Silverado aspect ratio - DVDfile.com forum for DVD, Blu-Ray, and HD-DVD

**aintnosin** · 08-12-2002, 04:38 PM

I recently bought a new copy of Silverado to replace my copy with the incorrect 1.85:1 aspect ratio.

Of course, the Silverado negative was 1.85 and it was cropped to 2.35 for theatrical release.

Viewing both versions side to side, I'm stunned to realize that ...
I prefer the composition of the 1.85 version. The 2.35 version just seems cramped and claustrophobic.

I know, I know, 2.35 was the original theatrical aspect ratio. I just think the unmatted version looks much better.

Is that blasphemy? Is there something wrong with me?

Does anyone else feel the same way?

Porkchop · 08-12-2002, 05:29 PM

I admit that when I watched my original 1.85 copy, I didn't notice that it was the wrong aspect ratio.

But when I got it replaced with the 2.35, it suddenly felt SO much better. I started wondering how I ever didn't notice it.

So I guess I disagree.

Robert George · 08-12-2002, 09:03 PM

For the sake of accuracy, the original camera neg for Silverado is not 1.85:1. This film was shot in Super Techniscope which is about the same thing as Super 35. The camera neg would be either 1.33:1 or 1.5:1.

When Columbia got around to doing new transfers for this one a few years ago, there was a fullscreen 1.78:1 transfer done, most likely for future use in hi-def broadcast (HD-HBO, etc.) and a correctly matted 2.35:1 transfer. When the subsequent DVD was mastered, the 1.78:1 transfer was used, perhaps by mistake. Certainly Columbia released a new version with the 2.35:1 framing almost as soon as complaints started coming in.

Having compared both, my personal preference is definitely for the 2.35:1 framing. The 1.78:1 framing never looks "right" to my eye.

08-12-2002, 04:38 PM	#1 (permalink)
aintnosin Director/Moderator Not a fancy tickler Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: People's Republik of Kalifornia	Silverado aspect ratio I recently bought a new copy of Silverado to replace my copy with the incorrect 1.85:1 aspect ratio. Of course, the Silverado negative was 1.85 and it was cropped to 2.35 for theatrical release. Viewing both versions side to side, I'm stunned to realize that ... I prefer the composition of the 1.85 version. The 2.35 version just seems cramped and claustrophobic. I know, I know, 2.35 was the original theatrical aspect ratio. I just think the unmatted version looks much better. Is that blasphemy? Is there something wrong with me? Does anyone else feel the same way? __________________ "The women of this country learned long ago, those without swords can still die upon them." - Eowyn, The Two Towers DVD Profiler \| DVD Aficianado \| DVD Spot \| Movie Reviews \| Facebook

08-12-2002, 05:29 PM	#2 (permalink)
Porkchop Actor Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada	I admit that when I watched my original 1.85 copy, I didn't notice that it was the wrong aspect ratio. But when I got it replaced with the 2.35, it suddenly felt SO much better. I started wondering how I ever didn't notice it. So I guess I disagree. __________________ I've seen detergents that leave a better film than this.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

08-12-2002, 09:03 PM	#3 (permalink)
Robert George Actor Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: That's kinda personal, dontcha think?	For the sake of accuracy, the original camera neg for Silverado is not 1.85:1. This film was shot in Super Techniscope which is about the same thing as Super 35. The camera neg would be either 1.33:1 or 1.5:1. When Columbia got around to doing new transfers for this one a few years ago, there was a fullscreen 1.78:1 transfer done, most likely for future use in hi-def broadcast (HD-HBO, etc.) and a correctly matted 2.35:1 transfer. When the subsequent DVD was mastered, the 1.78:1 transfer was used, perhaps by mistake. Certainly Columbia released a new version with the 2.35:1 framing almost as soon as complaints started coming in. Having compared both, my personal preference is definitely for the 2.35:1 framing. The 1.78:1 framing never looks "right" to my eye.