MovieChat Forums > Topaz (1969) Discussion > Topaz DVD massacre : R1 vs. R2

Topaz DVD massacre : R1 vs. R2

posted 15 years ago by es1703
5 replies | jump to latest

The US DVD is a massacre of epic proportion. I am European and was also sorry to only have the pan and scan version available on our continent. So as my player could play R1 DVDs I bought the widescreen US version and found out someting close to heresy for film buff.

The 1:85 version is not a real widescreen version of Topaz but a zoomed-in version of the 1:33 one!

So not only you do not gain anything on the sides but you lose A BIT on the sides and A LOT on the top and the bottom.

Bottom line : you have much more picture in the pan and scan version. This R1 is a fraud and, alas, a lot of people think they have a better version of Topaz in America. They have been duped.

[–] heaver2000 15 years ago

You are incorrect, and your misconception is common.
The R2 is open-matte, not pan & scan, and therefore shows MORE of the frame than Hitch intended. The R1 simply mattes the top & bottom of the screen & so displays the film as it would have appeared in the cinema.
Most non-anamorphic widescreen films were shot open-matte for later sale to TV (which was all 4:3 in those days, remember). In many cases, showing a widescreen film open-matte ruins the composition of the frame, adding acres of spaces above actors' heads and turning close-ups into medium shots. It can also wreck the editing of action sequences.

http://www.celtoslavica.de/chiaroscuro/vergleiche/topaz.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_matte

[–] J-26 14 years ago

I watched the UK version of Topaz last night and guessed this was the case. I suppose I could have zoomed in to get the right ratio, but in all honesty life's too short. The important thing is that with an open-matte version you don't get silly cuts to reframe the screen when someone else speaks and you don't get the onboard ship effect of endless panning.

It was of cousre the practice to rely on cinemas to use the correct aperture plate for 'widescreen' films for many years - there are famous cases of microphones in view or shots of crew members lying on the floor otherwise! In fact I believe cinemas were often a bit naughty the other way - once widescreen was seen as the attractive option, films that were meant to be 4:3 were sometimes projected with the widescreen plate, making heroes into hairless, chinless wonders!

[–] Kari Hakkinen 14 years ago

Open-matte does not necessary show more information but disinformation distracting poor viewer: Human and table legs and wide open skies that were not to be shown and pay attention.

[–] Rvrgm 13 years ago

This is actually an interesting question - I noticed in the deleted alternate dual ending, the characters both almost disappear at the extreme right and left of the screen...

[–] DavidW1947 11 years ago

I ran "Topaz" in 1970, during my time as a cinema projectionist. In no way was it a CinemaScope film, but non-anamorphic open-matte and we presented it cropped to 1.66:1