Mis-Credited DVD Aspect Ratios
Dear Gary, The recent offering of the movie Slap Shot on DVD is a recent example of a problem I have come across in the labeling and/or production of several video movies. I have seen in stores the movies: Capricorn One, Raw Deal and now Slap Shot. These movies have one thing in common: they were all filmed in the 2.35:1 aspect ratio but the label on the box for each indicates an aspect ratio of 1.85:1. This situation brings up two points I would like to have you address. 1) From my own experience and an article in your magazine last year (Issue 27), I know that there is a vast difference between 1.85:1 and 2.35:1 aspect ratios. One-point-eight-five-to-one aspect ratios don’t have to be shrunk. No extra width is lost going to pan-and-scan. I would like to see you discuss this apparent case of label misrepresentation with the video manufacturers someday. If they want to change the label to letterbox, that would be more accurate. 2) My original question regards the mis-labeling of the three movies above. There are several possibilities: a) Since we know the movies were filmed in the 2.35:1 aspect ratio, did the company decide to produce a 1.85:1 version? If so, then they are further misrepresenting the movie as “widescreen” when the true widescreen version is not being shown by them. b) Did they make a mistake and label it incorrectly? The easiest way to resolve that question is to rent the DVD or VHS version. Since the only place in Minneapolis that carries any of these movies is 40 miles away, I have not spent the gas money and rental fee ($3.50) to find out what I already suspect: see point “a.” c) A third possibility exists which I have already experienced: I purchased a 2.35:1 aspect ratio version of Unforgiven. I immediately knew something was wrong when the movie appeared as if it was filmed in 1.85:1. The effect was hilarious: actors looked like sticks, all stretched out due to improper video reproduction. I would appreciate any insights you might be able to provide regarding my questions.
Mike Rachow, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota
Research Editor Michael Coate Comments:
You mention Raw Deal, Capricorn One and Slap Shot in your letter and I will address each film and your questions one at a time. Capricorn One - The DVD is a letterbox 2.35:1 transfer. It is mis-credited as 1.85:1 on the DVD jacket. The original photography format was 2.35:1 so the DVD mastering is correct. Raw Deal - The DVD is a letterbox 2.35:1 transfer. It was mis-credited on the DVD jacket as 1.85:1. The original photography format was 2.35:1 so the DVD mastering is correct. Slap Shot - The DVD is an anamorphic 1.85:1 transfer that was correctly credited on the DVD jacket. The original photography format was 1.85:1 so the DVD mastering is correct. 1) Our new “Ultimate Widescreen DVD Interactive Movie Guide,” found on the www. WidescreenReview.com Webzine, features a field called “special notes” which is where we have an opportunity to identify any jacket errors and any other noteworthy items. We try to mention such errors in our reviews. Not all 1.85:1 productions can have a “straight” transfer to video simply by adding a matte to the top and bottom of the image. Some titles are shot WITH a matte necessitating the need to pan-and-scan when transferring to video formats. 2) What evidence do you have to support your claim that Slap Shot was a 2.35:1 production? The information I have (including a recent viewing of the DVD) indicates that it was a flat spherical 1.85:1 production and it was appropriately left off the “Widescreen Filmography“ featured in last year’s “Laser Magic 1998” Special Edition (pages 151-170). Universal labeled Slap Shot as being in “anamorphic widescreen.” Did this credit contribute in any way to your question? “Anamorphic” in this instance is referring to the mastering rather than the photography. Slap Shot is labeled correctly whereas Capricorn One and Raw Deal are mis-labeled. More importantly, the actual transfers of all three appear to be correct. I doubt that it was done intentionally. ”Widescreen” is really just a generic term implying anything being presented in any format “wider” than 1.33:1. Try to keep this in mind as each studio chooses to use different terminology on their products (also see Jason Leong’s previous letter). 3) There is no third possibility! Unforgiven is a correct 2.35:1 transfer and is credited as such on its jacket. If you are noticing a squeezed image when you view Unforgiven, then you merely need to, a) read Widescreen Review more often, and b) change the format selection from 16:9 (1.78:1) to 4:3 (1.33:1) on your DVD player’s menu (the player menu, not the DVD disc menu). Many DVD players are factory set in the 16:9 position which doesn’t help consumers who are accustomed to ripping their new toy out of the box, plugging it in and expecting it to work, instead of reading the owner’s manual first. Unforgiven is an example of an “anamorphic widescreen” DVD (which first appeared on a specially produced promotional LaserDisc in the anamorphic process). The image was electronically squeezed during the transfer. The benefit of this process is that greater image resolution can be achieved when viewed on 1.78:1 (16:9) widescreen monitors. The way this works is that the 16:9 widescreen monitors “stretch” out the image, thereby returning the image to its “normal” proportions and increasing the resolution in the process since lines of resolution aren’t being “wasted” on the black letterbox mattes as is the case in standard letterbox editions. When viewed on a standard TV, the player (assuming the menu is set up correctly) will electronically convert the image to “normal” proportions so that it can be displayed and will fill in (add) the letterbox matte at the top and bottom.
You can E-mail Widescreen Review @ mailto:editorgary@widescreenreview.com