Full Screen DVD's...UCK! (1 Viewer)

[AbelM]

Ok, I just bought the new AP2 DVD and it is encoded in 1:35 which is full screen, is there anyway to change this? It kinda sucks...

 

[Andy Anderson]

This should probably be in software...
Yeah, they released separate full screen and widescreen (as well as separate R-rated and unrated) DVD editions. You probably unknowingly picked up the wrong one. You should have no problem exchanging it. At the store, look at the security label on top of the DVD case--the widescreen version should say "American Pie 2 (WS) (Unrated (or rated))" Look for that "(WS)".

 

[AbelM]

Damn, that sucks...Do any of you guys' like full screen??

 

[John Morris]

Do any of you guys' like full screen??

NO, nobody here on HTF likes even having a film available on full screen... (Admins, quick, close this thread! )

 

[AbelM]

Didn't think so...whew...

 

[Ken Seeber]

Actually, it's 1.33:1, not 1:35.

You just bought it, so you should have a receipt. Take the disc back to the store and exchange it for the widescreen version.

 

[Barry BB]

Did you open it yet? If you opened it then returning it will be a problem.

 

[Ken Seeber]

I disagree. Because he'd be exchanging it for essentially the same title, the store shouldn't give him much trouble. I've had to do this a couple of times and the most I ever had to do was point out there were umpteen different versions of the same movie and it was confusing.

 

[Marc Rochkind]

Actually, for me, full screen is fine, as long as that's the way the film was shot.

In other words, what I think many of us here want is "original aspect ratio" (OAR), no matter what that happens to be. Citizen Kane, or Eyes Wide Shut (both 1.33:1), or whatever.

We just don't like to see works of art butchered.

 

[AbelM]

Yeah I took it back today and got the 4:3 unrated version today, with no trouble what so ever. I just had to point out that I got the wrong one and wanted to exchange it for the same one.
And sorry I meant 1:33 not 1:35...my bad. :frowning:

 

[Horatio Jones]

I made a similar mistake and grabbed the full screen in my haste at best buy, however they took it back despite the fact it was opened. The guy taking it back laughed pretty hard and said most people he deals with are doing the opposite: buying the widescreen and returning it for 4:3....such a shame.

 

[Adam Tyner]

I disagree. Because he'd be exchanging it for essentially the same title, the store shouldn't give him much trouble.

Depends on the store. I had a huge amount of hassle returning a full-frame Mummy Returns (don't laugh) for a widescreen version at Best Buy. Technically, they don't see it as the same product because they have two different UPC codes.

 

[Mark Zimmer]

Still not out of the woods yet, Abel. You said in your last message that you traded it for the 4:3 version.....4:3 is full frame. Are you sure you've got the right one? You want WS, not 4:3.

 

[Mike Frezon]

I took it back today and got the 4:3 unrated version

Sounds like you've STILL got a fullscreen version!

 

[Neil Joseph]

Yeah I here you. For old years day, some family brought a DVD over to my house for everyone to watch (they got a DVD player not so long ago) and it was Princess Diaries in 4x3 (yecchhh!!!). Needless to say, everyone watched it but me. I went upstairs.

 

[bill lopez]

At BlockBuster they have Unrated full screen, at Hollywood Video they rated Widescreen. Which is the less of 2 evils?

 

[JohnJB]

Marc Rochkind

"In other words, what I think many of us here want is "original aspect ratio" (OAR), no matter what that happens to be. Citizen Kane, or Eyes Wide Shut (both 1.33:1), or whatever."

No problem with Citizen Kane but I find it hard to beleive Stanley Kubrick is a straight to video (VHS at THAT) director, my guess is that he shot it for 1:85 projection at a cinema and therefore 1:33 is wrong even if you get more picture.

The trouble that he went to to get the best possible prints distributed for EWS (very expensive from a special factory in Italy I beleive) do you really think he was being sarcastic and really would rather have shown in Open Matte at the cinema.

 

[Ken Seeber]

I find it hard to beleive Stanley Kubrick is a straight to video (VHS at THAT) director, my guess is that he shot it for 1:85 projection at a cinema and therefore 1:33 is wrong even if you get more picture.

The trouble that he went to to get the best possible prints distributed for EWS (very expensive from a special factory in Italy I beleive) do you really think he was being sarcastic and really would rather have shown in Open Matte at the cinema.

This has been covered to death in the movie and software forums, so you might want to do a search.

The short answer is that Kubrick did indeed frame the films he made after "2001" for 1.37:1 presentation. The framing was protected for theatrical presentation, but 1.37:1 was his preferred framing.

 

[MichaelPe]

Yeah I took it back today and got the 4:3 unrated version today, with no trouble what so ever.

Uh oh!

 

[JohnJB]

"The short answer is that Kubrick did indeed frame the films he made after "2001" for 1.37:1 presentation. The framing was protected for theatrical presentation, but 1.37:1 was his preferred framing."

So why are A Clockwork Orange & Barry Lyndon letterbox and not open matte, and what's the ridiculous reason Lolita is not anamorphic, why do people beleive this Warner & Leon Vitalli bullshit.

My guess is within a couple of years these will all be released 16:9 and we'll just have to put up with them looking like they did at the cinema, when we would much rather see them 1:37 (shot for tv) like SK intended.