The Undiscovered Country - Theatrical Cut Blu-ray vs Director's Cut iTunes

[Bad Robot]

I think my question was more on if the VHS pan and scan had more picture information than the widescreen version. I have that shot in the first page with the sunset on Khitomer showing more picture info at the bottom on Director’s cut than the theatrical blu-ray, but wondered if the VHS pan had even more info*. I’ve never watched this film in pan and scan before. Since VHS, I’ve always had this title in widescreen, whether the theatrical AR or the opened up 2.00:1. I was incredibly lucky to have parents that always looked out for widescreen VHS titles when I was a little boy. It’s part of why I was so ecstatic about DVD as a teenager because widescreen was being standardized (even though they still released full screen titles up to the 2000s).

*I’m doubting it.

The VHS did indeed show more vertical than what was lost in horizontal, suggesting a "maximized" aspect ratio of 1.66 appropriate for super 35. This is almost definitely true for all of the live action stuff (although super 35 can be a lot more variable in regards to how much of the filmed image is even selected from one shot to the next, as someone once illustrated comparing widescreen vs pan-and-scan screencaps of Terminator 3).

The special effects would not have "needed" to be printed at 1.66, but my general impression from viewing both transfers in VHS is that they probably were. In particular the opening/closing credits felt like you were, again, gaining more vertical than was lost in horizontal. Plus the pan-and-scan actually zoomed out to something resembling 1.66 during the fly-into-the-sunset, and held there for sign off and closing credits.

As to whether you could present the whole movie at 1.66 without losing anything, who knows.

 

[Maurice]

Sometimes films are shot with a given aspect ratio in mind and "protected" for an alternate one.

 

[Indysolo]

The special effects would not have "needed" to be printed at 1.66, but my general impression from viewing both transfers in VHS is that they probably were.

The movie was planned to be shown at 2.35:1 in 35mm and 2.2:1 for 70mm. Knowing that, they would not have spent the money to create effects outside that area and would protect to about 2:1. That would explain why the "DIrector's Cut" DVD had a 2:1 aspect ratio and can be confirmed with this shot. Compared with the 2.35:1 shot you can see the CG blood wasn't rendered in the dead space at the bottom of the frame when opened up.

 

[Bad Robot]

The movie was planned to be shown at 2.35:1 in 35mm and 2.2:1 for 70mm. Knowing that, they would not have spent the money to create effects outside that area and would protect to about 2:1. That would explain why the "DIrector's Cut" DVD had a 2:1 aspect ratio and can be confirmed with this shot. Compared with the 2.35:1 shot you can see the CG blood wasn't rendered in the dead space at the bottom of the frame when opened up.

Great. Then who's got screencaps of the non-letterbox VHS or laserdisc? Because they would show the full height of the parent frame for that shot.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

Worth noting, the 1999 and 2004 DVDs, while both opened up, have slightly different framing in some shots. I don’t think it’s that big of a difference, but there it is.

 

[Maurice]

re ILM and the TUC VFX aspect ratio — Got confirmation that ILM at that time shot their VFX in 1.85, which allowed them to add tilt downs when the finals would be in wider ratios like 2.35. So there you go.