MovieChat Forums > Trees Lounge (1996) Discussion > Aspect Ratio

Aspect Ratio

posted 17 years ago by trawlerman
6 replies | jump to latest

I used to own this on DVD not too long after it came out and I had the version with the commentary and hayden music video and all that. I sold it to make a quick buck several years ago.

This morning, I found a copy used for $5, so I picked it up to watch it again without looking too closely at the packaging.

Once I got home, I discovered that I had stupidly purchased the "full screen" version. I suck.

SO my question is, what format was this film originally shot in?

IMDB says 1:85:1

The case to the version I bought says "Formatted from its original version to fit your screen" BUT, it also says "PRESENTED IN THE ORIGINAL 1:33:1 FORMAT IN WHICH THE FILM WAS SHOT."

Does anyone know if this is true? Was the film shot in 1:33:1 or 1:85:1?

Thanks.

[–] zekethedemoncat 17 years ago

The trailer looks like it's 1:85. On Amazon, it's available in both formats. Also, it's Steve Buscemi, and I don't think he'd film in 1:33. I just rented it from Netflix, and they only have the 1:33.

[–] rangex 16 years ago

It might be that the entire negative was exposed during filming (1.33) but the images were framed for theatrical widescreen (1.85). That would explain why the DVD says both "Formatted from its original version to fit your screen" and "PRESENTED IN THE ORIGINAL 1:33:1 FORMAT IN WHICH THE FILM WAS SHOT". Basically, with the full screen version, you're seeing more than was intended, but you're not losing any of the frame

[–] Flexicon 12 years ago

right, you're not losing anything in this case with the original 1.33:1 because it was shot that way. Re-framing it with mattes does not help since it's actually cropping the image in this case and it's not anamorphic anyway. This film is native 1.33:1 and is actually better presented this way because you see the entire frame the way it was originally intended in 1.33:1 vs. 1.85:1 or 1.78:1. This film was shot for Showtime before they pushed for anamorphic widescreen content. Many of HBO and Showtime's original films were specifically shot in 1.33:1 back in the '80s/'90s and if they weren't "protected" for both aspect ratio's you're stuck with 1.33:1 shaped like a square. An example of a film that was made for HBO and protected for both ratios is "Gia" starring Angelina Jolie. They aired it in 1.33:1 originally and even put the first DVD of the film out in 1.33:1. However many years later with the advent of Blu-ray, they went back to the original negative and struck a widescreen 1.78:1 aspect ratio version in anamorphic for HD. I have the Blu-ray and it looks stunning. My sister has the old DVD and the difference is jaw-dropping.

Here's how they describe the process for Gia (1998):
"Note: The framing on the Blu-ray is 1.78:1, whereas the framing on the previous DVD and HBO's initial broadcast was 1.33:1. Comparison between DVD and Blu-ray indicates that the latter contains significantly more image information at the left and right, and slightly less at the top and bottom. It appears that the film is one of those troublesome hybrids that was composed and "protected" for both aspect ratios, either of which could be considered "correct". Having looked at both, I would say that 1.78:1 seems better balanced and more effectively situates the characters in their scenes. On all other points, the Blu-ray's visual superiority is beyond question."

Based on all the information available regarding Trees Lounge, I'd stick with the 1.33:1 full frame version. That's the way it was shot and there's more information in the frame.

[–] Sandoz 12 years ago

I'd actually rather have the original Pioneer release since that has Buscemi's commentary and the Artisan doesn't. I know a lot of people don't seem to care any more about extra features like that on DVDs, but to me, those kind of goodies are what makes them truly collectible because those sort of bells and whistles are being left by the wayside with the advent of streaming viewing.

This is very hard to see, isn't it?

[–] LTUM 12 years ago

know a lot of people don't seem to care any more about extra features like that on DVDs, but to me, those kind of goodies are what makes them truly collectible because those sort of bells and whistles are being left by the wayside with the advent of streaming viewing.

well said my friend, i feel the same way.

i think it's a tragedy that the 'culture' of movie fandom seems to be slipping away in general, across the board. maybe changes in younger people is what's driving this, i dunno. but it's not just other people, it's other categories too. people seem to, what, busy to care anymore? i can't figure it out. films have always been appreciated in a certain way, they were an event, truly enjoyable. that was in the 50 years prior to home video. then in the VHS era everyone collected tapes.

but then came dvd's and the extras were so cool. the culture of film buffs really lept up with these new advantages.

but now so many folks seem to not care. i don't get that. the streaming titles are easy, yes, but i agree the real film fan will appreciate the collectible qualities DVDs and BLURAY offer. i for one hope that DVDs will always be available to purchase.

(and i also hope that the film fan culture comes back)

-------------
"You are literally too stupid to insult."

"Thank you."

[–] tr47 12 years ago

Netflix now has it on streaming, and it's 1.85:1. It never loooked cropped or like it was missing anything important. Although it's HD the quality isn't the greatest, but considering the DVDs are old it's most likely considerably better.