is the dvd going to be widescreen??
is the dvd going to be widescreen??
shareabsolutely
share[deleted]
I'm watching it right now and it's more like 2.00:1 as opposed to a "true" 2.35:1. The bars are very thin on the top and bottom.
share
MovieChat Forums > Sliver (1993) Discussion > is the dvd going to be widescreen??
No it won't. And that is becuase it was not shot in widescreen.
1.85:1 is not really widescreen. The bars at the top and bottom of the screen will only be a 1/2-1 inch wide.
On some sets, a 16:9 for example, you won't even see black bars.
[deleted]
1.85: 1? It says right here in the technical section that the movie was shot in Panavision 2.35: 1.
share[deleted]
Why?
share[deleted]
Just because IMDB says it was shot in 2.35:1 doesn't make it true. Maybe it was really shot in 2:1. I can confirm the DVD is framed at roughly 2:1. It's actually 2.051 to 2.058, based on random screen captures. Nothing seems cut off. At most, you're losing 13%, but I doubt it.
The disc is dual layer, anamorphic (16x9), with Dolby 5.1 and 2.0 sound. There is also a French dub. But no extras of any kind - unless you count chapters, menus, and subtitles. They should have at least provided the trailer, original (un-used) ending, and deleted scenes.
Another bare-bones disc, just what we've come to expect from Paramount.
The DVD is framed at 2.10:1, which was Noyce's intended ratio reportedly.
shareActually, it's 2.051 to 2.058, as I reported based on several screen captures. Where did you hear about Phillip Noyce's intended ratio, BTW? Thanks
share"Where did you hear about Phillip Noyce's intended ratio, BTW? Thanks"
www.dvdcompare.net
I checked DVD Compare, but they must have updated it since then. Actually, the aspect ratio is 2.051 to 2.058, not 2.10:1. So, it's off by 2.00-2.33%. Most of the DVDs I've seen are off by several percent from the official aspect ratio.
shareBTW, most DVDs don't use the aspect ratio listed on IMDB or the box. I've seen a lot of Fox DVDs that claim 2.35:1, but are really 2.30:1, 2.25:1 - or less. Most TVs cut off 5% from the sides, 19% of the image. Usually film-makers aren't dumb enough to put important details at the edges where they might get cut. They allow some slack on all four sides.
DVDs are often framed incorrectly. Note the different versions of Reservoir Dogs. The Spec Ed has framing errors. Many have complained about this, but the studios are slow to fix problems. Compare any two DVD versions of a movie, and they will probably have slightly different framing and aspect ratios. Usually they're close enough to be acceptable, but sometimes not.
I think a lot of studios are incompetent and careless with making DVD transfers. They haven't perfected the art, but they're improving.
[deleted]
How did you determine the ratio in the theater? Panavision doesn't always mean 2.35:1. Movies are often shot in Super 35 and matted to wide screen. Maybe the director just decided to open the matte some for DVD. Who knows...
share[deleted]
[deleted]
Your eyes aren't that exact. If you took a photo and measured it, I might believe it. I took screen caps of Sliver and auto-cropped them to remove black. That gave a ratio of 2.051-2.058. Based on eyes, it could have been 1.90 to 2.20. I knew it was less than 2.35, because I've seen other DVDs and I have a frame of reference. Likewise, I knew it was more than 1.85.
TRON was shot in 2.20:1. APOCALYPSE NOW was shot in 2.00:1. BEN-HUR was shot in 2.76:1. HOW TO MARRY A MILLIONAIRE was shot in 2.55:1. According to IMDB. There are literally dozens of aspect ratios that can be used for movies.
[deleted]
TRON and APOCALYPSE NOW aren't from the '50s. There are many ratios being used. I've seen 1.66 (L'appartement), 1.75 (Avalon), 1.78, 1.85, 2.0 (Spirited Away), 2.10, 2.20, 2.35, 2.40 (Fight Club), etc. What difference does it make if a ratio is rarely used? Odd ratios have been used in countries around the world. Not just Europe.
See IMDB's listing of films shot in 1.66:1.
http://www.imdb.com/SearchRatios?1.66%20:%201
IMDB's data is often wrong, and they don't bother to correct it. Consider the source. IMDB's information is posted by users and rarely verified for accuracy. Just read the quotes for any other movie. They're full of inaccuracies. Amazon lists SLIVER as 1.85:1. Maybe your recollection is wrong. I can't remember if a movie I saw 13 YEARS AGO was 1.85 or 2.35. Why can you?
Most DVDs aren't the ratio they say on the box. Studios are sloppy. A 2.35 movie usually ends up more like 2.20-2.30 on DVD. Most TVs will cut off 5-10% from the edges. Suddenly your 1.85 movie becomes 1.66-1.76 and your 2.35 movie turns into 2.12-2.23 (or less). The framing is never that exact.
[deleted]
Most TVs will cut off 5-10% from the edges.BTW that is called "over-scan".
APOCALYPSE NOW was shot in 2.00:1.No, it wasn't, the OAR is 2.35:1. It was reframed to 2.00:1 by Storaro the cinematographer for all home entertainment formats (VHS, laserdisc, DVD).
See the following explanation. Of course it's a load of rubbish since Storaro is an old man stuck in the past and is still thinking about 4:3 TVs; 16:9 is the native resolution of HDTV and widescreen TVs are becoming more and more commonplace by the day.
Question: Why is the aspect ratio of the Apocalypse Now Redux DVD not the 2.35:1 ratio of the cinematic release?
Answer:
(by Kim Aubry, Producer of Apocalypse Now Redux)
In fact, the transfer of Apocalypse Now Redux (from film elements to High Definition digital videotape) was made with an aspect ratio of 2.0:1. This is consistent with the 1998 transfer of the original film Apocalypse Now done for DVD.
The aspect ratio 2.0:1 was chosen by the cinematographer, Vittorio Storaro, who supervised every aspect of this film transfer. Storaro believes that for the purpose of TV transfer, it is better to crop (slightly) the extreme left/right edges of the originally photographed frame and allow for a taller picture on both conventional and 16:9 TV monitors, because the video presentation will have more vertical resolution and detail and will be more impactful.
An orthodox 2.35:1 or 2.4:1 transfer would in some ways be a more accurate reflection of the framing seen in most cinemas, but the picture would be using only approximately 50% of the available scanning lines of the NTSC and PAL systems and hence have very limited vertical resolution. Storaro believes that since he himself composed these shots when the film was made and since he carefully made fine adjustments to the framing as needed in the transfer, the 2.0:1 transfer is the best possible compromise in adapting the very wide film picture to the very "square" TV.
Mr Coppola and I agree with Storaro's views and accepted his decision.
You are right to wonder about the discrepancy between the theatrical trailer and the feature itself. But the feature is not 1.85:1, it is 2.0:1. The transfer of the trailer was not supervised by Storaro, and was done using the conventional theatrical aspect of 2.35:1. It doesn't bother us, as this is considered a DVD "extra."
Source= http://www.zoetrope.com/zoe_films.cgi?page=films&action=show_one&film_id=13 share