Terminator 3 Aspect Ratio

[denguy]

Can anyone tell me what the deal is here? I have the regular DVD full screen and the blu-ray widescreen version of T3 and wonder why the bottom 15% or so of the screen is cut off in the blu-ray disc. Compare the opening scene where Nick Stahl is sitting on the bridge holding a beer bottle. He drops it and in the regular DVD you see it careen off the bridge gutter and then fall into the water below. On the blu-ray disc, you see him drop it, then it bounces off the bridge gutter but you don't see it hit the gutter. This bottom part of the screen is cut off. The entire film suffers from this. The first scene where Christina Loken emerges from the storefront window you see her from the neck up on blu-ray. The regular DVD shows her from further away, just below her chest. It looks like Warner zoomed in and we're watching the movie from a closer vantage point than originally intended. What's the reason for this?

[steve_dave]

The film was shot Super35 and is not zoomed in on the Blu-ray Disc.

Basically, the film is shot with a 1.33:1 negative that is then matted to 2.39:1 widescreen for the theaters and home video. You are not missing anything, rather you are seeing picture information that the filmmakers did not intend to be seen.

[Beast]

Correct. The same complaints sprang up when the DVD first came out.

[jd213]

Heh, I saw in a pic on some forum that you get to see more of Kristanna Loken in the fullscreen version (or the "full-titty" version as they put it). I think her hair was still covering her breasts, though.

[Beast]

Yes. The Fullscreen Version does reveal a bit more information on top and bottom.

But it is not the intended format of the director. The WS image is correct.

[denguy]

Interesting. I did not know that. I'm not sure which I prefer. Funny, I always think what a cool little detail the beer bottle scene is when I see the bottle bounce off the gutter without breaking. And yes on the full screen version you do see more of Christina Loken in that shot including her boobs but they're covered discretely by her hair. I guess if I didn't know any different, I'd just enjoy the blu-ray aspect.

Thanks for the answer everyone.

[drtre81]

Originally Posted by steve_dave

The film was shot Supoer35 and is not zoomed in on the Blu-ray Disc.

Basically, the film is shot with a 1.33:1 negative that is then matted to 2.39:1 widescreen for the theaters and home video. You are not missing anything, rather you are seeing picture information that the filmmakers did not intend to be seen.

that's strange because when saw it at the movies it showed her face and covered chest. not just face and neck.

even my ws dvd version shows the same.

edit: OOPS WRONG. nevermind.

[Daredevil666]

No you are right, the DVD/BR widescreen is zoomboxed.

Check out the comparison with the theater version here

http://www.angelfire.com/moon/daehkcid/t3.html

[steve_dave]

Zoombox is an improper term because they never zoom in. The frame composition on the DVD and Blu-ray Disc are 2.39:1 widescreen. They are not comparing the theatrical framing in the site you linked. They are comparing the telesync version of the film to the DVD. In this case, due to the Super35 process, the telesync version was opened a tad more but the final DVD framing corrects that.

You are not supposed to see that much picture information. On some prints, the projectionist in the theater is responsible for the mattes and can mess up. I was watching the 1.85:1 film Joe Somebody and the projectionist messed up the mattes and I could see the boom mikes at the top of the 1.33:1 frame for about five minutes.

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by dvdvision

No you are right, the DVD/BR widescreen is zoomboxed.

Check out the comparison with the theater version here

http://www.angelfire.com/moon/daehkcid/t3.html

That specific opening scene with the Terminatrix is framed diferently on the video versions. (I saw it on la Brea)

But to answer the OP's question of "full frame" 4:3 coded DVD vs Widescreen Anamorphic print Super-35 shot film, an image is worth a thousand words:

Original Aspect Ratio as seen in theaters:

Super-35 image exposed on camera negative:

[denguy]

Conventional wisdom says that the widescreen aspect ratio is superior because it's as the director intended the film to be viewed and while I'm sure that's true, sometimes I'd rather see more information than less. In the awesome example above, you gain little if anything in the widescreen version on the left and right of the shot and you lose quite a bit on top and bottom compared to the 4:3 letterbox version.

[ryoohki]

Yeah and the 1.33 version reveal more production error, like the Cigarette burn on Arnold Chest...

[Beast]

Originally Posted by denguy

Conventional wisdom says that the widescreen aspect ratio is superior because it's as the director intended the film to be viewed and while I'm sure that's true, sometimes I'd rather see more information than less. In the awesome example above, you gain little if anything in the widescreen version on the left and right of the shot and you lose quite a bit on top and bottom compared to the 4:3 letterbox version.

But that's true of any film that is filmed with the intention of matting for widescreen.

Just because you see more top and bottom information, doesn't mean you were supposed to.

Look at the original Willy Wonka film. On the fullscreen, you can see the hoses inflating Veruca.

[OrlandoEastwood]

All 3 Spider-Man films were shot in Super35 which is why the first film is in 1.85:1 and the second and third films are in 2.39:1.

[denguy]

Originally Posted by Beast

But that's true of any film that is filmed with the intention of matting for widescreen.

Just because you see more top and bottom information, doesn't mean you were supposed to.

Look at the original Willy Wonka film. On the fullscreen, you can see the hoses inflating Veruca.

I know you're right. I'm sensitive to it because I just got HD DVR (Comcast) and they offer a bunch of HD movies on demand that are free. I tried to watch "No Way Out" with Kevin Costner (1987) and it was painful becuase it looked like in order to make it look like HD, they zoomed the entire film so that most frames were closeups. I was afraid T3 had done the same thing.

[Penitus]

Any word on a US re-release for this? I was hoping for once announced before Terminator: Salvation, but it doesn't look like anything quite yet.

[Beast]

Originally Posted by Penitus

Any word on a US re-release for this? I was hoping for once announced before Terminator: Salvation, but it doesn't look like anything quite yet.

Yes. It was re-released this week. No new extras, but the correct format transfer.

[neo_reloaded]

Originally Posted by Beast

Yes. It was re-released this week. No new extras, but the correct format transfer.

The corrected 1080p version was released back in February 2008 or so - I ordered it from Amazon in early 2008 and got the correct 1080p version with the new UPC. WB has also had the exchange program active since around that time.

It just seems the title was never really stocked on many store store shelves, and many stores finally got replenished stock on 5/12. It's the same exact disc, in the same package, with the same UPC as the fixed 1080p one from early 2008.

[kefrank]

Originally Posted by ryoohki

Yeah and the 1.33 version reveal more production error, like the Cigarette burn on Arnold Chest...

I don't think you can call that a production error when it was originally framed such that it wouldn't be visible. That kind of thing happens all the time, particularly with boom mic placement in the 1.33 frame, but not the matted final image.