obriensg1

Ok, so by the end of the year "Titanic" will be on Blu-ray. Since Cameron shot the film in Super 35, you do actually see more of the film pn top and bottom when opened up, and he put the IMAX 3D version in a 1:85:1 ratio, because, like "Avatar", it was more immersive. As good as the scope ratio looks, sometimes a flat one conveys what is needed. I think the 1:85:1 version should find it's way to disc. At the very least we'd get a better view of Winslet's bottom lol.

But seriously, which do you think?

Scope
Flat
Release a version with both

HD Goofnut

It should be on Super 35mm for the 2D BD release. I couldn't care less about the 3D release.

Roy Batty

2.39:1 all the way. I've got no interest in a 1.33:1 framing, which, to me, would be nothing more than a curio.

mikesncc1701

This and only this.

Beast

Whatever ratio the director decides works best for the movie. 1.85:1 or 2.39:1. Maybe even both.

For example, I like the ratio the director went with for the BR release of Voyage of the Dawn Treader.

Captain Kirk

I see what you did there.

And I agree.

HD Goofnut

Oh, you're right. Going from 2.39:1 to a cropped ratio of 1.78:1 was incredibly intelligent.

Beast

The Director explained why he did it in the Commentary and I agree with his reasons why it works better.

HD Goofnut

Then he should have supplied us with the 1.78:1 and the 2.39:1 versions. Choices are always better as Netflix is failing to understand with their struggling stock price, which has dropped about 200 points since July because of limiting choices.

Jezza

That's how it's been all these years, so why is is suddenly a bad thing?

Why not just have both? 2.39:1 to show it in its original theatrical presentation and 1.78:1 to show the most picture.

Roy Batty

I would usually frown upon such "contribution", but I must admit that made me smile.

And while I don't share it, I can understand the hate towards this movie (not a particular fan myself either, but I am a sucker for the formal aspects of it).

Leaving that aside, I am afraid I have to agree with our friend Goofnut right above: this is not the proper thread for TITANIC-loathers. Let's stick to the opening post.

steve_dave

The live action scenes without any visual effects or computer generated images were shot Super35.

The VFX and CGI shots were all composed for 2.39:1 scope so when modifying the film to 1.78:1 would result in these portions being cropped and scanned.

This is one of the major reasons Titanic '97 is shown OAR 2.39:1 even on channels that normally stretch 1.33:1 material to fit widescreen TVs.

aiman04

I would like a 2.39:1 OAR of course. But I don't mind if he opens up to 1.78:1, we're not gonna lose anything as there won't be any cropping. This was not shot on anamorphic lens if I'm not mistaken.

HD Goofnut

Per IMDB:

35 mm (anamorphic) (Eastman EXR 5386)

aiman04

Yeah I forgot about the VFX shots. Are they really cropped on the current IMAX showings? They could go back to redo the VFX for 1.78:1. That's not likely though considering the cost.

Roy Batty

So it wasn't actually shot on Super 35? Super 35 is later re-shot as 35mm anamorphic to obtain the exhibition prints, if I am not mistaken (not my area of expertise at all).

aiman04

I stand corrected. So what they're showing now in IMAX is cropped then. I want 2.39:1 on blu-ray.

notops

Whatever the Director prefers.

2.39:1 was his original (1997) intent, but having seen Avatar in both ARs in 3D, I agree that opening the mattes would create a more immersive 3D experience. With the opened mattes, there would be significantly less cropping of the top of people's heads (something many Super 35-shot movies are notorious for) which would give a much more realistic, immersive look to the film in 3D presentations.

I trust Cameron's decisions, the same way I respect Brad Bird's decision to not do the "alternating aspect ratio" on the M:I Ghost Protocol disc.

HD Goofnut

That's exactly what I want. If Cameron's want to throw in the IMAX ratio that's fine, but he'd better include the OAR or it's a no sale for me.

HD Goofnut

You obviously don't understand the term original aspect ratio. If a director wants to change it for the home video release that's fine, but he or she needs to include the original ratio as well.