U-571 has incorrect aspect ratio

[Greystoke]

Just want to inform that the recently released UK edition of U-571 has a 1.78 aspect ratio, instead of the original 2.40.
For some reason the back-cover still says 2.40:1.

Also, only hard-of-hearing subtitles are included, and that's the only option you got if you need subs on the german dialouge. Annoying.

[gear]

Just got this one from amazom uk and noticed the same things. Rots that they did this but it's still better looking than the original, nice clean transfer with much better shadow detail.

[RUR]

Originally Posted by Greystoke

Just want to inform that the recently released UK edition of U-571 has a 1.78 aspect ratio, instead of the original 2.40.
For some reason the back-cover still says 2.40:1.

Bummer.

Also, only hard-of-hearing subtitles are included, and that's the only option you got if you need subs on the german dialouge. Annoying.

Double-bummer and shades of Stargate.

Love the username

[Deciazulado]

Is it 1.78 Open matte or 1.78 Pan/Scan? It's a Super-35 movie so it could be "open matted". (if that's the case zooming on a 2.39 screen or using the PS3s OSD as a matte might work)

[Greystoke]

Yes, it was shot in super35, so it's probably only slighty cropped on the sides and opened up over and under the picture.
The image doesn't look cropped, picture quality is good and audio is great.
Sometimes directors opens up their super35 movies on home video, but both my old dvd and the US hd-dvd is 2.40, so it seems a bit strange.
It just looks very amateurish to write something else on the cover.

[gear]

Not sure how they did it but it's 1.78:1, and doesn't looked cropped. Looks like it was originally shot in 1.78:1. Either way they did a good job.

[Flea77]

I notice at least two people here talking about this appear to be in the US, if that is true, when I go to amazon.co.uk it shows U-571 to be region 2, do you have a region free player or something?

Allan

[blitz6speed]

Originally Posted by Flea77

I notice at least two people here talking about this appear to be in the US, if that is true, when I go to amazon.co.uk it shows U-571 to be region 2, do you have a region free player or something?

Allan

The majority of Region B discs are in fact Region Free.

[cajmoyper]

I know I shouldn't be saying this here, but the same thing with The Hulk on HD. The cover says 2.35 but it is obviously 1.85, but then the original DVD says 1.85. Stupid HD.

[blitz6speed]

Also, its very possible this movie is encoded as Open Matte. Id compare it to the DVD to see if they just opened up the top and bottom. For a lot of people, they prefer that.

[Merlins]

Originally Posted by Flea77

I notice at least two people here talking about this appear to be in the US, if that is true, when I go to amazon.co.uk it shows U-571 to be region 2, do you have a region free player or something?

Allan

U-571 is region free. The cover says region B and Amazon.co.uk usually place all discs as region 2 initially.

I have the disc and it plays fine on a region A PS3.

[Digital Filmmaker]

The BD release of U-571 is probably showing the entire Super 35mm image, so you are actually seeing more than what was shown in the domestic 2.4:1 theatrical release.

The Super 35mm frame allows for multiple aspect ratios from a single negative. Sometimes there are even multiple theatrical aspect ratios depending on the market. This allows for both anamorphic and flat prints to be struck, and for protection for 16:9 HD and standard 4:3 ratios.

The problem with the format is that the aspect ratio of Super 35 is natively 1.85:1, so the scope 2.4:1 frame is determined by the filmmaker with optional latitude for vertical placement of the image. Unfortunately, there is no hard and fast rule determining where the frameline is. Most directors share a common top line for framing which crops the bottom for differing aspect ratios. Others, it is determined on a scene-by scene basis.

This is why portions of the first Pirates movie on Blu-ray is framed incorrectly. Whoever did the 2.4:1 crop from the Super 35mm transfer did not pay close attention in determining where the framelines were from one scene to another.

[WickyWoo]

The BD release of U-571 is probably showing the entire Super 35mm image, so you are actually seeing more than what was shown in the domestic 2.4:1 theatrical release.

Except for the effects shots. Either way it's the wrong AR, you're talking specific framing, not aspect ratio

[Digital Filmmaker]

I'm referring to both. I've shot plenty of Super 35 in my time, and the final result is open to interpretation if you don't have a reference print or the director or DP to go by when mastering to video.

Like I said above. Super 35 is an "open" format where the theatrical aspect (2.4:1) is derived from within the 1.85 frame. Now, I haven't seen the BD of U-571, so I cannot comment directly on whether or not this is the case, or if there is cropping of the sides of the image. I'm going by what has been stated by the reviewer, greystoke, who started the thread and the comments by gear.

[WickyWoo]

Yes, I'm quite familiar with Super35, I hate it with a passion

Anamorphic or VistaVision damnit

Yes i understand in the tight, murky spaces like a sub that anamorphic may not be practical.

However U-571 is a scope film, and since the director has never chosen to open it up before, I would assume that he wants it to stay that way. Until they state otherwise go with what is established

[JadedRaverLA]

Originally Posted by WickyWoo

Yes, I'm quite familiar with Super35, I hate it with a passion

Anamorphic or VistaVision damnit

And here I thought it was just me -- although I advocate going back to 65mm as a third option to shooting flat or anamorphic. At any rate, anything but Super35.

I suppose in 10 years or so most everything will be shot digitally anyway (at least 4k hopefully), but in the meantime Hollywood has adopted the lowest common denominator format as the format of choice. Leave Super35 to TV shows and commercials that are shot on film... for which it's much better suited.

[WickyWoo]

And here I thought it was just me -- although I advocate going back to 65mm as a third option to shooting flat or anamorphic. At any rate, anything but Super35.

I accept your proposal

I suppose in 10 years or so most everything will be shot digitally anyway (at least 4k hopefully), but in the meantime Hollywood has adopted the lowest common denominator format as the format of choice. Leave Super35 to TV shows and commercials that are shot on film... for which it's much better suited.

Indeed.