I saw this movie in the theatre and it was in a 2.35:1 aspect ratio. I bought the widescreen DVD and the movie is in a 1.75:1 aspect ratio. I can tell some of the image has been cut off because the film has been reduced to a smaller ratio. Anyone else notice? Or do I spend too much time paying attention to these things?

 

. .


Nick Cage always seem to play the same character type in all his movies...Good movie though. Thematically - I thought it was very entertaining, very similar to BLOW, just insert gun-running instead of drug smuggling.

 

I rented this movie the same week it came out with "Two for the Money"'... I have to admit... I was looking more forward to "2 4 the $" But ended up liking "Lord of War" a lot better... (I, actually, thought "2 4 the $" was terrible)

..the best part was the killer DTS 6.1 surround sound... I will definitly buy a previously view copy when it's available.... I like having DVDs like that so when I have company... and I want to show off the system, I have something to use... "Pearl Harbor" is another DVD with awesome DTS surround sound

 

This is a technical question...not a "I liked/disliked" the film question.

There is a thread for that in Ramblings already, do a search.

I will try and find the answer...I will assume you are watching on a 16x9 TV...and therefore the DVD is a anamorphic transfer...in which they may have decided to crop...which is bullshit if the film was in fact 2.35:1

 

Aha, bingo.

Lord of War was shot in 1.85:1. Therefore you must be watching a DVD with an anamorphic transfer on a 16x9 tv....in which cropping 1.85:1 to 1.78:1 (NOT 1.75:1) is pretty much nothing.

That or your watching it at 1.85:1 on a normal 4:3 television and you just don't have your aspect ratios down

 

....I don't know what all those numbers mean... but I did noticed that there were black bars on top and bottom of the screen... (I have a Sammy DLP).

 

Standard television is 4:3 or 1.33:1.....
Newer TVs (like your Sammy) is an aspect ratio of 16x9 or 1.78:1
Feature Films are shot on aspect ratios of either 1.85:1 or 2.35:1

Most TV shows are shot at 16x9 nowadays.

Most DVDs with an anamorphic transfer (streches the image side to side on 16x9 tvs) i believe crop 1.85 down to 1.78...but doesn't sound like it with Lord of War...must be a studio decision whether they do that or not.

Any 2.35 movie will always have black bars on top and bottom.

There are several other aspect ratios from a time when film companies were trying to lure viewers out of watching their brand new TVs (like when TV itself was a new technology) and so several movies were done in several wild, non-withstanding aspect ratios. And you also have European Widescreen of 1.66:1 like Monty Python's Holy Grail.

The back of your DVD should tell you what apect ratio the movie is if you can't tell from looking at it.

 

...not to change the subject... but you mentioned that most TV shows are shot on 16x9... but it bothers me that there are shows (high ratings) still NOT shot on 16x9... like "Entourage"... hopefully next season.

....and all those damn award shows... you'd think they put in a little effort and shoot it wide screen...

..."Extreme Makeover- Home Edition"... another high rated show NOT in wide screen

 

More and more its changing over and becoming the standard.

 

wait - so when I finally get off my cheap butt and buy a plasma etc. I may still see bars above and below? Am I missing something here? Oh the wifey not gonna like that....

 

I have a Samsung DLP, and depending on the...
ratio" ... yeah, I still get the black bars... I have a client whose got a 60" plasma... (Pioneer... I think), and he gets it too... in fact.... he hates it so much... that he'll purposely buy "full screen" DVDs... just so he doesn't have to see them..

 

Alright, so how does this work for TV shows that are shot on film? I would assume that that there is one size film stock that is most common in production. If that's a given, then do the camera manufacturers just have different models that produce different size exposures on the same stock?

 

And no offense to your client...but he is an idiot.

And if he buying fullscreen DVDs...then those are 4:3 aspect ratio...which means he is zoom in, or stretching...which means he is even more an idiot.

If you have a film that was shot in 2.35:1 then yes...you will still have black bars on the top and bottom. 2.35:1 is the widest aspect ration used. And is much wider then 16x9 (1.78:1)

16x9 was derived by taking 1.33:1, 1.85:1, and 2.35:1. Putting them all together...and the result is 1.78:1.

Buying full screen DVDS is CROPPING the original movie, and the way it was intended to be seen. You lose information that was filmed going this route. Way worse on a 4:3 tv, yes, but still.

It is just another sign of ignorance toward formats and my industry.

 

A good question ye ask.

Take scrubs....scrubs is shot on Super 16mm....which means it has a 1.85 aspect ratio....but they use 1.78 ground glasses (ground glass is like a viewing glass in a SLR camera) So, they are shooting for 1.78 aspect ration...the film is then transfered via HD to a 1.78 mask that shot by the camera crew during the original check out...that being called a framing chart. All major productions shoot these for their aspect ratios at the beginning of productions.

Now lets take ummm The West Wing...Which is shot on 35mm. 35mm can shoot any aspect ratio.

But for TV it most common to shoot 35mm 3-perf with a 1.78 ground glass.

Just to clarify...3-perf is pretty much used ONLY by television. The real standard is 4 perf maning one image frame for every 4 film perforations.

So 3 perf is one image frame for every 3 film perforations. Why does TV use 3 perf

1) its cheaper...less film goes through the gate...so more can captured with less expenses going towards buying film.
2) they are using a set aspect ratio and shooting on spherical lenses...so there is no need for 4 perf which gives you more information to work with per frame..

I got so much more in Anamorphic, Super 35, etc etc etc...but this should answer the TV question?

 

To put it simply, yes.

Tell the wifey this is a good because you are seeing everything the filmmakers had intended to be seen.

People who get pissed off by black bars are silly imo. You dont even notice them, and if you do, then you're not paying attention anyway.

 

Damnit my edit time is up.

Just to make another thing clear...there are 3-perf and 4-perf cameras....there is no camera that can shoot both. It has to do with the timing and claw movement which changes everything for phlange focal depth to pitch sound.

Anyway, also....these shows are shooting with 1.78 ground glasses and I'm pretty sure they have a 4:3 marking on them too...within the 1.78 marking. Because someone channels...syndacation or whatever dont show the 1.78 version for whatever dumb reason.

I think HBO HD shows Sopranos in 1.78 but reagular HBO sows it 4:3, cant remember but some channel did....Sopranos btw...is shot Super16.

 

 

...well, I wouldn't exactly call him an idiot.... but a bit on the obsessive side... like some people can't stand the sight of a hair on their toothbrush... he can't stand the sight of them black bars... and would rather deal with the stretch screen I guess.... if anything... (not related to the whole issue), I kinda look up to the guy... I mean he never even graduated high school... was kicked out... and now he lives in a freakin' sick (huge) house over looking the pacific ocean... with a Ferrari Maranello in the garage... and a new Z06 on the way...

 

Like I said in another thread today...Just goes to show you don't have to be smart to make a lot of money.

The black bar thing is stupid to me. Explain to him that you are losing part of the movie watching full screen pan and scan crap.

Again, not trying to put down someone you look up to, but its just ignorance to me.

 

Well, I just read something that totally threw me off.

On imdb under technical data it said this movie was 1.85:1

But on Digital Bits I just read this:

So, good eyes there Scunt. I really wish I had more in depth news...but I never saw the movie in the theater. So, I don't know what the theatrical aspect ratio was...but apparently you have good eyes sir.

 

If this is all true, then i say FUCK Lionsgate for allowing the production company to make that choice.

1.85:1 to 1.78 isnt a big deal.

but 2.35 to 1.78...thats a HUGE amount of cropping. completely unecessary. I won't rent this movie if thats how they are going to play it. Not getting my money.

 

who gets hair on his/her toothbrush?

 

...like for example, my friend (female)... who's b/f one time saw one her hair on his toothbrush... and just couldn't use it again... it was just a comparison to people that are anal about things....

 

It is complete and utter ignorance. I had to show my manager blatent examples before he'd believe what I'm saying.

Send your ignorant friend to www.widescreen.org,
specifically this page:
http://www.widescreen.org/examples.shtml

and see if he changes his ways.

 

From Digital Bits Today: