Cookies on DVDActive
DVDActive uses cookies to remember your actions, such as your answer in the poll. Cookies are also used by third-parties for statistics, social media and advertising. By using this website, it is assumed that you agree to this.
 
Leaderboard Extra
Widescreen or Fullscreen?

Forums - Discs & Movies - Widescreen or Fullscreen? 

Reply 

Message Enter the message here then press submit. The username, password and message are required. Please make the message constructive, you are fully responsible for the legality of anything you contribute. Terms & conditions apply.
Not Registered?
Forgotten Details?
Additional Options These options are not required but may be useful.
Existing Posts
I think most theaters have 1.37 aperture plates since they will occassionally show classic films.  I don't think it is a must that it would have been matted for theatrical release.  It may have been, but just because it was shown that way doesn't actually mean that it was intended to be seen that way.  I have no way of knowing how it was show in 1982 as I would have only been 9 and seeing as my home town only had 3 screens, I doubt this would have been playing anywhere.

Also, the Book of the Dead framing was done recently to matte it down to 1.85 to 1.  I couldn't find any reviews mentioning this, but I am sure that I read before it was released that Bruce Campbell matted each frame individually for the release.  To me, this indicates that it was never meant to actually be matted.  Absent Sam Raimi's comments from 1982, we may never know.  

There is a lot of discussion also whether Kubrick meant his films to be presented in 1.37 to 1 or not.  

Nothing wrong with a healthy disagreement.  It's more entertaining than most posts.
Adrian wrote: Evil Dead was shot in 1981 on 16 millimeter film for an intended ration of 1.37 to 1, according to imdb.
Not to be an ass, but I think we both know how ultimately reliable IMDB is...and I do still stand by the fact that theatrically it *would* have been shown in the 1.85 ratio...


Quote: According to other reviews of the Elite DVD:  Quote: Elite have decided to stick with a 1.33:1 aspect ratio transfer which is the correct aspect ratio of the film. The new Anchor Bay region 2 release features a 1.85:1 Widescreen transfer but we'd prefer to see the film how the director intended.
I've seen a couple of these reviews, and they usually don't give a source for it being the 'correct' aspect ratio. Now, yeah, yeah, who does?
But I'm almost positive here that it's an issue of 'more picture' without clear framing issues in matting (as in, say, Pee-Wee's Big Adventure)

Quote: Also, just because it is "director approved" doesn't mean it is what was originally intended.  After all, how many of us believe Star Wars SE is what Lucas really intended?
A valid point--though at the VERY least, Evil Dead probably *would* have been shown in its matted form at its original release--unlike the monstrosity of the re-re-edited Star Wars.

Some seem to believe that Sam did in fact change his mind later, someone claims the Evil Dead Companion says it was only shown in 1.37:1 ONCE anyway (and that most theatres matted it) and so on.  Which I could almost swear I recall reading or hearing that Sam knew at the time (and obviously the movie is too well-photographed for them to have been ignorant of something like standard ratios in theatres) and so filmed it full frame for simplicity's sake or something of that nature, with a later intention to matte.

That said, until Sam states it specific, I don't think you or I can claim with certainty what the INTENDED OAR was. The filming OAR certainly...and obviously I won't disagree that that was a full 1.37:1.

Um, anyway, this is probably pointless anyway.
Cheers.
Evil Dead was shot in 1981 on 16 millimeter film for an intended ration of 1.37 to 1, according to imdb.

According to other reviews of the Elite DVD:  Quote: Elite have decided to stick with a 1.33:1 aspect ratio transfer which is the correct aspect ratio of the film. The new Anchor Bay region 2 release features a 1.85:1 Widescreen transfer but we'd prefer to see the film how the director intended.

Also, just because it is "director approved" doesn't mean it is what was originally intended.  After all, how many of us believe Star Wars SE is what Lucas really intended?
Adrian wrote: I'm all for "fullscreen" as long as that was the way it is supposed to be seen.  I'm not too fond of reformatting, though it rarely occurs from fullscreen to widescreen, but Evil Dead was reformatted that way.

Evil Dead was NOT reformatted.
It was matted EXACTLY like the original theatrical release (which was the group's only intended market when they started). This was a soft-matte release. Is picture lost?
Yes.
Was it intended to be seen?
No.
Did you miss the "approved by Sam Raimi" bit?
You could always stop reading it. . . .
Can we kill this thread already? Its redundancy is giving me a headache every time it pops back to the top of the forum listing.
Adrian wrote: Chris wrote: Unless of course the original aspect ratio was 1.37:1...

I've been trying to make that point, but it seems to go over most heads.  I think I am the only one that buys DVDs of movies made pre-1953.

So, not true.
A list of the films pre-1953 that I own:
Gone With The Wind
Citizen Kane
the original Titanic
A Night at The Opera
A Day at The Races
A Night in Casablanca
Room Service
At the Circus
Go West
The Big Store
The Day The Earth Stood Still
Casablanca

Yes, I know I'm a Marx Brother's freak.
thats not true...i own the original 1926 Metropolis
Chris wrote: Unless of course the original aspect ratio was 1.37:1...

I've been trying to make that point, but it seems to go over most heads.  I think I am the only one that buys DVDs of movies made pre-1953.
Unless of course the original aspect ratio was 1.37:1...
Don't use FOOLscreen, use Widescreen.
Too bad much of the public is uneducated regarding aspect ratios. The words "widescreen" and "fullscreen" wouldn't be necessary.
Chris wrote: Emilie de Ravin from Lost.Thanks. That was no where close than my guess.
Emilie de Ravin from Lost.
Hey Chris, I known it probably has been asked before but who is the lady in your sig?
Like most of his posts.
This seems like a post that was started just to make your post count go up.  Pointless and obvious.
Bob "the film man" wrote: Worst Nightmare wrote: how about "The original aspect ratio that the title was originally filmed in"
No  debates.


Sounds like a winning idea to me.


It's a mostly winning idea, unless you talk to Kubrick people where there is some debate as to what aspect ratio he really intended movies in.
Worst Nightmare wrote: how about "The original aspect ratio that the title was originally filmed in"
No  debates.


Sounds like a winning idea to me.
how about "The original aspect ratio that the title was originally filmed in"
No  debates.
Bob "the film man" wrote: Widescreen. It preserves the director's original vision.

I know everyone thinks modern movies and that widescreen always preserves the director's original vision, but this is not always the case.  All movies pre-1953 were "full screen" and some movies, such as Evil Dead were shot in 4x3 "full screen" as well.  So the widescreen version of the Evil Dead actually destroys the original vision.  (However, it was done frame by frame by Bruce Campbell.)
BoBoi wrote: Widescreen obviously. However, there are some movies that you can see more picture in Full Screen, but only the minorities number of film that is. I think in Harry Potter 1 you can see more in Full Screen........

It's called open matted (as opposed to pan and scanned).  Some directors, most noteably James Cameron, shot with open matte in mind, so that when they were released on VHS, they would look better than P&S films.  However, not everyone pays attention and most likely if you get an open matte film, it will contain stuff that you were never meant to see.  This is most obvious in the open matter fullscreen version of A Fish Called Wanda.
Widescreen obviously. However, there are some movies that you can see more picture in Full Screen, but only the minorities number of film that is. I think in Harry Potter 1 you can see more in Full Screen........
Widescreen. It preserves the director's original vision.
It's kinda like what you said Jonny. Some people just don't deserve to watch movies.
lolol...oh man!

I just got home and this thread put me on the floor with laughter. Thanks Fernando Wink
I'm all for "fullscreen" as long as that was the way it is supposed to be seen.  I'm not too fond of reformatting, though it rarely occurs from fullscreen to widescreen, but Evil Dead was reformatted that way.
I'm still laughing.
To original poster...
You are joking right?
as you can see from my sig, Widescreen.
I only watch full screen if it was made in 4:3 or 1.33:1 or if it's on TV or cable,
otherwise, Widescreen and only Widescreen.
Did I miss this?

Anyway, widescreen is way better. Chris wrote articles about it too.
He means that surely you're taking the p**s. 'Fullscreen' is a complete misnomer anyway.
what do you mean?
Are you for real?
Widescreen or Fullscreen?
What do you pick?