What aspect ratio would you prefer "Titanic" in?

[americanamberg]

I hate the letterbox. Losing 10 inches of my screen never makes me feel better. If done correctly the full scope always looks better to me.

[Riddhi2011]

ALERT! There are many scenes in Titanic 3D bluray which are not open-matte but pan & scanned from the 2.35:1 screen to 1.78:1, by cutting off the sides, while exposing relatively nil amount of info vertically.
I guess what Jim Cameron said that 'there is nothing cut, its added material' is actually a partial lie! The VFX shot may be full open-matte cause they were composed in a 16:9 screen, but all of the non CG shots were not pretected for 1.78:1 when they were filmed in 1996. As a result there are many shots which have either selective pan-scan(cropped on the sides, exposed vertically) or full Pan&scan like movies shot with anamorphic lenses!
I figured this out after comparing it with my old 4-Disc special edition PAL DVD of Titanic.

[bhampton]

Answer: maximum Winsley booty ratio.

She's got a lotta booty too so may 4:3!

[VadiaRotor]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

ALERT! There are many scenes in Titanic 3D bluray which are not open-matte but pan & scanned from the 2.35:1 screen to 1.78:1, by cutting off the sides, while exposing relatively nil amount of info vertically

I haven't noticed such scenes. Can you tell exactly what scenes are panscanned?

I like Titanic in 16:9, it gives more details

[Geoff D]

You cut off the part of Riddhi's post where it's explained that the effects shots are the ones that are cropped, because the CG was not completed in 1.78. I also think that Cameron wanted to embiggen the ship in those shots anyway, to make it seem even larger (and that trick worked in IMAX, let me tell ya!).

[Riddhi2011]

The wide shots of the ship's stern and bow section as it prepares to leave harbour are all cropped in the open-matte version, which shouldn't have been the case because they rendered the vfx in full aperture, here's some evidence-
Titanic vfx plate.jpg
If you notice the plate is both taller and wider than the 2.35 version(possibly due to in-frame panning), but obviously there was so much area to use from , they needn't have turned it into this-
vlcsnap-2013-01-20-02h17m03s155.jpg

[Geoff D]

There is still the question of shot composition to consider, as the ship looks more imposing in 1.78 than in the full open-matte image. With TDKR we've seen just how 'meh' 1.44 IMAX framing can be when it's shot with little or no consideration for exploiting the height of the image (possibly because the 2.35 extraction has to also be considered at the time of shooting). For that reason I won't chide Cameron for tweaking Titanic's 3D VFX shots to emphasise the size of the ship, rather than the size of the frame.

[Riddhi2011]

No no, I wasn't suggesting that they use the full frame at all! What I was saying is that , if you compare the 1.78:1 image with the scope version, you'll notice that the 1.78:1 version loses quite a bit of image horizontally, it appears as if it has been zoomed slightly. I'll give some more examples...
Here is the scope shot from the 4-Disc Collector's Edition DVD (PAL)-
Ttnc wide.jpg
And here's the shot from the open-matte bluray-
vlcsnap-2013-01-20-02h17m03s155.jpg
Now even if we consider the in-frame panning, still then the entire scope width would've been retained because of the extra vertical information in the plate photography with the finished effects, that I posted earlier.

Also when the bow section is shown, look at the original 1.78:1 shot and look how it appears in the dvd scope version and how it appears in the open-matte Bluray
1. VFX-
titanic-3 copy.jpg
2. DVD-
ttnc bow wide.jpg
3. BD3D-
ttnc blry.jpg

[Geoff D]

Oh, I get it. But like I said in post #265, I reckon Cameron simply wanted to make the ship seem even bigger in the 1.78 frame, which is why those shots are zoomed slightly. I don't think that there's a conspiracy here.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Oh, I get it. But like I said in post #265, I reckon Cameron simply wanted to make the ship seem even bigger in the 1.78 frame, which is why those shots are zoomed slightly. I don't think that there's a conspiracy here.

No, definitely no conspiracy, as conspiracy is a big word to use in film framing!
I guess Cameron wanted to do a bit tinkering with his film, and honestly he has every right to! But a part of me feels odd to look at that cropped image, you know, expected more image, not less. But then again, it is a just a personal thing, and should be forgotten. But discussion is fun!

By the way Geoff, can you tell me how I can create a new thread? Please help if you can!

[Geoff D]

Go back to the list of threads, and just above the topmost one there's a button that says 'New Thread'.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by geoff d

go back to the list of threads, and just above the topmost one there's a button that says 'new thread'.

BRcom.jpg
where??

[Geoff D]

It's not on the search listings, you simply go to the forum you want to post in and the option is right there.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

It's not on the search listings, you simply go to the forum you want to post in and the option is right there.

Thanks! I have posted a new thread in the "Movies" forum.
Its called "Jurassic Park taller IMAX version?" Please visit and lets have an interesting discussion, if you're willing. Thanks.

[Riddhi2011]

Hey people,
I have posted a new thread in the "Movies" forum. This is my first thread, please post your thoughts there.
Its called "Jurassic Park taller IMAX version?" Please visit and lets have an interesting discussion, if you want. Thanks.

[sukraj]

Originally Posted by Roy Batty

2.39:1 all the way. I've got no interest in a 1.33:1 framing, which, to me, would be nothing more than a curio.

This