![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
baratronPurchase the "Collectors' Edition" DVD if you want the film in widescreen (16:9).
Do not purchase the ordinary DVD, because it only has the film in 4:3 format.
I'm boggling at this decision. I am surprised that there would be people advanced enough to have DVD players but Luddite enough to have 4:3 televisions (having been using widescreen for all of a year, 4:3 actually looks wrong now), but Richard has pointed out that televisions cost a lot more than DVD players. I think the thing that amazes me about this is not so much that some people would still be watching in 4:3 so much as the decision to release it only in 4:3! "A Bug's Life", which came out 2 years ago, had 16:9 on one side of the disc and 4:3 on the other.
At the cinema, films are shown at an aspect ratio of 1.85:1. Widescreen TVs are 16:9, or 1.77:1 - old TVs are only 1.33:1. For years, film purists have insisted that you should watch films at home in the same aspect ratio that you do in the cinema - why should you lose some of the picture? This argument applies doubly to something like "Monsters Inc" which is done entirely in CGI. I've been to a Pixar masterclass, where they showed us just how much time and effort goes into rendering all the little details - I don't want to miss any of the picture. So why release something in sodding 4:3?
I suppose Disney might have been thinking that people would give the film to their kids to watch on the household's second TV, which might well be older than the primary one - but in that case, they should have said that it was in 4:3 in really big letters on the box. No, this is just a marketing ploy to get people to buy the "Collectors' Edition". But it sucks! We were extremely lucky that the shop we bought it from let us take it back, even though it had been unwrapped.
The really daft thing is that the menus and some of the trailers on the "Monsters Inc" DVD are all in 16:9 - even on the version of the disc which has the film in 4:3! So anyone actually viewing it on a 4:3 television will get a letterboxed picture for these features. Yeah, that makes sense - grrrr.
Do not purchase the ordinary DVD, because it only has the film in 4:3 format.
I'm boggling at this decision. I am surprised that there would be people advanced enough to have DVD players but Luddite enough to have 4:3 televisions (having been using widescreen for all of a year, 4:3 actually looks wrong now), but Richard has pointed out that televisions cost a lot more than DVD players. I think the thing that amazes me about this is not so much that some people would still be watching in 4:3 so much as the decision to release it only in 4:3! "A Bug's Life", which came out 2 years ago, had 16:9 on one side of the disc and 4:3 on the other.
At the cinema, films are shown at an aspect ratio of 1.85:1. Widescreen TVs are 16:9, or 1.77:1 - old TVs are only 1.33:1. For years, film purists have insisted that you should watch films at home in the same aspect ratio that you do in the cinema - why should you lose some of the picture? This argument applies doubly to something like "Monsters Inc" which is done entirely in CGI. I've been to a Pixar masterclass, where they showed us just how much time and effort goes into rendering all the little details - I don't want to miss any of the picture. So why release something in sodding 4:3?
I suppose Disney might have been thinking that people would give the film to their kids to watch on the household's second TV, which might well be older than the primary one - but in that case, they should have said that it was in 4:3 in really big letters on the box. No, this is just a marketing ploy to get people to buy the "Collectors' Edition". But it sucks! We were extremely lucky that the shop we bought it from let us take it back, even though it had been unwrapped.
The really daft thing is that the menus and some of the trailers on the "Monsters Inc" DVD are all in 16:9 - even on the version of the disc which has the film in 4:3! So anyone actually viewing it on a 4:3 television will get a letterboxed picture for these features. Yeah, that makes sense - grrrr.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2002-09-09 11:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-09-10 12:01 am (UTC)But for Bugs Life, Pixar redid the film specially for the 4:3 version, and it's quite possible they did the same here.
But2, Richard is right - many fewer people have widescreen TVs than DVD players. And many people with 4:3 TVs complain about letterboxing...
no subject
Date: 2002-09-10 05:24 am (UTC)I only know of one person IRL with a widescreen TV but several with DVD players.
I hate pan and scan with a vengance. I don't feel so bad about 4:3 re-rendered CG films... but I would like the choice. It's weird though, most of the TV I watch has widescreen black bars at the top and bottom. I'm /so/ used to it.
no subject
Date: 2002-09-10 09:02 am (UTC)With most of the suff I want being easier to find on DVD these days I still have to watch them on my PC cos I can't even afford a DVD player but I will have a DVD player before I have a New TV.
no subject
Date: 2002-09-10 11:56 am (UTC)Widescreen TVs are still very expensive compared to the 4:3 alternatives, and you need a decent sized one to not look smaller than the TV it's replacing.
I may even wait for Plasma screens to come down in price before disposing of the current cathode tube.
Aspect ratio trivia
Date: 2002-09-15 02:59 am (UTC)1.85:1 is only one of several aspect ratios in common use in cinema.
1.85:1 is also commonly known as Academy Flat or US widescreen, as oppose to European widescreen, which is 1.66:1. Anamorphic widescreen formats (such as Cinemascope) tend to be around 2.35:1 (there is some variation in older prints, but this figure is now the norm) and so look even worse when pan and scanned to fit a 1.33:1 (Academy Standard) television screen.
Re: Aspect ratio trivia
Re: Aspect ratio trivia
Date: 2002-09-16 02:56 am (UTC)Pah. You know me. You know just how anal retentive I can be...