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!
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Topic - Why is 2.35:1 so overused on DVDs? - CarlEber 20:07:50 12/17/01 (82)
- Re: Why is 2.35:1 so overused on DVDs? - Heatmiser 02:04:22 12/31/01 (6)
- Re: Why is 2.35:1 so overused on DVDs? - CarlEber 03:04:22 12/31/01 (5)
- Re: Why is 2.35:1 so overused on DVDs? - Heatmiser 11:26:06 12/31/01 (4)
- it's all good.... - CarlEber 19:52:08 12/31/01 (0)
- Re: Why is 2.35:1 so overused on DVDs? - Ermac 11:35:05 12/31/01 (2)
- Re: Why is 2.35:1 so overused on DVDs? - CarlEber 19:54:34 12/31/01 (0)
- Re: Why is 2.35:1 so overused on DVDs? - PETER 11:55:29 12/31/01 (0)
- Re: Why is 2.35:1 so overused on DVDs? - George_L 11:43:30 12/21/01 (1)
- <sigh> (nt) - CarlEber 02:01:45 12/23/01 (0)
- Re: Why is 2.35:1 so overused on DVDs? - Joe S 07:00:51 12/20/01 (29)
- Re: Why is 2.35:1 so overused on DVDs? - CarlEber 21:11:40 12/20/01 (28)
- Re: Why is 2.35:1 so overused on DVDs? - Joe S 11:29:27 12/21/01 (23)
- Re: Why is 2.35:1 so overused on DVDs? - CarlEber 02:39:17 12/23/01 (22)
- Re: Why is 2.35:1 so overused on DVDs? - Joe S 10:31:57 12/23/01 (21)
- wah wah wah..... - CarlEber 21:08:10 12/24/01 (20)
- wah? wah? wah? - Joe S 11:29:32 12/25/01 (19)
- Uh huh... - CarlEber 03:28:49 12/27/01 (18)
- Rest assured Carl... - Joe S 13:35:30 12/27/01 (15)
- Re: Rest assured Joe... - CarlEber 19:04:19 12/30/01 (14)
- Puking in Tennessee... - Joe S 09:02:14 12/31/01 (13)
- Oh my, you're turning green Joe... - CarlEber 19:44:10 12/31/01 (12)
- Carl, what is a "reflecting/wildlife lake" ? (nt) - Iguana Man 11:49:08 01/02/02 (5)
- A place where iguana's achieve... - CarlEber 20:11:01 01/02/02 (2)
- Actually, for male iguanas, simultaneous "o's" are easy... - Iguana Man 04:22:49 01/03/02 (1)
- More than I needed to know...and try the dictionary (nt) - CarlEber 19:36:00 01/03/02 (0)
- I think it's a... - Joe S 13:29:03 01/02/02 (1)
- Joe's got pigs on the brain - CarlEber 20:15:15 01/02/02 (0)
- Gosh! I'm impressed Carl. - Joe S 12:05:24 01/01/02 (3)
- Re: Gosh! I'm impressed Carl. - CarlEber 04:26:07 01/02/02 (2)
- Carl..... - Joe S 13:26:01 01/02/02 (1)
- Re: "S"..... - CarlEber 20:17:42 01/02/02 (0)
- Re: Hey! It's f#ckwit Carl! - Jim Willis 07:52:24 01/01/02 (1)
- Re: Hey! It's stinkpit Jimmy! - CarlEber 04:34:31 01/02/02 (0)
- Re: Uh huh... - Rich 06:59:41 12/27/01 (1)
- Re: Uh huh... - CarlEber 19:01:29 12/30/01 (0)
- Re: Why is 2.35:1 so overused on DVDs? - Rich 21:15:58 12/20/01 (3)
- Rich Morgan - CarlEber 01:04:23 12/21/01 (2)
- Re: Rich Morgan - Joe S 08:32:14 12/21/01 (1)
- I feel so special! - CarlEber 02:44:15 12/23/01 (0)
- The Final Word: - Thom P 02:14:53 12/20/01 (5)
- Re: The Final Word: - CarlEber 04:12:30 12/20/01 (4)
- Re: The Final Word: - Rich 17:06:09 12/22/01 (3)
- Not quite - CarlEber 02:55:33 12/23/01 (2)
- Tatersall's reply... - Rich 11:42:47 12/23/01 (1)
- In yur dreams Morgan... - CarlEber 20:56:05 12/24/01 (0)
- Re: Why is 2.35:1 so overused on DVDs? - xenon101 10:36:41 12/19/01 (3)
- Thank you... - CarlEber 20:20:39 12/19/01 (0)
- Phantom Menace... - Rich 11:50:36 12/19/01 (1)
- It's good to know that Rich was there during production (nt) - CarlEber 20:21:52 12/19/01 (0)
- Re: Why is 2.35:1 so overused on DVDs? - xenon101 06:37:56 12/19/01 (2)
- Lawrence of Arabia - more information - xenon101 10:03:40 12/19/01 (1)
- I can't thank you enough for this insight! - CarlEber 20:24:14 12/19/01 (0)
- Apparently, no one is intelligent enough... - CarlEber 17:53:17 12/18/01 (10)
- Re: Apparently, no one is intelligent enough... - xenon101 19:10:27 12/19/01 (1)
- Thank you again... - CarlEber 20:40:17 12/19/01 (0)
- Re: Apparently, no one is intelligent enough... - Rich 05:35:59 12/19/01 (1)
- <shrug> (nt) - CarlEber 19:17:59 12/19/01 (0)
- Re: Apparently, no one is intelligent enough... - Thom P 02:46:20 12/19/01 (1)
- Alrighty then... - CarlEber 04:21:15 12/19/01 (0)
- Re: Apparently, no one is intelligent enough... - GaryM 18:46:26 12/18/01 (3)
- Fine... - CarlEber 03:39:43 12/19/01 (2)
- Re: Fine... - GaryM 07:54:44 12/24/01 (1)
- Re: Fine... - CarlEber 20:51:01 12/24/01 (0)
- Re: Why is 2.35:1 so overused on DVDs? - Dman 08:37:22 12/18/01 (4)
- Thanks - CarlEber 19:20:48 12/19/01 (0)
- Read my post again.... - CarlEber 17:03:40 12/18/01 (2)
- Re: Read my post again.... - Dman 10:20:18 12/19/01 (1)
- That's true... - CarlEber 19:28:16 12/19/01 (0)
- According to IMDb the original aspect ratio of Phantom Menace was 2.35:1 (nt) - Thom P 01:42:11 12/18/01 (3)
- Re: According to IMDb the original aspect ratio of Phantom Menace was 2.35:1 (nt) - CarlEber 17:05:18 12/18/01 (2)
- Or... - Rich 05:38:43 12/19/01 (1)
- <yawn> (nt) - CarlEber 19:25:07 12/19/01 (0)
- I'd... - Rich 23:21:25 12/17/01 (1)
- Re: I'd... - CarlEber 17:08:45 12/18/01 (0)
- Re: Why is 2.35:1 so overused on DVDs? - kotches 21:05:04 12/17/01 (7)
- Actually... - CarlEber 17:20:33 12/18/01 (6)
- Re: Actually... - Joe S 08:27:32 12/19/01 (1)
- Sure... - CarlEber 20:28:19 12/19/01 (0)
- Re: Actually... - kotches 22:00:39 12/18/01 (3)
- Re: Actually... - CarlEber 04:39:03 12/19/01 (2)
- Re: Actually... - kotches 05:14:29 12/19/01 (1)
- Indeed, but that wasn't my point... - CarlEber 20:07:36 12/19/01 (0)