[Help] The Ghost And The Darkness 1996 - Aspect Ratio?

[MrBrown]

At least this movie has not as many different bad releases, as some other movies. So I just have 5 releases in my collection of that so far. 2 different German DVDs, 2 different German BDs and the US BD... could be worse... (I am looking at you, Terminator 2!)

[alleycat]

Man this movie can't catch a break

I’m thinking 35mm scan is the only solution. Problem is whilst I like the movie, I’m not sure I like it THAT much

[dvdmike]

Shout are the worst, knew I was right to not order it

[zoidberg]

Is there a reason why a new scan is not possible, is the film tied up in some rights limbo or have the o-neg/intermediates been lost/destroyed?

[Stamper]

Couldn't it be possible to just fix any existing aspect ratio? And be done with it?

[bendermac]

Didn't Shout say they used a new scan from the negative? It's probably the same BS like it happened with Apocalypse Now and the DP is at fault. At least I've read something like this happened to TGATD too.

As alleycat said: OAR only with a 35mm print. Unless there are HDTV version floating around in OAR.

[SpaceBlackKnight]

From what I see in that mushy YT video, the Shout Factory BD is definitely a new scan. That old HD master reeks of scanner noise and EE, hence why it looks sharper at first glance.

As for the framing, the old HD master showed way too much with things like wobbling mattes and splice marks frequently popping up. I imagine the full negative ratio is 2:20 so Paramount could make 2.35 prints and Zsigmond could adjust the frame to avoid exposing framing gaffes that show up in wider versions. He probably choose 2:10 to hide goofs while maintaining all the action and important elements in the frame.

[zoidberg]

Just looked at a couple of photos of the back of the LD and it does clearly state the aspect ratio of 2.1 preserves the original theatrical presentation, which is strange. Was it some kind of masked scope print?

[dvdmike]

Just looked at a couple of photos of the back of the LD and it does clearly state the aspect ratio of 2.1 preserves the original theatrical presentation, which is strange. Was it some kind of masked scope print?

Vilmos Zsigmond may have bought into the Vittorio Storaro madness

[zoidberg]

Perhaps, but I've not read anything to confirm this and he has long since passed unfortunately. I don't recall any of his other films having this aspect ratio