[Idea] UAR: Ultimate Aspect Ratio - any interest?

[spoRv]

Terminator 2 (preliminary test): http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/133449

Used the HD-DVD, as its color grading and contrast seemed quite close to fullscreen DVD; which is not (always) the case... I wonder if there is a letterbox version which uses the same master as the FS - even DVD will do!

---

The Arrival (1996): tested, but left behind, as BD is too different from DVD; there is a (small) chance I could be able to do a trick, using the letterbox DVD (that *should* use the same master of the fullscreen one) to regrade the BD, and *probably* it will work (in theory); further tests postponed if/until I'll find that DVD.

---

So far, here is the updated list of UAR versions of previously released titles:

Alien³ (1992) [Fundamental Collection #003] 2xAR - TESTED, OK, EVEN IF ONLY TINY PARTS ADDED
Alien: Covenant 2xAR
Alien: Resurrection (1997) [Fundamental Collection #004] 2xAR - TESTED, SEEMS PERFECT, BIGGER LB FRAME
Aliens (1986) [Fundamental Collection #002] (2xAR if I will find a 1.33:1 good source) - LOOKING FOR FS DVD
Aliens Vs Predator: Requiem (Unrated) [spoRv] 2xAR (3xAR if I will find a 1.33:1 source)
AVP: Aliens Vs. Predator (2004) [Fundamental Collection #012] 3xAR
Halloween (1978) [Fundamental Collection #006] - TESTED, NO ADDITIONAL IMAGE
Harry Potter saga 2xAR (3xAR if the 1.33:1 has more image) - BRIEFLY TESTED, SEEMS TO WORK
Minority Report (2002) [Fundamental Collection #007] 2xAR
Prometheus (2012) [Fundamental Collection #023] 2xAR
Supernova (2000) [spoRv] 3xAR (if I will find a logo-free open matte)
The Arrival (1996) [Fundamental Collection #008] 2xAR - TESTED, SEEMS TO WORK
The Chronicles of Riddick (2004) [Fundamental Collection #011] 2xAR (3xAR if I will find a 1.33:1 source)
The Matrix [spoRv] 3xAR - ADVANCED TEST, GOOD RESULTS
Timeline (2003) [Fundamental Collection #010] (2xAR if I will find a 1.33:1 source)
Waterworld (1995) [Fundamental Collection #009] (2xAR if I will find a 1.33:1 good source)

[Serums]

This is quite interesting, from a technical perspective as it'd provide a new way in which to view these films. Such UAR versions mightn't become my go-to versions, but I certainly would appreciate the insight that they offer.

[maksnew]

Waterworld (1995) [Fundamental Collection #009] (2xAR if I will find a 1.33:1 good source)

The Amazon scan frame is shifted to the side with respect to BD if they merge into an excellent version with the most complete frame.

[spoRv]

Waterworld (1995) [Fundamental Collection #009] (2xAR if I will find a 1.33:1 good source)

The Amazon scan frame is shifted to the side with respect to BD if they merge into an excellent version with the most complete frame.

Interesting! Have you some screenshots to compare?

[Tylerdurden389]

Can't wait to see Arnold's Hawaiian bathing trunks in HD

[spoRv]

Indeed, he wore jeans, and they are slightly visible for few frames and few lines...

---

The Arrival (1996) UAR test: http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/133547

if there is any interest in an hybrid fullscreen version - hence leaving out those added slices at the sides - please let me know!

[maksnew]

Waterworld (1995) [Fundamental Collection #009] (2xAR if I will find a 1.33:1 good source)

The Amazon scan frame is shifted to the side with respect to BD if they merge into an excellent version with the most complete frame.

Interesting! Have you some screenshots to compare?

https://fanrestore.com/thread-1406-post-...l#pid32420

[spoRv]

Waterworld (1995) [Fundamental Collection #009] (2xAR if I will find a 1.33:1 good source)

The Amazon scan frame is shifted to the side with respect to BD if they merge into an excellent version with the most complete frame.

Interesting! Have you some screenshots to compare?

https://fanrestore.com/thread-1406-post-...l#pid32420

Ooops, I forgot it!

Took a look, and indeed there is a tiny fraction of the image on one side of one version which is not in the other, and vice versa; luckily the BD align with the HDTV, so it would be possible to combine them together - even if there is a little difference in angle, it should not be noted for few pixels.

[spoRv]

Waterworld (UAR) regraded to LD: http://ultimateaspectratio.co.nf/compari...vs_FC.html

checked the WEB version, and, apart very few shots where it has more image on one side, but less in the other one, and vice versa, for the rest is just zoomed and cropped, so I stick with my previous version

---

The Village (UAR): http://ultimateaspectratio.co.nf/compari...vs_FC.html

---

both the previous seem hybrid, but indeed they are UAR with little tiny black corners that will be filled thanks to inpaint; they should pass unnoticed, and I prefer to have, let's say, 6x20+6x20=240 "imagined" pixels, than losing a lateral slice of 6x1080=6480 pixels; do you agree?

[spoRv]

Daredevil (2003) UAR regraded: http://ultimateaspectratio.co.nf/compari...s_UAR.html

many thanks to zoidberg for his great project - which I've used for the UAR version.

Do note that, generally, in many shots, open matte versions are cropped, but in few instances like the one depicted in the previous comparison, it is cropped only on one side, while on the other it actually has more image; so, at the end, we earn some image not only on top and bottom, but also on one side (albeit rarely)

EDIT:

Elektra (2005) UAR: http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/133755

Well, here UAR uses the Slice Technique™; it seems to not add anything on top and/or bottom, but sometimes adds something on one side... so, bear in mind that it could even happen with anamorphical films, like in Alien 3; maybe added image could be smaller in that case, but I think it all depends...

DO... NOT... DELETE... YOUR... CROPPED... VERSIONS!

There could be some frame pieces to recover!