It's not 1.33:1, it's 1.37:1..........

Typical consumer stupidity perhaps...BUT there is one advantage to this: films shot in Super 35. Because of the format, a letterboxed edition may have more on the sides than the full-screen, but, conversely, the full-screen invariably has more on the top and bottom than is seen in the LB version(this situation is not like CinemaScope or Panavision, where any full-screen treatment means loss of picture info with no added anything; Super 35 in formatting has more in common with the old VistaVision process in this regard).

Some films shot in Super 35 are worth seeing full-screen for a change of pace; RESERVOIR DOGS(which was on DVD in both full and LB), and T2(which on DVD I think is LB only, though was full-screen also on VHS and LD).

 

Thanks, Ken, for a touch of sensibility to an otherwise unnecessarily alarmist thread. Geez, I know we're an anal bunch here, but c'mon...

You guys do know, don't you, that virtually all film frames are "cropped," if only in the camera, to accommodate different aspect ratios, if necessary, and that if you truly saw "full frame" that you'd see all sorts of booms, wires, edges of sets, etc. I know we're talking about what actually gets to your set, but the difference between 1.33:1 and 1.37:1 is negligible...

 

I accept that this is not as big a deal as cropping from 2.35:1 to 1.78:1 for example (as is standard here in the UK for showing Panavision movies on TV )! However, is it not strange that in going to all the trouble of restoring classic films such as "Casablanca" and "Citizen Kane" nobody thinks it is worth presenting them in their actual original aspect ratio?!!

OK, so we lose some of the image with overscan on a CRT TV but why needlessly add another 3% to the lost image?

In fact, having already lost nearly 10% due to overscan, the extra 3% from the cropping makes it even more likely that the viewer will be missing a part of the image that was actually integral to the directors original vision.....

This practice is similar to the habit Paramount have of releasing films on DVD in the UK that are cropped (or possibly un-masked) to 1.78:1 although they were originally shot for presentation in 1.85:1. OK, there won't be black bars if you are watching this on a widescreen TV but for me that is no reason to alter the original aspect ratio.

The point is that, when a film is shot specifically gated to 1.37:1 for projection in 1.37:1 as prescribed by the "Academy" standard then this is how it should always be presented. I just don't see why we should accept that 1.33:1 is close enough.

I think the problem stems from the habit of technical staff always referring to the Academy standard as 1.33:1 despite this being inaccurate. The ratio of 1.33:1 was used for so long prior to 1932 that it just became a label for the "standard" ratio even after it was defined as 1.37:1.

The problem is that nowadays, 1.33:1 really means 1.33:1 rather than actually being used to refer to 1.37:1 and as a result we get the cropped version of every film ever made in the "Academy" ratio

 

Does anyone know for certain if there really *is* a difference between 1.33:1 and 1.37:1. I know there is mathematically, but did they actually change the AR, back in the 30s, from 1.33:1 to 1.37:1 or is this just nomenclature? Why did they choose 1.37:1 anyway since 1.33:1 makes so much more sense (being a 4:3 rectangle)?

A quote found on the web says this:

In other words, while the "technical standard" may be 1.37:1, is this the practical AR of most older films or are they indeed 4:3?

(Now who's getting all anal about this? )

 

I know that the difference between 1.37:1 and 1.33:1 is negligable, but it is noticeable. I just got through watching MEET ME IN ST. LOUIS on DVD and there was deffinately scenes where the crooping was evident. Actually, during the credits the crooping was distracting.

 

Thanks Ken, I was wondering about that. Since I feel that I did not get the whole picture on my TV, I might get the entire picture on a different monitor, right?