ill go for widesreen. . . . . . a man who doesnt spend time with the family can never be a real man- Don Vito Corleone

Just because a film was shot in 1.33:1 and was later matted down to 1.85:1, it doesn't mean that the 1.33:1 ratio is better. If FFC, or any other director, really wanted the movie to be 1.33:1, then that's how he would have shown it in the theaters at that ratio.

The reason that many directors shoot in 1.33:1 and then matte it for the theaters is to prepare for eventual release on video and on television. So although what is above and below the widescreen version isn't really important, they'll uncover it when they need to format it for regular TV sets.

I vote widescreen. It's like being in the theater at your own home.

First, just a few small points/corrections.

The film (and a majority of films made since the mid-1950s)was shot for 1.85:1 (not 1.78:1) 1.78:1 is the ratio of a Widescreen-TV.

The ratio of the 'uncut' picture was (I think) 1.37:1 (most TVs use a ratio of 1.33:1) This is the same ratio used to shoot just about every movie since the 1930s.

In fact, most 1.85:1 films are shot this way (evidently, the shape of the 35mm film or the camera or some such thing, means that the image is invariably that 1.37:1 ratio.) However, some films use "hard matte" (which means blocking the top & bottom of the image from ever reaching the film,) while others (like The Godfather) use soft-matte (which means removing the top & bottom in post-production.

As to the question of which I think is better, I'd go with the widescreen. In the side-by-side comparison, I noticed especially that we see alot more of the ceiling in the Godfather's office, makes the place look less 'cosy' than the 1:85.1 version, my point being that added picture often detracts from the effect of a shot. Close-ups become mid-shots and such.

Now, I'm guessing that when the cinematographer said he composed the film to work in both formats, he means he composed each shot for the 1.85:1 format, but still made sure that it was perfectly watchable in the 1.33:1
(ie, made sure there were no boom-mikes on-screen and such. Many films didn't take this sort of thing into account, in fact the viewfinder on some of these cameras didn't even show outside the 1.85:1 area.))

i just like the dvd version because it pickes up more color than the VHS version

In some cases I would like widescreen but I would have to go with fullscreen.

Turbull...is there a DVD widescreen version of the Saga?

BTW After watching the full screen versions many many times I love the widescreen because it's just plain old great fun which is what it's really all about anyway, and little deails can be seen for the 1st time.

PS (Sorry for off topic) Is the only way to get the Saga taping it from TV?

i agree with Blake here. at first i thought it has a lot of differences but up to now i cant see it. we were always told that a certain percent of the scene was cut off on both sides but IMHO there are no difference since i compare the widescreen to the fullframe of the same title. and if your watching a widescreen, from 20 to almost 50 percent of the top and bottom side of your TV are useless. all you see are black bars!

GoodFella

Hi,
Widescreen is the best way to view any film as long as it isn't fake.

Paul

I'm for widescreen all the way. I can't stand full screen. Widescreen allows you to see things that you haven't seen before (pick up a movie like Star Trek II and you'll see why).

go to www.widescreen.org to educate yourself about widescreen

CLICK ME!

what is "open-matte" mean? i'm curious to learn film terminology. thanks.