List of BDs with Altered Aspect Ratios

[fitprod]

Originally Posted by Dubstar

as I recall even the HDNet movie airing was the complete 2.39 image.

Yes, it was, which makes the BD even more annoying.

Fitprod

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by abintra

Great thread and effort HD Goofnut (now need one for edited versions). Thanks.

Any chance you would consider separating the things like 1.85:1->1.78:1 listings for the reasons already stated? In my opinion, it does a disservice to the reasons keeping an account of aspect ratio modifications is necessary.

Updates

Dracula 2000 - IAR 2.39:1 to 1.78:1.
Equilibrium - IAR 2.39:1 to 1.78:1.
Gulliver's Travels (1939) - IAR 1.37:1 to 1.75:1.
Halloween H20: 20 Years Later - IAR 2.39:1 to 1.78:1.
Lookout, The IAR 2.39:1 to 1.78:1 (on both the individual and double feature releases from Echo Bridge but ~2.39:1 on the Miramax/Disney release).
Money for Nothing - IAR 2.39:1 to 1.78:1.
Once Upon a Time in Mexico - should be mentioned that the original theatrical aspect ratio was 2.39:1 but modified to 1.78:1 by Robert Rodriguez.
Supercop - IAR 2.39:1 to 1.78:1.
Texas Rangers - IAR 2.39:1 to 1.78:1.
Twin Dragons - IAR 2.39:1 to 1.78:1.
Venom - IAR 2.39:1 to 1.78:1.
World’s Fastest Indian, The - should be mentioned that the original theatrical aspect ratio was 2.39:1 but modified to 1.78:1 based on Roger Donaldson wishes (though oddly only for certain releases around the world on DVD).
Yards, The - IAR 2.39:1 to 1.78:1.

Added all of these.

[Taco Tuesday]

Thanks for the separation, HDG! These 5 are still in the first post but I think they should be in the "more drastic changes" second post.

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

Dr. Giggles - 2.35:1 to 1.78:1
Equilibrium (Echo Bridge) - 2.39:1 to 1.78:1
G.I. Joe: The Movie - 1.33:1 to 1.78:1
Gulliver's Travels (1939) - 1.37:1 to 1.78:1
World at War, The - 1.37:1 to 1.78:1

[Mr. Movie Fan]

1.85 to 1.78 isn't even worth mentioning actually.
Altered OAR lists should only include 1.33 to 1.78, 1.66 to 1.78 or 2.40 to 1.78.

[Taco Tuesday]

That's why he separated those out

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by Fanboyz

1.85 to 1.78 isn't even worth mentioning actually.
Altered OAR lists should only include 1.33 to 1.78, 1.66 to 1.78 or 2.40 to 1.78.

Now now. You should know the difference in opinions and facts.

[mikesncc1701]

Originally Posted by Fanboyz

1.85 to 1.78 isn't even worth mentioning actually.
Altered OAR lists should only include 1.33 to 1.78, 1.66 to 1.78 or 2.40 to 1.78.

I have to disagree. Warner blus are the most prominent when it comes to altering a 1.85 image to 1.78 just so consumers can "fill the entire screen". If it's that negligible then why do it in the first place? Don't get me wrong, it doesn't prevent me from buying something that I want, but I still know there's something missing and it doesn't look as proper as it could.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by mikesncc1701

I have to disagree. Warner blus are the most prominent when it comes to altering a 1.85 image to 1.78 just so consumers can "fill the entire screen". If it's that negligible then why do it in the first place? Don't get me wrong, it doesn't prevent me from buying something that I want, but I still know there's something missing and it doesn't look as proper as it could.

This is exactly how I have always felt about it. Until 2009 Warner seemed to limit it to catalog 1.85:1 titles, but starting that year they began making new releases 1.78:1 from 1.85:1. I just don't understand the logic behind changing it because at 1.85:1 the bars are hardly even noticeable.

[retablo]

Originally Posted by mikesncc1701

I have to disagree. Warner blus are the most prominent when it comes to altering a 1.85 image to 1.78 just so consumers can "fill the entire screen". If it's that negligible then why do it in the first place? Don't get me wrong, it doesn't prevent me from buying something that I want, but I still know there's something missing and it doesn't look as proper as it could.

Even Criterion does it with "director-approved" editions. I'm all for OAR but since this is so minescule and doesn't alter the framing enough to even notice, I'm fine with it.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by retablo

Even Criterion does it with "director-approved" editions. I'm all for OAR but since this is so minescule and doesn't alter the framing enough to even notice, I'm fine with it.

1.85:1 to 1.78:1 is not a big deal, but it still bothers me especially if it lacks a director approval. What really gets under my skin is when a studio changes a 2.39:1 or 1.33/37:1 title to 1.78:1. Luckily the worst offender list that I made is rather small at this point.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by Taco Tuesday

Thanks for the separation, HDG! These 5 are still in the first post but I think they should be in the "more drastic changes" second post.

No problem. I fixed those titles you mentioned.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by Chester Lime

What category does THE DARK KNIGHT fall under, since it goes back and forth from one aspect ratio to another. I still do not understand why the Bluray had this since it was noticeable and quite annoying. I was told that this was because one of the aspects shown was from the imax imagery, but the "imax" aspect ratio on the Bluray is very different from the theatrical imax image. It was awful. And I along with thousands bought into this stupidity. They should have released it in either one or the other or at least with both versions separate and not one jumping back and forth between aspect ratios.

Because a fair portion of the film was shot in IMAX while most of the film was shot in 35mm (2.39:1). IMAX's native aspect ratio is 1.44:1, which is relatively close to 1.78:1. This is why BDs such as The Dark Knight, TRON: Legacy, and Transformers: ROTF have shifting aspect ratios. It's actually about as close to OAR as you're going to get. There's so few of these due to the high costs of shooting in IMAX. If the masses feel a list of these is warranted I'll add it to the original post.

[figrin_dan]

I'm a bit puzzled why Avatar isn't on the list. It was 2.39 at the cinema.

Also They Live (Italian) starts off about 2.39 and then changes to ~2.20

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by figrin_dan

I'm a bit puzzled why Avatar isn't on the list. It was 2.39 at the cinema.

Also They Live (Italian) starts off about 2.39 and then changes to ~2.20

I am going to add it to the list, but Cameron approved it.

[figrin_dan]

Originally Posted by figrin_dan

Also They Live (Italian) starts off about 2.39 and then changes to ~2.20

Should this go on the list?

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by figrin_dan

Should this go on the list?

Yeah, I am going to put it in the large changes section because ~.20 is quite an alteration.

[Deciazulado]

This comes back from time to time. (And no matter if I post a link like the one above)

The Standard Widescreen format is a fit your screen format. If your theater has masked its screen and chosen a lens for 1.85 you see the print in 1.85, if it has masked it to and chosen a lens for 1.66 you see it in 1.66, if it has masked it to 1.73 etc you see it in 1.73. Your HDTV home screen is 1.78

Is this exact? Is it perfect? No, but unless the director/cameraman is obsessive they also know this is happening. Very few theaters in the world show the exact 100% precise 0.446" x 0.825" dimensions. I've measured variances of up to 20% in the field. As I mentioned, 1.78 vs 1.85 is 4%. In only one dimension, not both, so in a sense if you get 100% in one direction and 96% in the other, what you get is a 2% error on average.
TV overscan is more than that.

Watching a movie intended for the big screen shrunk 50% of it's original size on a 46" TV at 9 feet, is a 100% larger error than than seeing the image area differing 2% from the theoretical perfect area (you should watch it on a 90" TV first).

That's not to say that you should not aim to have it 100% correct, and when I exhibited movies I made damn sure the image on screen was as near as 100% as humanly possible if the theater equipment/architecture allowed it, but only the screens I supervised did that in the whole state at the time (Sometimes it just took moving the curtains a little bit.) and that's one reason I'd prefer when a 4K home format format comes is not limited to 3840 wide. But 2% overall change is somewhat trivial in the general scheme of things.

95% of the world saw this one way instead of the other and I don't think it made much difference, and this is a bigger change than that:



1.85 S-35 at 2K is 1080 x 2000 and has either to be cropped or rescaled and letterboxed, standard 35 scanned the same way is 1746 wide and has to be rescaled and then letterboxed. if you want it to be exact 1038 x 1920.

[HD Goofnut]

I've updated the small AR changes through the Os and have updated the large AR list. I expect I'll finish the rest of the list tomorrow or Friday.

[HD Goofnut]

Blade of Kings (1.85:1 to 1.78:1) added.

[HD Goofnut]

List has been fully updated. If you see something missing please make sure and post it in this thread.