BDs Offering Dual Aspect Ratios

[Leeon0]

I'm glad that at least one studio is considerate enough to satisfy as many viewers as possible.



Anchor Bay Entertainment's Evil Dead provides the original aspect ratio of 1.33:1 for those who prefer to see the complete composition of the film, and the 1.85 version for those who would rather eschew those pesky pillars. I wish more studios would follow suit. I'm among those who prefer to see the entire image. A few movies that should have been released in this dual format are Gia, a certain Kubrick film, and Tomboy (DVD). Since different folks have different preferences, having two versions makes sense.

[nelly_platinum]

Originally Posted by Leeon0

I'm glad that at least one studio is considerate enough to satisfy as many viewers as possible.



Anchor Bay Entertainment's Evil Dead provides the original aspect ratio of 1.33:1 for those who prefer to see the complete composition of the film, and the 1.85 version for those who would rather eschew those pesky pillars. I wish more studios would follow suit. I'm among those who prefer to see the entire image. A few movies that should have been released in this dual format are Gia, a certain Kubrick film, and Tomboy (DVD). Since different folks have different preferences, having two versions makes sense.

they are not consistent with this...name another anchorbay release that has done this

[Leeon0]

Originally Posted by nelly_platinum

they are not consistent with this...name another anchorbay release that has done this

I can't--not Anchor Bay or any other studio. But one title is at least a start.

[nelly_platinum]

Originally Posted by Leeon0

I can't--not Anchor Bay or any other studio. But one title is at least a start.

your right...but yea it would be ncie if they offered this more often

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by Leeon0

I'm glad that at least one studio is considerate enough to satisfy as many viewers as possible.



Anchor Bay Entertainment's Evil Dead provides the original aspect ratio of 1.33:1 for those who prefer to see the complete composition of the film, and the 1.85 version for those who would rather eschew those pesky pillars. I wish more studios would follow suit. I'm among those who prefer to see the entire image. A few movies that should have been released in this dual format are Gia, a certain Kubrick film, and Tomboy (DVD). Since different folks have different preferences, having two versions makes sense.

Check out the thread in my signature if altered aspect ratios are of importance to you.

[Leeon0]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

Check out the thread in my signature if altered aspect ratios are of importance to you.

Wow, it's disturbing, especially when the jump is from something like 1.33:1 to 1.78:1.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by Leeon0

Wow, it's disturbing, especially when the jump is from something like 1.33:1 to 1.78:1.

It sure is and it's the main reason I will not purchase Echo Bridge titles and most Alliance titles.

[Ator the Invincible]

They only included both versions because Sam Raimi created an official widescreen version a few years back. It was the director's decision. Anchor Bay was just being complete by including both existing ratios on the disc.

[Kriztoffer Swank]

Thankfully with The Evil Dead, those who did the widescreen transfer framed each scene, rather than doing a consistent matte. Compare (particularly capture 9). This Blu-ray is the first time the movie has looked good in widescreen; you can actually see the Band-Aid tin in the puddle of blood.

[Leeon0]

Originally Posted by Ator the Invincible

They only included both versions because Sam Raimi created an official widescreen version a few years back. It was the director's decision. Anchor Bay was just being complete by including both existing ratios on the disc.

If that's the case I'm less optimistic about other studios offering two aspect ratios for one title. I don't understand what the big deal is. A multitude of DVDs were offered not only in widescreen mode but also in fullscreen mode for those who disliked black bars on their 4:3 TVs. Why can't Blu-rays offer dual versions to appease a wider audience? Take Gia, for instance, https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Gia-Blu-ray/27475/ .This movie was an HBO production made in the '90s, when people had square CRT monitors. The movie was framed and shot at 1.33:1. Now it appears on Blu-ray in 1.78:1. Those who never saw the original version may not know what's missing, but the majority of viewers will notice information missing on the top and bottom of the picture.

We all know about the controversies over the "correct" aspect ratio of some of Kubrick's films. Why not provide both versions on one disc and let the viewers decide if they want a clipped image without pillars or a complete image with pillars? To each his own. After all, the Blu-ray format will inherently accommodate the extra information. That's one of the beauties of Blu-ray.

[maleaco]

Originally Posted by Leeon0

I'm glad that at least one studio is considerate enough to satisfy as many viewers as possible.



Anchor Bay Entertainment's Evil Dead provides the original aspect ratio of 1.33:1 for those who prefer to see the complete composition of the film, and the 1.85 version for those who would rather eschew those pesky pillars. I wish more studios would follow suit. I'm among those who prefer to see the entire image. A few movies that should have been released in this dual format are Gia, a certain Kubrick film, and Tomboy (DVD). Since different folks have different preferences, having two versions makes sense.

Link?!!?!?

[zeze]

Originally Posted by maleaco

Link?!!?!?

It talks about it in this review under Video Quality.
https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-E...y/9962/#Review

[TLOE]

I have this release and the quality is great considering the age and budget of the film itself. I am a stickler for OAR (I won't watch or buy it otherwise), so I view this in the original 1.33:1 aspect, but can understand how some may want to view a cropped version. What I don't understand is why it's cropped to 1.85 and not 1.78..? There isn't much difference between the aspects, but if the intent is to offer a screen-filling option for those who want it, it should be formatted that way.

[Moviefan2k4]

I'd love for Fox to reissue "Voyage of the Dawn Treader" in the theatrical ratio; Apted's change makes the film look like a TV production by comparison.

[Ator the Invincible]

Originally Posted by TLOE

What I don't understand is why it's cropped to 1.85 and not 1.78..? There isn't much difference between the aspects, but if the intent is to offer a screen-filling option for those who want it, it should be formatted that way.

I don't know the exact reasoning behind it, but I believe Raimi created the new widescreen version for future theatrical showings as well as home video. It wasn't strictly a "fill up the TV screen" decision.

[steve_dave]

Originally Posted by Ator the Invincible

I don't know the exact reasoning behind it, but I believe Raimi created the new widescreen version for future theatrical showings as well as home video. It wasn't strictly a "fill up the TV screen" decision.

The Evil Dead was originally intended to be presented in 1.85:1 widescreen for it's original theatrical release. The original distributor at the time had little to no budget for this type of post-production. Thus the film was released with the original negative 1.33:1 framing. The 1.33:1 presentation was what fans had long grown up with and what many Evil Dead historians believed was the proper aspect ratio.

In 2001, the decision was made to release The Evil Dead as originally intended in it's widescreen glory. Due to Sam Raimi's schedule for Spider-Man, he handed the reigns over to Bruce Campbell to produce this version. Sam Raimi did sign off on this presentation as he trusts Campbell to maintain his same vision Campbell's version was a tilt and scan widescreen version that many fans hated. Visual gags were lost and the framing felt very off in this widescreen presentation. This "widescreen version" continued to cement into fans and ED historians' minds that 1.33:1 was the proper aspect ratio. Note that this Evil Dead DVD release was intended to be a tie-in with Spider-Man's theatrical release.

Anchor Bay was ready to release The Evil Dead on Blu-ray and this time Sam Raimi was available to not only sign off but supervise and oversee the creation of the widescreen version. The Blu-ray Disc presents a new matted version that eliminates the tilt and scan in many scenes and restores visual gags that were lost in the 2001 widescreen version. What Sam Raimi originally envisioned for his 1981 film had finally been completed.

There are fans who still stand by the 1.33:1 presentation and rightly so as it was the one they had known for so long. This is why Anchor Bay presents both versions as the 2001 release only had the new widscreen version and fan reaction was primarily negative. Anchor Bay would eventually re-release the 1.33:1 version on DVD in 2007 as part of a three disc special edition.

[Kriztoffer Swank]

Originally Posted by steve_dave

The Evil Dead was originally intended to be presented in 1.85:1 widescreen for it's original theatrical release. The original distributor at the time had little to no budget for this type of post-production. Thus the film was released with the original negative 1.33:1 framing.

Most theaters would have shown it 1.85, so I'm not really following what you're saying here.

I'm also not sure what you mean by it originally being intended for widescreen. I've never heard Raimi actually say something on the matter, but I've always assumed he simply shot what was in the frame, and the realization that it had to be cropped for theaters set in later. This is what Frank Henenlotter said about Basket Case, so I wouldn't be surprised if another first-time, independent theatrical director like Raimi did the same.

[DarthMarino]

Originally Posted by steve_dave

The Evil Dead was originally intended to be presented in 1.85:1 widescreen for it's original theatrical release. The original distributor at the time had little to no budget for this type of post-production. Thus the film was released with the original negative 1.33:1 framing. The 1.33:1 presentation was what fans had long grown up with and what many Evil Dead historians believed was the proper aspect ratio.

In 2001, the decision was made to release The Evil Dead as originally intended in it's widescreen glory. Due to Sam Raimi's schedule for Spider-Man, he handed the reigns over to Bruce Campbell to produce this version. Sam Raimi did sign off on this presentation as he trusts Campbell to maintain his same vision Campbell's version was a tilt and scan widescreen version that many fans hated. Visual gags were lost and the framing felt very off in this widescreen presentation. This "widescreen version" continued to cement into fans and ED historians' minds that 1.33:1 was the proper aspect ratio. Note that this Evil Dead DVD release was intended to be a tie-in with Spider-Man's theatrical release.

Anchor Bay was ready to release The Evil Dead on Blu-ray and this time Sam Raimi was available to not only sign off but supervise and oversee the creation of the widescreen version. The Blu-ray Disc presents a new matted version that eliminates the tilt and scan in many scenes and restores visual gags that were lost in the 2001 widescreen version. What Sam Raimi originally envisioned for his 1981 film had finally been completed.

There are fans who still stand by the 1.33:1 presentation and rightly so as it was the one they had known for so long. This is why Anchor Bay presents both versions as the 2001 release only had the new widscreen version and fan reaction was primarily negative. Anchor Bay would eventually re-release the 1.33:1 version on DVD in 2007 as part of a three disc special edition.

There is a ton of misinformation in this post. For starters, the 2001 Book of the Dead was NOT a tilt n' scan version. THAT was the straight matted version. From the opening frame, it's obvious that the original Evil Dead was not framed for widescreen. That's why fans were upset in 2001. You never heard any uproar over the sequel on DVD when they lopped off the top and bottom of the picture. It looked different than our old VHS tapes that we grew up with but it was never an issue. That's because Evil Dead II was framed for 1.85:1, unlike it's predecessor.

The Blu-Ray is a tilt n' scan version made to rectify many of the more obvious issues with the forced widescreen version that Raimi is inexplicably pushing. The famous band-aid scene is the easiest way to see this as the straight widescreen version from 2001 cuts off the gag (it was funny when Campbell was telling us how great it was in the commentary when you couldn't even see it). They "tilted" the frame completely to the bottom on the Blu-Ray. There are numerous other scenes where you can see this happening but it's easiest to see there. The fact that they needed to tilt n' scan this movie just proves how much of an afterthought the widescreen version is.

Sorry, I don't have a blu ray drive on my computer but this should illustrate the tilt n' scan. Both shots from the US Blu-Ray.

[Deciazulado]

As I said on the Evil Dead BD thread, I watched the open matte (4:3) version matted to widescreen like it would be on an original release theater and out of more than a thousand shots (i counted) there were just a dozen that weren't shot framed within the widescreen presentation area or didn't work on it, which would be normal errors in tight/budget shooting conditions. 99% widescreen shots vs 1% out of bounds

By the end of the 50's 95% of theaters had already switched to widescreen. Even Plan 9 (prod. 1956-1959) was shot for widescreen. Optimum's "new" (Romero approved) NotLD (1968) cropped transfer is basically a pan/scan 4:3 version (preserving the type of shot, long, medium, close-up) of the Widescreen image that would be seen on theaters at the time.

Which format one do you think this was composed for? Which one would be shown on your theater's screen today.. or in 1981?


OARDead.jpg