Arild
Supporting Actor
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2003
- Messages
- 734
Originally Posted by Brandon Conway /forum/thread/306710/chronicles-of-...the-dawn-treader-quick-review/30#post_3796285
Originally Posted by Brandon Conway /forum/thread/306710/chronicles-of-...the-dawn-treader-quick-review/30#post_3796285
Originally Posted by Stephen_J_H
I personally would like to know the source of these screen caps, as they may be inaccurate.
Originally Posted by Arild
The source is exactly what I said it was. The 2.35:1 cap is from the trailer. The BD cap is from the BD. They are not inaccurate.
Originally Posted by Mark-P
I think he means where did they come from. Did you make screen-grabs directly from the Blu-ray or did you find them somewhere else?
Originally Posted by Arild
Originally Posted by Arild
Yes, I did them myself.
Originally Posted by Edwin-S
Apparently, on the Blu-ray format, it is okay to have open matte non-OAR presentations of films. Maximizing the use of screen area with an HD image doesn't seem to draw the same level of ire that occurred with non-OAR presentations on DVD. On BD, filliing the screen up as much as possible is more acceptable than having the film in its proper theatrical aspect ratio.
Originally Posted by Brandon Conway
logic would dictate they approved it, like Cameron with Avatar.
Originally Posted by cafink
This isn't apparent to me. What makes you say that?
Originally Posted by Brandon Conway
If the filmmaker's approve it, it's always okay, IMO. The current status of such approval for this release is yet unknown, but logic would dictate they approved it, like Cameron with Avatar. Apted has a commentary on this release. Has anyone listened to it to see if he says anything in this regard?
Originally Posted by Edwin-S
Any "filmmaker" that would approve of having his composition destroyed like that isn't a filmmaker in my book.
Originally Posted by cafink
Edwin, I agree with you 100%. The weird thing about this case is that the movie could have been shot & released theatrically in 1.85:1 if the director preferred that ratio (as James Cameron did with at least one version of Avatar). That it wasn't suggests that the Blu-ray's 1.78:1 ratio is, at best, a concession to those who just want their screen filled. The HTF membership used to scream bloody murder whenever a theatrical film was released in fullscreen-only on DVD, even when it was open-matte with no appreciable cropping. Remember Cats & Dogs? Or the 2001 Willy Wonka special edition?
Originally Posted by Brandon Conway
What if Apted prefers 1.78:1 for home viewing and 2.35:1 for theatrical viewing? What if he were to tell the world he wants to use the real estate of the TV screen to it's maximum without any letterboxing?
Originally Posted by Brandon Conway
What if Apted prefers 1.78:1 for home viewing and 2.35:1 for theatrical viewing? What if he were to tell the world he wants to use the real estate of the TV screen to it's maximum without any letterboxing? What if it *is* his preference for home video?
Originally Posted by Brandon Conway
So Apted, the director of the Up series, if he approved this release is no longer a filmmaker in your book? Bertolucci is no longer a filmmaker in your book? Is this just isolated to aspect ratio disputes, or does it expand to other factors as well? Chaplin recutting his films for re-distribution and withholding the prior versions, for instance? Not a filmmaker too?
Originally Posted by Edwin-S
I don't have to go along with the fiction that decisions a director makes to modify previously released work is their divine right and always the correct ones.