No, I worded that poorly. The Final Cut and theatrical cuts of Blade Runner are correctly presented in 2.40:1, and The Final Cut has always been screened on British TV by the BBC in this aspect ratio, but the workprint version (as included in 30th Anniversary Collector's Edition blu-ray) is in the 2.20:1 aspect ratio.
Ta for the info. I've got the Final Cut on HD-DVD, but I take it it's the 5-disc version you're referring to? And is it cropped or opened-up?
Ta for the info. I've got the Final Cut on HD-DVD, but I take it it's the 5-disc version you're referring to? And is it cropped or opened-up?
It's on the 5 disc version, but there's a 3 disc digibook blu-ray release in the US, if you want all the disc contents but don't want to pay over the odds for it.
Not sure whether it's cropped or opened up, but 2.40:1 is the correct theatrical aspect ratio of all the finished versions, I think the unfinished nature of the workprint is why it's 2.20:1, rather than it ever being Scott's intention for the 2.20:1 version to be released...
BLADE RUNNER was shot with anamorphic Panavision lenses, and the 70mm print will have represented a slightly cropped version of the 'regular' 35mm scope version. Even if they didn't take 70mm into account during principal photography (the decision to greenlight larger-format prints may not have been taken until late in production), the slight cropping wouldn't have made too much difference to the overall compositions. Maybe a bit of pan-scanning on certain shots, but only a tiny bit.
BLADE RUNNER was shot with anamorphic Panavision lenses, and the 70mm print will have represented a slightly cropped version of the 'regular' 35mm scope version. Even if they didn't take 70mm into account during principal photography (the decision to greenlight larger-format prints may not have been taken until late in production), the slight cropping wouldn't have made too much difference to the overall compositions. Maybe a bit of pan-scanning on certain shots, but only a tiny bit.
I don't think the larger 2.20:1 aspect ratio was ever intended for use at anything other than test screenings of a workprint. IIRC the version on the blu-ray is taken from what is believed to be the only print in existence of the workprint.
Ridley Scott's preferred Final Cut, which is a cleaned up version of the workprint, with a few tweaks is at 2.40:1, so 2.40:1 is definitely the director's intended ratio...
I don't think the larger 2.20:1 aspect ratio was ever intended for use at anything other than test screenings of a workprint. IIRC the version on the blu-ray is taken from what is believed to be the only print in existence of the workprint.
Ridley Scott's preferred Final Cut, which is a cleaned up version of the workprint, with a few tweaks is at 2.40:1, so 2.40:1 is definitely the director's intended ratio...
I was a bit confused about your meaning until I re-read the various posts and realised only the workprint version is 2.20. You're right that 2.39 (or 2.40, if you prefer) is the definitive AR, but it's a bit of a mystery as to why 2.20 was chosen for the workprint (as reproduced on home video) since it was never screened that way in cinemas.
I still have a 4:3 tv. In fact there are probably more than we think. Alough most will have a widescreen in thier living room, many will have a 4:3 tv in bedrooms, kitchens etc. Does anyone have any statistics on how many this is?
Now if ultra wide movies are shown on 4:3 tv set to letterbox, this creates a double letterbox. Half the screen is black, only a centre strip is visible. If they watch in centre cut out, they get part of the picture cut off, but the intense letterbox is reduced to a standard letterbox as if they were watching a normal broadcast in letterbox mode. If a film is cropped to 16:9, and the digibox is set to centre cut out, this could also produce undesirable results on 4:3 tvs. The ultrawide film is now cropped to 4:3, just like it used to be in the olden days of vhs (unless they bought a letterboxed copy) alough it is a center cut out, not a pan and scan, which means important info could be lost in a film if a digibox is set to center cut out.
Im wondering, when the broadcasters crop a film wider than 16:9 to 16:9, do they simply cut off the sides like a center cut out or do they pan and scan the film?
In conclusion its a tough debate. If they show the film in its original format, viewers see a smaller image and they may not like the black bands. If they crop it, they see a larger, more detailed image but may lose important information. Viewers on small screens will probably prefer the cropped version, whereas viewers on large screens will probably prefer to see all of the picture.
I wonder in which way the channel gets more complaints - viewers complaining about black bars or viewers complaining that they are missing action at the sides.
A possible compromise could be to crop it to in between 16:9 and the original aspect ratio (eg 21:9).
Or maybe as many people watch 4:3 material stretched to 16:9, they wouldnt mind it the other way around, say 21:9 squeezed to 16:9.
Or they could squeeze it a bit and crop it a bit.
Another option which they could do is show the film in its original ratio on the hd channel for hi def tvs and crop/squeeze it for standard def tvs watching the sd channel.
The broadcasters should experiment and see which method works best (ie least complaints) and stick with that.
I just realized, this discussion has been going on for over 4 years:o:o:o:o:o
If you go back to the 1st page the date says july 2010:o:o:o
This whole aspect ratio thing is all about personal preferences. Some diehard movie fans will want to see the full picture, but I bet most will want the picture to fill the screen. Its the broadcasters job to try and please as many people as possible.
I still have a 4:3 tv and the letterboxing is bigger on old tvs. I have now accociated black bars with movies. The only time there are no black bars is if I watch a vhs cassette, but a couple I own still letterbox the picture.
You resurrected a 4-year-old thread about this matter the other day, and the thread was rightly closed. It was done with your first post. You are a troll. Good day, sir.
I just realized, this discussion has been going on for over 4 years:o:o:o:o:o
If you go back to the 1st page the date says july 2010:o:o:o
This whole aspect ratio thing is all about personal preferences. Some diehard movie fans will want to see the full picture, but I bet most will want the picture to fill the screen. Its the broadcasters job to try and please as many people as possible.
I still have a 4:3 tv and the letterboxing is bigger on old tvs. I have now accociated black bars with movies. The only time there are no black bars is if I watch a vhs cassette, but a couple I own still letterbox the picture.
I have a different solution, it's called "using the crop/zoom function on your TV". It consists of people that are unhappy with films being shown OAR using the crop/zoom function on their TV.
Don't make the rest of us suffer, just because you have low standards...
I just realized, this discussion has been going on for over 4 years:o:o:o:o:o
If you go back to the 1st page the date says july 2010:o:o:o
Scary ain't it, and because I asked about the possibilities of other channels showing films in their OAR, as I was watching Stargate in its OAR on Watch. Its surprisingly how many channels are now opting to show films in their OAR, compared to four years ago, and kudos to them for showing films as their meant to be seen. Although, ITV still let the side down, by not showing Bond films and the Star Wars films in their OAR. Boo!
While I'm on here, and I've probably said this before, More4 broadcast Flash Gordon in its OAR this morning, and pretty much uncut, with the exception of the word 'bitch' being cut. But hey-ho, its better than the heavily edited pan and scan version ITV used to show.
While I'm on here, and I've probably said this before, More4 broadcast Flash Gordon in its OAR this morning, and pretty much uncut, with the exception of the word 'bitch' being cut. But hey-ho, its better than the heavily edited pan and scan version ITV used to show.
Ah **** it. I tend to assume there is nothing on before the sun gets over the yardarm
You resurrected a 4-year-old thread about this matter the other day, and the thread was rightly closed. It was done with your first post. You are a troll. Good day, sir.
He has done this on a BBC News and a Channel 5 thread as well. I told him to buy a new TV as they are cheap these days. He could be a troll, or just very old, not that I'm young myself!
He has done this on a BBC News and a Channel 5 thread as well. I told him to buy a new TV as they are cheap these days. He could be a troll, or just very old, not that I'm young myself!
His profile says he's 17, not sure whether to believe that or not... can't imagine a 17 year old who's so backwards and doesn't have the latest technology.
His profile says he's 17, not sure whether to believe that or not... can't imagine a 17 year old who's so backwards and doesn't have the latest technology.
Especially as he has an iPad and a PC and claims TV as an interest.
He has done this on a BBC News and a Channel 5 thread as well. I told him to buy a new TV as they are cheap these days. He could be a troll, or just very old, not that I'm young myself!
Nice to see the full, original Chinese version of POLICE STORY III - SUPER COP getting its UK premiere on Film 4 last night, and in what appears to have been an HD print. For me, the film which cemented Jackie Chan as a force to be reckoned with. The moment he jumped onto THAT ladder (watch the movie, you'll know what I'm talking about when it happens) without any kind of safety precautions, he made a leap into film history. Absoluteloy superb stuntwork and filmmaking.
And as for that thing with the motorbike and the train (and the helicopter!!) - words fail me. Makes contemporary Hollywood stuntwork look feeble by comparison...
Nice to see the full, original Chinese version of POLICE STORY III - SUPER COP getting its UK premiere on Film 4 last night, and in what appears to have been an HD print. For me, the film which cemented Jackie Chan as a force to be reckoned with. The moment he jumped onto THAT ladder (watch the movie, you'll know what I'm talking about when it happens) without any kind of safety precautions, he made a leap into film history. Absoluteloy superb stuntwork and filmmaking.
And as for that thing with the motorbike and the train (and the helicopter!!) - words fail me. Makes contemporary Hollywood stuntwork look feeble by comparison...
Damn, annoyed I missed that one. I have the blu-ray of it but that's a horrible transfer of a 1.78:1 HDTV print, whereas the actual film should be 2.39:1 - is that how Film 4 showed it? I hope to catch a repeat of it if so.
Damn, annoyed I missed that one. I have the blu-ray of it but that's a horrible transfer of a 1.78:1 HDTV print, whereas the actual film should be 2.39:1 - is that how Film 4 showed it? I hope to catch a repeat of it if so.
Yes, it was full scope. And don't worry, it'll be shown again - many, many times, no doubt!
Not sure where you got that hideously cropped Blu-ray, but if you have access to a multi-region BR player, the OAR Hong Kong BR (region A) is still available from yesasia.
Yes, it was full scope. And don't worry, it'll be shown again - many, many times, no doubt!
Not sure where you got that hideously cropped Blu-ray, but if you have access to a multi-region BR player, the OAR Hong Kong BR (region A) is still available from yesasia.
The American one is the one I have, it's just horribly cropped, so I'll look into that one!
Watching Flash Gordon just now in 2.37:1 (was on More4), one thing that was odd is that the opening/closing credits are squashed in the vertical plane.
No, I worded that poorly. The Final Cut and theatrical cuts of Blade Runner are correctly presented in 2.40:1, and The Final Cut has always been screened on British TV by the BBC in this aspect ratio, but the workprint version (as included in 30th Anniversary Collector's Edition blu-ray) is in the 2.20:1 aspect ratio.
Just of interest to anyone still reading this thread - looks like Clerks is premiering on Film4 tomorrow (odd because I'm sure it's been on UK TV before). Think it'll air in its right aspect ratio of 1.85:1?
Just of interest to anyone still reading this thread - looks like Clerks is premiering on Film4 tomorrow (odd because I'm sure it's been on UK TV before). Think it'll air in its right aspect ratio of 1.85:1?
Clerks may well be a Film4 premiere, it was owned by Miramax so you'd expect the BBC to have shown it, but there's nothing on Genome to indicate they have. However, according to one of his podcasts the rights revert back to Kevin Smith in the UK this year, so maybe he's signed a new deal with Channel 4...
I imagine it will air 1.85:1 or 1.78:1, but there's not that much difference, in the world of cropping it's more than forgiveable...
I have the 10th anniversary Clerks DVD and from memory the theatrical edition is presented in 4:3 and the special edition with extra footage is 16:9.
Clerks is listed as being in HD but Dogma isn't.
I wonder if Film 4 will be showing Clerks 2, which I actually found to be funnier than the original, although the original is still a very enjoyable film.
Comments
First time on BBC, AFAIK.
Ta for the info. I've got the Final Cut on HD-DVD, but I take it it's the 5-disc version you're referring to? And is it cropped or opened-up?
It's on the 5 disc version, but there's a 3 disc digibook blu-ray release in the US, if you want all the disc contents but don't want to pay over the odds for it.
Not sure whether it's cropped or opened up, but 2.40:1 is the correct theatrical aspect ratio of all the finished versions, I think the unfinished nature of the workprint is why it's 2.20:1, rather than it ever being Scott's intention for the 2.20:1 version to be released...
BLADE RUNNER was shot with anamorphic Panavision lenses, and the 70mm print will have represented a slightly cropped version of the 'regular' 35mm scope version. Even if they didn't take 70mm into account during principal photography (the decision to greenlight larger-format prints may not have been taken until late in production), the slight cropping wouldn't have made too much difference to the overall compositions. Maybe a bit of pan-scanning on certain shots, but only a tiny bit.
I don't think the larger 2.20:1 aspect ratio was ever intended for use at anything other than test screenings of a workprint. IIRC the version on the blu-ray is taken from what is believed to be the only print in existence of the workprint.
Ridley Scott's preferred Final Cut, which is a cleaned up version of the workprint, with a few tweaks is at 2.40:1, so 2.40:1 is definitely the director's intended ratio...
I was a bit confused about your meaning until I re-read the various posts and realised only the workprint version is 2.20. You're right that 2.39 (or 2.40, if you prefer) is the definitive AR, but it's a bit of a mystery as to why 2.20 was chosen for the workprint (as reproduced on home video) since it was never screened that way in cinemas.
Now if ultra wide movies are shown on 4:3 tv set to letterbox, this creates a double letterbox. Half the screen is black, only a centre strip is visible. If they watch in centre cut out, they get part of the picture cut off, but the intense letterbox is reduced to a standard letterbox as if they were watching a normal broadcast in letterbox mode. If a film is cropped to 16:9, and the digibox is set to centre cut out, this could also produce undesirable results on 4:3 tvs. The ultrawide film is now cropped to 4:3, just like it used to be in the olden days of vhs (unless they bought a letterboxed copy) alough it is a center cut out, not a pan and scan, which means important info could be lost in a film if a digibox is set to center cut out.
Im wondering, when the broadcasters crop a film wider than 16:9 to 16:9, do they simply cut off the sides like a center cut out or do they pan and scan the film?
In conclusion its a tough debate. If they show the film in its original format, viewers see a smaller image and they may not like the black bands. If they crop it, they see a larger, more detailed image but may lose important information. Viewers on small screens will probably prefer the cropped version, whereas viewers on large screens will probably prefer to see all of the picture.
I wonder in which way the channel gets more complaints - viewers complaining about black bars or viewers complaining that they are missing action at the sides.
A possible compromise could be to crop it to in between 16:9 and the original aspect ratio (eg 21:9).
Or maybe as many people watch 4:3 material stretched to 16:9, they wouldnt mind it the other way around, say 21:9 squeezed to 16:9.
Or they could squeeze it a bit and crop it a bit.
Another option which they could do is show the film in its original ratio on the hd channel for hi def tvs and crop/squeeze it for standard def tvs watching the sd channel.
The broadcasters should experiment and see which method works best (ie least complaints) and stick with that.
If you go back to the 1st page the date says july 2010:o:o:o
This whole aspect ratio thing is all about personal preferences. Some diehard movie fans will want to see the full picture, but I bet most will want the picture to fill the screen. Its the broadcasters job to try and please as many people as possible.
I still have a 4:3 tv and the letterboxing is bigger on old tvs. I have now accociated black bars with movies. The only time there are no black bars is if I watch a vhs cassette, but a couple I own still letterbox the picture.
You resurrected a 4-year-old thread about this matter the other day, and the thread was rightly closed. It was done with your first post. You are a troll. Good day, sir.
I have a different solution, it's called "using the crop/zoom function on your TV". It consists of people that are unhappy with films being shown OAR using the crop/zoom function on their TV.
Don't make the rest of us suffer, just because you have low standards...
Scary ain't it, and because I asked about the possibilities of other channels showing films in their OAR, as I was watching Stargate in its OAR on Watch. Its surprisingly how many channels are now opting to show films in their OAR, compared to four years ago, and kudos to them for showing films as their meant to be seen. Although, ITV still let the side down, by not showing Bond films and the Star Wars films in their OAR. Boo!
While I'm on here, and I've probably said this before, More4 broadcast Flash Gordon in its OAR this morning, and pretty much uncut, with the exception of the word 'bitch' being cut. But hey-ho, its better than the heavily edited pan and scan version ITV used to show.
Ah **** it. I tend to assume there is nothing on before the sun gets over the yardarm
edit Its on again Monday - EPG set
He has done this on a BBC News and a Channel 5 thread as well. I told him to buy a new TV as they are cheap these days. He could be a troll, or just very old, not that I'm young myself!
His profile says he's 17, not sure whether to believe that or not... can't imagine a 17 year old who's so backwards and doesn't have the latest technology.
Especially as he has an iPad and a PC and claims TV as an interest.
Steffan_Leach is a troll. No-one feed him.
And as for that thing with the motorbike and the train (and the helicopter!!) - words fail me. Makes contemporary Hollywood stuntwork look feeble by comparison...
Damn, annoyed I missed that one. I have the blu-ray of it but that's a horrible transfer of a 1.78:1 HDTV print, whereas the actual film should be 2.39:1 - is that how Film 4 showed it? I hope to catch a repeat of it if so.
Yes, it was full scope. And don't worry, it'll be shown again - many, many times, no doubt!
Not sure where you got that hideously cropped Blu-ray, but if you have access to a multi-region BR player, the OAR Hong Kong BR (region A) is still available from yesasia.
The American one is the one I have, it's just horribly cropped, so I'll look into that one!
And it's on again at 10.45pm on Sunday, on BBC2.
Clerks may well be a Film4 premiere, it was owned by Miramax so you'd expect the BBC to have shown it, but there's nothing on Genome to indicate they have. However, according to one of his podcasts the rights revert back to Kevin Smith in the UK this year, so maybe he's signed a new deal with Channel 4...
I imagine it will air 1.85:1 or 1.78:1, but there's not that much difference, in the world of cropping it's more than forgiveable...
Clerks is listed as being in HD but Dogma isn't.
I wonder if Film 4 will be showing Clerks 2, which I actually found to be funnier than the original, although the original is still a very enjoyable film.