GoodFellas HD-DVD cropped to fit 16x9 HDTV?

Paul Hillenbrand · 05-03-2006, 12:14 PM

The GoodFellas HD DVD Main Feature Video specs reads 1080P High Definition 16x9 1.78:1.

Not having the SD version of GoodFellas, I checked DVD Empire which has the following:
GoodFellas: 2 Disc Special Edition / DVD-Video
Widescreen 1.85:1

Color (Anamorphic)

Which format has the correct OAR?

Paul

Steve Phillips · 05-03-2006, 01:13 PM

I can't tell the difference between 1:78 to 1 and 1:85 to 1 movies on my set.

Chris Moreau · 05-03-2006, 01:14 PM

The original film would have been in 1.85:1 -- the most commonly used aspect ratio for film. The 1.78:1 (16X9) ratio of widescreen television is extremely close, so little information is actually lost. With the overscan of most television monitors, it would be lost, anyway.

Now, if the original film had been in a "scope" format, 2.35:1, and were cropped to 1.78:1 (as HBO-HD routinely does), that would be something to be upset about.

Mark-P · 05-03-2006, 01:27 PM

Like nearly all Warner DVDs that were shot spherically,the 2-disc special edition DVD of Goodfellas is also presented in 1.78:1. Most likely, nothing is cropped, only the mattes opened up a tiny bit.

TonyD · 05-03-2006, 04:50 PM

well a plasma and lcd doesnt have any overscan, is that right?

so they would show any bars that were to be seen?

**HTF Ads**

Paul Hillenbrand · 05-03-2006, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Moreau

Now, if the original film had been in a "scope" format, 2.35:1, and were cropped to 1.78:1 (as HBO-HD routinely does), that would be something to be upset about.

Personally, I feel that the directors artistic intent is always of the utmost importance and this includes the Original Aspect Ratio of a film.
No matter how small an amount is cut off from the sides of GoodFellas, to make it a "FULL SCREEN" version for a 16x9 HDTV, I will not ever be able to see the "FULL FRAME" picture, when using this disc as the source, on my home theater screen.

No overscan there!

Videophiles need to voice their disapproval to the studios, especially now for this fledgeling format.

Without videophile feedback, this could become as rampant as pan and scan is on NTSC DVD for 4x3 television's joe six-pack crowd, HBO-HD being another contributing factor via their broadcasts.

Paul

Jean-Michel · 05-03-2006, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Without videophile feedback, this could become as rampant as pan and scan is on NTSC DVD for 4x3 television's joe six-pack crowd

It already is. 1.85:1 films are frequently transferred at "taller" ARs (typically 1.78:1, but 1.80-1.82:1 is sometimes seen as well), much as Academy ratio films are usually transferred at 1.33:1 instead of 1.37:1. I wouldn't be surprised if a couple of the HD DVDs already on the market follow this practice. It's hardly a new thing and it's not as if people don't notice, but you don't see a whole lot of videophile feedback about it because most videophiles feel that a ~4% variance in framing is not worth getting worked up about (you see wider variation when a film is projected). Super35 and anamorphic widescreen films being transferred at 1.78:1 is indeed a real problem and should be resisted, but 1.85:1 films transferred at 1.78:1 (or 1.37:1 films transferred at 1.33:1 or 2.35:1 films transferred at 2.30-2.32:1) don't really get the blood boiling.

Ed St. Clair · 05-03-2006, 08:52 PM

If this is indeed the case, we have HD on disc first OAR victim.
As we feared, going back to last year, the HBO syndrome has infected the newest HD format.

Is the print in the same shape as the last DVD offering?

Kyle_D · 05-03-2006, 09:39 PM

What Jean-Michel said.

Guys - This practice has been going on for YEARS on DVD. Most 1.85:1 films are transfered at 1.78:1 nowadays. If you didn't notice or get bothered then, there's no reason to get bothered now. Second, NOTHING is being cut off in these transfers. The mattes have simply been opened ever so slightly and the differences in framing/composition are virtually indistinguishable. I even seem to remember a post by RAH in another thread awhile back where he stated that there's nothing to get worked up over 1.78:1 transfers.