Harry Potter 1-thru-4 Aspect Ratios

Discussion in 'DVD Video' started by Curtin/Dobbs, Dec 2, 2005.

  1. Curtin/Dobbs

    Curtin/Dobbs Guest

    Went to see HP4 last weekend and it seemed to be anomorphic widescreen
    (2.35-to-1). The previous 3 are 1.85, right?

    Was I misreading the image, or what?

    Thanks...Curtin/Dobbs
     
    Curtin/Dobbs, Dec 2, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Curtin/Dobbs

    Jay G. Guest

    On Fri, 2 Dec 2005 12:50:51 -0800, Curtin/Dobbs wrote:

    > Went to see HP4 last weekend and it seemed to be anomorphic widescreen
    > (2.35-to-1). The previous 3 are 1.85, right?


    All the previous Harry Potter films were shown theatrically in 2.35:1.

    http://plum.cream.org/HP/

    -Jay
     
    Jay G., Dec 2, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Curtin/Dobbs

    Bratboy Guest

    "Curtin/Dobbs" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Went to see HP4 last weekend and it seemed to be anomorphic widescreen
    > (2.35-to-1). The previous 3 are 1.85, right?
    >
    > Was I misreading the image, or what?
    >
    > Thanks...Curtin/Dobbs
    >


    According to IMDB all 4 are 2.35-to-1
     
    Bratboy, Dec 2, 2005
    #3
  4. Curtin/Dobbs

    Jeff Rife Guest

    Curtin/Dobbs () wrote in alt.video.dvd:
    > Went to see HP4 last weekend and it seemed to be anomorphic widescreen
    > (2.35-to-1). The previous 3 are 1.85, right?


    Nope, they are all 2.35:1...

    http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0241527/technical
    http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0295297/technical
    http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0304141/technical
    http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0330373/technical

    --
    Jeff Rife | "I feel an intense ambivalence, some of which
    | doesn't border entirely on the negative."
    |
    | -- Ned Dorsey, "Ned and Stacey"
     
    Jeff Rife, Dec 2, 2005
    #4
  5. Curtin/Dobbs

    jayembee Guest

    "Curtin/Dobbs" <> wrote:

    > Went to see HP4 last weekend and it seemed to be
    > anomorphic widescreen (2.35-to-1).


    Not anamorphic. Super-35.

    > The previous 3 are 1.85, right?


    Nope. All were 2.35:1 Super-35.

    -- jayembee
     
    jayembee, Dec 3, 2005
    #5
  6. Curtin/Dobbs

    Jeff Rife Guest

    jayembee () wrote in alt.video.dvd:
    > "Curtin/Dobbs" <> wrote:
    >
    > > Went to see HP4 last weekend and it seemed to be
    > > anomorphic widescreen (2.35-to-1).

    >
    > Not anamorphic. Super-35.


    I'm pretty sure it *was* anamorphic by the time he saw it, as Super35
    isn't used for prints. You don't get the anamorphic filming artifacts
    (oval lens flare, etc.), but there are things which can clue you in to the
    fact that a funky lens is involved in the projection.

    When studios get really cheap, they'll start using 3-perf for release
    prints of 1.85:1 movies, and maybe 2-perf for 2.35:1, and force all theater
    owners to upgrade their equipment. ;->

    --
    Jeff Rife | Coach: What's the story, Norm?
    |
    | Norm: Thirsty guy walks into a bar. You
    | finish it.
     
    Jeff Rife, Dec 3, 2005
    #6
  7. Curtin/Dobbs

    jayembee Guest

    Jeff Rife <> wrote:

    > jayembee () wrote:
    >> "Curtin/Dobbs" <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Went to see HP4 last weekend and it seemed to be
    >>> anomorphic widescreen (2.35-to-1).

    >>
    >> Not anamorphic. Super-35.

    >
    > I'm pretty sure it *was* anamorphic by the time he saw it,
    > as Super35 isn't used for prints. You don't get the
    > anamorphic filming artifacts (oval lens flare, etc.), but
    > there are things which can clue you in to the
    > fact that a funky lens is involved in the projection.


    All true, but I thought it was worth being pedantic.

    -- jayembee
     
    jayembee, Dec 4, 2005
    #7
  8. Curtin/Dobbs

    Jeff Rife Guest

    jayembee () wrote in alt.video.dvd:
    > >> Not anamorphic. Super-35.

    > >
    > > I'm pretty sure it *was* anamorphic by the time he saw it,
    > > as Super35 isn't used for prints. You don't get the
    > > anamorphic filming artifacts (oval lens flare, etc.), but
    > > there are things which can clue you in to the
    > > fact that a funky lens is involved in the projection.

    >
    > All true, but I thought it was worth being pedantic.


    I think you just aspired to pedantic, while I went overboard into full-on
    worship of it. :) I was bored...sue me.

    --
    Jeff Rife | "Only one human captain has ever survived battle
    | with a Minbari fleet...he is behind me...you are
    | in front of me. If you value your lives,
    | be somewhere else."
    | -- Ambassador Delenn, 2260
     
    Jeff Rife, Dec 4, 2005
    #8
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Senti

    Harry Potter

    Senti, Jan 1, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    513
    Don C
    Jan 1, 2004
  2. Film Shooter

    HARRY POTTER = HENRY POSNER

    Film Shooter, Aug 22, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    20
    Views:
    837
    Roger Halstead
    Aug 25, 2003
  3. The Green Troll

    Re: Harry Potter $12.95 at Borders

    The Green Troll, Jun 29, 2003, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    841
    The Green Troll
    Jun 29, 2003
  4. Martin O'Brien
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    1,184
    Martin O'Brien
    Oct 26, 2003
  5. MarkZimmerman
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    697
    Derek Janssen
    Jul 27, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page