- Joined: May 2001
- Post Count: 3,319
Quote:
| This is a rather common occurrence with 1.85:1 films, though. |
Damin J Toell,
Can not comment on how "common" this is.
However, in the case of The Godfather DVD's, it was the choice of the Director of Photography, backed by FFC.
Quote:
| Oh I see. Well I'm not one of those who participates in the 1.78 vs. 1.85 or the 2.35 vs. 2.40 arguments |
Carlo Medina,
So I am not counting you as an OAR advocate.
Quote:
| The Godfather DVD shows more picture info on all sides in comparison to the vhs widescreen copies. |
ScottR,
Are you saying that this makes the DVD version better than the VHS (as far as ratio goes) or are you saying that makes the DVD presentation; OK?
Even though the DVD clearly is missing information.
Gary Tooze,
Thank you for the screen captures.
Movies are: "The Greatest Artform".
HD should be for EVERYONE!
- Joined: April 2000
- Post Count: 4,388
Quote:
| I consider myself to be an OAR advocate, but even some of the most high profile DVD sites use 1.78:1 and 1.85:1 interchangably, and there's been considerable debate on this forum as to which aspect ratio 'scope' refers to...2.35:1, 2.39:1, or 2.40:1. I understand that you feel strongly about this, but I think completely dismissing someone's opinion because of a 2.09%-3.79% difference in image size...a difference virtually all of us, I'd imagine, would have considerable difficulty spotting after taking overscan into account...is unfair. |
Agreed. It's like worrying about older 1.37:1 movies shown in 1.33:1 - it's such a tiny difference that it seems absurd to accuse someone of not caring about OAR because they don't fret over this.
Besides, given the overscan so common on many TVs, even a perfectly OAR DVD could end up as MAR on anyone's set...
-
Patrick McCart
- Patrick J. McCart
-
- offline
- Joined: May 2001
- Location: Georgia, USA
- Post Count: 7,217
Showing a 1.85:1 at 1.78:1 is just a matter of a few less lines of resolution being matted.
In fact, a lot of films, when matted EXACTLY, end up being tight in a few shots. It's better to have a little less matting than having too much.
Tell The Weinstein Company to release Richard Williams' animated masterpiece
The Thief and the Cobbler on DVD in Panavision widescreen and uncut! See and hear what you're missing from their
Bitsy Award winner of Worst Standard Edition DVD of 2006 on
YouTube!
- Joined: January 2000
- Location: SoCal
- Post Count: 4,495
Quote:
| There is nothing wrong with the current set. It accurately represents the look of the film. The re-releases will probably just clean it up some and remove film grain and such, which should be there. |
I agree, but would add that Lowry can do more than remove grain (a bad thing really), they can remove dirt and scratches.
I had the opportunity to see both Godfather 1 and 2 a few months ago at The Academy Theater in Beverly Hills. They were using their own archived prints. This is an absolute state of the art facility.
I can tell you that the DVD's, while not "reference" quality, do a pretty good job of accurately representing the look of these films. I think most of what people see in these DVD's that bothers them is inherent in the source.
This is something that Mr. Lowry will no doubt be able to improve upon. I just hope he doesn't go too far, and maintains the original look of the films. I know that is one of his goals.
For ordinary men, it's a burning, fiery furnace.
- Joined: May 2003
- Post Count: 220
| Oh I see. Well I'm not one of those who participates in the 1.78 vs. 1.85 or the 2.35 vs. 2.40 arguments |
My understanding is that the scope ratio IS 2.40:1 (or, more accurately, 2.39:1). We still refer to it as 2.35:1 because that was the ratio of the Panavision process until it switched to the current ratio in 1971; it would seem the original terminology stuck.
If celebrities didn\'t want people pawing through their garbage and saying they\'re gay, they shouldn\'t have tried to express themselves creatively.
My DVD\'s
- Joined: February 1999
- Post Count: 1,152
Quote:
| In that case, Columbia tri star would have to offer a rebate for every title that they've re-released on superbit. It ain't going to happen. |
No they wouldn't. Increasing the bit rate vs. having to re-do transfers (Desperado is the only one I'm aware of) aren't the same.
But I'm no fan of SuperBits anyway. Issue it once, because I'm not going to double dip.
* No longer looking for Hi-Vision Laserdiscs *
(I buried that format)
www.16cylinder.com
www.jet-x.com
- Joined: May 2001
- Post Count: 3,319
Quote:
| I'd imagine, would have considerable difficulty spotting after taking overscan into account...is unfair. |
OK, Adam.
However, don't use overscan as an 'excuse' to view non-OAR DVD's.
If you add your 'average' 3.35% error of your it's OK, non-OAR, to an average, for CRT, display overscan of 5%. Your 'admitting' allowing 8.35%, to go MIA.
So, you might just want to stick to it's OK it's not OAR.
Movies are: "The Greatest Artform".
HD should be for EVERYONE!
- Joined: May 2001
- Post Count: 3,319
Quote:
| And I am not counting you as the one to judge who among us "really" care about OAR... |
Damin J Toell,
Whew!
I am soooooooooo glad you relieved me of that enormous response ability.
Please correct me;
I thought a movie that was not transfer in it's original aspect ratio, was a non-OAR transfer.
Please, enlighten me.
Thanks.
Movies are: "The Greatest Artform".
HD should be for EVERYONE!
- Joined: May 2001
- Post Count: 3,319
Quote:
| And FYI, I didn't say I've never watched a non-OAR movie. |
Michael St. Clair,
Sorry for overstating your viewing habits.
I overestimated your OAR stance, based on post you made on the "Imax re-formatting??" thread.
Where you said;
Quote:
| Do you really want to financially support MAR in any form? |
Quote:
| They could have made these prints matted to preserve OAR. |
Quote:
| I guess when some people watch a big screen they feel it needs to be filled. That sounds kind of familiar. |
Quote:
| MAR is MAR. I didn't think we were about MAR here. |
Quote:
| it is the destruction of original composition |
If you wish too state that these "quotes" are taken out of context.
You most certainly may.
As they represent the reformatting for IMAX presentation of widescreen films.
I just always thought, those comments were heartfelt, as well as the true feeling you had on OAR, in general.
And, again, sorry for misrepresenting you on your personal viewing history.
Movies are: "The Greatest Artform".
HD should be for EVERYONE!
- Joined: July 2003
- Location: Lacombe, AB
- Post Count: 2,564
Quote:
| I just saw "Love Actually" (which I liked). It was a 2.35 movie. But there is a scene where Emma Thompson is in her bedroom and the top of her head was cut off. You could see the rest of her body, from her feet to her head, just not the top of the head - the screen matte cut right above her eyebrows. I am willing to bet $$$ that it wasn't shot that way, and I'll definitely check it out when I buy the DVD. |
Sounds to me like the popcorn girl didn't know what the framing knob is for.
Seriously though, the rule that "you can't cut off tops of heads" only applies to still photography now. While it sounds like it may have been framed a little high, I doubt if you'll see the top of Emma's head in the DVD version; you may see more of her forehead, but not much.
\"My opinion is that (a) anyone who actually works in a video store and does not understand letterboxing has given up on life, and (b) any customer who prefers to have the sides of a movie hacked off should not be licensed to operate a video player.\"-- Roger Ebert
-
Robert Crawford
- Crawdaddy
-
- offline
- Joined: December 1998
- Location: Michigan
- Post Count: 17,142
| Oh, and Ed, you need to give it a rest. Seriously. Nobody cares, and now you're just being a pain. |
When I start reading comments such as above then it's time for some of you to step back from this discussion before it's too late. I don't care who started it, but it needs to stop now. Some of you made your point, please move on.
Crawdaddy
G.W. McLintock: Camille, you're on your own.
