Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > DVD Video > Rosemary's Baby ratio: 1:66-to-1 vs. 16x9 ?

Reply
Thread Tools

Rosemary's Baby ratio: 1:66-to-1 vs. 16x9 ?

 
 
dgates
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-23-2006

I recorded Rosemary's Baby off an HD movie channel the other night.
Before using this recording to introduce it to my girlfriend, I'm
wondering about the ratios.

My first thought, scanning a few scenes was "Hmm, does it look like
the left and right sides have been slightly lopped off?"

However, checking IMDB, it says that the ratio is 1.66 to 1 -- which
would be *narrower* than our 16x9 TV.

If that's the case, then how is this picture filling our 16x9 screen?
Is it being stretched? Are the top and bottoms being lopped off? Is
IMDB just wrong about the ratio?

Scanning a couple of DVD sites, I see them referring to the film (or
at least the DVD) as 1.85:1. Not Netflix, which lists it as 1.66:1,
but a couple other DVD sites.


Can anyone enlighten me? What will we be losing or gaining if we
watch this HD recording?


Thanks.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Joshua Zyber
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-24-2006
"dgates" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> I recorded Rosemary's Baby off an HD movie channel the other night.
> Before using this recording to introduce it to my girlfriend, I'm
> wondering about the ratios.
>
> My first thought, scanning a few scenes was "Hmm, does it look like
> the left and right sides have been slightly lopped off?"
>
> However, checking IMDB, it says that the ratio is 1.66 to 1 -- which
> would be *narrower* than our 16x9 TV.
>
> If that's the case, then how is this picture filling our 16x9 screen?
> Is it being stretched? Are the top and bottoms being lopped off? Is
> IMDB just wrong about the ratio?
>
> Scanning a couple of DVD sites, I see them referring to the film (or
> at least the DVD) as 1.85:1. Not Netflix, which lists it as 1.66:1,
> but a couple other DVD sites.
>
> Can anyone enlighten me? What will we be losing or gaining if we
> watch this HD recording?


A movie like Rosemary's baby would have been photographed with the
intention of playing in Europe at 1.66:1 and in America at 1.85:1, and
should have been protected for both ratios. A 16:9 transfer splits the
difference. You're not missing anything that was seen in American
theaters.

A 1.66:1 movie can be viewed on a 16:9 TV in one of two ways. Either the
top and bottom of the frame can be minimally cropped, or the picture can
be pillarboxed with black bars on the left and right sides of the frame.
The pillarbox bars would be so small that they'd be covered up by
typical TV overscan anyway.

I haven't seen the HD broadcast of Rosemary's Baby to know which it was.
In either scenario, what you're getting is a perfectly valid
representation of the movie.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
dgates
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-24-2006
On Sat, 23 Dec 2006 19:08:02 -0500, "Joshua Zyber"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>"dgates" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed).. .
>> I recorded Rosemary's Baby off an HD movie channel the other night.
>> Before using this recording to introduce it to my girlfriend, I'm
>> wondering about the ratios.
>>
>> My first thought, scanning a few scenes was "Hmm, does it look like
>> the left and right sides have been slightly lopped off?"
>>
>> However, checking IMDB, it says that the ratio is 1.66 to 1 -- which
>> would be *narrower* than our 16x9 TV.
>>
>> If that's the case, then how is this picture filling our 16x9 screen?
>> Is it being stretched? Are the top and bottoms being lopped off? Is
>> IMDB just wrong about the ratio?
>>
>> Scanning a couple of DVD sites, I see them referring to the film (or
>> at least the DVD) as 1.85:1. Not Netflix, which lists it as 1.66:1,
>> but a couple other DVD sites.
>>
>> Can anyone enlighten me? What will we be losing or gaining if we
>> watch this HD recording?

>
>A movie like Rosemary's baby would have been photographed with the
>intention of playing in Europe at 1.66:1 and in America at 1.85:1, and
>should have been protected for both ratios. A 16:9 transfer splits the
>difference. You're not missing anything that was seen in American
>theaters.
>
>A 1.66:1 movie can be viewed on a 16:9 TV in one of two ways. Either the
>top and bottom of the frame can be minimally cropped, or the picture can
>be pillarboxed with black bars on the left and right sides of the frame.
>The pillarbox bars would be so small that they'd be covered up by
>typical TV overscan anyway.
>
>I haven't seen the HD broadcast of Rosemary's Baby to know which it was.
>In either scenario, what you're getting is a perfectly valid
>representation of the movie.



Excellent! Thank you very much for the reply!

(Now, if I can just convince her that the film's cleverness outweighs
its scariness!

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What is 16x9 Letterbox? help@unlisted.com DVD Video 6 12-26-2005 05:53 PM
(Region 1 ) LIVE 8 - Box set : Is it 16x9 ?? Norac05 DVD Video 1 11-14-2005 02:55 AM
Please share The.Fifth.Element.16x9.720p.WM9.HD-DVD.wmv if you have it. No One Realy DVD Video 0 09-19-2005 02:51 AM
THE THING 16x9: Is there supposed to be a booklet? BNE DVD Video 6 10-29-2004 04:44 PM
Thin Red Line 16X9??? PNeski DVD Video 3 11-25-2003 04:13 AM



Advertisments