 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
I'm disappointed that the DVD "Star Wars: Phantom Menace" is in this aspect, because it's obviously been cropped down to 2.35:1 (yes, this flick wasn't worth the wait, but I like it anyway, "and so do a helluva lot of other people"...so no cheap shots are appreciated/tolerated). My memory of seeing it in the theater was that its natural aspect was closer to 1.85:1, and indeed I do see that the bottom and top of facial closeups and other scenes on the DVD, are missing!It seems to me, that unless the original film negative (or D-1 videotape) was somehow shot with 2.35:1 (where nothing above or below the shot was even recorded), that the studios should NOT just throw away the top and bottom of the original 1.85:1 negative when they master the DVD...especially if they presented the full size of the print in theaters to begin with...
Besides, widescreen tv's are 1.85:1, and not 2.35:1, so it seems like a completely useless aspect ratio for the most part...encouraging people who buy the DVD to further crop the film by using the "zoom" feature in some way on their widescreens...
My understanding of 2.35:1, was that this was "Cinemascope", and only a few films such as "Lawrence of Arabia" were meant to be presented this way (and were originally presented in this aspect when first run in theaters...whether or not the original 70mm negative actually was 2.35:1. or 1.85:1).
Any real information on the reason why I'm being cheated out of my money when buying these DVD's (in order to see the film, and not a cropped middle of the shot), is appreciated. It certainly can't be a profit motivation on anyone's part, and it does "mar the art" by erasing part of the film...so that only leaves one explanation: Idiocy!
Follow Ups:
From reading the followups to the original post, it seems to me that there is some frustration on your part as to why noone is aswering your original question. The simple explanation, is that your question is invalid due to your incorrect assertion that the original aspect ratio of Episode 1 (and many other movies that are allegedly cropped according to you) was 1.85:1. The only evidence that you have to support your argument seems to be your memory of the original viewing. There is overwhelming evidence that the original aspect ratio of Episode 1 is and always has been 2.35:1. If you indeed saw the original release in 1.85:1 in a thx certified theater, then it was almost certainly cropped from the sides. I know that I too saw Episode 1 in a thx certified theater at the 12:01 opening show on the east coast and it was most certainly in 2:35.1. I'm all for conspiracy theory, but the idea that DVDs are cropped to 2.35:1 from an original ratio of 1.85:1 is, I'm afraid, a scenario that only exists in your mind.Have a nice day
Nice to know that you're aware of what exists in my mind, and that you're also omniscient, and that you stand with those that responded who also happen to be jerks, by taking swipes of a semi-personal nature at me when I specifically asked for no cheap shots. Thanks for the original attitude also, that helps a lot. Have a really sucky day 'miser...I don't give a shi+ whether you saw it at 12:01 on the east coast...are you a moron? Why would anyone have stood in line for this thing? I mean, I liked it, but stand in line for it? No way...Did you also dress in costume like all the pathetic nerds did that saw the first showings? I had to laugh at them when they showed them on tv...
Since you asked.. No I'm not a moron. and you changing subjects by asking me irrelevant, insulting questions does nothing more than reinforce your boorish appearance on this message board as well as contradict your repeated pleas for civil responses to your questions. In my previous post i stated that is "seems", i.e. I drew a conclusion of your thoughts based on information you provided in your posts. Its not difficult, and judging by your cynical response to my reply, you have nothing left to do but lash out at me with weak schoolyard insults in a lame attempt to augment your undefendable position. You might try finding some evidence to support your claims or apologizing to the people on this board. Either one would garner a more positive attitude in response to your posts.Have a Nice Day.
"and you changing subjects by asking me irrelevant, insulting questions..."It had as much relevance anything you have said here. It was you that mentioned seeing this movie at "12:01" on the day it opened, so indeed my question had relevance. Sorry it struck a nerve; I don't blame you for being embarrassed about it though.
I apologize for getting you so upset, and perhaps I do wish you a Happy New Year after all.
Carl Eber just got totally owned.
No, my family did own slaves at one time though...Also, they treated them with as much dignity as the times allowed, which runs contrary to myth...
TEH DVD!S ON EPIZODE 1 IS THE COLEST THNIG ON TEH PLAN#T!!!!!!21
Perhaps when you saw TPM in the theater, the screen was roughly 1.85:1 or maybe 2.1:1, and the true aspect ratio of 2.35:1 was cut off on the sides. It seems that you view 1.85:1 as being TALLER than 2.35:1 rather than perceiving 2.35:1 as being WIDER than 1.85:1. You may have seen an improper projection of TPM where the sides of the frame were actually cut off, but what you THINK you saw was more information on the top and bottom of the true framing. And now that you see a wider/shorter 2.35:1 image on the DVD, you think there is information missing from the [NON-EXISTANT] 1.85:1 framing of TPM.The truth is that "The Phantom Menace" has an ORIGINAL aspect ratio of 2.35:1, NOT 1.85:1. I will admit that I laughed when I first read your original post. It was almost like saying BEN-HUR really has an aspect ratio of 1.66:1 or something. Face it, you're wrong. Your memory is wrong, your eyes are wrong, your opinions of the aspect ratio of TPM are wrong.
"Why is 2.35:1 so overused on DVDs?" Well if you don't like those pesky black bars, deal with it. A director's intent is more important than Joe Nobody's intolerance of the only way to display widescreen material wider than 16:9. It's not that 2.35:1 is overused, it's that YOU cannot seem to tolerate black bars even on a 16:9 display. It appears you are trying to convince yourself that 2.35:1 movies are the result of vertical cropping so that you don't feel as offended by the director's intent for a 2.35:1 aspect ratio.
"Star Wars: Episode I--The Phantom Menace" is NOT 1.85:1 nor was it EVER. To say that you saw more information on the top and bottom in the theaters is to say that the 35mm release prints of TPM were in fact not 2.35:1 anamorphic scope, but rather undistorted 1.37:1 open matte or thereabouts. There certainly is very, very little additional picture information around the edges of a scope print. I believe SMPTE specifies a particular area of the 2.35:1 anamorphic prints to be projected with just a sliver of information reaching the extremes of the frame.
Okay, I'm done.
nt
I admire you Carl Eber. There’s something about the cut of your jib. I think it has to do with your absolute focus on accuracy, the unwillingness to accept the blatant imprecision of rounding and the insistence on carrying computations to the 74th significant digit. And I think it also has something to do with your dogged pursuit of not only the truth, but the reason why something is true. No, its not enough that people with far greater direct experience and historical context say its so. It would be the easy way out to accept the logic of their positions at face value and move on. But no, that’s not the Carl Eber way. Instead you persevere with the unwavering determination of a pig after a truffle, the tenacity of a bulldog’s grip on a trouser leg. No amount of shaking will throw you off. Go Carl! Go!You are my hero Carl Eber.
joe
"I admire you Carl Eber."Interesting. I admire people who can attempt to give an intelligent answer to the question: "Why is 2.35:1 so overused on DVDs?"...call it a relevant topic for discussion. Now let's contrast this by covering your take...
I could start by mentioning who I don't admire, ok? I don't much admire lying bigots like you, for starters. The above quote of yours is a blatant lie; you have zero admiration for me, so don't wi22 in my ear and tell me it's rainin' just for the sake of being a pompous, closed-minded, bigotted, egotistical blowhard who's all talk and no action with all the sense of humor of a photon's fart...
Are you an objective arbiter, deciding who has more experience than whom here all by yourself, on this subject? Did God, Darwin, Steven Hawking or somebody wake up one day with cramps, see you, and just "make it so"? If any sort of "entity" did so (perhaps you can tell me, is there a stamp on your forehead?), then perhaps I may seek to admire you...how long can you hold your breath for this to transpire, btw?...if not, then just gimme your wife for a couple of evenings and we'll call it even. I just wanna talk to her, honest I do!! I need to know how your jib cuts, if you have one, and whether or not it likes pigs in the mud...There, that was both clever and low brow, so I've sunk almost to your level (I had to leave in the clever part...call it one of my quirks), and I rather enjoyed it...that's what you were really hoping for, right mr. smartypants?
I NOTICE THAT YOU BRING NOTHING SUBSTANTIVE TO THE TABLE HERE WHATSOEVER. IT'S MERELY A PERSONAL ATTACK ON MY CHARACTER (which ought to be against AA's rules, if they were enforced fairly), but an attack only with all the kehones of say, Liberace...SO HOW 'BOUT GETTING THE HELL OUTTA MY THREAD RIGHT THIS SECOND?...THANKS. If you're gonna be an a$$, be ready to take what you attempt to dish out...or else pick up your toys and go play on the other side of the tracks where you belong. Good riddance...brian...or excuse me, "joe". How are those gold-plated airplanes DHL uses, btw?
But there is "something about the cut of your jib" that keeps gnawing at my hindbrain though, so I have genuine love for you anyway...yes I do! It's the Holidays; please love me back, it'd mean so much to have a deep thinker like you love me...you know it would. I admire the ground you walk on...and even the water you walk on. Heck, I think I may even start praying to you...I admire you so damn much I'm about to bust...just as I thought, three nines...no wait, you're upside down...
Brian? Attacks on character? I really don't where to start. So lets cut to the interesting part - the wife.I'd LOVE to send her over. But only if you'd promise to keep her. A couple of evenings is not nearly long enough. I've been thinking it'd be nice to get one of those new "trophy" wives I hear so much about. You know, blond, leggy, willing, kind of dumb and compliant. I don't know, sounds kind of fun to me. But the old one would have to go so the idea of you taking her could really open up some possibilities. Hey, shes no dog you understand, but shes more the highschool sweetheart type and once she hit the big four-o she's not losing the old winter coat like she used to if you know what I mean. So send me your address and maybe we can work something out.
Now the brian thing. I guess it's brian and not Brian right? Me, I use uppercase letters when using proper names, but thats just me. I really have no idea who he is and what the stuff about the gold planes and DHL means - but if it gets the wife out of the house I'm game.
And the rudimentary physics. I must haved missed photon farts in college. Were those covered in particle or wave theory? See, thats the problem, you get a few years away from school and you just cant stay current. This is why I admire you so much Carl. I can call you Carl can't I, or would you prefer Mr. Eber? Anyway, as I was saying Carl, one of the things I admire so much about you is that you stay up on the latest developments in the sciences and it's one of the things that makes you such a well informed, well rounded and dammit I've got to say it - admirable person.
And where do you get these "entity" stamps on the forehead you mentioned? I dont have one now but all I can say is it sounds pretty cool to me. I once had a tatoo but the wife made me get it removed. I bet a good trophy wife wouldn't object at all.
Well thats about it. But there is one thing gnawing at my "hindbrain" though. In the spirit of your question "Why is 2.35:1 so overused on DVDs?" - can you possibly help me with puzzler I just havn't been able to crack? Specifically - Why are the feet are so overused when walking? I've been trying to puzzle that one out and frankly, I'm coming up a bit short.
Best wishes for the holiday season and sincerely hoping we can work something out on the wife front....
joe
"A couple of evenings is not nearly long enough."You are very generous (it must be the holiday season, eigh?)...I didn't want to appear rude, so I only asked for a couple of evenings, and hoped for the best...
"I'd LOVE to send her over. But only if you'd promise to keep her."
I admit, this is very intrigueing. If she'd agree that easily to the move, this could be good news. I find that the submissive type can be very satisfying, and I (unlike you) can't afford a trophy wife just yet (and I'd rather spend what I do have on audio, of course). Submissive yet intelligent...has a nice ring to it. Does she have her own credit cards, what is the maximum credit limit of the best one, and would you still get the bill?? Do younger passionate men who like to yell a lot, turn her on?? Does she like to be videotaped??
"I guess it's brian and not Brian right?"
In his case, lower case isn't low enough. Even lower case letters are wasted on his name...his name is probably best uttered with flatulence. And speaking of...
"Were those covered in particle or wave theory?"
Actually photons are thought to behave as both, but then you knew that didn't you? It's a shame you took that one so literally; it was meant more as a joke; perhaps if you read it again you might get it. Sorry if it was over your head. I'll try harder next time...
"I can call you Carl can't I, or would you prefer Mr. Eber?"
Actually I'm thinking of changing my name to Puff Daddy, or Pimpbot or sumthin...or perhaps even "joe"...btw, I thought you were committed to using upper case letters for proper names. Don't tell me you're going to be inconsistent...please say it ain't so!
"And where do you get these "entity" stamps on the forehead you mentioned?"
Oh, forgive me, I left that part out. Have you ever been to Six Flags or Disneyworld? They usually stamp your wrist or the back of your hand, but I'm sure if you got down on your knees they'd realize what you wanted, and may even stamp your forehead too...Sometimes this works, sometimes not...or so I've been told.
"can you possibly help me with puzzler I just havn't been able to crack?"
Perhaps if you try harder to answer my own "puzzler", I'll try harder than: I thought one walks on their hands...what is this "feet" you speak of? Oh, it could be that people around here (Antarctica) all walk on their hands, because otherwise we'd all be upside down (it's the bottom of the world and all). Are you from the northern hemisphere? It just may be that you've evolved differently than we have, I dunno.
Happy Holidays, cARL
Gee cARL, those community college courses must be paying off. That's the largest number of vaguely cogent words I've ever seen you use in a single post. And it only took you two days to compose it too! But one thing, what's the whole brian thing about? More than one of us would like to know. Is he the one that taught you everything you know about home theater? That must have taken all of 12 seconds....And, oh yeah, since you asked again I will answer your orignal puzzler - the reason that you think 2.35 to 1 is so overused in DVDs? Because you're an idiot.
Happy holidays!
joe
What happened to your sense of humor? Did seeing a superior one take the fun out? I apologize from the bottom of my heart for spoiling your glee, but it needed to be done...and I so enjoyed it. Thanks for the opportunity!"That's the largest number of vaguely cogent words I've ever seen you use in a single post."
Indeed? Thanks for noticing...You must be quite a fan of my writing, to have read everything I've ever posted. I don't sign autographs though, in case you're wondering...
How come I've not heard from your wife? You had me thinking she was hot for me...don't tell me that was just a tease...I'd be heart broken! I already have in mind what I'd like to spend her credit cards on...and am even pondering the consummation...
Carl, your best humor happens when you dont even know it.joe
Thanks, so that must mean that I can't help but have a terrific sense of humor, even when I try not to. A pity that its breadth inspires such treacherous envy though. Perhaps I should try to not be such a charismatic guy, blessed with supreme wit, boundless in its scope...but then again, perhaps it is those who fall into envy who should take it upon themselves to atone.
...were laughing at you, not with you. Yes Carl, you are a natural resource - a veritable fountain of unintentional humor. So please do keep posting. I havn't laughed so much in years...joe
I'm laughing so hard at you that I'm puking...so thank you, I have enjoyed this plenty! As soon as I get to bed your wife, I'm sure that will be the capper! Just make sure she takes a bath first...I do have standards.
...quite the way to spend the holidays there Carl. But then if I was stuck with your life I'd be probably be doing it too.By the way, have you checked the tire pressure on the doublewide lately? Must really be a pain in the butt when the tires on the house go flat.
joe
Shows how much you know...trailers are up on blocks when someone lives in them; they only use the tires when they're being towed. I've never seen a "doublewide", but perhaps you're referring to something else there, I dunno?I live in a sizable brick home myself (always have, even as a kid), but I understand why the servant class needs cheap housing, and I don't begrudge such a necessity (we used to have to drive through a slum back when I was a kid, so I remember seeing the blocks supporting these little structures). It's better than banishing them to the streets I suppose.
No one in my extended family, or that I have known personally, has ever lived in a "trailer park" (if they even exist anymore, which I doubt)...in case that's the conclusion you and Rich are desperate to jump to. There are quite a few affluent people in Tennessee, and thankfully we had the foresight to realize that Al Gore would have made a terrible president. Just think, if he'd only won his own state, he wouldn't have needed Florida...perhaps Lieberman should have spent more time here than in Florida? Nah, we could see through him too (not that anyone can't). I mean, my dog has a higher IQ than Lieberman, and Chomper ain't too bright his own self, as Dobermans go...
I actually own a 200 acre estate (my house is about 1/10 mile from the street...in the future it will be 1/3 mile, and much larger, complete with a 5 acre reflecting/wildlife lake and evergreen grove). My home adjoins a multi-billionaire's 3000 acre estate to the north, in case you're wondering. They have fox hunts, thoroughbred racing and everything...they think they're royalty I guess.
Actually, it's quite lovely down here in the South, but apparently yankee dumbasses think anywhere in the South is a pig farm or something (especially if they've never been here...and technically, there are more pig farms in Iowa). It's paradise down here (I've been to the northeast many times, btw, so I know how you live).
I'm glad we kicked all you carpetbagger's back to where you came from after the war. We may have "lost" the war, but we still got to keep our land. If the North had been smart, they'd have forced us to live up there in the permafrost, and taken over our estates to live down here. Personally, I'm glad they had shi+ for brains, 'cause I get to live the good life down here. Sherman saw all those homes, and rather than conquer and displace them, he preferred to just burn them out of his own envy...thinking they'd never be rebuilt. You should see them all in and around Atlanta now...quite a historic site to behold, and quite a triumph in the end, as it happens.
Some of the people from the north have wised up...many that travel through this area lately on vacation, wind up moving here permanently from places like Chicago and Detroit. They're much happier people after the move...
You see, I don't like to live like a pack rat in an urban area (and pay $2.5k/month rent for that "privilege"); I like the serenity that only many acres allow. I also don't like to drive on salted icy roads, cause they constantly need to be paved over again after the salt destroys them (with both federal and state tax dollars being needlessly wasted in the process, not to mention the oil resources), and also the salt ruins the cars themselves (needlessly driving up auto insurance premiums nationwide). And I do like to drive fine automobiles on occasion...
Um, I don't drink, so I won't be puking my guts out anytime soon, at least not until your wife gets here. Btw, has she had her shots? Also, I don't care for lice much...and I do hope she doesn't have any STD's...you promised me that she didn't...and goodness knows I believe anything anyone tells me.
nt
...simultaneous orgasm!
....due to the fact (I kid you not) they are "equiped" with two, thats right, TWO of them thar female pleasure rods !!
So how about it, what does the "reflecting" part mean ?
nt
...hog waste "lagoon" as they call it in his trade.Which, er, uhm, basiclly makes it a big pool 'O hog sh*t.
joe
And I'd be willing to bet 3 of your wife's sets of panties that there are more hog farms in TX than in TN...TX is also where that man Steve Austin became bionic after his career as an astronaut, I believe (it was on tv, so I take it as gospel!!)...it's also a state soon to become an emancipated province of Mexico, which I find hilarious! Vecente Fox, "you go girl!"
That's the first time I've ever heard a trailer park described as an "estate". Now, technically, is that an "estate" or a "trailer estate"?Carpetbagger? Moi? That's the first time I've ever heard a Texan described as a carpetbagger. And as I already told you Carl, the wife nixed the deal after reading a few of your posts so it's just gonna be another night in the trailer with the inflatable doll for you...
joe
Perhaps if I tried to contact her while she's at work...or would that make me seem too forward for her taste?
...you're a bit too forward for anyone's taste.joe
I'll have to think of something else then. All this talk about her being the "high school sweetheart type" gets me all hot and bothered...
Why would you care about STDs? Rumour has it that you hanker after inflatable dolls. Order 'em right off the internet. Never have to leave the trailer.Gosh, we miss your charming, errrrrrrr, "wit" over on Outside. Y'all be sure to come back and give us a hallo some time. Keep that tail between your legs.
Heh heh, Rod deleted my posts over there after I embarressed him, so going back right now won't be necessary...my mission was accomplished...for now. Oh, and again, why don't YOU "f#ck THIS wit"...I got your f#ckwit right here, sonny...(that was a tiny fragment of all that was deleted over there, in case you missed it)...good day to you, and drive very carefully...
***perhaps it is those who fall into envy who should take it upon themselves to atone***Maybe Joe should mosey on down to Tennessee for a "baptizin" with you and your "kinfolk".
Tennessee is like heaven on earth compared to wherever you live. You've obviously never been here...and count your wife's lucky hooker receipts you've never been near me, cause rest assured, you wouldn't like it, unless death becomes you or sumthin...
***you have zero admiration for me***That's not at all true. Joe S loves imbeciles.
He must love you then...phuk awff
Naaaah. I HATE Rich. I consider you my "special" friend.joe
I guess you would, close enough to share your wife...that's pretty dang close!
Will hereby be given to the cinematographer of The Phantom Menace, David Tattersall:"The Phantom Menace was produced in anamorphic (2.4:1 aspect ratio) format, to provide a feeling of cinematic scope. Tattersall says he prefers the optical quality of an anamorphic final show print to the Super 35 format, which uses spherical lenses and a smaller negative area."
Read the whole article:
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/newsletters/images/spring99/phantom.shtmlSuppose this will end the discussion?
Best,
Thom
I appreciate this info, and am thinking of trying to e-mail Tattersall myself...the quote (the part in parenthesis naming the aspect ratio) is Kodak's and not his...they make the film after all, and not the camera.I thank for this link Thom! I'm indebted to you for taking the time...take care, and Happy Holidays!
Will your email read something like this?Dear Tattersall,
Everyone tells me that Phantom Menace was shot 2.35:1. I did an Internet search and every single source confirmed that it was shot 2.35:1. I even saw a direct quote from you on the Kodak site, but I KNOW THAT EVERYONE (INCLUDING YOU) IS WRONG AND IT WAS SHOT 1.85:1.
I don't understand all this aspect ratio stuff. I just know that I'm tired of getting ripped off with these narrow DVD pictures. I'm also tired of being called an idiot, so I'll pay you a lot to agree with me.
I'll be forever indebted to you...take care, and Happy Holidays!
Actually the Kodak site (and it's out-of-context quote in this thread) claim "2.4:1" (and this is NOT Tattersall's own quote, but Kodak's, within the context of this brief article), so I guess even if there's a possiblity that it was shot (together with all the complete CG frames such as the Pod Race that didn't originate in the natural world through a film camera) wider than 1.85:1......then 2.35:1 must NOT be "original apsect ratio" after all, not that any of this matters to you in the least, Morgan. Admit it, you haven't actually seen this movie in the theater, on broadcast tv, OR even the DVD...right? Or, I forgot, you don't have the gray matter to actually discuss anything relevant...So again, why the hell are you still in my thread? Your presence is repugnant Morgan...
might be something like:Dear CarlEber,
If stupidity was patentable, you'd be one of the world's richest men. Of course I shot Phantom Menace in a 2.35:1 aspect ratio. No, I don't think you have director potential. Directors need to be able to distinguish between 1.85:1 and 2.35:1. Good luck with your pig farming down there in Tennessee.
Respectfully yours
Tatersall
I don't farm at all, but I'd be willing to give your carreer a try...that of "renting" one's wife, sister, daughter, and mother out to crack dealers on street corners...sounds lucrative!
I believe the Star Wars movies are shot in "Vista Vision" which is a 1.85:1 format. However, what I don't understand is your comment"My memory of seeing it in the theater was that its natural aspect was closer to 1.85:1, and indeed I do see that the bottom and top of facial closeups and other scenes on the DVD, are missing!"
2.35:1 and 1.85:1 film formats have the same frame height - it is the width that is different. Perhaps your DVD player or display is rescaling the image?
...For taking the time to provide relevant information.I believe the image was cropped for DVD (info from the top and bottom was removed), which is what I have been complaining about. There's no problem with either of my DVD players.
Unless you're saying that this "Vistavision" was shot at 1.85:1 and squeezed/unsqueezed in the theater (for those that claim they saw a 2.35:1 display in the theater), then I believe this should go towards proof that my point is correct: That the version on DVD has had the top and bottom of the frame cropped to fit 2.35:1, because the original was 1.85:1.
You're saying the original negative would have been shot at 1.85:1, without being pre-squeezed anamorphically (to be un-squeezed out to 2.35:1 later)?
was shot 2.35:1. Ignore Eber. Just another delusional episode.
nt
I did not see "The Phantom Menace" at a theater and can't confirm your observations as to whether the aspect ratio was 1.85 or 2.35, however, my American Cinematographer Manual lists 2.35 as being a Cinemascope AND Panavision standard format. It is possible that the movie was released diferent formats depending upon whether the theater uses anamorphic projection lenses or not. A standard "squeezed" (anamorphic) release print for Panvision is 2.35:1 while an unsqueezed 70mm release print is 2.2:1.Lastly, the are approximately 10 film formats listed in the manual. Many, like Todd-AO and Cinerama, are no longer used, however, of the 10, three use the 2.35:1 ratio, four use 2.2:1, and two use 1.85:1, while the last (television production) is lised as 1.33:1. Of the formats listed, the most popular currently for motion picture production is the Panavision 35 system which is 2.35:1 format. Perhaps that is why the majority of DVDs are released in the 2.35:1 format. But, that's only speculation on my part.
"Lawrence of Arabia" was originally released in 70mm Super-Panavision with 6 track sound. It was shot with a 65mm "non-squeezed" Super Panavision system (same as Todd-AO), and originally released to theaters as a 70mm non-squeezed print. Subsequent releases of the film were done with 35mm 2:1 squeeze prints. So, depending upon whether the DVD was made from an original 70mm print (doubtful) or from a 35mm release print, the aspect ratio can vary. However, the fact that the original sound track was 6-track allowed the film to be successfully converted to surround sound.
Bravo, I love this stuff! Finally someone who knows what I'm talking about here...Thanks much Xenon, I bet you're a bright guy, :-))
...to even attempt to answer the question of why 2.35:1 is so overused when producing DVD's. All movie producers, studio executives, etc., know that widescreen televisions are not 2.35:1, and surely they must know that 35mm Kodak (or any other) film frames shot with Panaflex motion picture cameras is NOT "2.35:1", but is much closer to (if not exactly) "16:9", or anywhere between 1.75:1 and 1.85 or even .95, to 1 (and in some cases is even close to 1.33:1). THAT'S THE WHOLE REASON THE "16:9" ASPECT FOR TELEVISION WAS CONCEIVED IN THE FIRST PLACE...TO BETTER MATCH THE ASPECT RATIO OF 35mm MOTION PICTURES.SO I ASK AGAIN...WHY CROP OFF THE TOP AND BOTTOM OF A 35mm NEGATIVE/PRINT just to make it a slender 2.35:1, and then put in on a DVD that will play on a 16:9 tv set?
Also, why automatically assume (in a closed-minded way) that "2.35:1" is the original screen aspect ratio, when in reality it isn't? I've seen this myself on several occasions...and seeing is believing. I'm fully aware that "2.35:1" is the PROPAGANDA that the movie studios vomit forth as "original aspect ratio"...but it's a LIE. It's NOT the original aspect ratio for many movies...again, I've seen it myself with Star Wars Phantom Menace...it's just that apparently anyone who might read this post never actually saw this film in the theater in it's entirety, so they didn't "see it" for themselves...or otherwise they don't remember, or even care.
Again, SW EP1 was NOT 2.35:1 as shown in movie theaters.
Even if it was somehow presented in 2.35:1 in theaters OTHER than the THREE different ones (from two different theater chains) I saw it in, then it is my assertion that such a film's print was CROPPED FROM THE TOP AND BOTTOM, just as the DVD is.
MY POINT HERE IS: The SW,PM DVD's picture has had information removed from the top and bottom of every shot, to fit into this myth that "2.35:1" is "origninal aspect ratio".
So far a-asylumers, thanks for nothing...it's what I expected from you though.
HERE'S MY CHALLENGE: How about forgetting I'm Carl Eber, leave your petty sophomoric antagonisms elsewhere, and seek out someone (who produces/masters DVD movies for any of the major movie studios) who may actually shed some REAL light on my question...if you can that is. Otherwise, I DON'T NEED TO READ ANYMORE IGNORANT AND IDLE SPECULATION (and especially any antagonism) FROM ANY OF YOU.
What I asked was a valid question, I explained it lucidly, AND IT DESERVED NO ANTAGONISM...I even ASKED for none to begin with: "...so no cheap shots are appreciated/tolerated". CAN YOU READ THAT RICH? Read it several times dude, and then shut the hell up...
Oh, and Happy Holidays to anyone who celebrates them!
"All movie producers, studio executives, etc., know that widescreen televisions are not 2.35:1, and surely they must know that 35mm Kodak (or any other) film frames shot with Panaflex motion picture cameras is NOT "2.35:1", but is much closer to (if not exactly) "16:9", or anywhere between 1.75:1 and 1.85 or even .95, to 1 (and in some cases is even close to 1.33:1)."First, film in and of itself has no aspect ratio. The aspect ratio is a combination of the motion picture camera film gate mask and lens used - anamorphic making a squeezed image, or circular making an unsqueezed image. The format can be whatever the camera is setup for - 1.85:1, 2.2:1, 2.35:1, etc., with the appropriate matching lens.
Secondly, a motion picture is not shot to fit television as its major market. Films are shot to be projected in a motion picture theater. Many directors and DPs choose the 2.35:1 format (Panavision) as it gives more visual impact than the 1.85:1 format. In use, the formats are the same height and the theater simply draws back the masking curtains on the right and left sides of the screen when changing from 1:85 to the 2:35 format.
Lastly, many directors use a 1:85 safe action area in the 2:35 format so to allow better translation of the image when it is rescaled for television in the 16:9 format or panned and scanned for 4:3 television format.
"Lastly, many directors use a 1:85 safe action area in the 2:35 format so to allow better translation of the image when it is rescaled for television in the 16:9 format or panned and scanned for 4:3 television format"I am aware of this. My complaint was that if the original happened to be 1.85:1, then why modify it when producing the DVD?
"Secondly, a motion picture is not shot to fit television as its major market. Films are shot to be projected in a motion picture theater."
I'm also aware of this. My point was that if the original was shot at 1.85:1, why modify it to be 2.35:1 for the DVD release, regardless of whether or not the "official" stated original aspect was supposed to be 2.35:1. You yourself said it was shot at 1.85:1, so what would occur in order to make this image 2.35:1? Wouldn't the top and bottom need to be cropped when mastering the DVD? (my point, complaint, and reason for this entire thread)
***...to even attempt to answer the question of why 2.35:1 is so overused when producing DVD's. All movie producers, studio executives, etc., know that widescreen televisions are not 2.35:1, and surely they must know that 35mm Kodak (or any other) film frames shot with Panaflex motion picture cameras is NOT "2.35:1", but is much closer to (if not exactly) "16:9", or anywhere between 1.75:1 and 1.85 or even .95, to 1 (and in some cases is even close to 1.33:1). THAT'S THE WHOLE REASON THE "16:9" ASPECT FOR TELEVISION WAS CONCEIVED IN THE FIRST PLACE...TO BETTER MATCH THE ASPECT RATIO OF 35mm MOTION PICTURES.
SO I ASK AGAIN...WHY CROP OFF THE TOP AND BOTTOM OF A 35mm NEGATIVE/PRINT just to make it a slender 2.35:1, and then put in on a DVD that will play on a 16:9 tv set?***Answering your question would put an end to your floundering about. No one wants to be deprived of your entertaining buffoonery.
nt
As an inmate who tried to shed a little light on the subject by stating a neutral fact, I feel personally offended by the tone of voice in this last post of yours, CarlEber.Anyhow I will try to answer your question, and yes, these are my personal speculations. Please feel free to dismiss/not read them.
I can not speak for the majority of DVD releases but will stick with the specific case, The Phantom Menace (TPM). You claim to have seen TPM in the aspect ratio 1.85:1 in a movie theater. AFAIK this may be true or it may not be. Either way, the fact that IMDb lists the aspect ratio to be 2.35:1 AND the fact that the DVD release is 2.35:1, strongly indicate that 2.35:1 is the "original" aspect ratio of the movie. By "original" I mean "as intended by the director". We do presume that George Lucas has approved the aspect ratio of the DVD release, right?
It is not downright impossible, however, that you may have seen more top/bottom footage in a movie theater - but in the light of beforementioned facts, this might as well as anything else be due to a fault on the theater's account.
Best,
Thom
"As an inmate who tried to shed a little light on the subject by stating a neutral fact, I feel personally offended by the tone of voice in this last post of yours, CarlEber."-Technically there's no "tone of voice" with text, but I take your meaning (it’s a shame you only remember the 5% of the post that reflected my frustration, rather than the point of the post).
You did provide a succinct and relevant reply that was neutral. I thank you. However, I feel under attack here for no justifiable reason, and it does appear to be a concerted effort. Also, um, this last post wasn’t directed specifically at you (and yet you somehow still felt the need to respond as if it was, and indeed even took personal offense to it, even though you weren’t mentioned by name in this particular post…or indeed in any of them by name…so you taking personal offense to it has me wondering if such a thing is justified in your case…if it had been directed specifically at you, it would have been a reply to your first response, and not a reply to my own initial thread posting).
I realize I used the words "no one"...they should have read, "no one but Thom P". And in any case, again it is me who feels offended here, and that above post merely reflects my own justifiable sense of frustration. Perhaps you mean to suggest that you or others are allowed to offend me, but that I cannot defend myself? I hope not.
And exactly what part of “I stand by what I have said, so there's obviously an error on the part of IMDb...” offends you, sir? Do you own that organization? I see no implied offensive tone in that statement, and since that’s the only time I’ve spoken to you in this thread (other than now), I have to wonder why you’re offended to such a personal degree, by anything I’ve said at all?
I retract (for now) any implication of you in my above post that you cite, and you need not have personalized it.
Since I see no personal attack on you here by me, I see no reason to apologize in a technical sense, to you. However, if you are offended by THIS reply, then I DO apologize. Again, your first reply was relevant information, so again I thank you, but my response to it wasn’t offensive, it was merely my thoughts as they related to the subject (which was obvious, I believe).
This post is horrific and terribly inappropriate. You are clearly out of line here. You owe the inmates an apology.
Gary, my apologies for offending you...but as always, I give what I get. As soon as I get an apology for the tone used in the first replies to my thread (when I specifically asked for "no cheapshots"), then I'll be all to happy to apologize to those individuals for reciprocating said attacks with a quite justifiably defensive posture.Actually, when you say "this post is horrific and inappropriate"...I hope you're referring to my tone, and not to the post's subject (which you conveniently ignore)...I was discussing Star Wars The Phantom Menace on DVD (and trying to get my original question answered by someone who actually knows the answer...hence my frustration, quite justified imo, when people speculate all sorts of inappropriate and personal things and avoid answering the question at hand, for motives hidden)...
...I presume you've seen the film, Gary? And if you mean to attack the film or my discussion of it, then I take offense to you AND your post in my thread, sir. I have every right to discuss DVD's here, sir. I also take offense at those who would question the honesty of my experience on this subject, or of my observations on this subject.
If I say I saw a film and it appeared a certain way in the theater, then that's how it was.
Good day to you sir, and get a thicker skin, as people have had occasion to tell me, here (which I find a bit hypocritical).
There's such a thing as an equal and opposite reaction to every action...and I have no intention of ever apologizing to "all" inmates for participating here and posing an honest and relevant discussion (which is quickly met with antagonism for no reason whatsoever)...which is perhaps not outside the realm of what you seem to imply by framing your response with "this post" (since about 95% of "this post" is regarding DVD and movie aspect ratios). There's a lot in that post, so how about commenting on the rest of it now? thanks...
I appreciate your apology.I was indeed referring to your tone, not the subject matter. Phantom Menace, and everything Star Wars, is my 2nd hobby next to being an audiophile. I am intimately familiar with this subject.
My getting a "thicker skin" is not necessary. I would instead suggest that you re-examine your tone when attempting to elicit mature responses from the inmates. Etiqutte is everything.
Additional responses to your original post is not warranted. If you so wish to rephrase your post in a mature and non-aggressive tone, I would be more than happy to provide you my opinion on the subject matter.
Yawn....Perhaps you could take a look at Rich's tone, for example, to see that there was indeed a context for my own "tone" (it was even mentioned in that post of mine that you are pretending to be so upset about)...that is, IF you actually care a wit (not that I think you do)...he's called me an imbecile, and I hardly think that such name-calling was called for in my original post. Rich Morgan has added nothing to this thread of mine, and I don't see you complaining about him...so forgive me if I am unmoved by your complaints about my "tone". Your observations come from a rather narrow and even one-sided perspective...that of ignoring the context.
Frankly, the fact that you have had nothing to ad regarding the subject matter so far, makes me not interested in anything further from you here. "I am intimately familiar with this subject." Ok, fine...but (no offense) I certainly am not going to beg anyone to think if they don't want to...whether or not they can back up such a claim or not.
To sum it up...you are a bore Gary, but don't take it personally. Sometimes one gets overcome by emotion, so I understand.
Episode 1 WAS intended to be viewed in 2:35 to 1. The 35 mm print you most likely saw at the theatre was cropped either cropped by the projectionist OR was printed that way by 20th Century!!!
this is why, for better or worse, we need the THX standards in more theatres!
Damn (sleeper by day- law enforcement and part time projectionist by night)
I saw it in two different THX theaters, and it definitely wasn't cropped.
You're wrong, the DVD is cropped off the top and bottom (as I say in the original post)...what I saw in the theater was NOT cropped. Being a projectionist doesn't mean you're automatically correct on this subject...did you see the film in the theater; did you actually watch it...all of it?
I've seen the movie many times, as I actually watch this stuff, and not sit there and do stupid things that some guys do (drink beer, pick lint out of my navel, talk on the phone- I've seen many other guys in the biz do those things, no kidding!). I've seen the movie about a dozen times and have seen it in 2:33 AND 1:85 ratios.I don't think there is going to be a definate resolution on this. I can only guess that Lucas obviously wants all his Saga movies to have a uniformness when it comes to home release.
Dman
I just wonder why it "must" be cropped. I suppose he shot it intending to crop it for video release...but that's an assenine thing to do, heh heh.Thanks for taking the time to participate here.
-
I stand by what I have said, so there's obviously an error on the part of IMDb...
you're simply wrong again, as usual.
nt
answer, but I can't stop laughing.
I find your poor use of syntax rather humorous myself, so I guess we're even. If you'd like to enjoy more laughter, spend some time looking into your mirror...and thanks for NOT avoiding taking a cheap shot, as I had requested in my post. You are full of class...get bent.
1) Widescreen TVs are 1.78:1, do the math on 16:9 and it comes out to.... 1.78:1. It happens that with overscan 1.85:1 happens to leave only a couple of scan lines blank on your screen, I think it's 1 or 2 at both extremes that you probably aren't noticing. So, you aren't quite right here.2) Actually there are films as wide as 2.66:1 out there and I think LofA was one of them. A large number of films are done in 2.35:1, but are presented in theaters cropped to 1.85:1. Directors try to keep important details within the 1.85 region
3) It was George Lucas' project, and he can release the DVD in whatever format he desires, if you're unhappy with the results, complain to Lucas Films Ltd, as they made the decisions.
You do understand the concept of Original Aspect Ratio, right?
Regards,
I DID DO the math, and it comes out to 1.777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777, etc. and continuing on infinitely..... it's NOT "1.78:1" as you state above, so perhaps your calculator needs oiling? So, YOU "aren't quite right there"...Actually, I never said there were NOT films out there that were wider than 2.35:1...read my post again if you don't believe me. "Cinerama" is actually wider than 2.66:1 for instance, in case you were ignorant of that. NONE OF THAT HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH WHY 2.35:1 IS SO OVERUSED WHEN PRODUCING DVD's, HOWEVER...
"3) It was George Lucas' project, and he can release the DVD in whatever format he desires, if you're unhappy with the results, complain to Lucas Films Ltd, as they made the decisions."
-Oh, come on now, what in hell makes you think I could complain to Lucas Films Ltd. about anything whatsoever and have it result in action? Get real dude...nobody's that idiotic, are they? Why don't YOU call up Bill Gates personally whenever you have a problem with a Microsoft product? 'CAUSE YOU CAN'T...
"You do understand the concept of Original Aspect Ratio, right?"
-You do understand the concept of reading a question, and attempting to actually answer it rather than ducking it and being a smartass, and attempting to change the subject in order to antagonize....RIGHT??
"I DID DO the math, and it comes out to 1.777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777, etc. and continuing on infinitely..... it's NOT "1.78:1" as you state above, so perhaps your calculator needs oiling? So, YOU "aren't quite right there"..."It is insights like this that bring me back to this board time and time again. I obviously have so much to learn.
Will you teach me Carl Eber?
joe
"Well, on second thought, no...the bosses will do terrible things to me if me going back there..."I'm a blithering idiot, according to all the armchair oldtimers here. Rich is your man, he loves to teach men things...that is, if they'll sit still long enough and pay attention...and therein lies the rub, :)
Carl,Several people have pointed out that the OAR of TPM was 2.35:1, and still you persist (You saw it in the theater as 1.85:1 so what you saw is how it was released everywhere) Never mind that I saw it in a THX theater, and it was 2.35:1 in that theater. The IMDB lists the films OAR as 2.35:1, and still you persist (it must be wrong).
You so obviously missed the point on the Lucas Films reference to the DVD so I'll say it this way:
If the TPM DVD was released at a 2.35:1 Aspect Ratio (it was) and the director had control (he did), what he wanted was a 2.35:1 Aspect Ratio delivered to the consumer. Is that clear enough this time?
I give you credit, you are persistant, which doesn't make you correct.
Talking louder doesn't make you correct either.Regards,
Alright, you saw it in a THX theater and it appeared to you to be 2.35:1, and that is irrefutable in your mind. Never mind the fact that two of the three theaters I saw it in were also THX certified theaters, complete with the THX sound logo-advertisement played before the movie on those occasions."You so obviously missed the point on the Lucas Films reference to the DVD."
-Actually, you had no point, so I didn't miss it.
"If the TPM DVD was released at a 2.35:1 Aspect Ratio (it was)..."
-No kidding Sherlock...I mentioned this in my original thread post, perhaps you missed it? It's only like, the basis for this entire discussion, is all...
"and the director had control (he did),"
-Exactly where do I state that a director wouldn't have control?
"what he wanted was a 2.35:1 Aspect Ratio delivered to the consumer. Is that clear enough this time?"
-Hey, my question wasn't whether or not that's what the director wanted delivered to the consumer. The question was WHY...IS THAT CLEAR ENOUGH FOR YOU? I doubt a windy Arizona morning at 5000 feet over the Grand Canyon, after a dry cold front, would be clear enough for you...
"I give you credit, you are persistant, which doesn't make you correct. Talking louder doesn't make you correct either."
-Well said, and it applies to you as well. Thanks for the credit...can I use that with a shiny quarter to call someone that knows the answer to my question? If you say "no", my heart will be broken.
Why 2.35:1 (or wider) vs. 1.85:1? A wider image has more visual impact.If you compare the typical humans field of view for image width vs image height, the width has much more range.
Your specific complaint about TPM is a preference and Lucas' preference doesn't align with yours.
You could get a DVD player such as the Panasonic RP-91 (or many others) others with scaling/zoom to expand the image to fit a 16:9 screen and get a similar effect to taken the 2.35:1 OAR into a 1.85:1 or 1.78:1.
Regards,
The point was, that there is information missing in the 2.35:1 version on the DVD (from the top and bottom)."If you compare the typical humans field of view for image width vs image height, the width has much more range."
Ah, but what is that range? Is it exactly 2.35:1, with squared borders? And, what does this have to do with anything anyway?
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
