MovieChat Forums > Deathtrap (1982) Discussion > DVD widescreen or full?

DVD widescreen or full?

posted 15 years ago by rooprect
5 replies | jump to latest

I couldn't find a widescreen version of this movie on R1 DVD, so I begrudgingly bought the full screen (it was $3 used at Blockbuster). This always bothered me, but recently while searching for a widescreen version, again to no avail, I stumbled on this page

http://www.michaeldvd.com.au/Reviews/Reviews.asp?ID=4061

It seems to be reviewing the Australian (R4) widescreen version and says:

The film is presented in an aspect ratio of 1.75:1, which differs slightly from the original theatrical aspect ratio of 1.85:1. This movie was filmed using a Spherical process. This means that the full frame, full screen transfer afforded Region 1 might be an open matte version of the film and that our 1.75:1 transfer might be a slightly opened matte of the originally filmed image. In any case, our transfer in regards to aspect ratio still suits the material well. While the box states that this is a full frame transfer, this is in fact incorrect and the transfer is indeed widescreen and 16x9 enhanced.

Can someone explain this? If I read it correctly, they're saying that the R1 full screen version contains all the visual information of the widescreen version but adds more at the top & bottom. That would be really cool.

But still I don't quite believe it, because if I'm not mistaken, there's a shot at the end where the theater marquee says "DEATHTRAP" but the first & last letters are cut off, leading me to believe that the full screen DVD does indeed chop off the right & left. Does anyone know for sure?

[–] defiant-10 15 years ago

I used to be a projectionist in the eighties, in a second-run house using equipment from the fifties. Most films of the time were shot using the full 35mm frame, with the intent of being presented through a simple brass mask which cut image from the top and bottom of the frame from being projected. This provided a wider "theater" image on the screen (our house used black velvet curtains to adjust the screen's width), while using the full-height of the film stock's frame- which also carries the optical sound track next to it.
When shown on TV, in the olden days of cathode ray tubes whose lineage had been rooted in round tubes, it was common to show the "whole" frame as it was filmed, without a mask. Letterboxing used to frighten the sheep, much in the way the current trend to LCD wide screens can make subjects "fat" or otherwise distorted.
This may be the best page describing the situation:
http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/anamorphic/aspectratios/widescreenorama.html
Wikipedia also has an excellent "Aspect Ratio" article.
You aren't losing a thing in older films that are "taller" than they were shown in theaters- you're kind of cheating and seeing more at the top and bottom than movie customers did.

What I had in mind was boxing the compass.

[–] rooprect 15 years ago

Thanks for sharing your experiences & info, def10. To me, the terms "widescreen" and "fullscreen" have become very misleading, if not outright deceptive. I've been hearing about a lot of "faux-widescreen" films where they take the original Academy ratio of old films (4:3) and chop the top & bottom so it'll fill modern widescreen TVs (On the Waterfront is a frightening example). These DVDs simply say "widescreen", or sometimes they have the gall to say "enhanced widescreen".

In some cases I've heard of films that are faux-screened (top & bottom chopped), and then that version is further chopped for a subsequent full screen release. So one day, On the Waterfront may consist of Brando's nosehairs.

Back to what you were saying, that can sometimes present a problem, too. I have a VHS fullscreen version of "Peewee's Big Adventure" which seems to fit your description (they added more at the top & bottom which wasn't seen in theaters). The problem is in one scene, when he's pulling an endless 'magic chain' out of a box, on the fullscreen version you can clearly see the chain is being fed through a hole on the bottom of the box! Other people have mentioned films with "nude scenes" where the fullscreen shows the person is wearing undies.

It's so frustrating because I'm sure we all want the same thing: the version of the film that was shown in theaters!

So anyway, with Deathtrap, do you think (as the site I quoted implies) that our fullscreen DVDs present the full width of the original release? Maybe this mystery would be solved if someone from Australia or Europe can post a screen shot for us to compare.

[–] defiant-10 15 years ago

I grabbed a copy at Wal*Mart ten years ago, out of the five-dollar box. I don't recall the format, and have cleverly placed the DVD in a safe location which isn't its case, and which means I'm waiting for it to turn up again.
However, I also have a copy on my PC, from er, sometorrentwhere, and it's definitely 1.33:1. I don't recall what the DVD's format was, and yes, the "Widescreen" "Fullscreen" terminology has become a morass. But I'll wager your DVD isn't missing any image.
My first encounter with this was when Universal finally released Charley Varrick, and I saw in horror that the format "Has been modified to fit your screen" (how do they know? I've never had them over), as opposed to the letterboxed Bravo tape I'd been guarding for years, and the LaserDisk I'd been keeping an old Pioneer player alive for. When I began checking the images from one version to another, I realized the original footage is 1.33:1, and the "theater" version is cropped when presented.
The cropping done in the theater also provides for more latitude for the projectionist to adjust the framing of what gets on to the screen: when I saw "Hollywoodland", the boom mic was visible in about two-thirds of the movie's scenes. And yes, in "National Lampoon's Vacation", Beverly D'Angelo is showering without a top.

What I had in mind was boxing the compass.

[–] rooprect 15 years ago

And yes, in "National Lampoon's Vacation", Beverly D'Angelo is showering without a top.

Homina homina, now there's a good reason to go fullscreen. I'm trying to think of all the shower scenes in cinema, gonna stock up on some VHS baby.

Now that you mention it, I feel bad because I gave a scathing review to Angela (1995)--an otherwise good film which I (and many other reviewers) found unwatchable due to the constant appearance of the boom mic. Seriously, the boom mic should've been given top billing. But most probably the theatrical version didn't have it; it's just a bad DVD transfer.

And yes, I too am somewhat creeped out by MGM & Warner Bros knowing exactly how big my screen is. I may have to start pulling the blinds down before dancing naked to Saturday Night Fever.

One last question about working as a projectionist... did the movie studios specify how big a matte you were supposed to use (also whether you cover the top, the bottom or both)? Or was that up to the projectionist's discretion?

[–] defiant-10 15 years ago

The matte was a matter of how big the house screen was. In order to fit, however, you bought the rough size brass plate from the theater supply house and filed it by hand to get the final size for your theater. In my case, this had been done by a predecessor, and all we had to do was slide it into the projector, where it kind of snapped-in just in front of the film gate and at the rear end of the lens. You also have a different lens for each format, the "Scope" lens having the glass to un-distort the image between the film and the screen. It was a very unsettling effect to have the Scope lens even slightly off vertical, making everything in the scene lean.

What I had in mind was boxing the compass.