More Havoc

March 14, 2006

Here is a full screen vs. widescreen comparison for Havoc.

The top cap is from SDTV (480i) and is about 1.33:1 aspect ratio.
The bottom cap is from HDTV (720p) and is about 1.85:1 aspect ratio.
The R1 DVD has about the same aspect ratio and framing as the HDTV but less res.

The SDTV appears to be open matte meaning more picture on the top and bottom. The sides are also slightly cropped. However, during one sequence in the Bijou Phillips sex scene, the SDTV reverts to pan & scan. I’m assuming this is so they don’t show any unintentional nudity. Fortunately, they didn’t touch the Anne Hathaway scenes.

Click the link below the pic to see all the caps.

As you can see, the full screen Havoc is the best version for nudity. This is usually not the case, as the widescreen usually has more nudity.

Here are some notable movies where the full screen version shows more skin: The Abyss, American Pie, Bully, Carrie, Carried Away, Dark City, Doc Hollywood, Dream Lover, Embrace of the Vampire, Fast Times at Ridgemont High, The Gift, Jackie Brown, Kalifornia, Kama Sutra, Killing Me Softly, Lost and Delirious, A Map of the World, Mischief, Monster’s Ball, Prozac Nation, Requiem for a Dream, Resident Evil: Apocalypse, Showgirls, Single White Female, Stardom, Unfaithful.

17 comments

Where can I get the full screen version? I have the region 1 DVD – is there an option on it to view it in full screen?

by KidBrother on March 15, 2006 at 9:37 pm. Reply #

So…. Would you like to upload the full screen nude video of “Lost and Delirious” ?

by Wong on March 16, 2006 at 5:14 pm. Reply #

Heya – just a quick note on some other movies where the fullscreen shows more:

Terminator 3 – Kristanna has more visible in fullscreen, widescreen chops her nipples.

Freddy vs Jason – Odessa Munroe’s skinny dipping scene in the beginning is vastly better in fullscreen format.

by Rookie on March 16, 2006 at 5:48 pm. Reply #

what more is shown in prozac nation? Can we see Christina Ricci’s bush better in it?

by Eric on March 16, 2006 at 10:30 pm. Reply #

That’s a real rip if they don’t format the movies right – I’m a fan of seeing movies in their intended screening ratio and it pains me to know that even if a movie is widescreen or letterbox then it might STILL be cutting off the picture – what gives?

Oh well, either way ya still get to see a Disney Princess get it on lol

by LinkTGF on April 11, 2006 at 8:05 am. Reply #

I remember downloading a clip from The Girl Next Door and you clearly can see more of Elisha Cuthbert, shame it wasn’t in the widescreen version :(

by Silenzio on April 18, 2006 at 3:28 pm. Reply #

AWSOME I LOVE THIS

by vickyy on April 24, 2006 at 3:59 pm. Reply #

to linktgf

The aspect ratio of the widescreen is the intended ratio that the director wanted. Most movies are shot nowadays in 1.85:1, which is what Havoc falls under, and this is achieved by shooting it in fullscreen and matte out the top and bottom for theatrical presentation (it’s shot with widescreen in mind anyway). So what you’re seeing in FS is in a sense too much information.

by cam on April 28, 2006 at 9:22 pm. Reply #

Thanks cam for the down-and-dirty on *why* you see more in some fullscreens. About 60% of films today are shot in spherical with either a soft or hard matte that creates the widescreen image. Most directors use the hard matte, but some use the soft which allows you to actually catch the full 35mm image. However, the camera operator commonly sets up the shot so that the bottom of the film frame is the bottom of the shot, meaning that the extra is all on the top of the 35mm frame. They do this because usually the mic or the lights are hovering in the top of the frame and it just gets cut off when they print it widescreen. Finding a film that has been shot with a soft matte that has NO mics or lights or tops of sets, etc. is very, very rare. To shoot a film in soft matte specifically so that you can get a fullframe image for t.v. that isn’t cropped means that an operator must set up every shot with the top part of the soft matte – which is located *over* the gray lines that represent the widescreen image – without any stuff that shouldn’t be there. That’s a LOT of work, he is basically setting up a fullscreen and a widescreen shot at the same time for each shot. Plus, loads of movies are shot anamorphic which squeezes the widescreen image onto 35mm (which is unsqeezed when it is projected, all done with special lenses) which means there IS no fullscreen image (this is called “scope” and about 30-40% of all films are shot this way). Anyway, it means that a film is being shot specifically to enhance the t.v. version, and most directors just don’t shoot that way. Also, the effects in movies are always rendered in widescreen format (who is gonna make a special effect shot fullscreen when the movie is going to be shown widescreen) all effects shots are widescreen, rendering times are money and setting up effect shots are money, and no one is going to set up TWO effect shots, one fullscreen one widescreen. So at least part of the film (the effect shots) are gonna be widescreen and need to be panned and scanned. What I believe is being done, is that the camera operators are specifically being told to set up nudity shots using all the fullscreen area. Maybe even being told to set it up so that some of the stuff is *specifically* in the fullscreen to later augment an “unrated” release. However, what director is gonna shoot a titty shot cutting off part of it JUST for the fullscreen DVD “unrated” release?! Point being, I doubt seriously that anything must interesting is showing up in these spurious “fullscreen” movies. Looking at the example that was shown here, my opinion seems to bear out to be true.

What really trips me out is how the heck the distributors get away with that, because in a U.S. release the basic S.A.G. contract says that no distributor can release additional scenes or views of nudity without specific actor approval, and I’m sure that Hathaway is NOT allowing that to happen. I know of three different movies that were sued because of this situation, one is the movie Prince Valiant with Katherine Heigl. In that movie it was just additional nudity (a lame butt shot) that was only available on the european release. They had some unrated copies with the same shot and a little more for U.S. release, she got wind and sued, and that was that. Soon after that she had her standard contract revised to deal with any nudity in foreign release also.

I’d really love to see ANY movie where any real decent nudity happens in these fullscreen shots. I doubt there is anything decent, but I wouldn’t mind being proven wrong, especially if it meant pointing me to a downloadable example. ;-)

by Sean on May 15, 2006 at 4:08 am. Reply #

wow. this is gr8 stuff, and a source of ‘what’s missing’ info i was looking for. i would just like to add the names of 3 more films that show more in their fullscreen versions: Body Heat, Two Moon Junction and Body Of Evidence. also, comparing the fullscreen version of The Postman Always Rings Twice (’81, on R1 dvd) with it’s ‘widescreen’ trailer, one can clearly see that fullscreen shows more picture. so it was probably matted for theatres.

by ajmal on August 5, 2006 at 7:43 am. Reply #

very good and sexy

by good on August 8, 2006 at 1:12 am. Reply #

goood

by xasdsf on August 16, 2006 at 12:40 pm. Reply #

best blog

by nandan1000 on February 5, 2007 at 8:38 am. Reply #

Supernova is another fullscreen with more stuff.

by plax on May 15, 2007 at 8:55 am. Reply #

Great nipples. No further comment.

by Kevin on November 4, 2007 at 6:30 am. Reply #

Porky’s is another one, tho you don’t miss a whole lot of anyone besides the fat one.

by p1ague on July 27, 2010 at 2:26 am. Reply #

Damn! YUM YUM!!!

by Hornypapa on November 11, 2010 at 11:15 am. Reply #

Leave your comment

Not required.