The Exorcist: The Complete Anthology (1973-2005)

[JimSmith]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

Yep, I watched the extended version recently and it looked good. As discussed, I wish Warner would have been using AVC at the time of encoding (although no guarantee they would have used higher bit rates with it lol), but all in all, they did a nice job with it.

The Iraq scenes at the beginning are so clear and sharp they just blow me away!!

[Dylan34]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

Yep, I watched the extended version recently and it looked good. As discussed, I wish Warner would have been using AVC at the time of encoding (although no guarantee they would have used higher bit rates with it lol), but all in all, they did a nice job with it.

Yeah, if Warner's would re-encode with AVC and pump up the bitrates, it would fix minor problems in both cuts. They would then be pretty perfect as they almost are now.

[JimSmith]

It says on the IMDb that The Exorcist original aspect ratio was 1.37:1. I bet it's one of those widescreen films that shows more picture info on the top and bottom on the full-screen version and more picture info on both sides on the widescreen version. Can anyone elaborate?

[Dylan34]

Originally Posted by JimSmith

It says on the IMDb that The Exorcist original aspect ratio was 1.37:1. I bet it's one of those widescreen films that shows more picture info on the top and bottom on the full-screen version and more picture info on both sides on the widescreen version. Can anyone elaborate?

It was shown in theaters in 1.85:1. My dad went to the 1973 showing at 18 yrs old and I went and saw it in Sept. Of 2000, The Version you've Never Seen. It was shown in 1.85:1 my pops said and I definitely saw it in 1.85:1.

[BNex99]

Originally Posted by JimSmith

It says on the IMDb that The Exorcist original aspect ratio was 1.37:1. I bet it's one of those widescreen films that shows more picture info on the top and bottom on the full-screen version and more picture info on both sides on the widescreen version. Can anyone elaborate?

The majority of pre-digital 1.85 films were shot this way, and many were framed in such a way that they could be opened up at the top and bottom on 4:3 televisions. However, the amount that the picture was opened up could vary from shot-to-shot, so normally, the 1.85 was still considered definitive.

[MichaelR]

Originally Posted by JimSmith

It says on the IMDb that The Exorcist original aspect ratio was 1.37:1.

In home theater circles, "original aspect ratio" generally refers to the AR at which a film was initially released. That's not what IMDb says about "The Exorcist". The exact words are:

1.37 : 1 (negative ratio)
1.75 : 1 (theatrical ratio)
1.78 : 1 (Home Media Release)

The middle listing ("1.75:1") has to be a typo, because that was not an aspect ratio that commercial theaters were equipped to project in 1973 (or now, for that matter). It should be "1.85:1", which was the original theatrical ratio. That's how I saw it in 1973. "1.78:1" reflects Warner's typical treatment of that AR on Blu-ray.

[JimSmith]

Originally Posted by MichaelR

In home theater circles, "original aspect ratio" generally refers to the AR at which a film was initially released. That's not what IMDb says about "The Exorcist". The exact words are:



The middle listing ("1.75:1") has to be a typo, because that was not an aspect ratio that commercial theaters were equipped to project in 1973 (or now, for that matter). It should be "1.85:1", which was the original theatrical ratio. That's how I saw it in 1973. "1.78:1" reflects Warner's typical treatment of that AR on Blu-ray.

Yeah I've hardly ever seen an aspect ratio of 1.75:1. I think that Stanley Kubrick's films were shot in a way that the fullscreen would add info on the top and bottom while subtracting info from both sides and the widescreen version would add info on both sides and subtract info on the top and bottom. Some 1.78:1 and 1.85:1 widescreen ratios are not all the same.

[ditcin]

Originally Posted by Dylan34

It was shown in theaters in 1.85:1. My dad went to the 1973 showing at 18 yrs old and I went and saw it in Sept. Of 2000, The Version you've Never Seen. It was shown in 1.85:1 my pops said and I definitely saw it in 1.85:1.

I'll second that - I too saw it in the theater but in 74' (it started in Nov. of 73' then slowly spread out in June of 74') Since then I gone to almost every re-release up to 2000, seeing it over 12 time.
The aspect ratio screened was always 1.85:1

(before the days of home video I knew if it ever got to TV it was going to be severely edited so I snuck a tape recorder in the theater to audio record the film - is not that good with a lot of echo - but it does have audience reaction!

[Dylan34]

Originally Posted by ditcin

I'll second that - I too saw it in the theater but in 74' (it started in Nov. of 73' then slowly spread out in June of 74') Since then I gone to almost every re-release up to 2000, seeing it over 12 time.
The aspect ratio screened was always 1.85:1

(before the days of home video I knew if it ever got to TV it was going to be severely edited so I snuck a tape recorder in the theater to audio record the film - is not that good with a lot of echo - but it does have audience reaction!

Nice, can you load some of those recordings on here? I would love to hear some authentic audience reactions from past screenings.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by MichaelR

It should be "1.85:1", which was the original theatrical ratio. That's how I saw it in 1973. "1.78:1" reflects Warner's typical treatment of that AR on Blu-ray.

That's a good point. Funny thing is, I hardly ever noticed the difference between 1:78 and 1:85 until I moved to a constant image height front projection set-up where you can actually easily see how 1:85 is slightly, yet noticably (and preferably) wider.

[Dylan34]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

That's a good point. Funny thing is, I hardly ever noticed the difference between 1:78 and 1:85 until I moved to a constant image height front projection set-up where you can actually easily see how 1:85 is slightly, yet noticably (and preferably) wider.

Yeah, I hate how Warner's opens their 1.85:1 films to 1.78:1. Even as crappy as Universal's transfers are, at least they always transfer in OAR.

[omenboy]

For anyone that has yet to pick this up, Bull Moose has it for $17.97. I got from them pre-owned at that price (came to under $20 shipped) when it first came out and it was in great condition:

http://www.bullmoose.com/p/16760244/...ogy-blu-ray-nr

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by Dylan34

Yeah, I hate how Warner's opens their 1.85:1 films to 1.78:1. Even as crappy as Universal's transfers are, at least they always transfer in OAR.

Did they ever give any reason why they do this?

[ditcin]

Originally Posted by Dylan34

Nice, can you load some of those recordings on here? I would love to hear some authentic audience reactions from past screenings.

I will look for the tape...

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by ditcin

I will look for the tape...

Given how tape deteriorates over time, might be a good time to transfer it to digital while you're at it.

[Dylan34]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

Did they ever give any reason why they do this?

From what I understand, and I don't know if this 100 percent true, is they started doing this because of the overscan that TV's used to do. With overscan you would lose something like 3 to 5 percent of the picture so they opened up the Matte's to account for that so you wouldn't be losing anything. Now, they should transfer in OAR since there's not any over scanning anymore.

[eiknarf]

Now, pardon my ignorance, and I mean that. I'm sincere when I ask, how do you guys know, or better yet, how can you tell and remember what an old film's theatrical aspect ratio was just by sitting in the theater XX years ago?

Of course I can tell what an aspect ratio is at home on my TV as a grown man in his 40's, but I didnt know what an aspect ratio was as a child going to the movies in the 80's, nor would i be able to remember what a films aspect ratio would have been had i cared...especially because 1.78 and 1.85 in a theater probably seemed similar, considering the screen was huge and the theater took it upon themselves to pull open or pull closed the side curtains to alleviate negative space on the sides

[JimSmith]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

That's a good point. Funny thing is, I hardly ever noticed the difference between 1:78 and 1:85 until I moved to a constant image height front projection set-up where you can actually easily see how 1:85 is slightly, yet noticably (and preferably) wider.

On my 32" Sony Bravia which is of course 1.78:1 like the vast majority of widescreen TV's are 1.85:1 seems to fill the screen. Do I have a problem?

[Member-260138]

Originally Posted by eiknarf

Now, pardon my ignorance, and I mean that. I'm sincere when I ask, how do you guys know, or better yet, how can you tell and remember what an old film's theatrical aspect ratio was just by sitting in the theater XX years ago?

Of course I can tell what an aspect ratio is at home on my TV as a grown man in his 40's, but I didnt know what an aspect ratio was as a child going to the movies in the 80's, nor would i be able to remember what a films aspect ratio would have been had i cared...especially because 1.78 and 1.85 in a theater probably seemed similar, considering the screen was huge and the theater took it upon themselves to pull open or pull closed the side curtains to alleviate negative space on the sides

I saw the Exorcist at the "Drive-In" the year it came out. No way do I remember if it filled the screen or not.

[ditcin]

Originally Posted by eiknarf

Now, pardon my ignorance, and I mean that. I'm sincere when I ask, how do you guys know, or better yet, how can you tell and remember what an old film's theatrical aspect ratio was just by sitting in the theater XX years ago?

Of course I can tell what an aspect ratio is at home on my TV as a grown man in his 40's, but I didnt know what an aspect ratio was as a child going to the movies in the 80's, nor would i be able to remember what a films aspect ratio would have been had i cared...especially because 1.78 and 1.85 in a theater probably seemed similar, considering the screen was huge and the theater took it upon themselves to pull open or pull closed the side curtains to alleviate negative space on the sides

Pardon me but when one grows up with a B&W TV a trip to the theater is special. Very special. Imagery mixed with the experience tends to stick on one's mind. Going to the movies was more of an experience then compared to anyone growing up today. It's a completely world with too much taken for granted. Even worse people making calls on what's impossible simply because it's impossible for them.
Remember, Beethoven was deaf.
Don't be so quick to put down or doubt people for what you may lack. Be a little more respectful and open minded.