Se7en has wrong aspect ratio.

Its open matte not a big deal to me.

I have american psycho open matte german release that looks fantastic.

Im all for open matte as long as we dont see camera's hanging.

Its either that or I pay a grand or two for a good anamorphic lens.

Still i know some of you wont touch anything thats not intended by the director.

To each his own, looks wise theres no difference except more can be seen in open matte.

There is a big difference if you know what to look for. The compositions just look "off," usually due to too much head room/dead space in the frame. It just doesn't look right.

Furthermore, if the director wanted his film to be shown at 1.85/1.78, he would have chosen to shoot in that format.

Seeing as David Fincher is just about the most precise and exacting director working in Hollywood these days, you can bet that his framings were deliberate.

I dont get how you think it doesnt look right. Unless your a film maker, i dont get how it looks off.

I have seen quite a few open matte movies and never noticed a problem.

Again unless your a film maker I dont know how opening it up wont look right. I think its more that you know what it was suppose to be, but its changed, and that bothers some people. Like I said to each his own. It has yet to bother me though.

Doesn't take a genius to work out when something has either too much head or tail room.
Going on the DVDBeaver stills, there's far too much dead space at the bottom of each shot.

I have seen american psycho german and now the australia release, german was open matte, australian was not, to me they looked almost identical pq wise, i might even give the edge to the german version, opening it up all i noticed was in some scenes i could see a picture hanging on the wall i never seen before, or a window not visible in the other.

As long as it looks good pq wise and its not cropped im satisfied, again others are not. But i dont know how the composition looks off.

Oh yea because like my american psycho example to much headroom showed the entire picture frame, instead of a half the picture frame. The first thing I said was this has to much head room.

I totally understand why some of you dont like it cause you know what its suppose to be. I can see why that bothers some. I just dont get it when people make accusations about open matte pq. Pq wont be different, i think if some dont like the composition it comes down more to taste and prefrence or they have a more skilled eye for film making. But typically in a blind test I would love to see you guys not knowing the intended aspect ratio, actually pick out which is the correct one.

We know.

See my Alliance thread.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't open matte mean that he did shoot it in that format? Isn't that kinda what "open matte" means?

I think what Kyle_D meant was that they would frame and release it in that aspect ratio.

What FooChan said.

Though technically, Super35 (used for spherical 2.35:1) and academy 35mm (used for spherical 1.85:1 and anamorphic 2.35:1) are separate film formats. Se7en was a Super35 production.


It really wouldn't be all that hard. Once you know the basics of composition and cinematography, it's pretty easy to pick out what looks right and what looks wrong. An easy way to tell is in close ups. If there's a bunch of dead air above the actor's head or below their jaw, something is amiss. The Matrix series in open matte looks horrible because of this.

Another clue that something is off in scope cinematography is the balance of the frame. Cinematographers often use the scope frame to emphasize the width of the image by placing subjects on extreme opposite ends of the frame. With the mattes opened up, the impact is lost and it just looks awkward.

Admittedly, some directors deliberately compose their shots to look good in various aspect ratios, and films with a lot of handheld work obviously aren't shooting for a precise composition. However, it's still good peace of mind to know it's being shown in the director's preferred theatrical ratio.

While I don't necessarily hate when something is opened, I can understand why directors would rather it be watched in the intended aspect ratio.

If you look at King Kong, you'll notice that it's 2.35:1 on BD/DVD and is broadcast on HDTV at 1.78:1. So what's the big deal if we get MORE picture?

If you watch it on blu-ray, you'll notice that there are a bunch of closeup shots that zoom in on Jack Black's face to show his expression. When this was "opened" for tv, not only are the "zooms" less meaningful, but his face is sometimes even offset from the center of the screen.... In other words, you're not getting the full impact of what the director wanted to show you. I'm using this as an example because it's the first one that comes to mind.... strange in that I dont even like the movie.

A David Fincher film in anything other than it's OAR is unacceptable. If you want everything in 1.78:1 watch HBO. Don't force this garbage on the consumers.

Is there one version of "Seven" or is there an unrated/DC floating around somewhere?
Thanks

I think similar OAR change happened to HD release of The World's Fastest Indian.

It's not a PQ issue. It's a composition issue. Look at these two examples.

In the shot released, director Alex Proyas has carefully positioned his characters at opposite ends of the frame, and uses the windows between them to form a precise geometrical symmetry.

The next shot shows what was actually photographed on the camera negative. The final shot shows what happens when you open the matte. See how all the dynamic tension between the two characters has now been lost? The characters now seem to be closer to each other yet further away from the viewer and this creates a totally different feel to the shot.

Keith

Well, I'm not a "filmmaker" (I don't work in film), but I have worked on my share of network television projects and have shot still photography for a couple of decades now.

I can assure you that I can tell when something is "amiss" in a frame when the mattes are opened up. The shot just doesn't work.

Of course, it's the same reason I can pick out when a director or DP has really made an effort to compose the elements of a shot as opposed to just framing the actors properly. It's also the reason that shooting two people talking while protecting 4:3 drives me crazy - having all that space behind the guy talking in a over the shoulder shot looks terrible to me.

what a shame, and it looks amazing which makes it even worse

-Gary

Shame, this is my most-wanted BD. Oy...

At least the US release will be in it's OAR. How do I know? Because it better be.

if you've got vertical stretch and an anamorphic lens, would it be ok to stretch the pic out to get 2.4:1? In simple terms, would the cropping on top and bottom from the open matte always be equal or would there sometimes be more cut off on the top than bottom or vice versa?

That indeed makes this much more frustrating. While the master used for the inevitable Warner release will be OAR, it will probably be another one of New Line's plasticized works of art.

For $16, this will do until the DNR Line release comes out. I never owned the DVD so it's better than nothing.

I think the term OAR should be changed to IAR (intended aspect ratio) because OAR is debatable in the case of the Dark Knight and a few other movies. Also some directors have an aspect ratio in mind for television when they use open matte...

In the case of Dark City, if the "important" parts of the frame were in the middle, it wouldn't be quite as bad as it is in that pic (where the important information is closer to the top). Some directors have a framing in mind for tv when they are filming... in this case, it doesnt look like Proyas intended it to be seen "opened" and if he did, I'm sure that isnt the framing he had in mind.


Edit: just checked Wikipedia: "Because of the varied ways in which films are shot, IAR (Intended Aspect Ratio) is a more appropriate term, but is rarely used." so I guess what I'm saying is nothing new.

While Se7en is my #2 movie of all time it's not one of the films I'm waiting for on BR. On my TV the Platinum version looks damn near HD quality and looking at those first few grabs at DVD Beaver I see very little difference between them. Of course on a big screen the difference will become more clear. Eventually I'll get the US version which will hopefully be the right aspect ratio

I supposed I get what I deserve for pre-ordering an Alliance Blu-ray Disc before reading the reviews. This is damn disappointing with the lack of processing being only of minor consolation.

I can live with DNR, EE, and lossy sound... Yes yes, I can. But the ONLY reason I wouldn't want to buy a Blu-ray is if it isn't in the OAR. With a movie like Se7en, this is simply unforgiveable. I'll wait for the US release, that way I won't have to endure any bilingual crap either!

This release is also 1080i, so yeah, definitely seems meant for broadcast