HARRY POTTER -- comparison of WS v FS (merged thread) (1 Viewer)

[Karen Maraj]

http://plum.cream.org/HP/dvd.htm

I've always been a fan of widescreen releases, and it pains me to have to admit that, in my opinion, with just a few exceptions, Chris Columbus and his crew persisently (though regrettably, not consistently!) compose the picture for the standard 4:3 proportions of a TV screen, rather than the 2.35:1 scope of the wide cinema screen. As a result, on the basis of image composition alone, it is very difficult to recommend one version over the other.

I have always bought the widescreen over the full screen, and I will this time around too. BUT, I'm curious as to what you experts think of the above.

 

[John Torrez]

I think I'll just stick to the widescreen version. It's what was shown in theaters.

 

[Danny R]

So what extra's are included on the DVD?
For this price there had better be a LOT!!!

 

[Jorge Montes]

I seem to prefer EVERY SINGLE widescreen image. Not only does it seem more appropriately composed, but more of the important elements are being shown.

ex. chess pieces, one of Fluffy's heads, Ron, Quirell and half of Snape, and good ol' Hedwig.

Besides, widescreen is the OAR and that's simply the most important aspect about aspect ratio in my book.

Widescreen please.

 

[Chris Bardon]

I'm with Jorge-it seems the ones that the author preferred the widescreen in showed more important info.

As for the shots, it seems like the film was shot open matte, but why then show it theatrically at 2.35 as opposed to 1.85? Isn't that the ratio that most open matte films are shown at?

Either way, I'll be getting the WS disc Tuesday...

 

[GerardoHP]

This seems completely subjective and speculative. What does "better" mean? Like others said, always choose the original theatrical aspect ratio version. You can't go wrong.

 

[Jorge Montes]

It's not open-matte. It's Super35. At least that's what Link Removed says: And, much like with other Super35 flicks, the director gets to fiddle with composition for both WS and FS, thus causing the confusion. T2:Ultimate Edition has a great lil' feature on this.
Another reason against the FS (besides the obvious "It's not OAR!!!!): Anamorphic.

 

[David Lambert]

Interesting compare, but I'll stick with the widescreen version.
I think the poster of those pictures skewed the "competition". There were two different scenes in the film, one of them with Fluffy's three heads going from edge-to-edge of the screen, which I turned to my wife and said "pan-and-scan THAT!". It is very telling that neither scene is depicted in this comparison!
If ya want, I'll screencap those and post them after I get my copy and watch it.

 

[SteveA]

Anyone notice how badly some of the 4:3 scenes suffer from cropping? I'm sticking with the OAR version, which is widescreen. I don't buy the argument that the film was framed for 4:3.

 

[Bryan Tuck]

Does anyone know what process was used for the F/X shots? VistaVision, maybe? Usually, these shots have to be hard-matted to whatever ratio is being shown in theaters, but here they are opened up as well.

I do know sometimes F/X shots for Super 35 films are shot in a ratio of 2:1 and then matted to 2.35:1 during printing. Does anyone know if this is the case here?

At any rate, I will be going with the widescreen version.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Didn't we in turn already cover this topic in the HTF Harry Potter thread here?

 

[John Doroshenk]

I saw this on another site, very interesting.
http://plum.cream.org/HP/dvd.htm
Sorry if this was posted before.

 

[Bill Balcziak]

If those images are accurate, it would suggest that "Joe Trust Fund" (JTF$) might not be seeing the whole picture with his widescreen copy of HPATSS. It just goes to show that absolute allegience to a doctrine (e.g., "widescreen is always best") can be a fool's errand.
It's nice to see J6P win one.

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

If those images are accurate, it would suggest that "Joe Trust Fund" (JTF$) might not be seeing the whole picture with his widescreen copy of HPATSS. It just goes to show that absolute allegience to a doctrine (e.g., "widescreen is always best") can be a fool's errand

[sarcasm]Yes, but think of all of those poor fools who saw it projected in the theater at 2.35:1. What a bunch of suckers. Don't they know that this film was made for 4:3 home video?[/sarcasm]
Did Bill forget to add smileys perhaps? Widescreen is always better unless the original filmmaker says otherwise. I can live with that doctrine.
Regards,

 

[Bill Balcziak]

Did Bill forget to add smileys perhaps?

What would I need a smiley for, Ken? What's wrong with a fence-sitter pointing out that the linked site maybe--just maybe--showed widescreen isn't necessarily the only way to see this movie at its best.
John did everyone a service bringing this site to our attention. It shows the filmmaker clearly understood the spectrum of DVD viewers spans both worlds and he shot his film in a manner which works pretty well in either aspect ratio. I think Mr. Columbus should be applauded for having the wisdom to accept things as they are and work toward achieving the full potential of both widescreen and full frame markets.
Frankly, I think most people can handle that concept without smilies [and sarcasm].

 

[MartinTeller]

If those images are accurate, it would suggest that "Joe Trust Fund" (JTF$) might not be seeing the whole picture with his widescreen copy of HPATSS. It just goes to show that absolute allegience to a doctrine (e.g., "widescreen is always best") can be a fool's errand.

Well said, and quite true. There are no absolutes in life, people, and "widescreen is always best" is not always true ... and not even always true during the same movie, as these shots show. This is one instance where I wish both versions were on the same disc, I'd like to watch both and judge for myself.

The phrase "original aspect ratio" is sometimes deceptive, and should not be taken as dogma. Certainly directors today know that their movies will get a home video 4:3 release, and the smart ones try to frame their shots accordingly.

 

[Dharmesh C]

Just to reiterate, I only want to view the film as the director intended, if that's full frame, fine (Kubrick for example, I still rather see his full frame pictures matted on DVD).
I really do hate super35

 

[PerryD]

Well, there is a third version, the open matte 16:9 ratio version that will be shown on High Definition HBO in about 6 months.

 

[Damin J Toell]

I really do hate super35

Why? Because it exposes more negative than is intended to be shown theatrically? So do any matted ARs such as 1.66:1 to 1.85:1. How is Super35 for 2.4:1 acquisition any worse?

DJ

 

[Jeff Kleist]

Because it degrades the theatrical presentation and makes J6P think he has ammo against widescreen