Review: Frequency BD + Screen Caps Jul 082012 These are only here to give an idea of the movie’s video quality and may not be truly representative of it. Pages: 1 2 Please follow and like us: 07/08/2012 Blu-ray Reviews, Quick Hit Reviews, Screen Caps Tagged with: Dennis Quaid, Jim Caviezel, Noah Emmerich 6 Responses to “Review: Frequency BD + Screen Caps” Comments (6) Asad says: 08/19/2012 at 7:42 AM Ok, I’m baffled by something here… I’ve had a HDTV rip of Frequency for a while now. So when I heard the Blu ray was coming up I decided to check some reviews. The film’s original aspect ratio is listed as 2.35:1 / 2.40:1 and the Blu ray has the same. Now… the HDTV rip I have has an aspect ratio of 16:9. Naturally, I thought that it was a cropped version of the original 2.35.1 widescreen version, tailored so that it would fit HDTV screens fully for HDTV broadcasts. Then, I checked out the Blu ray screenshots from a couple sites. Turns out the HDTV version wasn’t cropped.. the Blu ray was: 1) Blu ray version: http://images2.static-bluray.com/reviews/6359_1_large.jpg HDTV version: http://i.imgur.com/AUO2W.jpg 2) Blu ray version: http://images4.static-bluray.com/reviews/6359_9_large.jpg HDTV version: http://i.imgur.com/AoWoc.jpg Yeah, I know my rip is of low quality… but look at the frames. The 16:9 version isn’t cropped from the 2.35:1 version, it’s the other way around. Doesn’t this mean the film was originally filmed in 16:9 / 1.78:1 and NOT 2.35:1? Why would they crop the original frame and remove areas of it from the top and bottom just for the Blu ray transfer? If it was filmed in 1.78:1, that is the way the director intended it to be viewed. This is confusing. Especially since most of the Blu ray reviews state that the video has been presented in “the original 2.35:1 / 2.40:1 aspect ratio”… How is that the original aspect ratio if it has been cropped? Ugh. Thanks. TheMovieman says: 08/19/2012 at 7:52 AM Looking at the comparisons, it just means they opened up the matting. It was framed for 2.35 while filming but for HDTV broadcasts, the black bars on the top and bottom were removed so the entire image would fill the screen. Here’s something on Wikipedia to explain what I’m talking about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Open_matte_film_illustration.jpg Asad says: 08/19/2012 at 9:21 AM Ah, awesome. Thanks for the info! Hmm. Makes me think about how TRON was presented in theatres now that my mind goes there… am I correct in thinking that this means the image wasn’t really widescreen? Since filming in 2.35:1 is supposed to mean that the image is originally a lot more wider / horizontally larger than the image filmed using cameras with a 1.78 frame, while in this technique – the frame was simply cropped from a less wider frame to technically achieve the same scope effect. As far as I know, the only cameras that are capable of filming shots that are really wide and tall at the same time are IMAX cameras, but then, I don’t know much, haha. TheMovieman says: 08/19/2012 at 9:45 AM No, it’s still widescreen and IMAX is a different kind of system, though it’s beyond my limited expertise. It’s certainly interesting topic though there are many who are far more converse with it than I am, lol. There are sites that I’ve seen that goes into detail about aspect ratios (i.e. 1.33, 1.78, 1.85, 2.35, 2.40, etc), though so many not sure which is the best, but a Google search of “Aspect Ratios Explained” might help. There was one I liked but I can’t seem to find it at the moment, but will reply if I do. Asad says: 08/19/2012 at 5:22 PM Haha, I know how aspect ratios work. 😛 When I said it wasn’t “really widescreen”, I meant the difference between films matted to 2.35:1 (which were shot on Super 35) and films which were “originally” filmed at 2.35:1 using cameras with anamorphic lenses – the latter can’t “open up” from the top and bottom because it was never matted, it was originally shot at widescreen. I think that while Super 35 can achieve the widescreen look after matting, anamorphic lenses can shoot wider shots without moving the camera back. But in the end, both 2.35:1 compositions look the same and no one can really tell if the frame was matted or originally shot like that just by looking at the film. Makes you think about all the films that were shot using Super 35… Like the Harry Potter series, for example, which were presented at 2.35 in the theatres and Blu-ray, and yet, channels like HBO probably have access to the unmatted prints for HDTV broadcasts JUST because so many people complain about seeing black bars on their 16:9 screens. TheMovieman says: 08/19/2012 at 10:52 PM Ah, ok. Gotcha. Leave a Reply Cancel reply Your Comment You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong> Name (required) E-mail (required) URI This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.