UK DVD anamorphic?
According to the specs here (http://www.bensonsworld.co.uk/dvd/7000000102948.asp) the UK DVD is anamorphic. Does anybody know if this is correct? In another thread it was said that the Dutch DVD is not. Thanks.
shareOkay, I may now answer that question myself, the UK DVD is non-anamorphic as well (although it says otherwise on the cover). Here are the specs:
Running time (overall): 1h 44' 25'' [Cinema Center Films logo (at the beginning): 15''; closing credits: 58'']
Aspect ratio: 2.35:1 (non-anamorphic)
Video width/height: 720/576; Frame rate: 25 (PAL)
Audio: English mono (Dolby Digital 2.0)
Subtitles: English for the hearing impaired, English, Arabic, Bulgarian, Croat, Czech, Dutch, Finish, French, Greek, Hebrew, Hungarian, Icelandic, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Serbian, Slovenian, Turkish
Don't really understand what any of that means but the quality must be good for £30. I ordered my copy from that Five Minutes To Live place and the quality isn't that great. I'll fork out for a better copy as it's a bloody good film but I'll need assurances. They should give it a proper release. When you see some of the $hit in stores like HMV...
shareNon-anamorphic means that it is not enhanced for 16:9 TVs, which is a shame since the movie was shot in 2.35:1 widescreen. It's not full screen though, on a standard TV black bars will appear at the top and bottom of the screen. Now to the quality of the DVD: Dialogue can sometimes be hard to understand, particularly when the chopper is close. The English subtitles are therefore of help. These are first rate, literally a transcript of what's being said. The picture is, as mentioned, not enhanced. On my 4:3 PAL TV quite often a jittering ("checkered-coat-effect") was apparent, unfortunately to an amount that became rather distracting. Colors on the other hand are rich and natural. 30 quid's indeed a lot but for this being one of my all time favorites I closed both my eyes and made the payment. I don't know why Paramount wasn't giving it the best possible treatment. Are they planning for a double dip into my pocket or was it just not worth to them, I don't know. Hope this helps.
shareThanks. The black borders appear on my copy too, either side of the picture I think. I can hear the dialogue fine, apart from when the chopper first appears and it looks like Shaw is politely asking the pilot what he wants for Christmas....Nah, I Just assumed you're not supposed to hear what he's saying. The colour isn't great, and it gets worse when they're crawling through the crop field, almost to black and white. I'd love to viddy a proper version in all its glory, they don't make 'em like this anymore. Does Ansell successfully cross the border at the end or is the border patrol the enemy? And do you know which soldier is played by Roger Lloyd-Pack?
shareSPOILER ALERT
I don't know the answer to your last question but Ansell is indeed able to cross the border and is cleared by the border patrol which seems to be of a friendly nature. In this respect the movie differs from the novel. There, both - Ansell and MacConnachie - die without ever reaching the border, well that's at least what I make out of it: before the story abruptly ends, both become cornered on a mountain side without any apparent way to escape.
P.S. Just quickly checked out the movie again: Roger Lloyd-Pack is indeed one of the border patrols. I hardly recognized him first with him being 35 years younger and all, but he's shown in a close-up where you clearly can spot him (even though he wears these fancy goggles).
Yeah, that's who I thought. Would've been more obvious if, when confronted with Ansell, he said: 'Alright Dave?'.
sharejust bought the Dutch DVD too
amazing movie
but like people have already said. UNBELIEVABLE that you release such a rather obscure cultmovie/classic in 2006 and then do it LETTERBOXED
i feel cheated
certainly since the back sleeve actually states it IS anamorphic
with pain in my heart I'll return the DVD to not encourage film companies with such insulting policies
This is unbelievable:
"but like people have already said. UNBELIEVABLE that you release such a rather obscure cultmovie/classic in 2006 and then do it LETTERBOXED"
Umm... and how would you expect them to release it? Do you even know what letterboxed means? Are you one of the millions who insist that their ancient 4:3 television have a screen-filling picture no matter what? Grrr... those pesky black bars, why do the idiots have to put them there?
If you can't absorb this simple concept, just go to widescreen.org which explains it all so that almost anyone can understand it.
FWIW, DVDs are all released as 720x480 (NTSC) or 720x576 (PAL). This is 4:3. There is a flag which tells the player what the true aspect ratio is. More correctly, it specifies whether the pixels are square or rectangular (anamorphic). It is up to the user to tell the playback device what type of display is connected to it. Pan & Scan is evil and should not even be included in display options. It encourages unknowledgeable people to throw away 1/3 of the picture.
It's Non-anamorphic windowboxed not letterboxed which is really shame as this rides on the cinematography which is really stifled by the format.
shareI can't believe that there could be anybody stupid enough to appear to know what anamorphic means and what aspect ratio is, and still whinge about black bars at the top and bottom of his 4:3 TV screen. I don't know what "enhanced" is supposed to mean, or what a "checkered coat effect" is, if it isn't a manifestation of inferior playback equipment.
The copy of this film I found on the internet was very watchable; I had no issues with any technical aspects. It had an aspect of 2.38:1 (608x256) and it displays with black bars top and bottom on my 1920x1080 display. Well, it would have to, wouldn't it? Whether or not it's "enhanced". And, FYI, anamorphic only means the source has rectangular (not square) pixels.
Anyway, I still see a dizzying number of people who insist that they want to see the whole picture, but don't want the black bars. I get blue in the face from explaining that they can't have both. Go figure.
Just look at http://www.widescreen.org and all is revealed.
[deleted]