In Reply to: Why is 2.35:1 so overused on DVDs? posted by CarlEber on December 17, 2001 at 20:07:50:
...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!
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- 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)