Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Archived Threads 2001-2004' started by Dave H, Dec 23, 2002.
How does it look? Also, I've read the aspect ratio is 1:77 instead of 1:85. Is this true?
I can't recall the A.R. off the top of my head, but if it is cropped from 1.85:1 to 1.78:1, I never noticed anything objectionable.
The transfer, particularly for a slightly older film, looks great. The print is clean, the image is sharp, there is excellent contrast and the colors are wonderfully saturated. I think that it is an excellent presentation. If you are fan of the film, don't hesitate to pick up the DVD. A fine effort by the folks from Fox.
I watched most of it on cable today forgot how much I liked it. What I don't understand is, why do studios sometimes needlessly crop as they do? What is their point to go from 1:85 to 1:78?
1.78:1 is the aspect ratio of widescreen televisions, hence the cropping of many 1.85:1 films to this aspect ratio. The black bars would be so small on these sets as to be lost in the overscan of many televisions.
So, the loss won't be even really be noticable? Anyone have or know of a screenshot that illustrates this? Thanks.
P.S. Deep Discount DVD has this title for under $9.00 shipped.
I have it, and according to the back of the case, the aspect ratio is indeed 1:85:1 (Anamorphic Widescreen). I've watched the DVD once already, and everything looks great to me. Sharp picture, rich colors, etc.
This indeed a great looking DVD. With only two 2.0 tracks and practically no extras spread across 2 layers the average video bit rate is consistently over 7 megs a second. The audio was also a pleasant surprise.
feel like i'm trashing the party here. although it's a good effort, someone cranked up the edge enhancement a bit too much (what's new), although it's obnoxious in only a few scenes. overall it's above average and well above average on smaller screens.