Does Warner know the difference between 1.75:1 and 1.85:1?

Casey Neutron · 06-14-2003, 07:51 PM

Just got "The Right Stuff" dvd and it's letterboxed at about 1.75:1. The LaserDisc was 1.85:1. Comparing the two versions, it's easy to see the new dvd is cropped. I thought maybe they'd opened the matting a little on the dvd, but no, they cropped the sides of the frame. Same thing with Warner's "Natural Born Killers" dvd. Their LaserDisc version is properly framed at 1.85:1, and the Trimark director's cut dvd got it right too, but the Warner dvd is somewhere around 1.75:1, with picture information cropped off the sides. This makes me wonder about newer Warner dvds like "Femme Fatale," which is also supposed to be 1.85:1 but doesn't look anywhere near it. I've got no other version to compare it to, so I'm merely suspicious about that one. As for the "GoodFellas" SE due in the near future, let's just say I am very worried.

ScottR · 06-14-2003, 10:06 PM

It seems to me that a lot of Warner titles have been cropped from previous versions:

The Wizard of Oz
Singin' in the Rain
Giant
J.F.K.
Doctor Zhivago
Willy Wonka

What gives?

Patrick McCart · 06-14-2003, 11:11 PM

Yes, and they do the RIGHT thing.

Presenting a film at 1.78:1 instead of 1.85:1 makes little difference. You get a handful of scanlines of picture by not matting the film a little bit more. This is GOOD because too much matting is a lot worse than 10 scanlines too little.

Giant has LESS matting than the Canadian version. 1.66:1 is correct for the film, unlike the 1.78:1 on the anamorphic Canadian.

The Wizard of Oz and Singin' In The Rain have tighter cropping, likely to match how Technicolor prints were framed. Dye-transfer prints cropped on all 4 sides compared to the negatives (and the films were made to make up for this)

Doctor Zhivago likely has incorrect framing on LD. I'm guessing they used a full apature print.

Again, changing a 1.85:1 film to a 1.78:1 film simply shaves off a little bit of the mattes. You GAIN picture area, not lose it. Comparing between two DVDs is useless. It's smarter to compare the DVD to an actual piece of film.

Jason Stocker · 06-15-2003, 10:44 AM

I also thought that "natural born killers" was cropped on the sides for warners dvd, As well as "Creepshow". But then I realised that every widescreen Warner Laserdisc that I owned was acctually slightly windowboxed on the sides. So it just seemed as though picture information was lost on the dvd. I'm sure It's the same for "The Right Stuff".

Gordon McMurphy · 06-15-2003, 11:03 AM

One example I know for certain, is that the new remastered edition of Cuckoo's Nest has more information than all previous widescreen Laserdiscs and the original DVD edition.

It is not engraved in granite than an open matte film should be shown at appoximately 1.85:1, 1.78:1 is just fine, as long as no boom-mics, etc are visable.

But I have heard that Warner widescreen DVD editions are zoomed-in compared to the Lasers. But unless you are shown a side-by-side comparison, you wouldn't notice.

An interesting example is Spartacus on DVD:

- The 35mm version is 2.35:1 and should be shown that way in cinema projection and widescreen DVD - and the Universal edition correctly shows it that way.

- The Criterion is of the 65/70mm version at 2.21:1 and correctly, albeit paradoxically, shows less information than the Universal edition. As far as framing goes, both transfers are respectively correct. But the Criterion is sharper and has accurate colours, as specified by Stanley Kubrick, and supervised by Robert Harris.

Shop around for the Criterion, if you love the film, as it is a superb DVD edition of a spectacular film.

Gordy

**HTF Ads**

Gordon McMurphy · 06-15-2003, 11:07 AM

Let me just add that I hate zooming-in of scope films on home-video.

Anyone own the Deliverance DVD.

A new 2-disc SE of this film would be a great blessing.

Gordy

DeeF · 06-15-2003, 01:02 PM

Since I own plasma, I would be very happy if all 1.85:1 films were done like Right Stuff, altered to 1.78:1. Otherwise, I get a little strip of black on the bottom, and I have to rescale the picture, stretching it vertically, to compensate. That strip of black is susceptible to burn in -- not actual burn in, but the less use of certain pixels will result in those areas burning brighter than others in the future.

Aaron Cohen · 06-15-2003, 01:13 PM

Just curious Dee, what do you do when watching 2.20:1 or greater films?

Rain · 06-15-2003, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Anyone own the Deliverance DVD.

There is nothing wrong with the framing on Deliverance. It is just a rare case of a 2.35:1 film being windowboxed. This is actually helpful in one way, as it negates the average amount of TV overscan.

It is not a safe assumption that more visible image means a more correct framing.

There have been many discussions comparing LD framing to DVD framing and it seems that exposing too much image was a fairly common problem in the days of LD.

Gordon McMurphy · 06-15-2003, 03:08 PM

Quote:

There is nothing wrong with the framing on Deliverance. It is just a rare case of a 2.35:1 film being windowboxed. This is actually helpful in one way, as it negates the average amount of TV overscan.

You're right, Rain: I just dug it out (haven't looked at it in awhile) and it is indeed windowedboxed. The transfer actually holds up quite well for the most part, although the compression work would be better today. A new edition with a Boorman commentary and retrospective documentary, as well as the James Dickey/on-set featurette from 1972 would be a great package, I feel. The film's most (in)famous scene has been parodied too much now and the films overall power is often overlooked, and a reappraisal of the film is needed, I feel.

But maybe Point Blank should be released before that happens - I know that many people are eagerly awaiting the DVD release of that amazing film. I watched The Professionals last night and Marvin is superb in that film too. Great closing line from Marvin - one that tops his closer in Don Siegel's, The Killers.

Oh, and I can't wait to hear that The Emperor Of The North is coming to DVD! How long must we wait?!

But Bad Day At Black Rock will probably be arriving in January.

Marvin and Borgnine are just no nasty in that movie!

Great stuff.

Gordy

DeeF · 06-15-2003, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Just curious Dee, what do you do when watching 2.20:1 or greater films?

I watch all films in the aspect ratios provided on the disks. I don't mind the black areas on widescreen movies. My plasma is 16:9 shape, which minimizes most of the black areas anyway, and it has no overscan (unless I set it to stretch by a certain degree).

I only mentioned altering 1.85:1 films because the difference is so small (to 1.77:1) that it is virtually unnoticeable. I watched Giant "stretched" to 1.77:1 (it is unenhanced 1.66:1) and it also didn't seem to make much difference, except in the titles. If I were redoing this DVD (which needs redoing!) I might go with 1.77:1, but windowbox the titles. Or, one could add black areas left and right to compensate.

Anyway, I hope I answered your question. I watch very widescreen movies exactly as the disk warrants, showing black areas top and bottom.

I also watch 4:3 material normally, leaving black areas left and right. Eventually, I may end up with brighter square areas in each of the corners of my plasma.