14 of 16 people found the following review helpful
Verified Purchase(What is this?)
This review is from: Pride and Prejudice (Special Edition) [DVD]  (DVD)
Let's start by saying that I love, love, love this adaptation. My one star is for this edition. The series was originally not in widescreen. For this edition they chopped parts from the top and bottom to make it fit to the size of widescreen tv's. I hate it when they do this. Why not leave this (and any) series as it was originally intended? Sometimes you don't notice the cropping, but at times it's obvious something is missing.
Tracked by 1 customer
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-4 of 4 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 23 Jul 2013 17:50:41 BDT
Anthony Whitfield says:
'They' did not just crop a 4.3 image. I believe the original was a 14.9 film negative, much easier to squeeze out a widescreen version. It tells you what they did in the extras. Most people, have widescreen TV's. Very few people want black bars at the side of the picture. Very few people wanted 16.9 tv's back then, now you can't buy anything else. We are are stuck with what we are given. Be grateful the BBC did so well in this restoration.
In reply to an earlier post on 23 Jul 2013 18:43:13 BDT
Last edited by the author on 23 Jul 2013 18:44:24 BDT
M. Bijlsma says:
Whatever the original aspect ratio was, the image was cropped to make it fit to 16.9. In one of the extra's you can see some scenes from the original broadcast. Compare those with what is on this dvd, and you see that they cropped the image considerably. In the extra's they only tell us what they did what they want us to know. Most people who want to experience a movie or series like they originally did, do not ever want a cropped image, and do not care about black bars. I heard nobody ever complain about bars at the top and bottom of the screen when they were watching a widescreen movie on a 4.3 tv. Making a 4.3 series fit a 16.9 tv is as silly as in the days of video and early dvd when widescreen movies were cropped to fit the 4.3 image. That is what you get when someting was shot on a diferent format.
Don't tell me you would even have liked them to cut the opening and closing titles, to make the thing look like one long movie instead of a series.
And I do not think they did such a great job on the restauration. Yes, the image looks clean, bright and clear, but fluffy (especially the faces) because they went too far wanting to remove imperfections.
In reply to an earlier post on 16 Jan 2014 18:17:20 GMT
Last edited by the author on 17 Jan 2014 12:35:32 GMT
Herbert Asquith says:
Marc, You're correct in saying that a bit of the top and bottom of the original frame is cropped to get a 16:9 widescreen picture for modern TVs. But you're wrong in assuming that your beloved 4:3 is the original aspect ratio - it isn't! Please sit down before you read the next bit...
The 4:3 is also cropped! To get the original 'Super 16' widescreen image (14:9 or 1.66:1) to fit early 4:3 TV screens, the SIDES of the original frame were cropped. That means when you sit watching your vintage DVD, you aren't getting all of the picture either! This is basically what Anthony Whitfield was trying to tell you.
So which do we watch - the old DVD and lose the sides... or the restored widescreen DVD and lose the top and bottom? As the Blu-ray version is also from the restored 16mm negative, I think I'll go for that! But don't take my word for it - go to DVDBeaver.com, search for the 1995 Pride and Prejudice (Blu-ray), scroll down a few pages and see the comparison images for yourself.
Perhaps it's now time to reconsider your 1 star rating?
In reply to an earlier post on 9 Feb 2014 11:59:56 GMT
I appreciate the technical difficulties, but agree that the "top cropping" can be just a little off-putting at times. Also agree that the image restoration hasn't been wholly successful. At times this version is faintly reminiscent of one of those "colorized" black and white films and this is particularly noticeable in close-ups of people's faces. However, these are minor quibbles and I still think the production deserves a higher star rating.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›