Koyaanisqatsi - IRE Fullscreen Version (MORE IMAGE!) (Released) — Page 8

Siliconmaster482 said:

To throw my 6 cents in on the "true" aspect ratio topic: My impression was that they filmed it assuming it would be displayed in both ratios, so they shot it so that it would look good in either. There may be more information in the full screen print, but the widescreen also looks quite good, and I honestly don't think you miss a huge amount. That being said, I'm glad people have preserved the fullscreen print for posterity.

 Siliconmaster, I have seen both versions. The "letterbox" MGM version leaves alot out.

There is one scene in particular, a businessman walking across a city street with an attractive Hispanic woman.

The difference is very stark. In the MGM version, you only see up to the guys chin, while the IRE version shows his full face.

When the film was released, I'm sure the cinematographer wanted  the screen filled.

Hrm, it has been a while since I saw the fullscreen version- that's the version that is hosted in full on youtube, by the way. You might have a point, especially in scenes where there is a lot of small detail- more open scenes like the airplane sequence or the flying shots probably aren't as affected.

MSAGRO7 said:

The difference is very stark. In the MGM version, you only see up to the guys chin, while the IRE version shows his full face.

When the film was released, I'm sure the cinematographer wanted  the screen filled.

I highly disagree with you.  I remember this scene, and I remember feeling like not showing his face was making some sort of artistic statement, and I liked that a lot.

I stand by my theory that this film was never meant to be seen unmatted.

ChainsawAsh said:

MSAGRO7 said:

The difference is very stark. In the MGM version, you only see up to the guys chin, while the IRE version shows his full face.

When the film was released, I'm sure the cinematographer wanted  the screen filled.

I highly disagree with you.  I remember this scene, and I remember feeling like not showing his face was making some sort of artistic statement, and I liked that a lot.

I stand by my theory that this film was never meant to be seen unmatted.

Not too sure about that. I saw the film upon release in the theater, and the guy with the Hispanic woman, his face, even hat was visible.

Cut off in the MGM version,  the IRE version face, hat visible.

So that even when this film was shown theatrically,  by showing his face was going against what the film maker wanted? <confused>

The MGM version was a hack job of a release and here's the proof

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDCompare2/koyaanisqatsi.htm

Open-matte films tend to get released into theaters still open-matte, meaning it's the projectionist's job to frame it properly.

I've seen an open-matte film in a theater framed so badly that subtitles were cut off on the bottom, and boom mikes dipped into frame on top of the screen all the damn time.  I complained to the manager, and they said "that's the way the studio gave it to us," and refused to fix it or refund it.

I saw the same movie - at the same theater - a few days later with some friends, and it was framed properly.

I stand by what I said - I'm fairly certain this was never meant to be watched without the 1.85:1 matte.

When it comes to aspect ratio, "more picture" or "less picture" is not the issue.  The right picture is.

And do you have any proof that the director approved any fullscreen release?  (I haven't read through this entire thread, so I apologize if I missed something.)

Well, if that's the case, I take back what I said.

I'd like to add that this doesn't mean the matted version is wrong.  James Cameron, for instance, acknowledges that while Terminator 2 and Titanic (both shot on Super 35) were both framed for and intended to be viewed in widescreen, he prefers the fullscreen versions (which have a bit of cropping on the sides, but have a lot more information on top and bottom).

So it's possible that Reggio shot and always meant for the film to be shown matted, but he liked the way it looked unmatted, too.

Either way, if the director approved the unmatted transfer, I guess I can't say shit!

--edit--

I do think it's important for people to be educated about apsect ratio, as a big part of convincing the layman that widescreen is better is telling them that it has more picture information, when this isn't always the case.

Equally difficult is getting people to understand that sometimes "fullscreen" is better for a film than widescreen - The Evil Dead comes to mind (shot and intended for fullscreen, cropped to widescreen by Sam Raimi for a re-issue DVD and Blu-Ray release).

What I said earlier still stands (though it doesn't really apply to this film now) - it's not about "more" or "less" image, it's about the right image.

Not directed at you, I just think it's important for viewers to be educated about framing and aspect ratios.

Thanks for the admission chainsawash.

Reminds me of films made in Cinemascope tranferred to television.

For example: Close up of 2 people talking, in the theater with cinemascope, both appear on the screen.

But on televison, you will actually see the camera 'move' to the person talking at the time. Quite distracting.

Yeah, I've seen that happen as well.  Lord of War was released 2.39:1 in theaters, but the initial DVD was 1.78:1.  They didn't fix it and release a re-issue until a whole lot of people complained.

Hi all.

Having bought, and watched the BR of this the other week, I was amazed. Then I came across this thread, and now I can't help feeling somewhat 'cheated' that it's not the full screen version.

I've looked everywhere and cannot find the IRE version to purchase.  As the Demonoid link is inactive, I'm hoping there might still be someone generous enough on here to start seeding it again. 

Thanks in advance.

Mez.

If you PM me an existing link, I can seed it.

OzzieMez said:

Hi all.

Having bought, and watched the BR of this the other week, I was amazed. Then I came across this thread, and now I can't help feeling somewhat 'cheated' that it's not the full screen version.

I've looked everywhere and cannot find the IRE version to purchase.  As the Demonoid link is inactive, I'm hoping there might still be someone generous enough on here to start seeding it again. 

Thanks in advance.

Mez.

Mez, I have an original IRE edition of this DVD.  Reggio signed envelope, proper IRE jacket cover.  Only shown 3 times since ownership.  Perfect condition.  Willing to sell for the $180  I paid for.   

OzzieMez said:

Hi all.

.

Mez, I have an original IRE edition of this DVD.  Reggio signed envelope, proper IRE jacket cover.  Only shown 3 times since ownership.  Perfect condition.  Willing to sell for the $180  I paid for.   

It's all cool. Somebody stepped up and seeded on Demonoid.

I do not see any seeds on the noid,  would some one pm me with details?

suntech said:

I do not see any seeds on the noid,  would some one pm me with details?

The site has a message banner that reads

We are currently experiencing problems with the torrent seed/leech stat querying. The torrents have peers, but they are not being reported properly. It will be fixed as soon as possible, sorry for the inconvenience.

Just download the .torrent and see what happens ;)

Couldn't see the forest for the trees. thanks

I thought I already posted this but obviously not...

As I'm not a collector, I wasn't willing to pay that sort of money for the DVD, but thank you anyway, MASGR07. The torrent will do me just fine.

On that note, thank you very much for the person that seeded it for me. I got it down overnight.

I'll be seeding it for a while if anyone still wants it.

Thanks again :-)

Mez.