PDA

View Full Version : Was Dawn of the Dead originally shot in 2.35:1 ratio ?


gunner
01-17-2001, 02:48 PM
Last night I watched my theatical cut of dawn of the dead on dvd.When the closing credits rolled I noticed that some of the names were cut off on the sides.I always heard that Dawn was shot in a soft mat 1.85:1 ratio then mattes were removed for vhs/tv release.I believed this for years until I noticed the chopped off credits(don't ask me why it took 30 viewings or so to notice this).Can anyone here clear this up for me?

BigDeg187
01-17-2001, 03:58 PM
Maybe its your tv? I watched New York ripper on my cousins tv and it was all screwed up. Thats what happens when you watch a widescreen movie on a 13inch tv!

------------------
Wanna see something really scary? Vistit http://www.SavageCinema.com

Grampa Gruesome
01-17-2001, 04:34 PM
Uh? Nothing happens when you watch a widescreen movie on a 13 inch TV besides the picture being very small. If the TV itself is defective or has a tendency to cut off a little bit of the picture on the sides (some TVs do this but we're talking fractions of an inch), then I see what you mean but other than that, the ratio of a film should have no effect on a regular TV.

As for Dawn, all the info I've heard and read says it was shot in open matte and then cropped at around 1.66:1 - 1.85:1 in theaters. However, different video transfers show different ratios. For example, the open matte Japanese Argento cut not only shows more on the top and bottom (as expected), but it also shows a bit more on the sides - as compared to the AB Theatrical version.

I think some transfers, for technical reasons I know nothing about, tend to zoom-in a tad. When this is done with a film where the credits extend to the very edges of the screen, sometimes a letter gets cut off. I believe that the AB version is about as close to the intended ratio as any Dawn version I've seen. I could be wrong though . . .

If anyone has more info about this, I'd like to hear it.

gunner
01-17-2001, 04:39 PM
I watched it on my bedroom tv which is a 20" sony wega.This tv I'm pretty sure shows the whole picture,At least it always has with other discs.I'll play the disc tonight in the 36" in my living room.Niether of my televisions are 16:9 so maybe that would also make a difference.I'd also like to brag up my bedroom tv,The 20" sony wega has a 3 line digital comb filter,s-video input and flat screen.One kick ass bedroom tv I must say.Does anyone here have a wega?

gunner
01-17-2001, 04:43 PM
To grandpa gruesome,Actually on all smaller tv's with a domed screen (especially rca/ge) I've noticed info missing from the sides.The more curved the screen the more picture seems to be lost.Whip out an old 19" or 13" out of your closet or borrorow one from a friend and see for yourself.

gunner
01-17-2001, 07:05 PM
The 20" wega has a 3-line digital comb filter not a 3-D filter.The 3-D filter is found wega's sized 27" and up.My filter only works when you use the s-video input not the composite.The 36" I have in my living room is a panasonic super flat.It has a component input but I just can't get myself to pay up to 90.00 for the over priced cables.I have never seen the difference so I dare not take the gamble.Until the cable prices drop I'll be happy with s-video.

Paff
01-17-2001, 08:08 PM
3-D, 3-Line, 2-D, whatever. My bad. I always mix 'em all up.

And not to get into a technical pissing match, but I do believe you have it backwards with the comb filter. A comb filter separates the signal into 2 parts: Y and C. The better the filter, the better the separation. DVD has the signal already separated, thus a comb filter is not neccessary, and the S-Video BYPASSES that filter.

Here's another view:
http://www.remotecentral.com/cgi-bin/mboard/rc-theater/thread.cgi?803

gunner
01-17-2001, 08:21 PM
No,No, My Bad.
Do you use component video cables? I'd love to hear truthfully how much better/not better they really are.

Paff
01-17-2001, 08:26 PM
No, my Superflat doesn't do Component Video. I'm actually curious about that myself though. Still, the real revelation on DVD video is the 16X9 mode. The new Wegas have that as an option on the main menu. Even though it's still a 4X3 TV, that option fools it into thinking it's 16X9, thus you get that additional 33% resolution. If you have a good A/V store, go in and check that out. $10 says the salesman will have no idea what you're talking about, but if you can convince him to demo it, even he will be shocked at the better picture.

napalm68
01-17-2001, 09:15 PM
It's called overscan. I guess it comes down to component quality. 5% each side is considered normal, I believe, according to the video essentials DVD. Some shows go outside of this area and then appear cropped. Either by them zooming in too much on the telecine, or just plain bad direction (eg, Kevin Smith in Chasing Amy.

Some horror web site bought up a pretty valid point on "widescreen" - a lot of people whinging for widescreen end up doing themselves a disservice for a lot of horror films. Best example is the Bride of Reanimator with the subtitle bars covering up top and bottom to give a Widescreen pic... Savini's NOTLD was another example - I can't watch the 1.85:1 version - you loose too much pic.

------------------
Oh no, mother! Blood!

Paff
01-18-2001, 05:07 AM
Yes, older smaller TVs DO cut off some of the sides and top occasionally. I don't know why, they just do.

And I don't have a Wega, although I'd like one, because of the 16X9 option. But I just bought a Panasonic Superflat a couple of years ago, so I'm not about to buy a new TV.

Finally, as an FYI, 3-D Digital Comb Filters are nice, but they're only meant for cleaning up composite inputs (VHS,LD). When you use the S-Video input with DVD(which you should), you're effectively bypassing that comb filter. So if all you're interested in is DVD, better comb filters mean absolutely nothing. Just a TV-buying tip for y'all out there.