From: David P. Hayes
Date: Sunday, February 22, 1998 11:35 AM
email@example.com wrote in message
>What kind of stupid responses are these? The Sting was shown in
>theaters in the aspect ratio it was shot in, which was 1:85 like all
>movies that are not anamorphic widescreen 2:35. That has been the
>standard ratio in movie houses in this country since the mid-fifties.
>Who cares what the entire film frame captures. If the cameraman frames
>for 1:85 then that is the ratio of the film. If it is shown full frame
>you are not seeing what the cameraman and director composed.
Who cares? Perhaps you didn't know that the person who began this thread (not me) saw that this film was be released on DVD only in non-letterbox format and wanted to know if the image would be cropped from what had been in the theatrical presentation. If the film was shot 4:3 with the intention of cropping it to 1.85:1 in the theaters, then a homevideo user could block the top and bottom of his screen to see the director's vision--or he could watch the full video frame with the assurance that people and actions would not be cut from the edge of the screen. (One of the banes of seeing a television presentation of a film shot in widescreen is that when three people are having a conversation, one of them is not shown.)
Return to Table of Contents
Go to next article