First (Major) Blu-ray release to have a MAR (1 Viewer)

[dana martin]

not happy with the AR change even with the blessing, but understand the idea of marketing and future broadcast implications, i am afraid that this will become a trend, personnaly i would have liked to seen a better choice, back when you had the option of FF or widescreen ,well that could have been done for this release, there could have been a release blu rau exclusive, everyone that wanted the OAR would know well enough which version they were going to pick up anyhow, DT actualy is epic in the story more so than Caspian, and i think it benifited from the AR that it originaly had. I just wish that we had the choice of seeing it proper, instead of confined to a smaller scale.

 

[Douglas Monce]

Originally Posted by Bryan Tuck





Fair enough; I'm an editor, not a cinematographer. I admit I'm not all that well-versed in the technical details of each camera available. And it's true that resolution is not the only factor. I've even seen 16mm footage that looked better than something that was shot on Super 35, simply because the DP utilized the available light better.


It ultimately has to come down to what will work best for the story you're trying to tell (with budgetary concerns, of course, being factored in). Personally, I think actual 35mm would have suited Dawn Treader better, and even though the budget was reduced compared to the first two, film still would have been feasible.


I didn't know that about the Viper; wasn't that what David Fincher's Zodiac was filmed with?

I agree the project and budget often dictates the equipment used. Frankly I think if I were going to shoot on film, I would shoot 35mm scope rather than super 35. I know scope lenses aren't as sharp, but for me the finer grain would be the important factor.


Yeah Fincher seemed to be pretty sold on the Viper. He shot Zodiac and Benjamin Button on it. But he switched to the Red for Social Network and The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. In fact The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo maybe the first feature to use the Red Epic. Honestly I've seen amazing work from both camera systems.


Doug

 

[Douglas Monce]

Originally Posted by dana martin

not happy with the AR change even with the blessing, but understand the idea of marketing and future broadcast implications, i am afraid that this will become a trend, personnaly i would have liked to seen a better choice, back when you had the option of FF or widescreen ,well that could have been done for this release, there could have been a release blu rau exclusive, everyone that wanted the OAR would know well enough which version they were going to pick up anyhow, DT actualy is epic in the story more so than Caspian, and i think it benifited from the AR that it originaly had. I just wish that we had the choice of seeing it proper, instead of confined to a smaller scale.

I think the whole idea of Original Aspect Ratio is quickly going out the window. I think we will start to see more and more films shot to support multiple aspect ratios. I think very soon when one is asked, whats the aspect ratio, the answer will be, it depends.


Doug

 

[Mark-P]

Actually, wasn't that one of the main selling points of Super-35: that it supported multiple aspect ratios? I know James Cameron loved it in the 90s because he could prepare full-frame transfers with minimal cropping of important information. He prepared two laserdisc boxes of The Abyss, one for each ratio (2.35:1 and 1.33:1) and said his preferred version was 1.33:1. Makes me wonder what the AR of The Abyss will be when it finally comes to Blu.

Originally Posted by Douglas Monce





I think the whole idea of Original Aspect Ratio is quickly going out the window. I think we will start to see more and more films shot to support multiple aspect ratios. I think very soon when one is asked, whats the aspect ratio, the answer will be, it depends.


Doug

 

[TravisR]

Originally Posted by Mark-P


Actually, wasn't that one of the main selling points of Super-35: that it supported multiple aspect ratios? I know James Cameron loved it in the 90s because he could prepare full-frame transfers with minimal cropping of important information. He prepared two laserdisc boxes of The Abyss, one for each ratio (2.35:1 and 1.33:1) and said his preferred version was 1.33:1. Makes me wonder what the AR of The Abyss will be when it finally comes to Blu.

My copy of The Abyss laserdisc is buried but I think he says that he prefers 1.33 AR so the viewer would get as many of the 525 lines of SD resolution as possible. Since HD is now the norm, I'm sure the aspect ratio will be 2.35.

 

[cafink]

Here's what James Cameron had to say about the multiple-aspect-ratios issue a few years ago: http://www.fortunecity.com/lavendar/hoskins/326/letterbox.html

 

[TonyD]

Here's what James Cameron had to say about the multiple-aspect-ratios issue a few years ago: http://www.fortunecity.com/lavendar/hoskins/326/letterbox.html

Isn't that article pointless now and wasn'T It written 10-15 years ago. Cameron wanted a "full screen" Abyss because tvs were squareish not wide and the resolution wasn't good enough. Ayway what does what he said 10 years ago have to do with anything now? "This factor alone makes a huge difference.  In the first two cases, the best extraction of the image for video may well be the pan&scan version.  In the case of the anamorphically photographed films, the best version will likely be the letterbox transfer.  It is still probably the lesser of two evils for films shot in "Scope." At least until we get some kind of high-definition video. Then, of course, the poor directors all have to go back and transfer their movies all over again. Oh well."

 

[cafink]

Several people have already asked about James Cameron's re-framing of his films, and his 1.33:1 version of The Abyss, specifically. Not everything he said (particular with regards to the resolution of home video) applies today as it did then, and It needs to be read in context, certainly, but I hardly think that renders it "pointless." I, for one, like knowing what a renowned director thinks about these kinds of issues, and understanding the factors that inform his decisions.

 

[Edwin-S]

Originally Posted by Douglas Monce





I think the whole idea of Original Aspect Ratio is quickly going out the window. I think we will start to see more and more films shot to support multiple aspect ratios. I think very soon when one is asked, whats the aspect ratio, the answer will be, it depends.


Doug

The only one that matters to me is the one that was used in the theatre. They can release as many ratios as they want, just as long as the primary one is available because, like it or not, movies are still designed to be shown in theatres first. All other release paths are ancillary to the the theatrical release.

 

[Worth]

Originally Posted by Edwin-S




The only one that matters to me is the one that was used in the theatre.

But that's no longer always as clear as it once was. Are you talking about the 3D theatrical ratio or the flat one? The IMAX ratio or the standard one?

 

[Brandon Conway]

Originally Posted by Worth




But that's no longer always as clear as it once was. Are you talking about the 3D theatrical ratio or the flat one? The IMAX ratio or the standard one?

In the case of this film they were all 2.35:1.


Of course, it's highly likely that Apted prefers 2.35:1 theatrically and 1.78:1 at home. It's his film and his preference to make/insist upon if the producers allow him to make such a choice.

 

[Edwin-S]

Originally Posted by Worth




But that's no longer always as clear as it once was. Are you talking about the 3D theatrical ratio or the flat one? The IMAX ratio or the standard one?

In an ideal world they would all be on there; although, to me, including the 3D theatrical ratio has less to do with the ratio and more to do with the fact that it is the 3D version. AFAIAC, IMAX presentations of Hollywood films are nothing but a waste of money. I had heard all kinds of good things about how impressive Hollywood films are on IMAX screens. When I was in Calgary, I had the opportunity to watch the IMAX presentation of Poseidon. I was completely underwhelmed by the experience and found the extra money I paid to see it as a complete waste. What is even worse is that I couldn't even get any satisfaction from the movie as it was complete garbage. It was hard to believe that it was directed by Wolfgang Petersen. To me, the only thing worth watching on an IMAX screen is a film that is actually shot in IMAX. However, that being said, and ideal BD release would contain the "IMAX" version for those who prefer that format.


Since the world isn't ideal, the minimum standard for a BD release should always be the flat ratio shown in a standard theatre. After that, they can put whatever extra versions they want on there, including director preferred versions.

 

[Douglas Monce]

Originally Posted by Edwin-S




The only one that matters to me is the one that was used in the theatre. They can release as many ratios as they want, just as long as the primary one is available because, like it or not, movies are still designed to be shown in theatres first. All other release paths are ancillary to the the theatrical release.

Well considering that films no longer make most of their money in the theatrical release, the other paths are clearly NOT ancillary to the studios. The theatrical release in some ways has almost become a kind of commercial for the home video and pay per view releases, which is where the films will make most of their profits. The fact that we are seeing different aspect ratios tailored to different venues speaks to this. I really do think that going forward there will be no primary aspect ratio, because there will be no primary venue.


Doug

 

[Edwin-S]

Originally Posted by Douglas Monce




Well considering that films no longer make most of their money in the theatrical release, the other paths are clearly NOT ancillary to the studios. The theatrical release in some ways has almost become a kind of commercial for the home video and pay per view releases, which is where the films will make most of their profits. The fact that we are seeing different aspect ratios tailored to different venues speaks to this. I really do think that going forward there will be no primary aspect ratio, because there will be no primary venue.


Doug

Last time I looked movies were still made to be shown in theatres first. Their success is gauged by their theatrical box office take and the decision on whether a sequel or prequel is made is based purely on box office success; therefore, I consider the theatrical release to be the primary venue and everything else ancillary, regardless of whether the ancillary venue makes more money than the box office release. The Golden Compass probably made more money in home video release than it did in the theatre, but I don't see any studio greenlighting a sequel to that film based on home video sales and/or rentals.

 

[Douglas Monce]

Originally Posted by Edwin-S




Last time I looked movies were still made to be shown in theatres first. Their success is gauged by their theatrical box office take and the decision on whether a sequel or prequel is made is based purely on box office success; therefore, I consider the theatrical release to be the primary venue and everything else ancillary, regardless of whether the ancillary venue makes more money than the box office release. The Golden Compass probably made more money in home video release than it did in the theatre, but I don't see any studio greenlighting a sequel to that film based on home video sales and/or rentals.

Another example is Austen Powers, which was something of a disappointment for New Line in its theatrical release. But it was a HUGE hit on video. It was the video success that lead to the sequel.



My point is that the theatrical release is slowly but surely losing its prominence. Films are now being made with multiple formats in mind. As a result OAR is also becoming somewhat nebulous.


[COLOR= black]Doug[/COLOR]

 

[cafink]

Interestingly, Austin Powers is another film whose aspect ratio was changed for home video by the director--the DVD was opened up to 2:1 (from the original 2.39:1). I think the Blu-ray restores the original ratio. I wonder why?

 

[WillG]

Interestingly, Austin Powers is another film whose aspect ratio was changed for home video by the director--the DVD was opened up to 2:1 (from the original 2.39:1). I think the Blu-ray restores the original ratio. I wonder why?

Could have been resolution concerns (The first Austin Powers movie came out in the very early days of DVD). Although I don't know why those concerns exist on matted films as opposed to anamorphic. Oddly enough, the other two films were released on DVD in the original 2.39 (even the widescreen VHS release of "The Spy Who Shagged me was in 2.39). In any case, the higher resolution of Blu-Ray largely eliminates resolution concerns with letterboxing.

 

[Ethan Riley]

Originally Posted by Bryan Tuck

Has anyone found out if this was a creative decision on the part of the filmmakers? From what I've read, it seems that some shots are cropped on the sides, and some are not, which makes it sound like this was a full-frame 16:9 transfer prepared for HD broadcasts. Could this have been just an honest mistake, with the wrong version being used for the Blu-ray/DVD?

Okay, I watched the Dawn Treader blu today. I never saw it in theaters, and certainly don't have a copy of the OAR film lying around. But the dvd extras sometimes use original footage, and you can compare the AR between those and the film. It does open up on the tops and bottoms...a lot. You can see all kinds of stuff that you couldn't in the original. And I also don't think it was cropped on the sides at all--there's some shots that look like you can even see more on the sides.


BUT--that said, by comparing the two ARs, I'd have to go with the theatrical version. The theatrical version has far more scope, while the bluray AR offers you more intimacy. And a story like this needs to look awesome in terms of horizontal scope. The bluray kinda looks like a really good made-for-cable movie. As for the use of HDTV cameras rather than 35mm...well, I think the film actually looks a little better than the previous two outings. The special effects can be breathtaking in places. There's also a better color balance than the last two go-rounds. The colors look very real and lifelike, whereas they used one too many filters in Prince Caspian. I know that was a matter of cinematographers' choices, but Dawn Treader really is one damn handsome-looking film on bluray.

 

[FoxyMulder]

I have never seen this third film in the series ( yet ) but looking at that shot of the Lion and the children from bluray.com my opinion is that the theatrical ratio looks better, the opened up 1.78:1 edition shows far more sand and just empty space before we see the childrens feet, it looks cinematically wrong to me, now it's great that the director approved it and all that but directors and studio's don't always make the right decisions, i'd have preferred a 2 disc edition with the choice of theatrical aspect ratio and 1.78:1 aspect ratio, give us the choice.


I also hope the colour is more like the theatrical, that shot at bluray.com seems to show a much lighter colour palette, the lion looks to have been desaturated too much. hopefully the screencap is wrong.


I hope this isn't a new trend, i yearn for the old days when films shot in 2.40:1 actually had directors and cinematographers who used the entire frame and didn't compromise, i'm not keen on films being shown at cinemas in the wider aspect but actually "cheating" ( in a way ) the viewer by filming everything safe within a 1.78:1 frame. If you are going to play it safe then just shoot 1.78:1, why waste that additional space, i love older movies shot anamorphic where 1 person is on the extreme right of the frame and one on the extreme left, obviously though if shot in Super 35 then you can compose for two aspect ratio's but i can't say i'm a fan of compromise cinema, i much prefer anamorphic productions, it's interesting that Vera Cruz is coming to blu ray soon soon, one of the early Super 35 type productions ( called Superscope back in 1954 ) it was 2.00:1 and is a fabulous western, looking forward to that one and i hope they resist the urge to show it 1.78:1 on blu ray.


Incidentally the aspect ratio of Gullivers Travels ( 1939 ) wasn't just changed, they also DNRed it to death and it has a huge number of issues going on as a result of doing that, it looks no better than an VHS tape.


I'd say the first major release to have a negative aspect ratio change was The Last Emperor, thank god Apocalypse Now didn't suffer that fate.

 

[Ethan Riley]

Originally Posted by FoxyMulder

I have never seen this third film in the series ( yet ) but looking at that shot of the Lion and the children from bluray.com my opinion is that the theatrical ratio looks better, the opened up 1.78:1 edition shows far more sand and just empty space before we see the childrens feet, it looks cinematically wrong to me, now it's great that the director approved it and all that but directors and studio's don't always make the right decisions, i'd have preferred a 2 disc edition with the choice of theatrical aspect ratio and 1.78:1 aspect ratio, give us the choice.


I also hope the colour is more like the theatrical, that shot at bluray.com seems to show a much lighter colour palette, the lion looks to have been desaturated too much. hopefully the screencap is wrong.

Malcolm, the colors on the bluray.com screenshots were very inaccurate. The actual disc is much, much richer. And I agree with everything you said about the aspect ratio. Like I said--just from viewing the OAR in some of the extras gives you an idea of a much more awesome film, rather than an "intimate" film. I don't know why they want a big special effects fantasy film with huge battle sequences to look "intimate" anyway.