In the style of Magnus Magnusson: "Correct!"

The Prestige on BBC2 in 2.35:1 from Christopher Nolan, with Christian Bale, Michael Caine and probably Batman, too.

Don't forget it is on BBCHD as well.

And really looking very good on HD.

Apart from the bloody DOG. I know it's outside the picture area but it's very annoying anyway. There is a pattern here: the more important the look of the image, the more intrusive the DOG appears to me.

Masterchef? Eggheads? Weather? DOG away and I don't notice it.

For things like this it's not acceptable.

Difficult to remember when I don't have it

To be honest, I don't think a simultaneous broadcast with BBC HD makes a difference as to the way the Beeb opts to frame the film in question. There have been plenty of recent examples of 2.35:1 movies being announced as 'HD' beforehand and being cropped to 16:9, the latest of which was THE RUINS (a terrestrial premiere, too). I can only imagine it's a licensing issue - some films are licensed for OAR, others are licensed for 16:9 only.

Oh, and a shout out to the poster who mentioned WATER. I missed that one in my weekly listings, because I have it listed in a section devoted entirely to Indian cinema, separate from the 'main' list. Second week in a row I've made a mistake like that. I'll try harder not to let it happen again. But hey! - I get most of 'em right! Right?...

I would've thought a lot of deals about buying films in are made quite some time before transmission, so before the thought about broadcasting 2.35:1 is made. I remember not long after Dances with Wolves was in the cinema that ITV announced they'd bought it and planned to show it in 4 hour-long 'episodes' (45 mins or so plus ads, each time, so it was still the 3hr version).

For the BBC, they'll have a lot of them in 2.35:1 for BBC HD, but obviously not all of them. C4's change, in Dec 2007, was practically overnight for that channel, so I guess a lot of correct prints had previously been obtained for Film4. That makes it a bit more difficult for ITV and Five by comparison, but they could still make the effort more than they do.

Having vented about the DOG on the 2.35 The Prestige, I've just had a look at LA Confidential, which was broadcast during C4's brief test appearance on freesat. It's so much worse!

Personally, HD is starting to feel like the end of broadcast TV rather than the bright new beginning I was looking forward to, at least for film viewing. What the tech giveth, the tech taketh away...

It ain't just TV broadcasts which stumble over OAR:

I just received a copy of French crime drama 22 BULLETS [L'Immortel] on DVD as part of the Amazon Vine programme. It's distributed by Anchor Bay and is the full release version, rather than an advance review copy, and it's cropped from 2.35:1 to 1.78:1. Worse still, all the clips and trailers in the supplementary materials are correctly framed at the original ratio. The French and Swedish DVD versions are also 2.35:1. Anchor Bay has issued a Blu-ray version, and I'd be interested to know if that's a compromised edition, too.

Whilst searching the Net for further info, I discovered that Icon's UK DVD version of BURIED has also been cropped from 2.35:1 to 1.78:1.

Putting up with this kind of crap on TV is one thing, but asking people to pay money to own such compromised presentations is absolutely unacceptable...

It's the first time in a long time I've given zero to the picture quality of a DVD or Blu-ray because it's just unforgiveable. I went on about this in my review:
http://dvdfever.co.uk/reviews/22bullets.shtml


Same with the Blu-ray, it seems. Is it cropped or open-matte, though? IMDB doesn't list a film format, just 2.35:1.

Totally agree, and will not be buying that film or any other where cropping has occured

Scouring the Net for dirt on this one, I discovered that the Spanish and Canadian home video versions of 22 BULLETS are also framed correctly, so I'd urge anyone interested in seeing what is - in all other respects - a fine movie, to look outside the UK market. I've contacted Anchor Bay via their website, to ask what they're playing at (the OAR clips and trailers in the supplemental materials REALLY got my goat, since it indicates they knew in advance they were sending out a cropped film, and it just rubs our noses in what they've done). I'll post here IF I get a reply.


Both 22 BULLETS and BURIED were shot in Super 35, but it's really immaterial - the definitive version of both films is 2.35:1. Online sources indicate that parts of the UK video version of 22 BULLETS are cropped at either side, while other parts are open matte. It's a hideous visual compromise, whichever way you look at it, and it makes me sick that most people will pay money for it, not realising they're getting a second-tier product. Anchor Bay and Icon deserve nothing but contempt for their stupidity.

Before complaining about the ratio it may be an idea to check whether the film is actually cropped or whether its simply not been matted to 2.35:1 , in which case the 16:9 image will actually present more image than the 2.35:1 shape regardless of what the intended cinema ratio was.

The first Austin Powers movie was released on R1 dvd initially in 16:9 but the Bluray is 2.35:1 .

Films being cropped in certain parts and not others is nothing new.

The 4:3 version of Jurassic Park gives more image top and bottom with the exception of the effects scenes where the 16:9 version has more at the sides.

With directors taking tv broadcasts into account and limiting the action to a tv safe area its getting harder and harder to say which is the definitive version .

2.35:1 presentation was wanted by fans to stop the awful panning and scanning that older widescreen films needed to keep the action onscreen but for many years P&S has not been needed so its not hard to see why the black bars moaners can feel somewhat justified when we have films with bars at the top and bottom that simply cover up part of the image rather than allow more at the sides which is often not the case at all

So which is preferable? I think you've given the answer.


This is simply not true. I don't think there are many recent films where you could just take a 16:9 centre cutout and have a problem free result. Even assuming that you mean films are framed with a 16:9 safe area, you are taking a trend and incorrectly asserting it covers all cases. There are still plenty of 2.35:1 films that use the full width and are compromised by 16:9 p&s. And action isn't necessarily the sole motivation behind framing.

e.g. Snake Eyes from 1998. Not exactly ancient history; recent enough to have been shown in the last year on BBC 1 in a reasonably peak slot--in 16:9. What a botched job. (Roll the mouse over the image for the alternative version.)

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/5159779/two_shot.htm
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/5159779/one_shot.htm

I've since seen a 2.35:1 version of 22 Bullets and looked at various scenes and yes, some are open matte and some are cropped. It looks like shit in 16:9, quite frankly. Anchor Bay - EPIC FAIL!

Whoever gave the go-ahead for releasing that version needs a trip to the brain clinic to find out where theirs has gone.

For once I am in complete agreement with you.

It became clear from various on-line comments that the film was cropped in some places and 'opened out' in others, a form of pan 'n' scan in which the 16:9 frame was either zoomed-in or zoomed-out on individual shots to capture the relevant imagery. Had they gone with the 2.35:1 version, we would have seen all the relevant imagery we needed to see, as was presented in cinemas. In 99.9% of cases, it's the image on the 35mm (or D-Cinema) print which qualifies as the actual film, not the re-framed video version, whether or not it reveals more of the original negative imagery.


This is true, but it's unacceptable because it changes the film into something it was never intended to be, a home video revision of the original product. This is rendered all the more intolerable when distribs put out cropped discs in the sure and certain knowledge that most people won't know what they've done, which allows them to get away with it.


Not at all. As I said earlier, the image projected in cinemas more than qualifies as 'definitive', and with the introduction of bigger, wider HD TV's, there's no excuse for cropping a film in this manner.


Not true. As mwardy suggested, and as I mentioned above, cropping a Super 35 negative to 16:9 involves a degree of pan 'n' scanning, just like the good old days. That extra imagery you're seeing in 'uncovered' versions has the effect of altering the intended compositions, even if the DP has made provision for other ratios.

If it wasn't for the "black bars moaners", it's likely the industry would have opted to crop all 2.35:1 movies to 16:9 for DVD and Blu-ray, along with TV broadcasters, right from the start (just like they cropped everything to 4:3 before the introduction - and subsequent dominance - of 16:9). It's no good settling for second best when the alternative is a pristine home video edition of the actual film, not some reframed mess which does the audience and filmmakers no favours at all.

I've already answered your question if you'd read the review at the link I gave:
http://dvdfever.co.uk/reviews/22bullets.shtml


It's not about "getting more image", it's about getting the right image.

ITV has shown open-matte versions of Hot Fuzz and Shaun of the Dead with a fair bit more image top and/or bottom in 16:9, but they both look a damn sight better in 2.35:1 with the right composition.

Next week's 2.35:1 movies on the Freeview platform (26 February - 4 March):

The Radio Times has crime thriller DARK BLUE listed for Five USA at 2pm on Sunday afternoon, but my EPG says otherwise (they might have gotten mixed up with the TV show of the same name). I also doubt very much that this adult-oriented thriller - rated 15 by the BBFC - would be shown on an afternoon, since it's pretty tough in places and would require major edits. But if the film DOES go ahead, not only will it be heavily cut, it will also likely be re-framed from the original 2.35:1. They should put CALIGULA on in its place...



• 8 MILE (ITV 4)
• 2046 (C4)

• ALIEN: RESURRECTION (Film4)
• ANGUS, THONGS AND PERFECT SNOGGING (Film4)

• THE BLACK DAHLIA (Film4)
• BULLETPROOF MONK (E4)

• 'CROCODILE' DUNDEE (Film4)

• THE DEPARTED (More4)
• LE DIVORCE (Film4)

• ELEKTRA (E4)
• ESCAPE TO VICTORY [Victory] (ITV 4)

• FATHOM (Film4)
• FIGHT CLUB (Film4)

• GENOVA (Film4)

• HANCOCK (Channel 5)
• HANNIBAL RISING (ITV 2)
• HEARTBREAKERS (Fiver)
• HEAVEN KNOWS, MR. ALLISON (Film4)
• HOT FUZZ (ITV 2)
• THE HUNTERS (C4)

• INSIDE MAN (ITV 2)
• IN THIS WORLD (BBC 2)
• I STILL KNOW WHAT YOU DID LAST SUMMER (Fiver)

• JARHEAD (ITV 4)
• JAWS (ITV 4)

• KULL THE CONQUEROR (ITV 4)

• LASSIE (Film4)
• LET'S MAKE LOVE (Film4)
• LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE (Film4)
• LOVE IS A MANY-SPLENDORED THING (Film4)

• MAXIMUM RISK (Channel 5)
• MEMENTO (Film4)
• MERCURY RISING (ITV 1)
• MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE III (C4)
• MONTE WALSH (Channel 5)

• NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN (ITV 4)

• PARADISE LOST [Turistas] (Film4)
• PATCH ADAMS (Channel 5)
• POLTERGEIST (BBC 1)

• THE RIVER WILD (ITV 1)

• SCARFACE (ITV 4)
• THE SECRET WAR OF HARRY FRIGG (ITV 4)
• THE SEEKER: THE DARK IS RISING (Film4)
• THE SEVEN YEAR ITCH (Film4) [2.55:1]
• SHROOMS (Fiver)
• SPEED (Five USA)
• STAR WARS EPISODE VI: RETURN OF THE JEDI (ITV 1)
• THE SUM OF ALL FEARS (Film4)
• SUPERMAN (Channel 5)
• SUPERMAN II (Channel 5)
• SWISS FAMILY ROBINSON (Film4)

• THEY [Ils] (Film4)
• THE THIN RED LINE (Film4)
• THOSE MAGNIFICENT MEN IN THEIR FLYING MACHINES OR HOW I FLEW FROM LONDON TO PARIS IN 25 HOURS 11 MINUTES (More4) [2.21:1]
• THREE MONKEYS [Üç Maymun] (BBC 4)
• A TIME TO KILL (BBC 1)
• TOMORROW NEVER DIES (ITV 1)
• TROY (ITV 2)
• THE TRUE STORY OF JESSE JAMES (C4)

• UNLEASHED [Danny the Dog] (ITV 4)
• THE UNTOUCHABLES (Film4)

• A VIEW TO A KILL (ITV 4)

• WEDDING CRASHERS (Film4)

• THE X FILES: I WANT TO BELIEVE (Film4)

• ZOOLANDER (Film4)

By the way, the original AR for this film is 2.55:1.

Don't know why this forum only allows us a short time during which we can edit postings - why not make it permanent? It's not like we can edit anyone else's at the same time!...

I think it is so that you can't wind someone up then edit your post to make them look silly.


PJ

I've heard that explanation before, on other forums, and while I have some sympathy with it, it's a bitch for the vast majority of us who have no intentions of indulging in such troll-like behaviour...

And even if someone could do that, it wouldn't take a moment for DS to spot the edit history once someone pointed it out.

Hancock on Channel 5 now, is it in 2.35:1? It's in HD and some of their Sony HD premieres (Mnster House being a recent example) were shown in 2.35:1 so I'm wondering if this is continuing the trend?

I trust Superman 2 earlier wasn't 2.35:1. No big surprise there though.

Hancock cropped to 16:9. Nearly forgot it was on as C5 have barely mentioned it!