Raise The Titanic

J

Jeremy Aufderheide

Member
I'm not trying to be obstinate or difficult, Jonathan. Is it anamorphic?

The reason that I'm asking is that my Swedish release (titled 'Lyft Titanic') is widescreen but not anamorphic. Therefore it doesn't fill my widescreen television. It's a lonely little rectangle in a mass of black
Sad


Amazon doesn't say. But if it IS anamorphic, I'm going to have to jump on there and snag me a copy.
 
J

Jonathan Smith

Member
I think it may be anamorphic. The cover says "2.35:1" and Network informed me at the time that the film was taken directly without formating from the original theatrical release. The U.K 'Carlton' release in 2003 on dvd was in 16:9 widescreen. The 2007 release is at a much wider ration when viewed on my screen, revealing more than the 16:9.
 
W

Will C. White

Member
Anamorphic is actually a type of lens system used during production. What you're looking at is ratio, and there are so many, that it can make one crazy in short order. 16:9 is much more square than 2.35:1, so the only real way to get the picture big enough to be enjoyable is to get a monster set; still, it's better than the old "square". WILL
 
J

Jonathan Smith

Member
I can never understand most of the jargon that surrounds film ratio's
Happy
 
M

Mark Robert Hopkins

Member
Will,

I get the gist of what you're saying, but would you translate that into "English," please? hehe.
 
J

Jeremy Aufderheide

Member
Will, that's untrue. I've got a 42" in set and I enjoy everything just fine.

When talking DVD, it has nothing to do with lenses. No one cares about what lenses were used.

Anamorphic widescreen fills a widescreen television (16:9) by spanning the entire screen.

Plain ol' widescreen does not. The picture is a square in the middle of the screen.

Therefore, on a regular television (4:3), a 2.35:1 aspect ratio film will have huge black bars on the top and bottom of the image with a narrow strip of picture in the middle. The aspect ratio means that the picture is 1 high and 2.35 is the width if the height is 1.

If a film is anamorphic on a DVD transfer, the picture will span the entire 16:9 television. A 2.35:1 film will still have letterbox bars on the top and bottom. But they won't be as wide.

Therefore, I'm hoping that RTT from the UK is an anamorphic transfer so that it fills the entire television rather than being a lonely little band of image in the middle.
 
W

Will C. White

Member
Yeah, the (aspect) ratio in film is always the height (1) times whatever width. The anamorphic lens system is specially curved, so that you produce a wide image without going to a wider film. In essence, you squeeze the filmed image when you create it with the camera, and unsqueeze it again when you project or transfer it. Jeremy, that sounds like what they're doing. They lose just a bit at the left/right edges, but yeah, it should fill the screen pretty much in 16:9, and is way better than that colored strip in a sea of black. The one thing you might look for is what is called sphereical abberation, where flat surfaces tend to look a bit "odd" or not quite flat or true.
 
J

Jeremy Aufderheide

Member
Will - I can identify anamorphic DVDs when I put a disc in my player and see it on my set. If it doesn't fill my screen, it's not an anamorphic disc.

The Swedish release doesn't. And I'm trying to find definitive information as to whether or not the UK release is an anamorphic transfer.

I really don't care about lenses. Plenty of movies are released in the correct aspect ratio on DVD but are not enhanced for 16:9. Psycho and Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil are two examples. I've created DVDs that are 16:9 without the use of any lenses whatsoever.

A DVD has nothing to do with lenses. Television shows can have an anamorphic transfer. Since the majority are show on video, it's not a lense issue. A DVD is either enhanced for 16:9 or not.

My question for the last few posts is about the film Raise the Titanic not about lenses or the technical aspects of the term 'anamorphic'. My question is to find out whether or not the UK release will fill my screen?
 
J

Jonathan Smith

Member
Jeremy, I just checked my copy. The film is in letterbox 16:9 widescreen, NOT anamorphic. Laymans terms, you get the black bars top/bottom of the screen.
 
E

Ernie Luck

Member
What an awful Movie. I watched the last half hour on TV yesterday. The review in the Radio Times got it right in just a few words, "the Movie sank like the Ship". The acting was terrible and the Churchyard featured in the closing scenes could have been on the moon.
 
Shelley Dziedzic

Shelley Dziedzic

Member
For all its faults, you'd have to go some to beat that John Barry soundtrack and when the ship comes up from the bottom with that music- it is heart-stopping and magnificent-just like I had pictured it might be some day. Also the waltz sequence when Pitt is first walking around the ship inside is hauntingly poignant. A great soundtrack.I didn't think much of David Selby's casting either- all I could see was Dark Shadows's Quentin (who also had a great waltz theme as it turns out).
 
S

stevie douglas

Member
from the IMDB, Lew Grade, the producers comment raises a smile,

Grade's high-budget, 'all-star' film adaptation of Clive Cussler's best seller "Raise the Titanic" proved to be a monumental flop. A self-deprecating Grade remarked about laying this big egg, "It would have been cheaper to lower the Atlantic."
 
Top