Posted by Jay G. on 01/12/21 11:39

On Thu, 9 Feb 2006 15:32:41 +1100, The Man With No Name wrote:

> "Biz" <spamoff@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:d7yGf.4108$rL5.2581@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
>> Wasnt SAW II shown at 1.85:1 theatrically? So a 16:9 DVD release is
>> completely unacceptable to you? Seems very close to me, doubt you could
>> even tell the difference, but I'm sure you'll point out you can.....
>
> I haven't seen Saw II, so you could be right. Saw 1 was 2.35:1, I think, so
> it seems a simple mistake.

Actually, SAW was 1.85:1, and was released on DVD as 1.78:1, yet nobody
really noticed or made a fuss *then*.

Studios have been doing this forever on DVD. This issue goes back to the
beginning of the format. Most people, at least most of those who are aware
that the issue even exists, think it's a slight enough change (usually an
increase of 4% vertical information that's lost to overscan anyway) that
it's not worth worrying about. You'll likely face far worse framing issues
in an actual theater.

> Lion's Gate is already somewhat infamous for cropping 2.35:1 movies to 16:9

Not totally true. On a few of their DVDs where the image has been altered
from 2.35:1 to 1.78:1, the 1.78:1 image is actually an open-matte transfer,
and showing more image, rather than being cropped. These include the films
Creep and Stage Beauty. On Lord of War, the altered 1.78:1 image is a
combination of cropping and open-matte of the 2.35:1 image.

> (presumably on the theory that people are more likely to buy a 16:9 movie
> and, since plenty of movies are supposed to be 16:9, customers won't even
> know they're getting the wrong aspect-ratio)

It's a very odd move, basically they're creating fullscreen for widescreen
TVs. They seem to be presuming that the majority of owners of 16:9 sets
want their screens filled at all times, instead of being film fanatics who
want the original image as seen in theaters.

-Jay

[Back to original message]