not have been if it wasnt zoom-boxed.

Nick

 

[Lyle_JP]

The transfer looks good, and its watchable. It might not have been if it wasnt zoom-boxed.

Sorry, but I've heard the exact same argument in support of Pan and Scan transfers. It may appear pleasing to the eye, but the disc's transfer is in no way, shape, or form even close to OAR or even any theatrical presentation of "Ben Hur". That makes it, IMO, indefensible.
-Lyle J.P.

 

[Patrick McCart]

There were a few threads here about it. Its a messy debate because nobody agrees on what the "OFFICIAL" ratio is. It was shown theatrically in many ratios (2.20,2.35,2.5,2.7).

It was probably not shown in the full 2.76:1 ratio, since the widest screens would be around 2.55:1 (CinemaScope). Perhaps there's exceptions, but who knows?
Using the AWSM's frame from Ben-Hur, you can check out various framings...
Here's Ben-Hur framed correctly, according to Ultra Panavision framing specs:

The shaded edges show what would be cropped, when Ben-Hur is shown at 2.55:1. Not a big deal.
If you were to make a 35mm reduction of an Ultra Panavision film, but with Super Panavision specs for reduction, it would look like this:

(Note: The max. width possible on a normal 35mm reduction for Super Panavision. Cropping on the sides may still occur)
This is the DVD:

As you can see, the DVD was from a 35mm reduction made incorrectly for Super Panavision specs, rather than Ultra Panavision. If the DVD was sourced from a properly made reduction, it would look like the first of the three images.
I hope that Warner Bros. will correct this problem by using better materials (such as a correctly made 35mm reduction) for whenever they do the HD-DVD version.
Just to show how much of a difference... here's a mockup of what the proper DVD should look like compared to the real thing:


The extra lines of resolution and better framing look really appealing...
Here's the American Widescreen Museum pages I used for reference:
http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/lbx.htm
http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/lbx2.htm
http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/wingup4.htm
http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/special/camera65.htm

 

[Colby]

I just saw a report about the lawsuit on a local news channel. They described how the "black bars" cover up stuff on some DVDs. And they mentioned you can get $7 for each disc if it goes through. (This was the first time I'd head anything about money.) Then they said something about industry officials not wanting the suit to pass and something about scenes being deleted before the discs were pressed. It didn't make any sense, but I think they were trying to say the films were matted like that on purpose. They also showed the exact screencap examples from The Bits.
Anyway, this being on the local news here in the South is not good. This is where Joe Sixpack was born and raised. The man is everywhere around here. Now he's gonna be thinking there's something wrong with his DVDs and that he can get money for it.
This is only going to confuse the masses even more...

 

[WillG]

I still manages to amaze me that the news that is supposed to be a primary source for information can just get things so wrong and report on something that was obviously not researched in the least.

With just a little bit of research on a website or two would have revealed that the "Black Bars" covering up information is normal for non-anamorphic films. Oh well, some people will never get it anyway, I suppose.

 

[Mark Oates]

Wait a second. Do I detect a hint of Eau de Rat? Isn't it a little odd that this whole stupid saga has erupted just as the Studios are putting their shirts on a whole new HD format? Call me cynical, but if part of the marketing on Blu-Ray/ HD-DVD entails a proper explanation of OAR I won't be saying "I told you so", but I'll be thinking it.