Really bad widescreen?

Thanks for the reply. I have a tube 4:3 tv. I'll try what you said and report back.

"Well, unfortunately, that's what widescreen can do sometimes. Depending on the aspect ratio, 2.40:1 or 1.88:1, the tops and bottoms of the picture will be cut off versus fullscreen format. 2.40:1 will cut off more, while 1.88:1 will cut off less. The tradeoff, of course, is a much wider picture, providing a grander scope of cinema. However, sometimes DVDs will have an artificial widescreen version, which isn't really widescreen, but a letterbox format within a 4:3 image. It's easy to tell which one you have.

First of all, do you have a widescreen TV? Because if you don't and you have a normal aspect ratio television, then there isn't anything wrong with watching movies in fullscreen. But I digress. The easiest way to tell is to set your DVD player to 16:9 format. You can do this in the DVD player's set-up menu, usually under a "Screen setup" submenu, or something similar. Some DVD players ask you what kind of TV you are using instead. Either way, set it to 16:9. When you play the movie on the widescren side it will fill up your TV from top to bottom (unless it is a 2.40:1 aspect ratio, in which case the black bars on top and bottom will simply be smaller than they were before) but at the same time the picture will look stretched vertically. If the image doesn't distort and it looks the same as before, then the disc doesn't have a true widescreen cut, and instead just has a 4:3 version with letterbox bars at the top and bottom. This is what will happen on a normal 4:3 television. If you have a widescreen television, then it's possible that you never had your DVD player set to 16:9, and that your TV's zoom funciton was cutting a little too much off the ends of the picture. In this case, keep your player set to 16:9, and from now on, watch all of your movie with your TV's wide-mode set to "Full". "
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well that's a whole lot of hogwash. If you don't know what you're talking about why comment? 2.35-1 ratio widescreen is not letterboxed it's shot using anamorphic lenses. When these films are presented in fullscreen(4:3) they go through the pan and scan process. Newer films (like this one) shot super-35 can either be letterboxed in the case of 1.85-1 or presented fullscreen without the black bars. In either case you don't get any more intended information when watching the film fullscreen. The films are made for widescreen and composed to fit that aspect ratio not fullscreen TV's. You need to stop lying to people and spreading false information. I watched a DVD of it just now and it looks exactly the same as when I watched it in the cinema. It was shot 2.39-1 and the DVD presents is as that.

One should judge a man mainly from his depravities.Virtues can be faked.Depravities are real.Kinski

"For an example of how Super 35 masters are sometimes not just unmasked but (insanely) left masked and then panned and scanned within the 2.35:1 region, see the TV version of Ridley Scott's "Black Rain" (the UK VHS at least was an unmasked version)."

Black Rain is definitely an interesting example for video transfer. In the U.S., when Black Rain was released in widescreen for Laserdisc, (and initial DVD release) the widescreen version was basically a cropping of the fullscreen version of the film.

I am certain of this because I have done comparisons of the fullscreen version when it was on TV to the Laserdisc version. There was no difference in the amount of available information on the sides.

Another clue was that the opening credits in the film were of inconsistent quality. Some credits in the opening sequence have been digitally altered in order to fit better in the screen. One example is the Paramount Pictures presents card. It looks like it was added on a frozen frame. When the card fades out, there is a subtle shift in the picture quality as it continues to the original credits. Other things of note is the quality of the lettering on some credits. (The LD and the Fullscreen are the same in this respect)

Also, in the widescreen version, when the end credits are rolling, the lettering seems a little squished as if it was a pan and scan. You probably wouldn't be able to notice until you get to the logos like the Panavision logo. That one looks unusually thin.

The final clue was when I bought the special edition DVD. Besides the brighter and more lively picture, the image has opened up a little even though it is the exact same aspect ratio as the other widescreen releases. You see more images on the sides and the top and bottom. The opening credits are consistent in quality and the end credits are in their correct proportions.

I just watched this movie, and there wasn't anything wrong with the 2.35:1 aspect framing. Nothing unusual about the choice of shots or heads cropped.