Criterion Watership Down framing. (1 Viewer)

[rob kilbride]

Took a look at the Blu-ray last night and thought the framing looked tighter than the original Warner DVD. I'm having some trouble with my Blu-ray player so switching back and forth is time consuming but I did confirm I was correct. The easiest example to find is at the 1:20 mark during the prologue where the munching rabbits are literally exactly on the bottom of the screen. On the DVD there is definitely some space. Does anyone know which is more correct and why there is a difference? Usually Criterion is the last word, but the breathing room seems to look better to me on the DVD.

 

[Malcolm R]

Found this at IMDB. I presume 1.66 was the OAR in theaters:


Aspect Ratio

1.33 : 1 (VHS release)
1.78 : 1 (UK Blu-ray release)
1.85 : 1 (director specified for Criterion release)
1.66 : 1

 

[rob kilbride]

I wonder why they would want to put bars on the top and bottom to show less. Also, there was no mention of the transfer being director approved like many Criterions on the box, unless I missed it. Strange decision. First time I've noticed a change in framing from a DVD to a blu-ray and not for the better IMHO.

 

[rob kilbride]

Actually, I don't remember seeing bars on the top and bottom. I need to check again but it looked like it was filling my screen on both versions.

 

[rob kilbride]

I looked at screencaps on blu-ray.com and I see the bars are very small and much more info than that was missing as compared to the dvd release. More than just a sliver.

 

[Mark-P]

Criterion worked with the director on this one and he apparently chose the ratio that the movie would have been shown at in theaters in 1978. Yes there are video releases that opened up the mattes a bit, but this is the correct ratio.

 

[Lord Dalek]

Basically soft matted widescreen is a crap shoot. Could be 1.66:1 in one part of the world or 1.75 or 1.85 or maybe your theater forgot to put their aperture plate in (that happened to me once at a screening of Kiss Me Deadly). This is why I don't care when people complain about how Warner Bros "bastardized" so and so because its 1.78 instead of 1.85 (the difference is negligable/irrelevant).

 

[Konstantinos]

I looked at screencaps on blu-ray.com and I see the bars are very small and much more info than that was missing as compared to the dvd release. More than just a sliver.

here's a direct comparison between the 2 aspect ratios.


http://caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergleiche/multi_comparison.php?disc1=5610&disc2=5609&cap1=52501&cap2=52492&art=full&image=6&hd_multiID=2287&action=1&lossless=#vergleich

http://caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergleiche/multi_comparison.php?disc1=5610&disc2=5609&cap1=52499&cap2=52494&art=full&image=4&hd_multiID=2287&action=1&lossless=#vergleich

 

[Lord Dalek]

I looked at screencaps on blu-ray.com and I see the bars are very small and much more info than that was missing as compared to the dvd release. More than just a sliver.

Unless your TV is adjusted for overscan, it's highly unlikely you would see the matte lines on a 1.85:1 transfer.

 

[Dr Griffin]

Basically soft matted widescreen is a crap shoot. Could be 1.66:1 in one part of the world or 1.75 or 1.85 or maybe your theater forgot to put their aperture plate in (that happened to me once at a screening of Kiss Me Deadly). This is why I don't care when people complain about how Warner Bros "bastardized" so and so because its 1.78 instead of 1.85 (the difference is negligable/irrelevant).

I agree it's really no big deal. What has bugged me slightly is when a studio has released a DVD of a film in 1.85 in the past, then releases it on Blu-ray in 1.78, seemingly to fill an HDTV screen - but it doesn't keep me up at night.