Apocalypse Now :: Redux [R2] / 2.00:1 - Why? (1 Viewer)

[Micky Kemp]

If this questioned has been posted here before please forgive me for I haven't been here for a while.

I recently purchased Apocalypse Now :: Redux in the UK and I couldn't wait to watch it when I got home. Since I missed it at the cinema I thought I'd look at the trailer on the DVD and you wouldn't believe my joy when it was presented in 2.35:1. But to my horror the actual film itself on the DVD is presented in 2.00:1

It can't be that the cinematographer and Coppola think that this is the ideal aspect ratio for DVD?

slightly cheesed off,

Micky

 

[Jean-Michel]

It can't be that the cinematographer and Coppola think that this is the ideal aspect ratio for DVD?

They do.

 

[Micky Kemp]

They do.

So the 2.35:1 trailer on the DVD is what we would call a prick tease?
:rolleyes

 

[TheoGB]

Yeah, it's a git. I grabbed the chance to watch this OAR when the Prince Charles, Leicester Sq showed it for £3 at Easter.

 

[Michael Reuben]

The framing of Apocalypse Now (original and Redux) on video has been widely and passionately debated. Here are links to several of the previous discussions:
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htfo...048#post171780
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htfo...ght=apocalypse
M.

 

[Bill J]

What are the bonus features on the R2 disc?

 

[Micky Kemp]

What are the bonus features on the R2 disc?
the trailer :frowning:

 

[Patrick McCart]

2:1 is the intended ratio by Coppola and Sitorro (sic?) on home video.

 

[Bill J]

Here is some info from: American Zoetrope

(by Kim Aubry, Producer of Apocalypse Now Redux)
In fact, the transfer of Apocalypse Now Redux (from film elements to High Definition digital videotape) was made with an aspect ratio of 2.0:1. This is consistent with the 1998 transfer of the original film Apocalypse Now done for DVD.
The aspect ratio 2.0:1 was chosen by the cinematographer, Vittorio Storaro, who supervised every aspect of this film transfer. Storaro believes that for the purpose of TV transfer, it is better to crop (slightly) the extreme left/right edges of the originally photographed frame and allow for a taller picture on both conventional and 16:9 TV monitors, because the video presentation will have more vertical resolution and detail and will be more impactful.
An orthodox 2.35:1 or 2.4:1 transfer would in some ways be a more accurate reflection of the framing seen in most cinemas, but the picture would be using only approximately 50% of the available scanning lines of the NTSC and PAL systems and hence have very limited vertical resolution. Storaro believes that since he himself composed these shots when the film was made and since he carefully made fine adjustments to the framing as needed in the transfer, the 2.0:1 transfer is the best possible compromise in adapting the very wide film picture to the very "square" TV.
Mr Coppola and I agree with Storaro's views and accepted his decision.
You are right to wonder about the discrepancy between the theatrical trailer and the feature itself. But the feature is not 1.85:1, it is 2.0:1. The transfer of the trailer was not supervised by Storaro, and was done using the conventional theatrical aspect of 2.35:1. It doesn't bother us, as this is considered a DVD "extra."

For more info go here:
Link Removed

 

[Mark_vdH]

the trailer

Actually, I just ordered the French edition (it's on its way ), and it has some nice extra's:
1979 Press Conference extract (3 Minutes, 25 Seconds)
2001 Press Conference (45 Minutes)
Interview with Claude Berri (4 Minutes)
"Destruction of the Kurtz Compound" with commentary by Francis Ford Coppola (5 Minutes)
French, English Subtitles
2.00:1 anamorphic PAL
English & French Dolby Digital 5.1 format
Special Case
Note - All extras are in English except for the Interview with Claude Berri which is in French with no subtitles.
2 disc set, gatefold packaging in cardboard case
(Source: Link Removed)

 

[GerardoHP]

And, if your widescreen TV has a significant amount of overscan, as most widescreen TV's do, you're actually seeing an image closer to 1.85:1.

 

[John CW]

Hasn't he ever heard of widescreen TV's??

~ John

 

[Jean-Michel]

Hasn't he ever heard of widescreen TV's??
"The aspect ratio 2.0:1 was chosen by the cinematographer, Vittorio Storaro, who supervised every aspect of this film transfer. Storaro believes that for the purpose of TV transfer, it is better to crop (slightly) the extreme left/right edges of the originally photographed frame and allow for a taller picture on both conventional and 16:9 TV monitors, because the video presentation will have more vertical resolution and detail and will be more impactful."
What does this mean? Well, obviously Storaro doesn't think 16:9 sets have a high enough resolution either. I assume we will see a full 2.35:1 transfer when HDTV sets become the norm, although Storaro has issues with HDTV as well (he wants it to be 2:1 instead of 16:9 -- not bloody likely).

 

[GerardoHP]

Storaro is one of those "geniuses" who seem to inhabit an universe all their own.Link Removed

 

[cafink]

Until last week, I'd never seen Apocalypse Now. I'd read a lot about the framing issues, however, and even though I'm a real OAR nut, it just didn't bother me. I'd have loved to have AN presented at its full 2.35:1 aspect ratio, but 2:1 isn't so bad and if it's good enough for the director and cinematogropher, then it's good enough for me!
Well, now that I've finally seen AN, I've changed my mind. I watched Paramount's original AN DVD, and the framing just doesn't look right. It's ugly, awkward, and cramped. It's not as bad as a traditional pan and scan transfer of course, but it's quite enough to be distracting and off-putting.

 

[GerardoHP]

The 2.35:1 doesn't look right and is cramped? How can this be when the film was composed for that aspect ratio and there's .35 more space on the sides?

 

[Damin J Toell]

The 2.35:1 doesn't look right and is cramped?

No - Carl is saying that the 2.0:1 framing looks cramped; Paramount's original AN DVD was also in 2.0:1.
DJ

 

[GerardoHP]

OK, then I completely agree. Personally, I think the narrower aspect ratio also robs the film of much of its panoramic sweep and grandeur. Storaro may be a great cinematographer, but as far as this issue is concerned, he's totally lost it IMNSHO.

 

[Bill J]

Damin is correct, the original disc and the Redux disc both have the same framing. My previous post covers that a little:

In fact, the transfer of Apocalypse Now Redux (from film elements to High Definition digital videotape) was made with an aspect ratio of 2.0:1. This is consistent with the 1998 transfer of the original film Apocalypse Now done for DVD.