so ive just got Gladiator HDTV

[Jaybo]

ok so i remember a post about the difference between gladiator hdtv and dvd...

ive dont my own comparaison and heres what ive found

HDTV

DVD



HDTV

DVD



its aparent that in some scenes you are seeing more of the movie, and in other scenes you are losing a great deal of picture...

whats the deal !?!?!?


HDTV

DVD




HDTV

DVD



all the images are roughly scaled to 1600x900 then brought down in size by about 10% to 1440x811. this would bring the hdtv down from 1920x1080 and would beef up the dvd from 852x480 (NTSC)

is it just me or is the hdtv a bit milky .....

also the scene with the guys blowing the horns, u gain a great deal of footage below them , but lose a great deal on the left side.... it seems to change from scene to scene.

was the movie originally shot in 2.35 or 1.85 becuase the NTSC dvd is 2.35 so id bet they wouldnt shoot the movie is something other than 2.35.

it just seems my examples are not as high end as others examples that have posted here before ...
thanks for input...

[trailergod]

ok, i also have this HDTV and the SUPERBIT DVD of Gladiator. The HDTV is much better.

When comparing you should keep the size of the HDTV which is 1920x1080 and resize the DVD to 1920x1080, then you can compare the 2.

Most movies are shot on 35mm open matted and Gladiator is a 35mm movie with effects on the whole frame. Ridley Scott simply cropped the images up and down to get a 2.35:1 format. HDTV is 16:9 pr 1.78:1 format, to get this they simply remove the matts...



HDTV version



HDTV shows more !!

Heres Lord of the Rings HDTV vs DVD, no need to tell which is better :-)







you can see HDTV stays at 1920x1080 and DVD is resized to 1920x1080

[bendermac]

gladiator isn't hard matted!!! for the theatrical release they matted it in a way that the viewer sees only the most important parts in 2.35:1 aspect ratio. this can be seen in the above posted pics by jaybo.

[Kn'thrak]

Trailergod, don't be fooled but those images. They are placed out of context. Too much detail to consider but its not a fair comparison.


Remember, analog looks much better close up than digital... but digital looks much better afar than analog. Same goes with audio.

But... like those pictures above, its all a matter of opinion.

[Shrubz]

I'd rather maintain the original aspect ratio of the film. This seems to be a new
trend of HD on television, opening up or cropping the picture to fill the 1.78
frame. I'm not a fan of this. Thankfully HDNet and Showtime still air everything
in its original aspect ratios. Time Warner owned stations such as HBO and iNHD
make it 1.78 no matter what the original aspect was (except on some of their
older HD transfers). The only way this is useful is on a movie like Terminator 3,
where the matting on the DVD transfer was incorrectly done, but this is a rare
occasion.

[Guiboche]

Yes, this is true. Gladiator is intended as 2.35:1. Even though open matte shows more picture. But it does in fact vary from scene to scene. Since the 2.35:1 "Indended' aspect ratio had been has been properly moved and cropped to the director's intent. So even though the 1.78:1 shows more picture, the "central" viewing area could be as far as 2 thirds of it's intended vertical positioning.

[trailergod]

they why did they spend money in doing and showing effects on a 1.78:1 ratio ? If the movie is intended for 2:35:1 then why spend all the money to show effects on a 1.78:1 ratio (open)

[Guiboche]

Well, you can see by even these caps that the picture is cropped on some of the 1.78:1 sources.

But, the real answer is, to fullfill the "fools" of "foolscreen." People whom need, nor deserve catering to.

And, as for Gladiator, all I know is it's a 2.35:1 intended film, and any other ratio, more picture or not, is not a version I care to watch.