MovieChat Forums > The Prowler (1981) Discussion > Widescreen DVD release

Widescreen DVD release

posted 19 years ago by adriangr
23 replies | jump to latest

I'm not happy - I think Blue Underground have made a "fake" widescreen version by matting the top and bottom of the picture. If you watch the old video, the knife through the head and shower murders all show more of what is happening at the top and bottom of the screen, but the DVD version cuts the picture off - you can hardly see the knife emerging from the guy's chin anymore in it. Same goes for the swimming pool murder, this time the victim's head is cropped off at the top of the DVD version, which spoils the effects again.

If the picture was always intended to be matted for widescreen showing (as is often the case) then the cinematographer was badly advised, or else he might have made an effort to keep Savini's special effects more generously in the middle of the frame.

Why do they do this?? Or am I wrong?

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] adriangr 18 years ago

Trust me, I really did run them side by side, and there was more to see in the video.

Still, I can't argue that the widescreen version is wrong. And I know now that many films were shot this way ("open matte" - is that the right term?).

I'd just prefer to see it as it was because the extra information in the old video version at top and bottom of the screen showed off the amazing special effects far better.

[–] docross 18 years ago

Yep, open matte is the correct term. Not sure about the correct aspect ratio though. I do know that Blue Underground has quite a good reputation for how it handles its titles, so I'd be surprised if they artificially cropped the picture.

[–] filmfreakguy 18 years ago

This situation is the case in other movies too. All because cinemas are widescreen, etc... If there is enough of a case FOR the open matte version, I suggest contacting Blue Underground and let them know all about it, and you may see a re-release sometime with both versions of the film!

As a note:- the old U.S. DVD of 'Return Of The Living Dead' by MGM has widescreen on one side, open matte on the other. Personally, I would welcome this treatment with other films in the same situation, such as 'The Prowler'.

[–] startide77 17 years ago

lol

I'm with you mate. I can't chuck out my old VHS versions of Rosemary's Killer or Friday the 13th because the open matte vision of the videos shows more architecture than the widescreen versions, seriously! That beautiful house in the modern day sequences of RK and the street vision side tracking shot when one of the girls arrives in town in F13 early on in the film, I noticed all this was chopped off watching them on DVD.

AARGH!!!!!!

[–] movieman-232 17 years ago

Friday the 13th destroyed by widescreen? Yeah, right. When I got it on DVD in widescreen I saw that there was so much more to the picture than in the full frame version. Like the date at the beginning, it's part way off the screen in full frame.

[–] startide77 17 years ago

Then you have a screwed video. My F13 video has no such date problems. There is more picture horizontally on DVD, yes, but vertically it is missing a lot of information. So much less I actually noticed.

[–] stamklum 16 years ago

So is there a fullscreen version of this film on DVD to buy instead of the widescreen version? The fullscreen DVD would probably contain all there is to see.

[–] SCanfield20 16 years ago

No, what you're seeing on the video is stuff the director never intended to be seen, it's a result of the video's pan and scan, they had to pan the image for the video down in order to capture the main action of the film.

Blue Underground restored the film print and presented it in Anamorphic Widescreen the way Joseph Zito intended it to be seen. That pan and scan video you saw had stuff that was added because of the terrible method used to achieve pan and scan in the first place.

If you want to watch what the director intended to be seen, what was shown in proper theatrical release with an anamorphic lens, then watch the Blue Underground version. Most of the time BU gets the director to supervise and approve of the release. Not because they have to, but because they are huge horror cinephiles and they actually care about putting out the correct print.

[–] startide77 16 years ago

"Correct" or not, I still prefer "full screen" versions. Unless they were filmed anamorphically (Halloween being the greatest example), you ultimately end up with less picture, not more eg, R. Killer, F13, Prom Night (see my sig), probably a great many other films as well. I like old houses, so sue me!

You can rest your mind at last, you've resolved the horrors past...

[–] lartrak 16 years ago

Just an FYI, in a number of movies this causes mistakes to appear. Things like boom mics, wires, etc. You're really damaging the composition of the film when you watch it in open matte. Of course, with some films it makes far more of a difference than in others.

[–] Hands_of_Fate 16 years ago

So you like revealing mistakes, and rejecting the director's original intentions? What you're really saying is you prefer the improper viewing of the film. You might want to research the differences between widescreen and pan & scan. The issue shouldn't be whether you think you're seeing all the relevant visuals. Its whether or not the director intended you to see them. Full screen crops out the sides of the original aspect ratio of the film's theatrical release. At times it can cut out up to 45% of the original image.

"Because of death. Because all you of Earth are idiots!"

[–] startide77 16 years ago

But we're not talking about the difference between widescreen and pan and scan. We're talking the difference between full frame video and matted widescreen, which is a completely different thing.

Intended aspect ratio aside, when you watch a matted film on DVD - having been schooled in the glories of VHS - you are seeing less picture.

You can rest your mind at last, you've resolved the horrors past...

[–] Hands_of_Fate 16 years ago

This is from Widescreen.org-

"Although those "black bars" might seem as though you are losing information, the truth of the matter is that the widescreen process actually allows you to see more of the frame - not less. Yes, you have a smaller visual portion, but you are seeing the movie the way that you saw it in theatres, which is almost always the way that film makers want the movie to be seen."

Pan & Scan and "Full screen/frame" (AKA Not the Original Aspect Ratio) are the same thing. The term "Full Screen" is completely misleading. You might be filling your screen, but you aren't seeing the proper image. I'm just trying to be helpful. The additional elements of the image were never meant to be seen. I think your confusing "All that can be seen" with, what the director wanted you to see. Theres a reason that VHS is dead technology. Full frame presentation is one of those reasons. It amazes me that there are still people who don't wish to see the Original Aspect Ratio. Its just common sense.

"Because of death. Because all you of Earth are idiots!"

[–] startide77 16 years ago

There is most certainly a difference between full frame and pan and scan.

Most horror films of this era were intended to be shown at 1.85:1 or thereabouts, when released on video they lost the matts and were full frame. I've noticed this on Prom Night, Friday the 13th and The Prowler, just off the top of my head, so yes, when seen on video, you really did see MORE picture.

If we were talking Halloween, The Fog, most newly released horror (IKWYDLS for example), in fact most of the horror I've seen in the last 10 years, which are filmed 2.35:1 or thereabouts, they are shown on video using the pan and scan method, but those films were never what I was talking about, nor will you get any argument from me on panning and scanning those films. Seeing Halloween in widescreen for example, was a completely different experience, as you really did see more picture!

When I bought all these horrors on DVD, I noticed immediately that I saw less architecture, and I like American architecture, those small town settings are quite pretty, less of that house in The Prowler, less of the town in the opening sequences of F13, that's what I noticed. That is my only beef with these films in widescreen.

You can rest your mind at last, you've resolved the horrors past...

[–] Hands_of_Fate 16 years ago

Well the heart of the issue is, whether you want to admit it or not...That "Full frame" is simply an alternate way of saying Pan & Scan. I don't care if its 1:85.1 or not, your still losing dramatic effect that the director wanted you to experience.(ON THE SIDES OF THE SCREEN NOT ON THE TOP AND BOTTOM) Why do you think they shoot in a theatrical format at all? Its because 1:85.1 and 2:35.1 are the standard formats for directors to use. Both of these formats suffer under full frame technicians who crop out what they feel is non-important visual information. In other words they are re-directing the movie. They're moving the elements in the picture in a defensive way rather than an artistic way. The matts ARE PLACED THERE FOR A REASON. Why are you so intent on seeing images you weren't meant to see? If you like architecture so much maybe you should do your own film about it, and not praise technicians who destroy the films of others.

What I think you're not understanding is that when they take away the matted widescreen format... The ONLY reason they are doing it is because they felt it needed to conform to the shape of an analog TV rather than a theatrical widescreen. Theater screens are longer than they are tall. They are the shape of a rectangle. Older TV's are in the shape of a square. So they aren't changing the picture for your pleasure. They're changing it to insult your intelligence.(With images that don't serve the story telling whatsoever.) Get it yet?

P.S.-If your "glorious" VHS video says at the beginning "This film has been formatted to fit your screen" That means its a victim of Pan & Scan AKA Full Frame. So its esentially the same thing.

"Because of death. Because all you of Earth are idiots!"

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] james_oblivion 16 years ago

Open-matte and pan & scan are, in fact, two different things. Open matte presents MORE picture than widescreen, while pan & scan (which refers not to aspect ratio, but to artificial "camera movement" necessitated by cropping a film to 1.33:1) presents LESS picture than widescreen.

That said, unless a film was actually framed for the 1.33:1 ratio, both open-matte and pan & scan are incorrect ways to view said film. Most films that are shot in 1.33:1, with the intention of matting them out to a widescreen ratio for theatrical presentation, are framed according to the intended theatrical ratio (usually 1.85:1).

Therefore, a boom mic may creep into a scene when a film is viewed in open-matte, because the director framed it according to the theatrical ratio - not the ratio in which it was shot - and never intended for that portion of the frame to be seen. When viewing an open-matte transfer of a film that was framed for any aspect ratio other than 1.33:1, you are seeing more, but everything "extra" that you're getting was never meant to be seen.

So despite the fact that you're seeing more, rather than less, open-matte does, indeed, destroy the composition of a film every bit as much as pan & scan does. Because the director was composing the frame according to what would ultimately be seen in the matted theatrical presentation...not according to the open-matte image. There are notable exceptions, of course. Stanley Kubrick, for example, framed his shots so that both the 1.33:1 open-matte and the theatrical aspect ratio were acceptable to him.

Also, films made by novice filmmakers (who may not consider that their film will ultimately be altered for theatrical exhibition) may be shot in and framed for 1.33:1, but receive a different theatrical aspect ratio. In which case, viewing the film in 1.33:1 would be preferable, because that's what it was framed for. Evil Dead is a good example here. The film was clearly framed for 1.33:1, not 1.85:1, as important information is lost when the film is matted.

[–] Hands_of_Fate 16 years ago

Why are you replying to me? I never said they were the same thing. I said "full frame", and "full screen" presentations are the most common manifestation or code word for pan & scan...Which is true...The rest of your post just reinforces what I've already said. The other poster just seems to enjoy seeing the wrong aspect ratio.

"GARBAGE DAY!!!"-Eric Freeman

[–] james_oblivion 16 years ago

Oh, you're one of those "Only Click Reply On My Message If You're Talking Specifically To Me" people. I see. Sorry...didn't mean to set loose the nazi in you. My mistake.

It'd be nice if IMDb would come into the 21st Century and include a box where you can type a general comment that adds to the conversation, rather than having to reply to someone. But unfortunately, that isn't the case.

[–] comic_releif 16 years ago

Actually, I think your post was very helpful! I wasn't too sure about the open-matte technology, but I've always wanted to know. So thanks... from me, at least.

[–] raggeddruid 16 years ago

So? He's got a legitimate reason for wanting the full frame version, it's not out of ignorance. Quit trolling and leave him be.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]