MGM cropped release
Just found about this. Check it out:
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDCompare2/koyaanisqatsi.htm
http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Koyaanisqatsi-IRE-Fullscree n-Version-MORE-IMAGE/topic/5872/
Just found about this. Check it out:
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDCompare2/koyaanisqatsi.htm
http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Koyaanisqatsi-IRE-Fullscree n-Version-MORE-IMAGE/topic/5872/
Omg... I have cropped version...
Original looks stunning!!!!!! I feel cheated!!!
[deleted]
How and where did you get?
I really don't want to download a torrent.. I want the official DVD :s
The uncropped version blew me away when I saw them screenshots.. The cropped version looks HORRIBLE and before I saw the uncropped I thought it was spectacular!
I have the director's DVD, and yes it is stunning. It is unfortunate that there was so much fighting over the release which resulted in all this.
The official word is that Koyaanisqatsi was meant to be cropped to 1.85 (and I can see how it would be easy to believe that as some directors do it all the time - James Cameron comes to mind), but Koyaanisqatsi was projected without the 1.85 matte, and the DVD that I have from the director, which is signed by him, is not cropped, it is 1.33 format from full frame 35mm film.
The real ultimate release would be a bluray in its original, 1.33 full frame format. One can only hope...
Films in widescreen (1:85:1) are usually shot at 1:33:1, but they frame it so when they crop it to 1:85:1 it will look well framed and in widescreen.
So the source they used for the 1:33:1 DVD was probably a negative before it was matted.
I'm from Paris... TEXAS
keep in mind it was also authored by the director himself... and no director authors his own movies in wrong aspect ratio.
shareFurthermore, from the screenshots alone you can tell the shots were framed for 4:3, not to be cropped down. The 16:9 crop loses valuable parts of those frames which completely change the composition.
share