"You've Got Mail" Aspect Ratio question... (1 Viewer)

[Oswald Pascual]

Just played "You've Got Mail" on my System yesterday and it appeared to me that it has an aspect Ratio of 1.78:1 on the DVD, but all the places I look say it's 1.85:1. Is my overscan off a bit or are the DVD reviews simply based on what the box claims?

 

[Kwang Suh]

Apparently, all Warner 1.85 DVDs are in fact 1.78.

 

[Robert Ringwald]

Usually, they just round it off to 1.85:1
like when a movie is almost 2.35:1, they just round it. It's probably in the correct ratio, and it's just a misprint, or like I said, a rounding...

 

[Carlo_M]

What's your overscan set to? You can use AVIA or VE to find out. Dividing 1.85 by 1.78 yields a 3.9% difference, so unless your system is set to 3% or less overscan, you're probably not going to see little black lines.

Overall, I don't find this to be particularly worrisome. Most theaters don't have 0% overscan.

 

[cafink]

As far as I've seen, Warner always presents 1.85:1 films at 1.78:1 on DVD. Close enough not to be a problem, frankly.

 

[Oswald Pascual]

Carl Thanks It looks like your right. I have now found a few other WARNER titles that have been opened up to 1.78. So they are just calling it 1.85 on the box, but the DVD IS actually 1.78.
Carlo my overscan is set at 3%, so I expect to see the black bars on 1.85 material, but I was missing it on this movie. Now I know why.

 

[Patrick McCart]

Titles that need to be matted to 1.85:1 look fine at 1.78:1.

It's a tiny (but noticable for those with keen eyes) difference, but that's fine for those titles. The only difference between 1.78:1 and 1.85:1 on DVD's is that there's a tiny bit of black masking at the top and bottom of the image on 1.85:1. You simply get a few more lines of resolution (and a little more image) on 1.78:1.

In fact, many theaters undermatte 1.85:1 films to around 1.66:1 and 1.70:1.

 

[Brian Harnish]

Why the hell does Warner do this pointless crap? Why not give it to us in it's OAR?!?!!!

 

[Mark-W]

Brian-
I am not Warner Bros, but I can tell you it is
not "pointless." If a film is shot with soft mattes
and instead of doing 1.85:1 they do 1.78:1 this is
the perfect AR for widescreen televisions and for
anamorphic enhancement to omit all black bars.
The .07 is neglible, especially in a soft matted film.
I too was against it, when they re-released
Interview With A Vampire as an SE,
including a commentary track and DTS sound, but
with an AR of 1.78:1 and not 1.85:1, I was pissed.
Well, I did a not-so-scientific comparrison
between the old and new DVD and found I was fussing
about nothing.
By openning up .035 on the top and bottom of the frame,
they help prevent burn in on those spendy televisions.
If they did this to hard matted films, or any films
where you would loose information, or information
would be added that would be negative to the top
or bottom of the picture...then I would complain.
.07 is not enough to notice problems in compositions
or boom mikes dropping into frame.
Mark

 

[Carlo_M]

I concur with Mark.

We have to pick and choose our battles.

Pan & Scan = Bad

HD broadcast cropping 2.35 to 1.78 = Bad

1.85 vs. 1.78 = Too little to really get me uptight

As was said before, look closely at your local multiplex. Chances are the mattes aren't perfectly placed, and you're losing picture on either the top, bottom, left, right, or any/all of them! Are you gonna start crusading against every theater if every inch of film isn't projected properly?

 

[paul_v]

Sheesh man it's only .07 difference...get a grip

 

[Kwang Suh]

As was said before, look closely at your local multiplex. Chances are the mattes aren't perfectly placed, and you're losing picture on either the top, bottom, left, right, or any/all of them! Are you gonna start crusading against every theater if every inch of film isn't projected properly?

Don't give him any ideas

 

[DaveBB]

Pan & Scan = Bad

HD broadcast cropping 2.35 to 1.78 = Bad

1.85 vs. 1.78 = Too little to really get me uptight

More like Pan & Scan = evil work of Satan. However as detail oriented as I am 1.85 being opened to 1.78 = nothing wrong by me.

 

[Brian Harnish]

I was probably a bit too haste in posting here after reading this. After giving it more thought I guess it really isn't as bad as P&S. I'd rather have 99% OAR than full-blown P&S any day.

 

[Bryan Tuck]

OK This is pretty nit-picky, but something else is that Warner, to my knowledge, normally doesn't put the AR on the DVD case. It just says "matted" or "letterboxed...scope," or "standard."
At any rate, 1.85:1 into 1.78:1 doesn't bother me too much, either.