If the back of the box says aspect ratio of 1.85:1 but

[Gbpxl]

the picture throws a ratio of 1.78:1 isnt that deceptive advertising? why not say that the picture was cropped? that way I can avoid not wasting my money. what am I missing here

[Retroj23]

Maybe it was an error? I remember the Jackie Brown SE DVD back in the day had the AR as 2:35 printed in the back even though it was shot and projected in 1:85.

[rdodolak]

Originally Posted by Retroj23

Maybe it was an error? I remember the Jackie Brown SE DVD back in the day had the AR as 2:35 printed in the back even though it was shot and projected in 1:85.

Depends on the release, a lot of films with an aspect ratio of 1.85:1 are actually released as 1.78:1. Warners is a habitual offender when it comes to Blu-ray releases. WAC tends to release in 1.85:1 for a film with an aspect ratio of 1.85:1.

[Gbpxl]

Originally Posted by rdodolak

Depends on the release, a lot of films with an aspect ratio of 1.85:1 are actually released as 1.78:1. Warners is a habitual offender when it comes to Blu-ray releases. WAC tends to release in 1.85:1 for a film with an aspect ratio of 1.85:1.

Well the first one that comes to mind is the Beetlejuice steelbook... I mean i know they didnt remove a ton of the picture, but still... I didnt pay for 95% of the film. I paid for 100% based on the fact that it said 1.85 and IMDB said that was the OAR

Bluray.com isnt always accurate either but one would think if something is printed on a case, thats what one should go by

[MifuneFan]

[erlinmeyer]

Originally Posted by Gbpxl

Well the first one that comes to mind is the Beetlejuice steelbook... I mean i know they didnt remove a ton of the picture, but still... I didnt pay for 95% of the film. I paid for 100% based on the fact that it said 1.85 and IMDB said that was the OAR

Bluray.com isnt always accurate either but one would think if something is printed on a case, thats what one should go by

Return it!

[shane01]

What're you gonna sue?

[rdodolak]

Originally Posted by Gbpxl

Well the first one that comes to mind is the Beetlejuice steelbook... I mean i know they didnt remove a ton of the picture, but still... I didnt pay for 95% of the film. I paid for 100% based on the fact that it said 1.85 and IMDB said that was the OAR

Bluray.com isnt always accurate either but one would think if something is printed on a case, thats what one should go by

Usually, the aspect ratio as listed on Blu-ray.com is from what is measured from the disc. More often the aspect ratio on a back cover is incorrect.

Some releases are opened up and thus have more picture than what was intended. In terms of Beetlejuice, the Blu-ray has more picture compared to the DVD.

[steve_dave]

Originally Posted by Gbpxl

Well the first one that comes to mind is the Beetlejuice steelbook... I mean i know they didnt remove a ton of the picture, but still... I didnt pay for 95% of the film. I paid for 100% based on the fact that it said 1.85 and IMDB said that was the OAR

Bluray.com isnt always accurate either but one would think if something is printed on a case, thats what one should go by

With Beetlejuice, you are getting ~5% more picture not less. Warner, Paramount, and The Weinstein Company nudged 99.9% of 1.85 films open to 1.78. So the matte covering the image moves. Warner's rationale in the DVD era was that overscan would compensate for it. Now without overscan on most modern displays, you see more picture information.

You aren't getting less picture, you are getting more with films shot open-matte. Films shot hard-matte have the mattes trimmed off and the picture reframed but these are rare occurrences. And even in this case you are not losing 5% of the picture like you assume.

[whiteberry]

[bigdaddyhorse]

Originally Posted by Gbpxl

Well the first one that comes to mind is the Beetlejuice steelbook... I mean i know they didnt remove a ton of the picture, but still... I didnt pay for 95% of the film. I paid for 100% based on the fact that it said 1.85 and IMDB said that was the OAR

Bluray.com isnt always accurate either but one would think if something is printed on a case, thats what one should go by

Really?
With 1.85 films, when they are "opened up" to 1.78 you aren't losing 5% (closer to .05 by my math) of the picture, you are getting an extra 5%. Can you really tell sitting back in a dark room if something is 1.85 or 1.78 anyway? It is not cropping the sides, it's opening up little slivers on the top and bottom. I can only tell when the lights are on if I get right up on the screen if those tiny bars are there.

So technically when that happens, you are getting 100.05% of the film, although artistic intent is slightly missed. With so many other things wrong with discs I can't believe this would stop someone from buying a disc. New color scheme, no problem. No original audio, some songs replaced, no biggie. An extra .07 of picture, too far!

[rdodolak]

Originally Posted by steve_dave

Warner's rationale in the DVD era was that overscan would compensate for it. Now without overscan on most modern displays, you see more picture information.

I had not heard that before, but rather that Warners was sticking to OAR during the DVD era. With the advent of widescreen televisions (1.78:1) it seems Warners has chosen to just fill the screen, due to the small difference, rather than stick to the OAR.

[Gbpxl]

Originally Posted by bigdaddyhorse

Really?
With 1.85 films, when they are "opened up" to 1.78 you aren't losing 5% (closer to .05 by my math) of the picture, you are getting an extra 5%. Can you really tell sitting back in a dark room if something is 1.85 or 1.78 anyway? It is not cropping the sides, it's opening up little slivers on the top and bottom. I can only tell when the lights are on if I get right up on the screen if those tiny bars are there.

So technically when that happens, you are getting 100.05% of the film, although artistic intent is slightly missed. With so many other things wrong with discs I can't believe this would stop someone from buying a disc. New color scheme, no problem. No original audio, some songs replaced, no biggie. An extra .07 of picture, too far!

So you are saying that when it was released in theaters, the picture was cropped down to 1.85 and that the original film print was 1.78?

[steve_dave]

Originally Posted by Gbpxl

So you are saying that when it was released in theaters, the picture was cropped down to 1.85 and that the original film print was 1.78?

For most 1.85 films, the original negative frame is 1.37:1. That negative frame is then matted to 1.85:1 for theaters either by the projectionist or on the final print. For a lot of VHS, Laserdisc, and VideoCD releases which were reframed for old televisions, that 1.37 was slightly reframed to 1.33 so you saw a lot more picture than you were intended to.

For example:

The device that feeds Pee-wee's chain in Pee-Wee's Big Adventure.

More of Joan Severance's nude body in See No Evil, Hear No Evil.

So again, with 1.78, you are seeing a tiny bit more.

[AmishParadise]

Originally Posted by Gbpxl

the picture throws a ratio of 1.78:1 isnt that deceptive advertising? why not say that the picture was cropped? that way I can avoid not wasting my money. what am I missing here

The Blu-ray format utilizes a 1920x1080 (1.78:1) container. It's a requirement. The given presentation is displayed within that. As such, presentations with aspect ratios north of 1.78:1 are presented at a width of 1920 pixels, the height of the image being less than the required 1080 pixels, hence the reason for the black bars being added to each frame above and below the actual presentation. For aspect ratios south of 1.78:1 black bars are added to the left and right of the presentation. As for the product packaging, the required 1920x1080 (1.78:1) container is a given. The aspect ratio detailed on the product packaging is what's displayed within that container.

[Gbpxl]

Originally Posted by steve_dave

For most 1.85 films, the original negative frame is 1.37:1. That negative frame is then matted to 1.85:1 for theaters either by the projectionist or on the final print. For a lot of VHS, Laserdisc, and VideoCD releases which were reframed for old televisions, that 1.37 was slightly reframed to 1.33 so you saw a lot more picture than you were intended to.

For example:

The device that feeds Pee-wee's chain in Pee-Wee's Big Adventure.

More of Joan Severance's nude body in See No Evil, Hear No Evil.

So again, with 1.78, you are seeing a tiny bit more.

If the source material is 1.37 and then it is reformatted to 1.33 how would I see be seeing a lot more picture than what I was intended to when they would have to crop the left and right sides

[Gbpxl]

Originally Posted by AmishParadise

The Blu-ray format utilizes a 1920x1080 (1.78:1) container. It's a requirement. The given presentation is displayed within that. As such, presentations with aspect ratios north of 1.78:1 are presented at a width of 1920 pixels, the height of the image being less than the required 1080 pixels, hence the reason for the black bars being added to each frame above and below the presentation. For aspect ratios south of 1.78:1 black bars are to the left and right of the presentation. As for the product packaging, the required 1920x1080 (1.78:1) container is a given. The aspect ratio detailed on the product packaging is what's displayed within that container.

its not though. if it were 1.85 like it said on the box, I would see thin "black bars" on the tops and bottoms. but I dont. and yes my TV is displaying 100% of the picture including any overscan so I know I dont have it zoomed in

[rdodolak]

Originally Posted by Gbpxl

its not though. if it were 1.85 like it said on the box, I would see thin "black bars" on the tops and bottoms. but I dont. and yes my TV is displaying 100% of the picture including any overscan so I know I dont have it zoomed in

Beetlejuice is presented in 1.78:1 on the Blu-ray and the aspect ratio listed on the back cover is incorrect.

[willieconway]

I've seen the 5% they cut and it didn't really add to the story. Also, the acting in it was pretty weak.

[Christian Muth]

Originally Posted by steve_dave

For most 1.85 films, the original negative frame is 1.37:1. That negative frame is then matted to 1.85:1 for theaters either by the projectionist or on the final print. For a lot of VHS, Laserdisc, and VideoCD releases which were reframed for old televisions, that 1.37 was slightly reframed to 1.33 so you saw a lot more picture than you were intended to.

For example:

The device that feeds Pee-wee's chain in Pee-Wee's Big Adventure.

More of Joan Severance's nude body in See No Evil, Hear No Evil.

So again, with 1.78, you are seeing a tiny bit more.

Not always. The "restored" ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA, for example. The overseas Blu-ray was 1.85:1 and the U.S. one released by Warner Brothers was 1.78:1, and it was actually zoomed in and cropped compared to the overseas 1.85:1 version.

Chris