|
It is currently 26 Apr 2024, 20:23
|
View unsolved topics | View unanswered posts
|
|
|
|
Author |
Message |
Guest
|
Post subject: full screen? wtf? Posted: 07 Feb 2012, 06:21 |
|
This site lists the criterion version of jason and the argonauts.as being 1.33:1 aspect ratio. Can anyone clear this up for me? I thought criterion was the holy grail of laserdisc film. Must be a mistake
|
|
|
|
|
Guest
|
Post subject: Re: full screen? wtf? Posted: 07 Feb 2012, 14:29 |
|
IMDb lists the aspect ratio as 1.85:1. They need to step their game up
|
|
|
|
|
elahrairrah
|
Post subject: Re: full screen? wtf? Posted: 07 Feb 2012, 17:12 |
Young Padawan |
|
|
Joined: 30 Aug 2005, 15:38 Posts: 3419 Location: New Jersey Has thanked: 79 times Been thanked: 143 times
|
Criterion didn't always go for widescreen. They sometimes opted for open matte presentations. Like the Special Edition of Carrie
|
|
|
|
|
Guest
|
Post subject: Re: full screen? wtf? Posted: 07 Feb 2012, 22:03 |
|
He hasn't done too many commentaries, this was more candid than others and the dvd version does not have a commentary. I was pleasantly surprised how good the transfer was on ld
|
|
|
|
|
chente
|
Post subject: Re: full screen? wtf? Posted: 07 Feb 2012, 22:39 |
True fan |
|
|
Joined: 07 Jan 2005, 00:46 Posts: 334 Location: San Diego, CA United States Has thanked: 2 times Been thanked: 2 times
|
elahrairrah wrote: Criterion didn't always go for widescreen. They sometimes opted for open matte presentations. Like the Special Edition of CarrieWhich sure made the girl's locker room scene more interesting.
|
|
|
|
|
lizardkingjr
|
Post subject: Re: full screen? wtf? Posted: 12 Feb 2012, 15:38 |
True fan |
|
|
Joined: 02 Jan 2010, 02:04 Posts: 300 Location: United States Has thanked: 0 time Been thanked: 1 time
|
chente wrote: elahrairrah wrote: Criterion didn't always go for widescreen. They sometimes opted for open matte presentations. Like the Special Edition of CarrieWhich sure made the girl's locker room scene more interesting. I was just about to post something similar to what you did. TLK
_________________ Samsung UN43MU6300 43" 2160p LED HDTV; Pioneer Elite LD-S2; Pioneer RFD-1; Onkyo TX-NR818
|
|
|
|
|
Guest
|
Post subject: Re: full screen? wtf? Posted: 14 Feb 2012, 05:46 |
|
yazorin wrote: personally i have no preference for widescreen or 4:3 as long as im watching the original aspect ratio and not loosing any picture I agree. I honestly forgot there were movies still being made past the 40's where the aspect ratio was 4:3. I thought they all caught on by then by the way, I'd like to see a movie with 1:2.35, just to see if it's possible. It'd be like seeing everything through a keyhole.
|
|
|
|
|
elahrairrah
|
Post subject: Re: full screen? wtf? Posted: 14 Feb 2012, 15:16 |
Young Padawan |
|
|
Joined: 30 Aug 2005, 15:38 Posts: 3419 Location: New Jersey Has thanked: 79 times Been thanked: 143 times
|
gbpxl wrote: I agree. I honestly forgot there were movies still being made past the 40's where the aspect ratio was 4:3. I thought they all caught on by then
by the way, I'd like to see a movie with 1:2.35, just to see if it's possible. It'd be like seeing everything through a keyhole. I guess someone would have to shoot a movie holding the camera sideways. Then the projector would have to be held sideways when projecting that!
|
|
|
|
|
nissling
|
Post subject: Re: full screen? wtf? Posted: 26 Feb 2012, 16:53 |
Absolute fan |
|
|
Joined: 24 Jun 2010, 10:23 Posts: 1645 Location: Sweden Has thanked: 11 times Been thanked: 80 times
|
elahrairrah wrote: Criterion didn't always go for widescreen. They sometimes opted for open matte presentations. Another example of that would be Paths of Glory.
|
|
|
|
|
mlcsmith
|
Post subject: Re: full screen? wtf? Posted: 26 Feb 2012, 21:04 |
Honest fan |
|
|
Joined: 20 Apr 2009, 06:53 Posts: 118 Location: Australia Has thanked: 0 time Been thanked: 1 time
|
elahrairrah wrote: gbpxl wrote: I agree. I honestly forgot there were movies still being made past the 40's where the aspect ratio was 4:3. I thought they all caught on by then
by the way, I'd like to see a movie with 1:2.35, just to see if it's possible. It'd be like seeing everything through a keyhole. I guess someone would have to shoot a movie holding the camera sideways. Then the projector would have to be held sideways when projecting that! When TV technology was being developed there was a direction explored for the image to be portrait instead of landscape. The argument being that the human form fits a portrait frame. They weren't really considering what our natural optical field of view is.
|
|
|
|
|
Guest
|
Post subject: Re: full screen? wtf? Posted: 17 Jul 2013, 21:50 |
|
philburque46 wrote: If it's how Harryhausen filmed it and wanted it to be seen, then I'm fine with it being Academy Ratio. I think this is an important point... the aspect should only be what the filmmakers intended originally.
|
|
|
|
|
Guest
|
Post subject: Re: full screen? wtf? Posted: 08 May 2014, 17:14 |
|
Guest wrote: yazorin wrote: personally i have no preference for widescreen or 4:3 as long as im watching the original aspect ratio and not loosing any picture I agree. I honestly forgot there were movies still being made past the 40's where the aspect ratio was 4:3. I thought they all caught on by then by the way, I'd like to see a movie with 1:2.35, just to see if it's possible. It'd be like seeing everything through a keyhole. Past the '50s you mean. But 1963 is very late. So are the sides cropped off to make it 4:3? Or were the top and bottom cut off the 4:3 to make it widescreen?
|
|
|
|
|
hauntmedoitagain
|
Post subject: Re: full screen? wtf? Posted: 08 May 2014, 22:00 |
Serious fan |
|
|
Joined: 14 Oct 2012, 13:21 Posts: 200 Location: United States Has thanked: 0 time Been thanked: 2 times
|
spiny-norman wrote: So are the sides cropped off to make it 4:3? Or were the top and bottom cut off the 4:3 to make it widescreen? The latter.
_________________ Blu-ray Collection | LaserDisc Collection
|
|
|
|
|
Guest
|
Post subject: Re: full screen? wtf? Posted: 10 May 2014, 01:34 |
|
hauntmedoitagain wrote: spiny-norman wrote: So are the sides cropped off to make it 4:3? Or were the top and bottom cut off the 4:3 to make it widescreen? The latter. In that case presenting it 4:3 really restores what was missing. But beware, some films were recorded widescreen that way too, that may look 4:3 if you see the film strip, but the top and bottom were always meant to be cut, either when the film prints were struck for distribution, or even in the film projector. Shadows and microphones may appear there, because that part was simply accidentally recorded. (And that's because film wasn't really geared for widescreen - in fact a film frame was twice as high as necessary for the wider screened films, huge impractical waste due to legacy systems that were in use for what, 80 years?)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
|