Widescreen DVD Class Action Lawsuit - for everyone

beam_me_up

Enlightened
Joined
May 3, 2002
Messages
490
Location
Minnesota, USA
Hello, If you own Widescreen DVDs you may be entitled to $7.10 per DVD or a replacement DVD as explained at http://mgmdvdsettlement.com/

MGM is Settling a lawsuit with everyone that owns a Widescreen DVD in the list at http://mgmdvdsettlement.com/eligible.pdf

The problem was they released these DVDs as "WideScreen" yet they are merely Pan&Scan with the bottoms cropped off to give the effect and not true WideScreen. The only movie I have on that list is Spaceballs but I'm going to request my exchange/refund.

Anyone else going to do this?
 

Draco_Americanus

Enlightened
Joined
Dec 11, 2002
Messages
696
Location
Michigan
I will need to look though My hoard of moives as I buy all of My moives in wide screen.
Belive it or not but I have Spaceballs "The Laser disc" The art on the cover is totaly different from what's on the vhs tape, I belive the used the same art for the vhs on the dvd. great funny moive.
I'm a mog, half man, half dog, .. I'm my own best friend!
 

3rd_shift

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 9, 2004
Messages
3,337
Location
DFW. TX. U.S.A. Earth
Re: Widescreen DVD Class Action Lawsuit - for ever

Spaceballs here too and looking over the rest now.

I wondered why it didn't look as good as it did in the theater. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad71.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/jpshakehead.gif
 

raggie33

*the raggedier*
Joined
Aug 11, 2003
Messages
13,453
Re: Widescreen DVD Class Action Lawsuit - for ever

i hate wide screen movies i alwasy rent em on acendent and i dont have wide screen tv. my dad has one though man its so coool looking
 

brightnorm

Flashaholic
Joined
Oct 13, 2001
Messages
7,160
Re: Widescreen DVD Class Action Lawsuit - for ever

I don't keep receipts for my DVDs more than a few days and CC statements don't itemize them so I have no proof.

Brightnorm
 

turbodog

Flashaholic
Joined
Jun 23, 2003
Messages
6,425
Location
central time
Re: Widescreen DVD Class Action Lawsuit - for ever

It's pretty obvious why they took the easy way out on these..... most are B titles anyway. That still doesn't make it right.
 

elgarak

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jul 30, 2004
Messages
1,045
Location
Florida
Re: Widescreen DVD Class Action Lawsuit - for ever

Sorry if I'm getting a little bit loud: THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH YOUR WIDESCREEN DVDS.

Ok, explanation: As I see it, the lawsuit is not aimed against wrongfully manufactured DVDs, but against the wrongful declaration within the booklets of MGM DVDs. This declaration gives the (wrong) impression that the 1.33:1 (fullscreen) version of the movies in question cuts off a huge chunk of picture on the sides, while the widescreen version contains the full picture information.

All the movies in question were shot in the so-called soft-matte technique. DO NOT CONFUSE THIS WITH PAN'N'SCAN. The original camera negative of the movies had an aspect ratio 1.33:1 (fullscreen). During the projection in the theater part of the top and bottom is cut off by a metal frame, called matte. What you see on the widescreem DVDs is what you would see during projection in a modern theater.

The fullscreen version of the movies is usually made without the matte, restoring the full camera negative.

It is questionable whether or not this restoring is intended by the filmmakers or not. Stanley Kubrick always filmed his movies wioth this restoring in mind, which why most of his movies are correctly only available in fullscreen. Most other contemporary filmmakers however film only with the matted version in mind (some directors even cover the monitors with the camera video feed with a cardboard cutout to simulate the matting). In this cases, the matted top and bottom of the camera negative contains a lot of unwanted artifacts, such as boom mikes or dolly tracks. In those cases, the fullscreen version often is indeed pan'n'scanned, cutting of picture information on all sides. Older movies may work equally well in the unmatted or matted version. The older the movie, the better the unmatted version works (this only affects movies produced after 1953, before that there were no widescreen film formats available).

Coming back to the lawsuit, this is only a scheme to rip-off MGM. I will not participate in it, since MGM has always produced high-quality DVD transfers with the correct aspect ratios, and has always been a widescreem proponent.
 

w0mbatinoz

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Nov 22, 2004
Messages
40
Location
Perth WA au that is
Re: Widescreen DVD Class Action Lawsuit - for ever

Ummm....... not to take issue with what elgarak has said, but just to correct some points.

All 35mm films actually use up the whole frame of the picture. No film camera blocks any part of the frame.
Projectors use an apature plate to correctly size the image to the screen, whilst keeping the image in ratio.
Every apature place is unique to that auditorium.

"Widescreen" has a ratio of 1:1.85 (HxW)
Cinemascope has a ratio of 1:2.35 (HxW)
Television alone has a ratio of 1:1.33 or 4:3 as it's also known. (HxW)
No known film format of fullscreen.

The way Cinemascope gets that wide picture is it uses an animorphic lens on the camera. It compresses the width of the images on the negitive. The Projector uses an animorphic lens to then make the ratio correct on playback.
All films have about 30% of the film blocked by the appature plate. Projectors have a 'framing knob' on them to allow fine adjustment so you can see things like subtitles.

Therefore any film that has it's correct format maintained on a DVD will have black lines top and bottom. Any film past the 50's anyhow.

Pan'n'scan is a technique used to re-make the film by keeping only the main subject of that frame, in frame. This is only used to transfer a film to the video format that was in the 4:3 ratio.

I commend elgarak with his attitude to the law suit, as it's a silly thing. Lawsuits like this in my opinion are a waste of time and money, and only promote further law suits.
A law suit should be used for getting compensation when an injury or damage has been done.
Here,we are moving back to the time when you took responcibility for your self..... thank goodnss.

Anyhow..... thats my rant over /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/dedhorse.gif
<\rant>
 

beam_me_up

Enlightened
Joined
May 3, 2002
Messages
490
Location
Minnesota, USA
Re: Widescreen DVD Class Action Lawsuit - for ever

Excuse me whoever you are, but this IS an issue. If the movies were not shot in the widescreen format then they have no right to release them calling them 'widescreen' if they are standard 1:33:1 movies. This is exactly what happened with the back to the future trilogy that was released and they eventually admitted their mistake and allowed the DVDs to be exchanged for true widescreen. You can choose not to participate, but the rest of us will.
 

newuser

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Jan 9, 2005
Messages
11
Re: Widescreen DVD Class Action Lawsuit - for ever

OH NO MY COPY OF BIODOME ISN'T WIDE SCREEN????

There is no telling what cinematic artistry I may have missed because of the cheapness of these hollywood studios!
 

elgarak

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jul 30, 2004
Messages
1,045
Location
Florida
Re: Widescreen DVD Class Action Lawsuit - for ever

beam-me-up, most of those soft-matte movies are not standard 1.33:1 movies. Example: "A Fish Called Wanda". You recall the scene where John Cleese in standing naked in front of a family? In the 1.33:1 open matte version you can see the top of the pants he's wearing. The pants were always supposed to be cut off, the 1.33:1 version is not the Director's intent.

The same goes for "Back to the Future". The visual FX for those movies were made with a film format called VistaVision. ILM used this at the time exclusively because it allowed the use of more film area and better quality. VistaVision has a maximum aspect ratio of 1.66:1. That means that all the visual FX scenes are (moderate) widescreen (and are pan'n'scanned on the fullscreen DVD), while all scenes without visuals are shot 1.33:1. Obviously, the movies were supposed to be only seen in the (moderate) widescreen AR of 1.66:1 or 1.85:1 (both are very close, 1.66:1 is the European standard, while all modern theaters in the US can only show 1.85:1, for DVDs very often the compromise 1.78:1=16:9 of WS TVs is chosen).

OTOH, there are (older) movies like the Ray-Harryhause-classic "Earth Vs. The Flying". It's from 1958, made after the introduction of widescreen film formats in 1953. The recent DVD release is 1.85:1 widescreen. However, at the time the movie were made only a minority of film theaters could show widescreen; most were still equipped for the older pre-1953 Academy standard (1.33:1), and the movie was shot accordingly. The WS version looks seriously cropped, and a open-matte fullscreen version should have been included in the DVD release.

But as I said, the aim of the lawsuit is not the transfer itself, but the flase advertising made by MGM. I have checked my edition of "Dr. No" (it's part of the list in the lawsuit). In the booklet is a 2.35:1 picture of a film scene with a 1.33:1 frame laid over the center. This picture is of course crap. The movie is 1.85:1, not 2.35:1, and you don't loose picture on the sides in the fullscreen version. This is blatantly false advertising, and the lawsuit is completely correct to sue MGM for this false advertising. However, all film experts agree that the widescreen transfer of 1.85:1 is the correct transfer of choice, and the lawsuit does not attack this. The DVD is perfectly fine. I always knew the picture was bull, and I don't want to rip off MGM for the cut'n'paste error of the marketing people (we know how much those guys know).

I still believe that this lawsuit is frivolous and was only made to fill the pockets of the lawyers.
 

3rd_shift

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 9, 2004
Messages
3,337
Location
DFW. TX. U.S.A. Earth
Re: Widescreen DVD Class Action Lawsuit - for ever

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/popcorn.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Does anyone have any links on this technical stuff?
I would kinda like to read up on that too while I'm at it, in case I run into any resistance getting my $dough$.
 
Top