Warner Introduces "SmileBox" with 'How the West Was Won' Blu-ray

http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/Warner/Disc_Announcements/Warner_Introduces_SmileBox_with_How_the_West_Was_Won_Blu-ray/1691

So, here are my questions:

1) is this a dual-encode, as in is the movie twice on a single disc?
2) Was the screen actually curved in the viewers eye, or just flat with a wider FOV?
3) Do you guys feel this is genuinely wanted by AV enthusiasts, or just an excust for a gimmickey effect .

1) Seperate version
2) Very much curved. 146 degree of arc to be exact.
3) In my opinion, both.

err I guess on #2 I realize the screen "wraps around" the viewer but was curious of there was a "smile" shape to the screen at the viewing area, or did it have a flat aspect and covered more of the FOV. If it's flat, then why distribute a film that's curved horizontally presumably like a "smile" when that's not the original viewing experience.

The "SmileBox" version will be included on the Blu-ray in addition to the standard theatrical presentation.;)

err I guess on #2 I realize the screen "wraps around" the viewer but was curious of there was a "smile" shape to the screen at the viewing area, or did it have a flat aspect and covered more of the FOV. If it's flat, then why distribute a film that's curved horizontally presumably like a "smile" when that's not the original viewing experience.

Because perspective makes the original viewing experience look like the "smile". The part of the screen closer to you will appear larger (taller) than the part that is more distant because of linear perspective. So the smilebox attempts to replicate the effect of linear perspective.

err I guess on #2 I realize the screen "wraps around" the viewer but was curious of there was a "smile" shape to the screen at the viewing area, or did it have a flat aspect and covered more of the FOV. If it's flat, then why distribute a film that's curved horizontally presumably like a "smile" when that's not the original viewing experience.
How The West Was Won was originally shot in Cinerama and was originally shown with Cinerama's "smilebox" curve. The film was later re-formatted with each of the three frame sections joined into one, producing a normal frame. So it's not Warner introducing "smilebox" (as in you'll never see I Am Legend re-released in smilebox), it's the studio including how the film was originally shown. I'm also pretty sure it was the only actual "film" released in Cinerama, the rest weren't shot with it in mind.

Widescreen Museum: Cinerama (http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/Widescreen/wingcr1.htm)

http://img386.imageshack.us/img386/2904/cineramabritannicardp3.gif

This intrigues me. Sounds like it's worth a rent, just to try it out.

I remember Cinerama when I was a teenager. Loved it! Now, with this smiley feature, does this mean that we will have to build our own DIY curved screen for our projectors in order to have the "Cinerama Experience" mentioned in the Warner promo? :rolleyes:

it just seems like you WOULDN'T want to watch this feature in a distorted smiley mode heh... it's just going to warp the aspect on your screen, which isn't what was intended for the viewer originally I hope!

very strange. This 'mode' benefits that 0.001% of Home Theater enthusiasts who have curved screens, I guess. For that guy, it's worth it. :)

I'd imagine that watching it on a 'smaller' screen would just give you a headache.

very strange. This 'mode' benefits that 0.001% of Home Theater enthusiasts who have curved screens, I guess. I don't think this is for people with curved screens. They already have that effect. This is basically a simulation of that effect for people with flat screens, at least from my reading of what they are doing.

I saw this with 3 projectors at the Cinerama in Seattle a few years ago. I wonder how well they can get the parts where the 3 film strips come together to look for home release.

--Darin

Let me try to provide some more background here.

As the diagram above shows, Cinerama was shot with 3 panels of 35mm film (6 perfs instead of 4 so each is taller than normal film) and displayed with 3 projectors. There was also an interlock mag film for 7-track stereophonic sound.

<Editorial>This process is absolutely fantastic. All improvements to film and video for the last 56 years have been an effort to replicate Cinerama. Nothing has. See this at the Seattle Cinerama Theatre (best) or the Hollywood Cinerama Dome (good but compromised.</Editorial>

Anyway, there is a huge problem in converting Cinerama to other formats. HTWWW was converted to 35mm Cinemascope/Metrocolor in 1963 and everything we have seen of it since has been made from the 35mm master. It totally destroys the film's cinematic effect.

The aspect ratio is, formally, over 3:1, but since it is shown on a heavily curved screen, it is actually less from the audience's perspective. Efforts to flatten it out result in huge optical distortion on the two side panels since you are flattening something that was shot "curved".

Smilebox is a solution to this problem. It creates a flat version of what you would see if you had a heavily curved 146-degree screen. I have seen it and it works. It is featured in a documentary called Cinerama Adventure which has been around since 2002 but rarely seen due to rights issues.

Warners has included both the documentary and also a version of HTWWW using Smilebox. This should be a real treat since it is probably the nearest thing to having a Cinerama setup in your house (which someone did BTW!) Thank you Warners!!!

Here are links with information about the documentary and the Smilebox process.

http://www.cineramaadventure.com/

http://www.cineramaadventure.com/smilebox.htm

^ And that is why I come to AVS Forum. Thanks rismith.

Thank you rismith. Great explanation and very informative links. I think that I will buy and experience Cinerama again when this BR comes out.

Thanks rismith that answered my questions... so basically they're correcting for the curvature of the side screens to give the correct viewing experience... it's kinda like the stretch mode on some HDTV's that stretches the "sides" of a 4:3 frame more than the center, making for weird transitions towards the sides.

very strange. This 'mode' benefits that 0.001% of Home Theater enthusiasts who have curved screens, I guess. For that guy, it's worth it. :)

I'd imagine that watching it on a 'smaller' screen would just give you a headache.

Very strange. You guys are predicting doom and gloom and poo pooing this and you have no idea of what this represents. Learn about this, then come back and discuss with a knowlegeable background instead of guessing.

This intrigues me. Sounds like it's worth a rent, just to try it out.

For something this unique and a great film, a most definite buy for any movie lover.

Of course Warner will do stuff like this but refuses to give us lossless soundtracks on every Blu-ray release. The people running their home video department should be fired.

For something this unique and a great film, a most definite buy for any movie lover.

I do not consider this a "great film". The narrative is overwhelming and pretentious. It's a history lesson at Disneyland!. However, the Cinerama effect is it's main attraction. It has no place with great cinema...:(

I do not consider this a "great film". The narrative is overwhelming and pretentious. It's a history lesson at Disneyland!. However, the Cinerama effect is it's main attraction. It has no place with great cinema...:(

I could write a lengthy essay both refuting and also giving some credence to your comments.

Let me simply note that 1) the Cinerama process was the third most important event in the history of motion pictures (the first being "The Birth of a Nation" and the second being the introduction of sound), and 2) the film itself is a monumental summary of the western including most of its icons, its styles, and its themes.

It ends with the same sense of loss that all great westerns have: in its case, the loss of a time and place (early 1963 not the old west!) and also the loss of the great dinosaur of motion picture technology.

I could write a lengthy essay both refuting and also giving some credence to your comments.

Let me simply note that 1) the Cinerama process was the third most important event in the history of motion pictures (the first being "The Birth of a Nation" and the second being the introduction of sound), and 2) the film itself is a monumental summary of the western including most of its icons, its styles, and its themes.

It ends with the same sense of loss that all great westerns have: in its case, the loss of a time and place (early 1963 not the old west!) and also the loss of the great dinosaur of motion picture technology.
I appreciate your erudition and the the invaluable knowledge that you share with us here at AVS. But I do not share that The Birth of a Nation was the first most important event in the history of motion picture. I is however for American cinema as it is from W. Griffith , the first of many great _American_ directors. Cinerama was a great experiment as I had the pleasure of experiencing it myself in the late 50's to early 60's. However, I would give more credit to Cinemascope as the technical revolution to "widescreen" that came out several years before. As for "great westerns", I would rather watch High Noon, The Searchers or Shane anytime. The Assassination of Jessie James is a good contemporary film that proves that the western genre is still alive and well and did not die in '63.

I appreciate your erudition and the the invaluable knowledge that you share with us here at AVS. But I do not share that The Birth of a Nation was the first most important event in the history of motion picture. I is however for American cinema as it is from W. Griffith , the first of many great _American_ directors. Cinerama was a great experiment as I had the pleasure of experiencing it myself in the late 50's to early 60's. However, I would give more credit to Cinemascope as the technical revolution to "widescreen" that came out several years before. As for "great westerns", I would rather watch High Noon, The Searchers or Shane anytime. The Assassination of Jessie James is a good contemporary film that proves that the western genre is still alive and well and did not die in '63.


Thanks for your comments.

One point: CinemaScope distinctly came out AFTER Cinerama and was a reaction to Cinerama, originated by Spiros Skouras of 20th Century Fox. VistaVision was Fox's answer; Todd-AO was Michael Todd's own answer (and he was one of the originators of Cinerama. And so on. All of these developments owed their genesis to Cinerama, I think most commentators would agree. CinemaScope (now Panavision) has certainly had a longer-lived use in the industry and influenced more film makers.

The westerns you have named are all excellent and can be defended as better westerns per se than HTWWW. The strength of HTWWW is more as a summary or compendium than it is a western itself.

Jesse James is very well done, as is the latest 3:10 to Yuma. Both of these have a more limited scope.

Question: are No Country for Old Men and There Will Be Blood "westerns"? What do you think?

Question: are No Country for Old Men and There Will Be Blood "westerns"? What do you think?

They are.

Wow. I thought smilebox was something else completely different.;)(Something not as appealing, but almost)

Do you need a special display too take advantage of this?
And is it basically panoramic like an IMAX screen?
Because I have something in my brain that makes me hate IMAX and its panorama.

Instead of implementing these BS features Warner can concentrate on their video and audio encodes.

Instead of implementing these BS features Warner can concentrate on their video and audio encodes.

I'll give them bonus points if they do both. But come on the community viewing thing should be on every new release.:rolleyes:

That feature makes me LFMAO, it totally defeats the purpose of owning your own copy.

Still I am intrigued by the near 3:1 screen ratio.:D I love widescreen.
2.89:1 Suck it Grand Prix(GP looks wider to me than it should for some reason).

One point: CinemaScope distinctly came out AFTER Cinerama and was a reaction to Cinerama, originated by Spiros Skouras of 20th Century Fox. VistaVision was Fox's answer; Todd-AO was Michael Todd's own answer (and he was one of the originators of Cinerama. And so on. All of these developments owed their genesis to Cinerama, I think most commentators would agree. CinemaScope (now Panavision) has certainly had a longer-lived use in the industry and influenced more film makers.


Just a minor correction -- VistaVision was Paramount. CinemaScope was Fox. I assume that was just a typo.

Otherwise, absolutely correct. The original anamorphic lenses Fox bought to "create" CinemaScope were developed in the late 1920s, but no studio had any interest until representatives from Fox and Warner Brothers saw an exhibition of Cinerama in New York. Both suddenly saw huge potential in widescreen and sent reps to France to meet with the designer of the anamorphic lenses. Fox got there first and secured the rights. Paramount created VistaVision a year later, trying to make a standard that wouldn't require major alterations to existing theatres. At the time, CinemaScope was a full 2.66:1 process, meaning ultrawide screens had to be installed in theatres. That shrunk to 2:35:1 within a few years as theatres demanded mono soundtracks be added in addition to the four channel magnetic audio tracks. Paramount recommended VistaVision be projected at 1.85:1, making for far less expensive theatrical installations.

Both systems were far cheaper and easier to work with than 3-camera Cinerama (both for studios and theatres), and didn't have the distortion issues that Cinerama inherently had. So, they took off, and 3-camera Cinerama never did. It's really too bad, as it was a fantastic system -- but all widescreen movies since then owe a tremendous debt to the system.

Also, for those complaining about "SmileBox," you have to think of it as OAR for 3-camera Cinerama productions. There is no way to accurately print the three strips "flat" without getting major distortion as you move to the edges of the side strips. This release should be the most accurate presentation of the film possible outside of the few remaining Cinerama cinemas.

Definitely looking forward to 'Smilebox' and how it'll look on my scope setup. I recall seeing 2 Cinerama features back in the sixties as a young lad : 'Khartoum' and 'Custer of the West'. Forty years later, I still recall how utterly overwhelming and immersive the experience was, and can consider myself fortunate to have sampled that fleeting, pinnacle moment in American cinema.

Thank you so much rismith and JadedRavertLA.
You both have concisely explained to us the evolution of the cinematic experience to where we stand today. It has awakened my curiosity and hopefully others to further read and learn about it. Your posts would be great reading in the AVS Constant Height Forum :)
As for No Country For Old Men (have not seen There Will Be Blood yet), it could just as well have taken place a century ago and the story line would still be relevant. I cannot fully comment on this film as I had difficulty understanding most of the English dialogs. I will give it another screening (in French this time) as to have a better understanding of it.
Regards,

Mériadec

P.S. Will definitely purchase HTWWW BR disk just for the simulation of the Cinerama Experience.

Instead of implementing these BS features Warner can concentrate on their video and audio encodes.:rolleyes:

I fail to see how providing what is essentially an OAR presentation (far more important than sound, IMO) is a "BS feature", when Warner is making demonstrable progress apart from a few titles in their A/V presentations.

Very strange. You guys are predicting doom and gloom and poo pooing this and you have no idea of what this represents. Learn about this, then come back and discuss with a knowlegeable background instead of guessing.

No, I absolutely "get" what this represents. I was only mistaken that the Blu-ray would be "designed" for curved screens (appearing distorted on a flat screen), but even still I'm not entirely convinced that the end result will achieve the intended effect. Maybe with 3D glasses ;)

Either way, I'll be buying this disc, and watching both versions.

.....See this at the Seattle Cinerama Theatre (best) or the Hollywood Cinerama Dome (good but compromised.

Yikes, I saw HTWWW at the Cinerama Dome back in '62. :eek: I'm astonished that it's still standing.

You're probably familiar with this site, but others may not be. I've always found it to be a fascinating read on matters widescreen. http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/index.htm

Well, my concerns are alleviated in any case, the packaging details for this release are up at dvd.themanroom.com and there's two discs, one with each version of the film... so you can just pick the disc you want to watch.

Yikes, I saw HTWWW at the Cinerama Dome back in '62. :eek: I'm astonished that it's still standing.

You're probably familiar with this site, but others may not be. I've always found it to be a fascinating read on matters widescreen. http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/index.htm

The 'Dome' was actually built for the opening of 'Mad World' in '63. You probably saw 'HTWWW' at the 'Hollywood Pacific' on Hollywood Blvd. I think that is where it was first shown.

The 'Dome' was actually built for the opening of 'Mad World' in '63. You probably saw 'HTWWW' at the 'Hollywood Pacific' on Hollywood Blvd. I think that is where it was first shown.
That must be the case. I know I saw Mad World at the dome on a YMCA outing. :p

Definitely looking forward to 'Smilebox' and how it'll look on my scope setup.

Unfortunately, I don't think that smileboxing will work all that well on a standard scope setup.

If this example is at all representative, the sides of the frame will extend too far into the 16:9 zone and will be cropped if you try to zoom it for a 2.35:1 screen.

http://www.mindspring.com/~lizap/smilebox.jpg

http://www.cineramaadventure.com/smilebox.htm

Wow a pic is worth 1,000 words there. I doubt it'll work with scope either.

Just looking through the sites for which the links were provided, I'm interested in checking this out also. Very informative and thanks!

http://img373.imageshack.us/img373/4025/howwestwaswonblur1uh7.th.jpg (http://img373.imageshack.us/my.php?image=howwestwaswonblur1uh7.jpg)

http://img373.imageshack.us/img373/8960/howwestwaswonblur2zt2.th.jpg (http://img373.imageshack.us/my.php?image=howwestwaswonblur2zt2.jpg)

Wow a pic is worth 1,000 words there. I doubt it'll work with scope either.

Personally, I would still use "scope" mode on such a setup. You should only get a very slight crop on the four corners (which is where Cinerama is most distorted anyway), while most of the picture will actually be "shorter" than the 2.39:1 frame.

If done properly, the overall aspect ratio should be around 2.59:1, adjusted to represent the original 140 degree curve of the screen. Warner's press release mentioned 2.89:1, which means they either are going to screw this up, or that they are measuring based on the frame height only at the center (instead of averaging across the frame). Hopefully, it's the latter. Either way, though, a constant height setup should work well for the presentation.

interesting, looks like it's actually NOT a gimmick


Let me try to provide some more background here.

As the diagram above shows, Cinerama was shot with 3 panels of 35mm film (6 perfs instead of 4 so each is taller than normal film) and displayed with 3 projectors. There was also an interlock mag film for 7-track stereophonic sound.

<Editorial>This process is absolutely fantastic. All improvements to film and video for the last 56 years have been an effort to replicate Cinerama. Nothing has. See this at the Seattle Cinerama Theatre (best) or the Hollywood Cinerama Dome (good but compromised.</Editorial>

Anyway, there is a huge problem in converting Cinerama to other formats. HTWWW was converted to 35mm Cinemascope/Metrocolor in 1963 and everything we have seen of it since has been made from the 35mm master. It totally destroys the film's cinematic effect.

The aspect ratio is, formally, over 3:1, but since it is shown on a heavily curved screen, it is actually less from the audience's perspective. Efforts to flatten it out result in huge optical distortion on the two side panels since you are flattening something that was shot "curved".

Smilebox is a solution to this problem. It creates a flat version of what you would see if you had a heavily curved 146-degree screen. I have seen it and it works. It is featured in a documentary called Cinerama Adventure which has been around since 2002 but rarely seen due to rights issues.

Warners has included both the documentary and also a version of HTWWW using Smilebox. This should be a real treat since it is probably the nearest thing to having a Cinerama setup in your house (which someone did BTW!) Thank you Warners!!!

Here are links with information about the documentary and the Smilebox process.

http://www.cineramaadventure.com/

http://www.cineramaadventure.com/smilebox.htm

How The West Was Won was originally shot in Cinerama and was originally shown with Cinerama's "smilebox" curve. The film was later re-formatted with each of the three frame sections joined into one, producing a normal frame. So it's not Warner introducing "smilebox" (as in you'll never see I Am Legend re-released in smilebox), it's the studio including how the film was originally shown. I'm also pretty sure it was the only actual "film" released in Cinerama, the rest weren't shot with it in mind.

Actually there was one other non-travelogue 3-strip Cinerama film released, though it is not highly regarded by many. THE WONDERFUL WORLD OF THE BROTHERS GRIMM preceded HTWWW as the first Cinerama movie that told a story, and I still find it entertaining.

The three fairy tale segments were directed by George Pal of Puppetoon fame, and they certainly outshine the connecting storyline of the romanticized life of the brothers and the evolution of their writings. In some ways the "docudrama" portion comes off as somewhat more juvenile than the fairy tales themselves. Still, TWWOTBG is as good or better than most other family films of the period.

However, all reports are that the available 3-strip elements are in poor shape, and it is unlikely we will ever see the money lavished on restoring it to the standard Warner will set with HTWWW.

I recently posted on this thread that I had seen two 'Cinerama' features in the 60's: 'Custer of the West' and 'Khartoum'. I recall the experience on the deeply curved, ultra-wide canvas -- it felt like a 180 degree FOV for me. Anyhows, a check of the OAR's on these two titles on IMDB revealed that they're actually 2.35, 35mm prints that were eventually displayed on properly equipped venues as 70mm 'SuperCinerama' presentations. I'm not familiar w/this process. Because it's not a 3-strip film, does it still utilize multiple projectors, and does the resulting AR and screen curvature come close to 'real' Cinerama? Even though these weren't true Cinerama films, I was still overwhelmed by the immensity and the power of the presentation.

I'm hoping 'JadedRaverLA' is close in his prediction of how well 'Smilebox' will work w/scope setups.

:rolleyes:

I fail to see how providing what is essentially an OAR presentation (far more important than sound, IMO) is a "BS feature".

+1....Widescreen Rules! -- the wider the better!

Nice thread. The fact that Warner would go to all this trouble proves there are people working for the studios that understand, like, even love film. I've never seen the film before but after reading all the posts and links I will definitely get my hands on a copy and have a look when it's available.

I recently posted on this thread that I had seen two 'Cinerama' features in the 60's: 'Custer of the West' and 'Khartoum'. I recall the experience on the deeply curved, ultra-wide canvas -- it felt like a 180 degree FOV for me. Anyhows, a check of the OAR's on these two titles on IMDB revealed that they're actually 2.35, 35mm prints that were eventually displayed on properly equipped venues as 70mm 'SuperCinerama' presentations. I'm not familiar w/this process. Because it's not a 3-strip film, does it still utilize multiple projectors, and does the resulting AR and screen curvature come close to 'real' Cinerama? Even though these weren't true Cinerama films, I was still overwhelmed by the immensity and the power of the presentation.

The films shot in 65mm (for 70mm Cinerama presentation) were mainly Cinerama in name only. Sometimes they used rectified prints in order to attempt to project onto the highly curved 140 degree Cinerama screens. They would also occaisonally use ultra-wide angle lenses in order to emulate the "Cinerama experience." Of course, using one camera and projector had a number of benefits over trying to use three, but other than the extremely curved screens, there's really no significant difference between those films and standard 65/70mm presentations.

I'm hoping 'JadedRaverLA' is close in his prediction of how well 'Smilebox' will work w/scope setups.

From what I've seen of it (on 'Cinerama Adventure') it should work well. Again, you'll cut off a bit, but overall it should be a very good experience, and about as close to the original Cinerama experience as you can get on a flat screen home theatre. That said, if anyone plans on installing an insanely curved screen with three projectors, I'd be more than happy to fly out for a viewing when this title gets released. :)

if anyone plans on installing an insanely curved screen with three projectors, I'd be more than happy to fly out for a viewing when this title gets released. :)

I second that motion....and thanks 'JaderRaverLA' for the 'SuperCinerama' info. Let's hope for more 'Smilebox' goodness from Warner (or other studios) on other pertinent titles.

Personally, I would still use "scope" mode on such a setup. You should only get a very slight crop on the four corners (which is where Cinerama is most distorted anyway), while most of the picture will actually be "shorter" than the 2.39:1 frame.

I only have that one example from the Cinerama Adventure site to work with.

http://www.mindspring.com/~lizap/smilebox.jpg

If you were to crop that to 2.35:1, it would look like this:

http://www.mindspring.com/~lizap/smilebox_on_235.jpg

This pretty much does away with the curved "smilebox" effect. But maybe the degree of curvature will be different on How the West Was Won? I don't know.

Either one pretty much does away with the curved "smilebox" effect. But maybe the degree of curvature will be different on How the West Was Won? I don't know.

The aspect ratio on their demo screenshot is quite a bit off. If you notice, when you crop to 2.39:1, you pretty much get rid of the entire "black bar" area. That is not at all correct for a three camera Cinerama presentation. I think they're just trying to show you the "effect" of the smilebox process, as opposed to an accurate representation of what area would actually be used within a 16:9 or 4:3 frame. 2.59:1 is the correct "average" aspect ratio for three camera Cinerama reformed to emulate the 140 degree curved screen. Cropped to 2.39:1, there still should be noticable black bars in the center, with the corners being cropped to fit.

Look, it's a bit like letterboxing.

If you don't want the smilebox effect, just watch the film on disc one.

If you want to see it in as close to the original presentation as possible, the smilebox version is on disc two.

Personally I'm thrilled WB did this as it's the only way to avoid the errors in aspect you can clearly see in the "flat" presentation deriving from the fact it was intended to be presented on a curved screen.

I've no idea if WB has done anything to address those effects in the flat version, but I'm certainly glad we'll see the smilebox version.

Oh, and one of the major thrills of my life was the opportunity to see HTWWW in Cinerama at the Cinerama Dome in November, 2005.

They were filming and interviewing the crowd for an extra for the DVD release, so it will be interesting to see if it makes it to the final product.

http://homepage.mac.com/kucharsk/cinerama.jpg

The good thing about this Blu-ray is that the Cinerama 2 vertical section lines are now being digitally removed for a seamless presentation.

Wolfie

The good thing about this Blu-ray is that the Cinerama 2 vertical section lines are now being digitally removed for a seamless presentation.

Wolfie

Martin Hart (proprietor of www.widescreenmuseum.com) posted on rec.arts.movies.tech that Dave Strohmeier (creator of THE CINERAMA ADVENTURE documentary to be included on all HTWWW DVDs and Blu-ray sets) attended a Smilebox screening of HOW THE WEST WAS WON at Warner and was blown away by the result.

He said the effect on the flat projection screen worked extremely well, and the join lines are practically invisible to the point that many will never see them.

This is my most anticipated home video release of all time. I saw HTWWW in its original roadshow presentation at the gorgeous Rialto theater in Louisville, KY (now a parking lot). Though I was only nine years old at the time I was enthralled with the film enough to see it twice more during that run in 1962.

I made the trip to Dayton, OH about 10 years ago to see it at the New Neon theater, again in 3-strip Cinerama glory. My letterboxed laserdisc simply did not deliver the joy of being enveloped by the wraparound screen and sharp detail of three 35mm strips of film, not to mention the multiple channels producing thunderous, clear sound effects and maginificent Alfred Newman score. (The magnetic audio track was sent to the speakers from its very own 35mm spool of film!)

HTWWW is not the best movie ever made, or even the best western, but it is my favorite film. The marriage of a sweeping epic story and a just-as-epic presentation thrilled me as no other movie ever would. The story of the "conquering" of the American West is the very definition of the word "epic," and HTWWW in Cinerama delivers in spades. The announcement of a high definition home video release that would even attempt to emulate the Cinerama experience gave me goose bumps. Adding THE CINERAMA ADVENTURE as a bonus just sweetens the pie that much more.

When the Blu-ray arrives look for the extreme depth of field that no film technology since has been able to duplicate. By way of a bit of a spoiler, notice the hairy arms of the stunt men who donned dresses and dived into raging rapids in the stead of Debbie Reynolds and Carrol Baker. The 3-in-1 35mm cameras revealed almost too much!

If I did not already own a Blu-ray player this would have been the one title that would have compelled a purchase at any price.

-- Dan --

The knowledge some folks here have never ceases to amaze me. I tip my cap.

Reading that the viewer was blown away while viewing this speaks volumes and I definitely want to get this.

BTW, doesn't some HDTVs offer a panoramic view (not that this is similiar)?

When the geometry board blew on my old Hitachi RPTV, I had this effect on everything I watched, for 2 weeks straight. Not appealing to me, but intersting nonetheless.

MDC

Martin Hart (proprietor of www.widescreenmuseum.com) posted on rec.arts.movies.tech that Dave Strohmeier (creator of THE CINERAMA ADVENTURE documentary to be included on all HTWWW DVDs and Blu-ray sets) attended a Smilebox screening of HOW THE WEST WAS WON at Warner and was blown away by the result.

He said the effect on the flat projection screen worked extremely well, and the join lines are practically invisible to the point that many will never see them.

This is my most anticipated home video release of all time. I saw HTWWW in its original roadshow presentation at the gorgeous Rialto theater in Louisville, KY (now a parking lot). Though I was only nine years old at the time I was enthralled with the film enough to see it twice more during that run in 1962.

I made the trip to Dayton, OH about 10 years ago to see it at the New Neon theater, again in 3-strip Cinerama glory. My letterboxed laserdisc simply did not deliver the joy of being enveloped by the wraparound screen and sharp detail of three 35mm strips of film, not to mention the multiple channels producing thunderous, clear sound effects and maginificent Alfred Newman score. (The magnetic audio track was sent to the speakers from its very own 35mm spool of film!)

HTWWW is not the best movie ever made, or even the best western, but it is my favorite film. The marriage of a sweeping epic story and a just-as-epic presentation thrilled me as no other movie ever would. The story of the "conquering" of the American West is the very definition of the word "epic," and HTWWW in Cinerama delivers in spades. The announcement of a high definition home video release that would even attempt to emulate the Cinerama experience gave me goose bumps. Adding THE CINERAMA ADVENTURE as a bonus just sweetens the pie that much more.

When the Blu-ray arrives look for the extreme depth of field that no film technology since has been able to duplicate. By way of a bit of a spoiler, notice the hairy arms of the stunt men who donned dresses and dived into raging rapids in the stead of Debbie Reynolds and Carrol Baker. The 3-in-1 35mm cameras revealed almost too much!

If I did not already own a Blu-ray player this would have been the one title that would have compelled a purchase at any price.

-- Dan --

Hi praise indeed -- although I concur that HTWWW was far from being a classic. Again, the main draw for me will be 'Smilebox'....I had owned this title on SD in the past and the join lines were quite evident on the image. I have to admit though, danshane's post was not unlike 'foreplay' -- whetting our appetites for the main event! (lol)

A fair amount of digital processing is going on to remove those join lines as well.

They're always quite visible even when watching a proper three projector presentation, as at the Dome in 2005.

It was always an unavoidable artifact of the process, and I suspect only recently has digital processing become powerful enough to easily do something about it other than just blur the join area, as the color/brightness differences would have been on the original negatives from the three different cameras.

http://homepage.mac.com/kucharsk/threading.jpg

There were several travelogue type Cinerama films. There were two Cinerama features...How the West Was Won and Wonderful World of the Brothers Grimm.

Does anyone out there know if any other films will get the smilebox treatment? There were several 70mm films that tried to replicate Cinerama, Todd-AO being the first. It had the capability to capture 120 degrees of an arc which was close to Cinerama. I saw some demos of Todd AO films in smilebox and they looked cool. Someone posted some smilebox demos of early CinemaScope films which rectified the drop-off at the sides of the picture...they also looked very cool.

"Windjammer" made in 3 camera/projector Cinemiracle is now being "Smileboxed" by the team behind Cinerama Adventure. It's due out later this year.Won't be as sharp as HTWWW aparently as taken from as 35mm print found in Sweden

Reading this thread has my interest piqued ! I tried to rent the BD from Blockbuster. Not knowing much about this movie and how it is presented, I broke the 2 disc set up and had them send me disc 1. Unfortunately, (or maybe fortunately after reading this thread) disc 1 could not be played by my Pioneer BDP51 player even with the latest FW. I thought the reason the movie was on two discs was that either it is too long to fit on one or that disc 2 was supplements only, so I removed disc 2 from my queue. Do I understand correctly that the "smilebox" version of the movie is on disc 2 ? If so, I'll put disc 2 back in my queue, and hopefully my player will be able to read that one.


Bill

Yes, disc 2 contains the smilebox version.

Reading this thread has my interest piqued ! I tried to rent the BD from Blockbuster. Not knowing much about this movie and how it is presented, I broke the 2 disc set up and had them send me disc 1. Unfortunately, (or maybe fortunately after reading this thread) disc 1 could not be played by my Pioneer BDP51 player even with the latest FW. I thought the reason the movie was on two discs was that either it is too long to fit on one or that disc 2 was supplements only, so I removed disc 2 from my queue. Do I understand correctly that the "smilebox" version of the movie is on disc 2 ? If so, I'll put disc 2 back in my queue, and hopefully my player will be able to read that one.


Bill

Reading this thread has my interest piqued ! I tried to rent the BD from Blockbuster. Not knowing much about this movie and how it is presented, I broke the 2 disc set up and had them send me disc 1. Unfortunately, (or maybe fortunately after reading this thread) disc 1 could not be played by my Pioneer BDP51 player even with the latest FW. I thought the reason the movie was on two discs was that either it is too long to fit on one or that disc 2 was supplements only, so I removed disc 2 from my queue. Do I understand correctly that the "smilebox" version of the movie is on disc 2 ? If so, I'll put disc 2 back in my queue, and hopefully my player will be able to read that one.


Bill

I only recently came across this thread and am also interested in seeing how this looks. It's not exactly my favorite type of movie, but the smilebox format should be interesting.

I went ahead and put disc 2 in my Netflix cue. You mentioned disc 1 wouldn't play on your Pioneer 51 with the latest firmware (v1.65 just came out recently). Maybe it was just a bad disc (the 51 is pretty finicky with less than perfect BDs. That's why I replaced my 51 with a 320.) I hope I won't have any trouble playing disc 2 on my Pioneer 320 (latest firmware v3.65).

Please report back when you have had a chance to check it out and I'll do the same.

Saturn94 -
I'll let you know if Disc 2 will play. Not playing disc 1 was strange - when I have had discs that wouldn't play (there really haven't been too many) the player usually puts out "can't play" on the display. This time it just sat there with "loading", and on the screen the ">" play icon was there, but the screen image was black. :confused: I gave up after waiting about 5 minutes, ejected it, and sent it back to Blockbuster. Maybe that's a new way of handling discs it can't read with the latest (Avatar) FW release.

How do you like your 320 ? I hold on to my 51 because of the awesome analog D/A section that has breathed new like into my CD collection which has me thrilled and has renewed my interest in listening to my CD collection again.:D

Bill

Saturn94 -
I'll let you know if Disc 2 will play. Not playing disc 1 was strange - when I have had discs that wouldn't play (there really haven't been too many) the player usually puts out "can't play" on the display. This time it just sat there with "loading", and on the screen the ">" play icon was there, but the screen image was black. :confused: I gave up after waiting about 5 minutes, ejected it, and sent it back to Blockbuster. Maybe that's a new way of handling discs it can't read with the latest (Avatar) FW release.

How do you like your 320 ? I hold on to my 51 because of the awesome analog D/A section that has breathed new like into my CD collection which has me thrilled and has renewed my interest in listening to my CD collection again.:D

Bill

I'll let you know if I have any problems with disc 2.

So far I am happy with my 320 (I've only had it about a month now). I know many like the 51 for it's analog performance. But in my case, running the 51 straight through via analog (with no processing) resulted in worse sound than either letting my Anthem AVM20 processor redigitize the analog signal for processing or just bitsteaming the digital signal to processor (I have some unique crossover setting requirements that the Anthem accomodates that the 51 doesn't). So in my case the 51 doesn't have a SQ advantage over the 320.

For me it came down to BD error correction, and so far, the 320 has done better than the 51.

Saturn94 -
I'll let you know if Disc 2 will play. Not playing disc 1 was strange - when I have had discs that wouldn't play (there really haven't been too many) the player usually puts out "can't play" on the display. This time it just sat there with "loading", and on the screen the ">" play icon was there, but the screen image was black. :confused: I gave up after waiting about 5 minutes, ejected it, and sent it back to Blockbuster. Maybe that's a new way of handling discs it can't read with the latest (Avatar) FW release.

How do you like your 320 ? I hold on to my 51 because of the awesome analog D/A section that has breathed new like into my CD collection which has me thrilled and has renewed my interest in listening to my CD collection again.:D

Bill

I got to watch disc 2 last night and it played on my 320 with no problems. The smilebox effect was pretty interesting/different although I think it loses something on a smaller screen (I have a 60" TV). I think you need a really big screen for this format to be really effective. That said it was worth a rental. I enjoyed the movie more than I thought I would (not much of a western fan) and the overall PQ was very nice (there are some beautiful shots in this film).

The films shot in 65mm (for 70mm Cinerama presentation) were mainly Cinerama in name only. Sometimes they used rectified prints in order to attempt to project onto the highly curved 140 degree Cinerama screens. They would also occaisonally use ultra-wide angle lenses in order to emulate the "Cinerama experience." Of course, using one camera and projector had a number of benefits over trying to use three, but other than the extremely curved screens, there's really no significant difference between those films and standard 65/70mm presentations.
In other words, it's like the difference between IMAX and "IMAX". One is native to the format and uses the full capabilities, the other is essentially a conversion to take advantage of the brand.

I got to watch disc 2 last night and it played on my 320 with no problems. The smilebox effect was pretty interesting/different although I think it loses something on a smaller screen (I have a 60" TV). I think you need a really big screen for this format to be really effective. That said it was worth a rental. I enjoyed the movie more than I thought I would (not much of a western fan) and the overall PQ was very nice (there are some beautiful shots in this film).

My copy arrived Friday and I watched it that night too. Yes, something like this does loose it's widescreen impact on smaller screens. I have a dedicated room with a 115" 2.35:1 screen, so some of the visual impact comes through. I sat for a while about 6' away from my screen and it was pretty cool. Farther back at my usual seating distance of 13' certainly diminished that effect. I noticed too that some scenes were deliberately shot and composed to really immerse the audience into the action. One in particular was early in the movie when a band of indians attacked the wagon train. In a Cinerama theater with curved screen I could imagine feeling part of the raiding party ! :cool:

Bill

My copy arrived Friday and I watched it that night too. Yes, something like this does loose it's widescreen impact on smaller screens. I have a dedicated room with a 115" 2.35:1 screen, so some of the visual impact comes through. I sat for a while about 6' away from my screen and it was pretty cool. Farther back at my usual seating distance of 13' certainly diminished that effect. I noticed too that some scenes were deliberately shot and composed to really immerse the audience into the action. One in particular was early in the movie when a band of indians attacked the wagon train. In a Cinerama theater with curved screen I could imagine feeling part of the raiding party ! :cool:

Bill

Do you know if there are any other BDs presented in this format?

The smilebox effect was pretty interesting/different although I think it loses something on a smaller screen (I have a 60" TV)

lmao at 60" being a "smaller screen"!

This film has always been an emotional favorite of mine. I saw it in '62 at the Orpheum in SF. Later, in college, I got rid of the program that I'd picked up when I saw the movie (roadshows in those days almost always had a program, usually in hardback, for $1.00, available in the lobby). After watching the smilebox version, I went looking on ebay and obtained a nearly fifty-year old copy of the same program.

This movie has always struck a chord, whether I'm watching it, or listening to the soundtrack (one of my first LP purchases).

it just seems like you WOULDN'T want to watch this feature in a distorted smiley mode heh... it's just going to warp the aspect on your screen, which isn't what was intended for the viewer originally I hope!

The thing is that the original lenses used to capture the images put distortion into the "flat" image on the film frame... like anamorphic capture. The smilebox actually presents geometry in the image in the most natural way possible... if you watch the film "flat" with the 3 images pieced together, and watch a simple left-right transition like a pan, everything curves up/down in a funky way. The smilebox version actually presents a more realistic geometry of the image content, though the shape of the letterboxing is now curved.

I finally got around to watching this myself over the weekend, and the smilebox format was much more enjoyable of a watch for myself. Sure, I have a tiny 42" screen compared to the small screen mentioned above, but much preferred the feel with the smilebox. The only tough viewing was the rapids scene, where it really seemed the faster action was tough to take. Overall, it was a very impressive technique. I tried disc 1, which I'll have to watch eventually for the commentary, but it didn't have the same appeal.

As for the movie, at the intermission, I was ready for it to be over. It was ok, but not really holding me. The second half, where I finally realized the link between all the individuals, had me very interested. By the time the outlaw came around, I wanted another hour! Still not a movie I'd pull out frequently, but I know I'll view it again in a few years.

lmao at 60" being a "smaller screen"!

I finally got around to watching this myself over the weekend, and the smilebox format was much more enjoyable of a watch for myself. Sure, I have a tiny 42" screen compared to the small screen mentioned above, but much preferred the feel with the smilebox. The only tough viewing was the rapids scene, where it really seemed the faster action was tough to take. Overall, it was a very impressive technique. I tried disc 1, which I'll have to watch eventually for the commentary, but it didn't have the same appeal.

As for the movie, at the intermission, I was ready for it to be over. It was ok, but not really holding me. The second half, where I finally realized the link between all the individuals, had me very interested. By the time the outlaw came around, I wanted another hour! Still not a movie I'd pull out frequently, but I know I'll view it again in a few years.

Compared to how it would have been in an appropriate theater, yeah 60" is "small".:o;)

Although quite effective/interesting on my 60" TV, I can imagine how much more effective this format would be on a giant screen in a theater.

Having seen the smilebox version, I can say I would prefer the smilebox format over a "flattened" version.

Any other BD titles in this format that anyone would recommend?

I agree with Saturn; let's not kid ourselves - nearly any size screen or TV we have at home is small compared to a large screen movie theater. This is especially apparent in films where the director or cinematographer is deliberately trying to convey a sense of space or panorama. Other scenes that come to mind is the slow "flyby" of the Discovery spacecraft in 2001: A Space Odyssey, or the opening scene in Star Wars Ep IV. At home it's difficult to reproduce that sense of scale that you get from an 80' Ultrascreen or on an IMAX screen. In the end, it's the sense of immersion that we lose at home.

Bill

I agree with Saturn; let's not kid ourselves - nearly any size screen or TV we have at home is small compared to a large screen movie theater. This is especially apparent in films where the director or cinematographer is deliberately trying to convey a sense of space or panorama. Other scenes that come to mind is the slow "flyby" of the Discovery spacecraft in 2001: A Space Odyssey, or the opening scene in Star Wars Ep IV. At home it's difficult to reproduce that sense of scale that you get from an 80' Ultrascreen or on an IMAX screen. In the end, it's the sense of immersion that we lose at home.

Bill

I just have to chime in and remind everyone that "size" is not the biggest factor with immersion... it's viewing angle.

Moving close to your screen at home can produce the same viewing angle as experienced in the theater. 1080p can easily do justice to conventional cinema-viewing angles of 35mm projection. You can even get IMAX immersion by just moving closer to your screen. However, where things start to show their limits is with the resolution of 1080p which doesn't capture enough detail to compete with the clarity of IMAX at very close viewing angles as you move closer than 1.25 screen widths or so. However, immersion-wise, you can still enjoy a wide viewing angle at home even if replicating IMAX immersion reveals a bit of softness.

That's where 4K may really help in the future... you could have IMAX immersion and still maintain resolution and clarity.

BTW, this is one of the reasons I went with my JVC LCOS machine... I can view from 1 screen width comfortably when I want and there is no visible pixel structure... just film like smoothness. It really does change the film experience when the immersion replicates real cinema. I find that I watch more and more films from 1-1.25 screen widths now and let the guests take the back sofa... :D

I just have to chime in and remind everyone that "size" is not the biggest factor with immersion... it's viewing angle.

Moving close to your screen at home can produce the same viewing angle as experienced in the theater. 1080p can easily do justice to conventional cinema-viewing angles of 35mm projection. You can even get IMAX immersion by just moving closer to your screen. However, where things start to show their limits is with the resolution of 1080p which doesn't capture enough detail to compete with the clarity of IMAX at very close viewing angles as you move closer than 1.25 screen widths or so. However, immersion-wise, you can still enjoy a wide viewing angle at home even if replicating IMAX immersion reveals a bit of softness.

That's where 4K may really help in the future... you could have IMAX immersion and still maintain resolution and clarity.

BTW, this is one of the reasons I went with my JVC LCOS machine... I can view from 1 screen width comfortably when I want and there is no visible pixel structure... just film like smoothness. It really does change the film experience when the immersion replicates real cinema. I find that I watch more and more films from 1-1.25 screen widths now and let the guests take the back sofa... :D

I know this is true on paper, but (at least for me) sitting closer to my TV is nothing like viewing in a large screen theater even if the viewing angle is the same. Perhaps it's the sense of scale or space that makes the difference. Whatever it is, it's not the same experience visually for me.:)

I know this is true on paper, but (at least for me) sitting closer to my TV is nothing like viewing in a large screen theater even if the viewing angle is the same. Perhaps it's the sense of scale or space that makes the difference. Whatever it is, it's not the same experience visually for me.:)

A small TV still locks your brian into a "small" experience because your focal distance is too short when you move into the image to fill your field of vision. Very true.

When you can fill your field of vision and still allow your eyes to relax and focux on something that's about 8-12 feet away, the experience, or "sensation" is much more like the immmersion feeling at the theater.

having the lights off in the room really makes it come together for "real" cinema.

A small TV still locks your brian into a "small" experience because your focal distance is too short when you move into the image to fill your field of vision. Very true.

When you can fill your field of vision and still allow your eyes to relax and focux on something that's about 8-12 feet away, the experience, or "sensation" is much more like the immmersion feeling at the theater.

having the lights off in the room really makes it come together for "real" cinema.

Good info.....thanks.

BTW (sorry for being off topic), but I think I recognize you from the Home Theater Forum (back in 2000 when shopping for my first HDTV). Didn't you start out with the 46" Mitsubishi HDTV back then? If so I see you've upgraded a bit.:D

If you are not that person, sorry for the mistaken indentity.:o

I just have to chime in and remind everyone that "size" is not the biggest factor with immersion... it's viewing angle.

Moving close to your screen at home can produce the same viewing angle as experienced in the theater. 1080p can easily do justice to conventional cinema-viewing angles of 35mm projection. You can even get IMAX immersion by just moving closer to your screen. However, where things start to show their limits is with the resolution of 1080p which doesn't capture enough detail to compete with the clarity of IMAX at very close viewing angles as you move closer than 1.25 screen widths or so. However, immersion-wise, you can still enjoy a wide viewing angle at home even if replicating IMAX immersion reveals a bit of softness.

That's where 4K may really help in the future... you could have IMAX immersion and still maintain resolution and clarity.

BTW, this is one of the reasons I went with my JVC LCOS machine... I can view from 1 screen width comfortably when I want and there is no visible pixel structure... just film like smoothness. It really does change the film experience when the immersion replicates real cinema. I find that I watch more and more films from 1-1.25 screen widths now and let the guests take the back sofa... :D


True, size isn't the only component to achieve immersion. But my real point is that immersion is difficult to achieve from normal seating distances without it (or that feeling of immenseness you get at IMAX or Ultra Screen). With a 40" TV, you would have to sit 4.5' away to achieve the THX recommended viewing angle of 36 deg. Not being an expert in this area, I don't know if a 36 degree viewing angle fills our field of vision. My guess is not. Seriously, who would want to sit that close ? Also, I think even at distance, we still "know" that the images on that 40" screen are small. In contrast, when we're in at an IMAX, Batman or Ironman look really huge and yet in both situations the screen is filling our field of view. Which one is more immersive, gives you that WOW, that's BIG sensation ? I think we know the answer to that one. :D

Bill

True, size isn't the only component to achieve immersion. But my real point is that immersion is difficult to achieve from normal seating distances without it (or that feeling of immenseness you get at IMAX or Ultra Screen). With a 40" TV, you would have to sit 4.5' away to achieve the THX recommended viewing angle of 36 deg. Not being an expert in this area, I don't know if a 36 degree viewing angle fills our field of vision. My guess is not. Seriously, who would want to sit that close ? Also, I think even at distance, we still "know" that the images on that 40" screen are small. In contrast, when we're in at an IMAX, Batman or Ironman look really huge and yet in both situations the screen is filling our field of view. Which one is more immersive, gives you that WOW, that's BIG sensation ? I think we know the answer to that one. :D

Bill

Bill,

you've uncovered the biggest shortcoming with most so-called "home theaters"... they are sitting way to far away from their particular display to achieve any reasonable cinema-immersion experience.

How to solve it? First off, it sounds weird, but yes, you definitely can slide that sofa or chair forward when watching movies and then slide it back when you're done. That's the cheapest and easiest way to get a cinema-viewing angle from the 40" or 50" flat panel you happen to already have.

The rule of thumb is "1.5 screen widths away from the 16x9 screen". That gets you about 30 degrees of viewing angle. That's like sitting in the middle or rear half of a typical movie theater. If you like to sit closer in the movie theater, then moving closer... like 1.3 or 1.2 screen-widths accomplishes filling your field of vision to the same degree. The focal depth of your eyes is what tells your brain that the picture is big or small, but believe me when I say that filling your field of vision is the most important element of feeling immersed... having a "big" image is helpful too, but it's less significant to the overall experience... you would get much more immersion sitting 1.5 screen-widths from a 40" flatscreen than sitting 2 or 3 screen widths away from a screen the size of a roadsize billboard.

The problem for most people is if you have a small flat-panel TV and are trying to make your living room or den serve double duty as a HT room, then furniture placement would see awkward if you moved the seating forward to get a decent viewing angle with such a such a small screen. Allow me to stress that even if leaving the furniture set up that way long-term is not possible, don't let that stop you from sliding that sofa back/forth when you really want a "real" immersive cinema experience.

However, the easier solution is to get a screen large enough so that your "best furniture placement" distance from the screen *becomes* 1.3-1.5 screen-widths away from the 16x9 screen automatically. This is why so many folks serious about HT are going front-projection... it basically automatically creates the viewing angle of real cinema without having to re-arrange the room (or in some cases actually needing to slide the sofa back instead of forward). The other plus with a large 100" screen is that a 1.3-1.5 distance is far enough away from a screen this size to allow your eyes to start to focus with distance rather than close-up... this allows your brain to think "big picture" which does add to the immersion feeling, but rest assured that moving closer to a smaller screen gets you very close to the same experience (IMO, filling your field of vision is paramount and thinking in your mind that the image is "big" is secondary, though still a good thing).

"Home Theater" is not the same thing as "HDTV"... if we really mean what we say when we say "home theater", that means, to the best of our ability, replicating the video-reproduction aspects to achieve as-good (or better) visual and sound quality as we experience theatrically. The immersion-aspect of films is a key component of what makes a movie a "movie" and not "TV"... so you guys are very right for noticing how when this is missing, "home theater" just isn't the same.


But rest assured that getting the full immersion factor in your home theater is just as possible... you just need to figure out how to best attain that 1.3-1.5 screen-widths viewing distance in your particular situation... at least when it's important to you to experience a particular film with the immersion factor that the director intended you to have.

My copy arrived Friday and I watched it that night too. Yes, something like this does loose it's widescreen impact on smaller screens. I have a dedicated room with a 115" 2.35:1 screen, so some of the visual impact comes through. I sat for a while about 6' away from my screen and it was pretty cool. Farther back at my usual seating distance of 13' certainly diminished that effect. I noticed too that some scenes were deliberately shot and composed to really immerse the audience into the action. One in particular was early in the movie when a band of indians attacked the wagon train. In a Cinerama theater with curved screen I could imagine feeling part of the raiding party ! :cool:

Widescreen impact is neither loose nor tight. ;)

I thought the new presentation was remarkable, and helped immerse viewers in the larger image (it didn't lose anything). Those people with CIH setups need to realize they are watching on a non-standard format. Don't mistake format support for format standard: BD spec is a 1.78 format.

Had the folks over recently and had to explain yet another picture format (took me a while to convert them to letterboxing back in the early 90's), but they accepted it and got used to it.