«

According to IMDB (and a friend of mine who saw the film theatrically),
the OAR is 2.35:1. See:

<http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0399295/technical>

According to Best Buy and DDD, the 1-Disc WS release is 1.78:1. See:

<http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=7601179&type=product&id=1505329>

and

<http://www.deepdiscountdvd.com/dvd.cfm?itemID=LGE018739>

According to Best Buy and DDD, the 2-Disc SE release's aspect ratio is
either not known or "unspecified."

<http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=7600679&type=product&id=1505329>

and

<http://www.deepdiscountdvd.com/dvd.cfm?itemid=LGE018801&promotion=y>

What's the probability that Lions Gate paid for THREE transfers of the
film to DVD -- (hopefully) 2.35:1, 1.78:1, and 1.33:1? Gawd. I hope
that at least the 2-Disc SE is OAR. Otherwise, I'm not buying it.

-Junior

unclejr wrote:
> According to IMDB (and a friend of mine who saw the film theatrically),
> the OAR is 2.35:1. See:
>
> <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0399295/technical>
>
> According to Best Buy and DDD, the 1-Disc WS release is 1.78:1. See:
>
> <http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=7601179&type=product&id=1505329>
>
> and
>
> <http://www.deepdiscountdvd.com/dvd.cfm?itemID=LGE018739>
>
> According to Best Buy and DDD, the 2-Disc SE release's aspect ratio is
> either not known or "unspecified."
>
> <http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=7600679&type=product&id=1505329>
>
> and
>
> <http://www.deepdiscountdvd.com/dvd.cfm?itemid=LGE018801&promotion=y>
>
> What's the probability that Lions Gate paid for THREE transfers of the
> film to DVD -- (hopefully) 2.35:1, 1.78:1, and 1.33:1? Gawd. I hope
> that at least the 2-Disc SE is OAR. Otherwise, I'm not buying it.

Just as a follow-up to my own post... As it turns out, the 2-Disc SE
is also 1.78:1 just like the single-disc release. Crap. Lions Gate
just lost a sale.

-Junior

"unclejr" <> wrote in message
news: oups.com...
> Just as a follow-up to my own post... As it turns out, the 2-Disc SE
> is also 1.78:1 just like the single-disc release. Crap. Lions Gate
> just lost a sale.

For what it's worth, the 1.78:1 re-framing was chosen by director Andrew
Niccol.

Joshua Zyber wrote:
> For what it's worth, the 1.78:1 re-framing was chosen by director Andrew
> Niccol.

That's weird. I wonder why he would want it "panned and scanned for
16x9 televisions"? I mean if many scenes were composed at 2.35:1, then
why would any director want it cropped at 1.78:1?

-Junior

On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 02:36:00 GMT, Joshua Zyber wrote:

> "unclejr" <> wrote in message
> news: oups.com...
>> Just as a follow-up to my own post... As it turns out, the 2-Disc SE
>> is also 1.78:1 just like the single-disc release. Crap. Lions Gate
>> just lost a sale.
>
> For what it's worth, the 1.78:1 re-framing was chosen by director Andrew
> Niccol.

Can you cite where you got that information from? So far, I've found
nothing on the web concerning the altered aspect ratio from either Lions
Gate or Niccol.


There are several threads about this on various webforums already:

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htfo...hreadid=249463
http://forums.lgf.com/showthread.php?t=1732
http://forum.dvdtalk.com/showthread.php?t=444535


Also, there's a "General Inquiries" email address on Lions Gate's website:
general-

There's other contact info, including mailing address and even a phone
number, available on this page:
http://www.lionsgatefilms.com/investors/index.php

-Jay

"Jay G." <"Jay "@tmbg.org> wrote in message
news:eet7zh0js30i$.x5i273l2r7yn$....
>> For what it's worth, the 1.78:1 re-framing was chosen by director
>> Andrew
>> Niccol.
>
> Can you cite where you got that information from? So far, I've found
> nothing on the web concerning the altered aspect ratio from either
> Lions
> Gate or Niccol.

I don't have a firm reference. That's what I had been hearing, but now
it's up in question again.

Side-by-side comparisons of the DVD with the movie's trailer supposedly
show that the DVD is more cropped than open-matte, so it does seem odd
that the director would want that.

Joshua Zyber wrote:
> Side-by-side comparisons of the DVD with the movie's trailer supposedly
> show that the DVD is more cropped than open-matte, so it does seem odd
> that the director would want that.

Supposedly? Look here...

OAR (2.35:1):

<http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/9994/lordofwartrl2ug.jpg>

The R1 DVD (1.78:1):

<http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/1317/lordofwardvd8zs.jpg>

There's no question about it from where I'm sitting... The DVD has
been butchered on the left and right sides with slightly more picture
on top than the OAR frame.

-Junior

Joshua Zyber wrote:
> Side-by-side comparisons of the DVD with the movie's trailer supposedly
> show that the DVD is more cropped than open-matte, so it does seem odd
> that the director would want that.

Oh, yeah... In addition, it is rumored that Saw II will also be given
the same treatment from Lions Gate on R1 DVD.

-Junior

"unclejr" <> wrote in message
news: oups.com...
> Joshua Zyber wrote:
>> Side-by-side comparisons of the DVD with the movie's trailer
>> supposedly
>> show that the DVD is more cropped than open-matte, so it does seem
>> odd
>> that the director would want that.
>
> Oh, yeah... In addition, it is rumored that Saw II will also be given
> the same treatment from Lions Gate on R1 DVD.

Saw II was a 1.85:1 movie, according to IMDb (didn't see it myself).
Altering 1.85:1 to 1.78:1 is a negligible difference.

Joshua Zyber wrote:
> Saw II was a 1.85:1 movie, according to IMDb (didn't see it myself).
> Altering 1.85:1 to 1.78:1 is a negligible difference.

Yeah, I forgot to mention that with my last post. I remembered this
little tidbit shortly afterwards. There's a big difference between
reframing of a 1.85:1 movie to 1.78:1 relative to severely cropping a
2.35:1 movie to 1.78:1. The 1.85:1-to-1.78:1 reframing is about the
same loss of picture as the old academy 1.37:1-to-1.33:1 reframing that
we've long accepted for many years.

-Junior