Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Archived Threads 2001-2004' started by Karen Maraj, May 26, 2002.
I think I'll just stick to the widescreen version. It's what was shown in theaters.
So what extra's are included on the DVD?
For this price there had better be a LOT!!!
I seem to prefer EVERY SINGLE widescreen image. Not only does it seem more appropriately composed, but more of the important elements are being shown.
ex. chess pieces, one of Fluffy's heads, Ron, Quirell and half of Snape, and good ol' Hedwig.
Besides, widescreen is the OAR and that's simply the most important aspect about aspect ratio in my book.
I'm with Jorge-it seems the ones that the author preferred the widescreen in showed more important info.
As for the shots, it seems like the film was shot open matte, but why then show it theatrically at 2.35 as opposed to 1.85? Isn't that the ratio that most open matte films are shown at?
Either way, I'll be getting the WS disc Tuesday...
This seems completely subjective and speculative. What does "better" mean? Like others said, always choose the original theatrical aspect ratio version. You can't go wrong.
It's not open-matte. It's Super35. At least that's what IMDb says: And, much like with other Super35 flicks, the director gets to fiddle with composition for both WS and FS, thus causing the confusion. T2:Ultimate Edition has a great lil' feature on this.
Another reason against the FS (besides the obvious "It's not OAR!!!!): Anamorphic.
Interesting compare, but I'll stick with the widescreen version.
I think the poster of those pictures skewed the "competition". There were two different scenes in the film, one of them with Fluffy's three heads going from edge-to-edge of the screen, which I turned to my wife and said "pan-and-scan THAT!". It is very telling that neither scene is depicted in this comparison!
If ya want, I'll screencap those and post them after I get my copy and watch it.
Anyone notice how badly some of the 4:3 scenes suffer from cropping? I'm sticking with the OAR version, which is widescreen. I don't buy the argument that the film was framed for 4:3.
Does anyone know what process was used for the F/X shots? VistaVision, maybe? Usually, these shots have to be hard-matted to whatever ratio is being shown in theaters, but here they are opened up as well.
I do know sometimes F/X shots for Super 35 films are shot in a ratio of 2:1 and then matted to 2.35:1 during printing. Does anyone know if this is the case here?
At any rate, I will be going with the widescreen version.
Didn't we in turn already cover this topic in the HTF Harry Potter thread here?
I saw this on another site, very interesting.
Sorry if this was posted before.
If those images are accurate, it would suggest that "Joe Trust Fund" (JTF$) might not be seeing the whole picture with his widescreen copy of HPATSS. It just goes to show that absolute allegience to a doctrine (e.g., "widescreen is always best") can be a fool's errand.
It's nice to see J6P win one.
Just to reiterate, I only want to view the film as the director intended, if that's full frame, fine (Kubrick for example, I still rather see his full frame pictures matted on DVD).
I really do hate super35
Well, there is a third version, the open matte 16:9 ratio version that will be shown on High Definition HBO in about 6 months.
Because it degrades the theatrical presentation and makes J6P think he has ammo against widescreen