I think this film should be shown in 2.35:1 format

[Dust Devil]

I like it as it is.

[drinkanddestroy]

I didn't understand your first question. How does it appear to be full screen if it's 16:9?

When I watch the dvd on my hdtv (which is 16:9, aka 1.78:1), the picture takes up the entire screen.. Now if the movie is actually 1.85:1, shouldn't there  be small black bars on bottom and top of the picture? (unless they cut the sides slightly to make it play in full screen with no bars)

[moviesceleton]

When I watch the dvd on my hdtv (which is 16:9, aka 1.78:1), the picture takes up the entire screen.. Now if the movie is actually 1.85:1, shouldn't there  be small black bars on bottom and top of the picture? (unless they cut the sides slightly to make it play in full screen with no bars)

My guess is that your tv shows the whole picture but stretches it a bit to fill the whole screen.

[Novecento]

Normally most (if not all) 2,35:1 films are done with anamorphic lenses which compress the 2,35:1 picture to the size of the 35 mm negative, and this negative has again the 1,37:1 aspect ratio.

But note that the Techniscope format, used in so many SWs, was in fact not anamorphic.

But here's a link which gives you an overview about the most common aspect ratios and widescren systems from the silent days to the present:

http://www.dvdlog.de/filmformate/filmformate-en.htm

Great link Stanton 

[drinkanddestroy]

My guess is that your tv shows the whole picture but stretches it a bit to fill the whole screen.

no, I never put the settings on zoom 

[stanton]

Zoom it one step smaller and check if you then see a bit more on the sides.

[drinkanddestroy]

there are only 3 possible settings for the tv picture:

1.FULL - which shows the regular picture (but would have bars on either the sides or top & bottom if the picture is in any ratio other than 1.78:1)

2.ZOOM

3. WIDE ZOOM

(the latter two zoom it in different ways, but the point is they are both zoom options). I always keep it on the regular "Full" setting, which in reality is just the "regular" setting without zooming. so if the dvd is actually in any format wider than the 1.78:1 that the tv screen is, there would be bars on top and bottom. but there aren't. so I bet they cropped it (by slicing off a drop of the sides) to make it 1.78:1 to fill up the tv screens...?

unfortunately, the back of the dvd box does not note the aspect ratio, but it says this:
 WIDESCREEN VERSION presented in a "matted" widescreen format preserving the aspect ratio of its original theatrical exhibition. Enhanced for widescreen tv's."

I'm sure most of y'all have the dvd and an hdtv in which to play it, so you can try it out and see if it looks any differently on yours  

[stanton]

I meant to make the picture smaller via the DVD player, and then you can measure the aspect ratio or check if you see a little bit more on the sides, or maybe even on top and bottom.
I still have only a 4:3 TV (but an excellent one concerning color and sound), and a fullscreen film loses picture informations on all 4 sides, and a widescreen film on both the left and the right side.

The difference between 1,78:1 and 1,85:1 is only mariginal anyway.

[Lil Brutto]

drinkanddestroy, read this thread:

http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?t=238902

It may help clarify your issue.

[drinkanddestroy]

drinkanddestroy, read this thread:

http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?t=238902

It may help clarify your issue.

thanks, that's a pretty informative thread 

[noodles_leone]

As someone who has edited a few videos, I can assure you that even if a DVD contains the whole image, the only way to be sure you're not missing parts of the shots is to watch it on a computer. Regular BD/DVD players AND most TV screens AND most projectors hide parts of the image. Thats why they NEVER write any text to close from the border of the image in movies. That's also why in professional editing softwares they show one (and sometimes 2) "security frame" inside the shot, telling you that everything outside that security frame may be hidden depending on the screening conditions.

[stamper]

"Originally, (Once Upon a Time in America) was to have been filmed in Cinemascope, but after the first tests with Tonino Delli Colli, Leone changed his mind. One reason, he said, was that a lot of 1980s cinemas were no longer adequately equipped to film scenes in 'scope, and the results could be fuzzy at the edges and ill-defined. Another was that Leone had the misfortune to watch Once Upon a Time in the West on television, in an American hotel room, with Delli Colli. It was a pan and scan print, which made it look like a lot of big faces with no background: 'a total mess', Delli Colli recalls. Since the days of Once Upon a Time in the West, the video revolution had occurred as well -- not to mention the spread of television ownership, and the proliferation of channels across Italy. All in all, Leone felt it was best that America be shot in the standard 1.85:1 aspect ratio instead of his trademark letterbox."

Thank you for this quote, my point is, widescreen 2.35 was the intended ratio (before actual shooting), and I noticed that chopping it up in VLC using the crop feature, on most shots, make absolutely the film look like the Leones of old. (on the shots that don't work, it's just a matter of framing it properly). The composition are all made like the old films compositions.

[Groggy]

"Intended ratio" and "original ratio" are not the same thing. It was imagined one way but shot another.

Personally, I have no problem with the way OUATIA looks now. No use crying over spilled milk (or exposed film) in this case.