Cover Art - Rain Man Special Edition (1 Viewer)

[Chad A Wright]

I've never seen this one, but look forward to picking it up.

 

[Ron Reda]

I think the original release looks real nice, but since we must always have the latest and greatest, I'll be selling of my other copy once I get this one.

 

[CraigL]

wonder why it'll be 1.78:1 instead of 1.85:1. Hopefully, this is a decision made by the director or the DOP.

I wonder if the original release was 1.85:1??

I'm so sick of these directors changing the aspect ratio of films for home theaters. STOP THE MADNESS!!!!

This will be the third movie I've purchased that has an "incorrect" aspect ratio.

And it also took an awfully long time to come out with a SE that's so thin on extras.

And is this the same commentary that was on the laserdisc? Anyone know?

 

[Rob Tomlin]

The OAR was, indeed, 1.85:1.

I certainly don't condone changing the OAR, but I can't get overly upset about it since there is so little missed going from 1.85:1 to 1.78:1.

The vast majority of people who will watch this movie on a widescreen HDTV would have a 1.85:1 movie on DVD come out as a 1.78:1 (or so) due to overscan anyway.

 

[MichaelPe]

Ok... I just checked out Amazon.com and it seems that people are selling their old version for $40-$120!!! I had no idea this was such a sought after OOP title... oh well, maybe now's a good time to sell my copy.

 

[CraigL]

The vast majority of people who will watch this movie on a widescreen HDTV would have a 1.85:1 movie on DVD come out as a 1.78:1 (or so) due to overscan anyway.

As someone with a Malata, overscan isn't an issue to me.

This is starting to be a very annoying trend. I may have to pick up the older version to watch the movie and the newer for the extras.

 

[Rob Tomlin]

This is starting to be a very annoying trend. I may have to pick up the older version to watch the movie and the newer for the extras.

I wouldn't do that if I were you!


(The older version was also framed at 1.78:1)

 

[LukeB]

You do realize that maybe 90% of what studios label "1.85:1 Anamorphic" is really encoded at 1.78:1 and that the difference is a few lines of pixels?

 

[Dan Hitchman]

If it's the same 1997 transfer then I'll pass. It is not reference quality and the negatives are dirty and scratched up in places.

The 1.78:1 ratio looks quite cramped to me on the 1997 version (plus there's a still from the widescreen photography in the insert and the DVD crops a chunk off the sides: even after viewing it on a PC monitor with no overscan). Perhaps there was some zooming taking place as well. I'm not sure if Rain Man was shot hard matted or soft.

Dan

 

[David Von Pein]

The SE is starting to show up at the e-tailers ... for a nice $$ figure, too. ........

http://www.dvdempire.com/Exec/v4_ite...earchID=620301

 

[Rob Tomlin]

The interesting thing about that link is the fact that DVD Empire lists the DVD as " Widescreen 1.85:1 " !?

 

[David Von Pein]

-------

 

[David Von Pein]

Another fine example of consumer ignorance (re. FF vs. WS) is to be found HERE. (In the 12/07/2003 review from the Tampa, Florida, resident. Tsk-tsk! Don't they know any better than this in the Sunshine State?? )

This misinformed individual states......

>>> "...The previous release, that is now out of print, contained both full screen and widescreen format to view. I guess for the Special edition you should have a special TV since it seems to only be suggesting it will be widescreen. *sigh* "