Another lawsuit win for the BRAIN DEAD

RichA

unread,

Jan 20, 2005, 8:34:18 PM1/20/05

to

First, this:

CBSNews.com
December 17, 2002 11:54:20 The Early Show CBS

(AP) A movie buff is suing Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer and several retailers,
saying many so-called "wide-screen" DVDs, advertised as showing the
film as seen in theaters, actually show even less than already cropped
"standard" versions.

The lawsuit, which seeks class-action status, was filed late Friday in
Los Angeles Superior Court.

A representative of MGM did not immediately return a call for comment.

Studios increasingly offer two versions of films on DVDs — a standard
format cropped to fit a typical TV screen and a wide-screen, or
"letterbox" version, showing the full image as seen on a large movie
screen.

The letterbox version is wider left to right and has black bars above
and below the image.

But Warren Eallonardo, 28, of Los Angeles, claims that several MGM
movies he recently bought, including "Rain Man" and "Hoosiers,"
falsely advertise wide-screen versions of the films.

"In actuality, the DVDs provide a standard format with the top and
bottom of the picture cut off," said Clifford Pearson, an attorney
representing Eallonardo. "He felt like he is being ripped off."

Then, this:

Eallonardo, et al. v MGM, et al., Claims Administration Website

Welcome to the MGM DVD Settlement Website

You are a member of the proposed settlement class if between December
1, 1998 to September 8, 2003, you purchased certain MGM widescreen
DVDs (DVDs for films shot in the aspect ratio of 1.85 to 1 or 1.66 to
1). To view the Eligible DVD List, please click here. To view the
detailed Notice of Class Action and Proposed Settlement, please click
here.

If the proposed settlement is approved by the Court, Class Members who
submit timely and valid Claim Forms may exchange each Eligible DVD for
(i) a new MGM DVD from a list of 325 titles or (ii) $7.10. To request
a Claim Form, call 1-800-285-2168 (toll free). Before requesting a
Claim Form, please verify that your DVD is an Eligible DVD by
reviewing the Eligible DVD List. To view the Eligible DVD List, please
click here. Claim Forms must be returned to the Claims Administrator
postmarked on or before March 31, 2005.

If you do not want to remain part of the Class, you must submit a
timely and valid Request for Exclusion Form postmarked on or before
March 31, 2005. To obtain a Request for Exclusion Form, please click
here.

If you want to remain in the Class, but object to the terms of the
Settlement, you must file and serve your objection with the Court and
counsel on or before April 11, 2005. The detailed Notice of Class
Action and Proposed Settlement provides instructions. To view the
detailed Notice of Class Action and Proposed Settlement, please click
here.

The Court will consider the adequacy and fairness of the proposed
settlement at a hearing scheduled for May 16, 2005 at 10:30 a.m., 600
South Commonwealth Avenue, Department 322 Central Civil West, Los
Angeles, California 90005.

Once again, an American and the American courts PROVE morons CAN
rip off other people for nothing.
-Rich

That Movie Guy

unread,

Jan 21, 2005, 5:45:03 AM1/21/05

to

>Once again, an American and the American courts PROVE morons CAN
>rip off other people for nothing.
>-Rich

Um, upon closer inspection, he's suing because the DVD cases themselves stated
the movies as being in the widescreen format. But when played, they're actually
fullscreen.

Jason

"The first thing I do in the morning is brush
my teeth and sharpen my tongue." -- Dorothy Parker

Derek Janssen

unread,

Jan 21, 2005, 8:57:51 AM1/21/05

to

That Movie Guy wrote:
>>Once again, an American and the American courts PROVE morons CAN
>>rip off other people for nothing.
>>-Rich
>
>
> Um, upon closer inspection, he's suing because the DVD cases themselves stated
> the movies as being in the widescreen format. But when played, they're actually
> fullscreen.

And even then, MGM didn't "declare" anything one way or the other, they
just settled a nominal bonus/exchange to shut the idiot up.

...Would that it were so easy for all uninformed, attention-seeking idiots.

Derek Janssen
dja...@charter.net

Derek Janssen

unread,

Jan 21, 2005, 9:08:48 AM1/21/05

to

That Movie Guy wrote:

>>Once again, an American and the American courts PROVE morons CAN
>>rip off other people for nothing.
>>-Rich
>
>
> Um, upon closer inspection, he's suing because the DVD cases themselves stated
> the movies as being in the widescreen format. But when played, they're actually
> fullscreen.

(And hey, wait, this thread wasn't about Peter Jackson at all!...No
fair!!) >: 0

Derek Janssen (a Feeble effort on Rich's part, if you ask me)
dja...@charter.net

Jay G.

unread,

Jan 21, 2005, 8:18:08 AM1/21/05

to

On 21 Jan 2005 10:45:03 GMT, That Movie Guy wrote:

>>Once again, an American and the American courts PROVE morons CAN
>>rip off other people for nothing.
>>-Rich
>
> Um, upon closer inspection, he's suing because the DVD cases themselves stated
> the movies as being in the widescreen format. But when played, they're actually
> fullscreen.

No, he's saying they were fullscreen with the top and bottom blocked off.
In other words, a matted widescreen image.

http://www.digieffects.com/frames/transferfilmtovideo/filmtovideo.html#VideoSoftMatte

The problem is the plaintiff's fundamental lack of understanding regarding
widescreen, as well as MGM's misleading packaging that suggested all
widescreen images show more information than their fullscreen counterparts.

-Jay

trotsky

unread,

Jan 21, 2005, 8:41:24 AM1/21/05

to

Jay G. wrote:
> On 21 Jan 2005 10:45:03 GMT, That Movie Guy wrote:
>
>
>>>Once again, an American and the American courts PROVE morons CAN
>>>rip off other people for nothing.
>>>-Rich
>>
>>Um, upon closer inspection, he's suing because the DVD cases themselves stated
>>the movies as being in the widescreen format. But when played, they're actually
>>fullscreen.
>
>
> No, he's saying they were fullscreen with the top and bottom blocked off.
> In other words, a matted widescreen image.
>
> http://www.digieffects.com/frames/transferfilmtovideo/filmtovideo.html#VideoSoftMatte
>
> The problem is the plaintiff's fundamental lack of understanding regarding
> widescreen,

Jay, this is an ignorant statement. His complaint was that MGM took the
pan and scan image and cropped it further to make it "widescreen"--if
this really happened it's a legitimate beef. I know of one instance
where I've observed this myself: in "The X-Files" box sets I think it
was the fourth or fifth season where they started doing the show in
"widescreen". Unfortunately, the widescreen image was a cropped version
of the 4x3 image, giving you even less information on screen, frequently
chopping off parts of people's heads--and that wasn't even in the scripts!

Tom Cervo

unread,

unread,

Jan 21, 2005, 10:24:13 PM1/21/05

to

Jay G. wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 13:41:24 GMT, trotsky wrote:
>
>
>>Jay G. wrote:
>>
>>>He's saying they were fullscreen with the top and bottom blocked off.
>>>In other words, a matted widescreen image.
>>>
>>>http://www.digieffects.com/frames/transferfilmtovideo/filmtovideo.html#VideoSoftMatte
>>>
>>>The problem is the plaintiff's fundamental lack of understanding regarding
>>>widescreen,
>>
>>Jay, this is an ignorant statement. His complaint was that MGM took the
>>pan and scan image and cropped it further to make it "widescreen"--if
>>this really happened it's a legitimate beef.
>
>
> It didn't happen. The 4:3 versions were open-matte, not Pan&Scan. Take a
> look at the settlement site:
> http://www.mgmdvdsettlement.com/

Jay, first you missed the operative word "if" in my above statement.
Second, could you quote whatever it is you are talking about instead of
just vomitting out a URL like this?

> The list of DVDs included are all 1.85:1 or 1.66:1 films that were shot
> soft-matted. What he's complaining about are that the 1.85:1 WS images are
> actually cropped versions of the 1.33:1 image, which is as it should be.
> These films were shot with the 1.85:1 frame in mind, while leaving space on
> the top an bottom of the frame for later open-matting for video. His
> complaint is that MGM misrepresented these transfers when they said that
> the WS version showed more. They don't. What they *do* show is the full
> image that was seen in the theaters, and *only* what was seen in theaters.

That's a very succinct summation. Kudos. This brings up two things:
one, that Rich didn't give us much of an explanation of what really
happened, and two, that what the guy said is basically right, which is
probably why the class action suit went his way. What are you trying to
say? Your original statement was a crock. If the consumer is lead to
believe that the widescreen version of a film is "better" because it
puts more information on the screen then he has a point. Are you
actually claiming that it is the job of the consumers to understand the
difference between "open matte" and "pan and scan"? Here's a point:
ignorance isn't a defense, except when it is.

>>I know of one instance
>>where I've observed this myself: in "The X-Files" box sets I think it
>>was the fourth or fifth season where they started doing the show in
>>"widescreen". Unfortunately, the widescreen image was a cropped version
>>of the 4x3 image, giving you even less information on screen, frequently
>>chopping off parts of people's heads--and that wasn't even in the scripts!
>
>
> X-Files switched to 3-perf Super35 in the later seasons, which has an
> aspect ratio of 1.78:1. Like most modern shows, the 4:3 image was then
> cropped from the center of the 1.78:1 image.

Not on the DVDs that I watched. It was pretty obvious.

> Take a look at these 4:3 Broadcast screenshots:
> http://www.xfroadrunners.com/epimages/season5/badblood/badblood1.html
>
> Then take a look at these 16:9 DVD screenshots:
> http://xfphotos.fredfarm.com/season5/bad-blood/index.html
>
> So what you're seeing on the DVD is actually *more* than what you saw on
> the original 4:3 broadcast. Not that it's necessarily better, as any WS
> vs. Open-Matte proponent can tell you.

That's exactly wrong. If you look at the shot where Gillian Anderson is
holding something between here thumb and her forefinger, for example,
you'll notice the image is cropped all the way down to her eyebrow in
the 16 x 9 format, and further up her forehead in the 4 x 3 image. I
think you're just misinformed here. There probably was a season where
they were really shooting in a 1.78:1 format, but season 5 wasn't it.

Jay G.

unread,

Jan 21, 2005, 11:32:19 PM1/21/05

to

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 03:24:13 GMT, trotsky wrote:

> Jay G. wrote:
>> The list of DVDs included are all 1.85:1 or 1.66:1 films that were shot
>> soft-matted. What he's complaining about are that the 1.85:1 WS images are
>> actually cropped versions of the 1.33:1 image, which is as it should be.
>> These films were shot with the 1.85:1 frame in mind, while leaving space on
>> the top an bottom of the frame for later open-matting for video. His
>> complaint is that MGM misrepresented these transfers when they said that
>> the WS version showed more. They don't. What they *do* show is the full
>> image that was seen in the theaters, and *only* what was seen in theaters.
>
>
> That's a very succinct summation. Kudos. This brings up two things:
> one, that Rich didn't give us much of an explanation of what really
> happened, and two, that what the guy said is basically right, which is
> probably why the class action suit went his way.

Basically he is right, yes. MGM's statements were misleading. Where the
plaintiff is wrong is that he doesn't understand that it's *supposed* to be
that way. He seems under the mistaken impression that the WS version crops
something that was meant to be seen, or something that was originally seen
in the theaters, which isn't true.

> What are you trying to
> say? Your original statement was a crock. If the consumer is lead to
> believe that the widescreen version of a film is "better" because it
> puts more information on the screen then he has a point. Are you
> actually claiming that it is the job of the consumers to understand the
> difference between "open matte" and "pan and scan"? Here's a point:
> ignorance isn't a defense, except when it is.

No, the fault lies on MGM, and others, who oversimplify the benefits of WS
as "you see more picture." Time and time again people buy into this, only
to feel betrayed later when they find out that's not actually true all the
time. I was correct in stating that part of the problem was the
plaintiff's lack of understanding regarding widescreen, although as you
point out that lack of understanding is not exclusively his fault.

>>>I know of one instance
>>>where I've observed this myself: in "The X-Files" box sets I think it
>>>was the fourth or fifth season where they started doing the show in
>>>"widescreen". Unfortunately, the widescreen image was a cropped version
>>>of the 4x3 image, giving you even less information on screen, frequently
>>>chopping off parts of people's heads--and that wasn't even in the scripts!
>>
>>
>> X-Files switched to 3-perf Super35 in the later seasons, which has an
>> aspect ratio of 1.78:1. Like most modern shows, the 4:3 image was then
>> cropped from the center of the 1.78:1 image.
>
> Not on the DVDs that I watched. It was pretty obvious.

Did you do a side by side comparison, or are you going by memory?

>> Take a look at these 4:3 Broadcast screenshots:
>> http://www.xfroadrunners.com/epimages/season5/badblood/badblood1.html
>>
>> Then take a look at these 16:9 DVD screenshots:
>> http://xfphotos.fredfarm.com/season5/bad-blood/index.html
>>
>> So what you're seeing on the DVD is actually *more* than what you saw on
>> the original 4:3 broadcast. Not that it's necessarily better, as any WS
>> vs. Open-Matte proponent can tell you.
>
>
> That's exactly wrong. If you look at the shot where Gillian Anderson is
> holding something between here thumb and her forefinger, for example,
> you'll notice the image is cropped all the way down to her eyebrow in
> the 16 x 9 format, and further up her forehead in the 4 x 3 image.

If you mean these images:
http://www.xfroadrunners.com/epimages/season5/badblood/badblood018.jpg
http://xfphotos.fredfarm.com/season5/bad-blood/x-files035.jpg

They're not exact frame matches. Gillian has moved her head between the
two screenshots, which could explain the difference on the top. You see
more of her hand on the WS version, for example, as well as more on the
sides.

A better comparison would be between closer frame matches. such as:
http://www.xfroadrunners.com/epimages/season5/badblood/badblood026.jpg
http://xfphotos.fredfarm.com/season5/bad-blood/x-files070.jpg

In this shot there is clearly more image on the sides of Mulder, while the
top and bottom info are nearly identical.

Or this shot:
http://www.xfroadrunners.com/epimages/season5/badblood/badblood063.jpg
http://xfphotos.fredfarm.com/season5/bad-blood/x-files203.jpg

A still with clearly more image on the sides of the WS version.

Or this shot:
http://www.xfroadrunners.com/epimages/season5/badblood/badblood097.jpg
http://xfphotos.fredfarm.com/season5/bad-blood/x-files321.jpg

Or this shot:
http://www.xfroadrunners.com/epimages/season5/badblood/badblood123.jpg
http://xfphotos.fredfarm.com/season5/bad-blood/x-files408.jpg

Or this shot:
http://www.xfroadrunners.com/epimages/season5/badblood/badblood135.jpg
http://xfphotos.fredfarm.com/season5/bad-blood/x-files463.jpg

Where's the window in the 4:3 version?

Or this shot:
http://www.xfroadrunners.com/epimages/season5/badblood/badblood144.jpg
http://xfphotos.fredfarm.com/season5/bad-blood/x-files499.jpg

Or this shot:
http://www.xfroadrunners.com/epimages/season5/badblood/badblood301.jpg
http://xfphotos.fredfarm.com/season5/bad-blood/x-filesa271.jpg

Where'd the Sheriff go?

Or this shot:
http://www.xfroadrunners.com/epimages/season5/badblood/badblood312.jpg
http://xfphotos.fredfarm.com/season5/bad-blood/x-filesa307.jpg

Or this shot:
http://www.xfroadrunners.com/epimages/season5/badblood/badblood387.jpg
http://xfphotos.fredfarm.com/season5/bad-blood/x-filesb000.jpg

Or this shot:
http://www.xfroadrunners.com/epimages/season5/badblood/badblood414.jpg
http://xfphotos.fredfarm.com/season5/bad-blood/x-filesb039.jpg

Or this shot:
http://www.xfroadrunners.com/epimages/season5/badblood/badblood462.jpg
http://xfphotos.fredfarm.com/season5/bad-blood/x-filesb153.jpg

Or this shot:
http://www.xfroadrunners.com/epimages/season5/badblood/badblood522.jpg
http://xfphotos.fredfarm.com/season5/bad-blood/x-filesc036.jpg

Or this shot:
http://www.xfroadrunners.com/epimages/season5/badblood/badblood533.jpg
http://xfphotos.fredfarm.com/season5/bad-blood/x-filesc082.jpg

All have the same vertical information, with the WS having more horizontal
information.

-Jay

trotsky

unread,

Jan 22, 2005, 7:41:19 AM1/22/05

to

Jay G. wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 03:24:13 GMT, trotsky wrote:
>
>
>>Jay G. wrote:
>>
>>>The list of DVDs included are all 1.85:1 or 1.66:1 films that were shot
>>>soft-matted. What he's complaining about are that the 1.85:1 WS images are
>>>actually cropped versions of the 1.33:1 image, which is as it should be.
>>>These films were shot with the 1.85:1 frame in mind, while leaving space on
>>>the top an bottom of the frame for later open-matting for video. His
>>>complaint is that MGM misrepresented these transfers when they said that
>>>the WS version showed more. They don't. What they *do* show is the full
>>>image that was seen in the theaters, and *only* what was seen in theaters.
>>
>>
>>That's a very succinct summation. Kudos. This brings up two things:
>>one, that Rich didn't give us much of an explanation of what really
>>happened, and two, that what the guy said is basically right, which is
>>probably why the class action suit went his way.
>
>
> Basically he is right, yes. MGM's statements were misleading. Where the
> plaintiff is wrong is that he doesn't understand that it's *supposed* to be
> that way. He seems under the mistaken impression that the WS version crops
> something that was meant to be seen, or something that was originally seen
> in the theaters, which isn't true.

Why Jay, how utterly naive of you. I would say there is a high
percentage chance that he knows exactly this, but found grounds for a
lawsuit based on MGM's claims. People are like this. This is a
litigious society. Of course, Shrub means to fix all that.

>>What are you trying to
>>say? Your original statement was a crock. If the consumer is lead to
>>believe that the widescreen version of a film is "better" because it
>>puts more information on the screen then he has a point. Are you
>>actually claiming that it is the job of the consumers to understand the
>>difference between "open matte" and "pan and scan"? Here's a point:
>>ignorance isn't a defense, except when it is.
>
>
> No, the fault lies on MGM, and others, who oversimplify the benefits of WS
> as "you see more picture." Time and time again people buy into this,

Well, in some cases it's true. I don't know if there are statistics on
open matte vs. pan and scan, but "pan and scan" doesn't exist as a term
for no reason. The thing about letterbox or widescreen is not
necessarily "more" picture, but the amount of picture the director
intended you to see. I remember way back when when laserdiscs were
around, Pioneer had a thing explaining letterbox, and showed a scene
from "Pee Wee Herman's Big Adventure". In it Pee Wee is pulling a chain
from out of nowhere for whatever reason. In the pan and scan
release--which you apparently would refer to as "open matte", you can
clearly see the chain is just coming out of a canvas bag, as opposed to
what was supposed to be depicted, the chain coming from out of nowhere.

only
> to feel betrayed later when they find out that's not actually true all the
> time. I was correct in stating that part of the problem was the
> plaintiff's lack of understanding regarding widescreen, although as you
> point out that lack of understanding is not exclusively his fault.

You have no idea what the plaintiff understands, you just know what the
basis for the lawsuit was. You also made it sound that there wasn't a
problem if the 4 x 3 image is "open matte", and I'm saying there
certainly can be from the director's perspective. MGM was just wrong if
they claimed "more information", they should've been claiming "the right
amount of information."

>>>>I know of one instance
>>>>where I've observed this myself: in "The X-Files" box sets I think it
>>>>was the fourth or fifth season where they started doing the show in
>>>>"widescreen". Unfortunately, the widescreen image was a cropped version
>>>>of the 4x3 image, giving you even less information on screen, frequently
>>>>chopping off parts of people's heads--and that wasn't even in the scripts!
>>>
>>>
>>>X-Files switched to 3-perf Super35 in the later seasons, which has an
>>>aspect ratio of 1.78:1. Like most modern shows, the 4:3 image was then
>>>cropped from the center of the 1.78:1 image.
>>
>>Not on the DVDs that I watched. It was pretty obvious.
>
>
> Did you do a side by side comparison, or are you going by memory?

I went back and forth about ten times, and it certainly showed the same
results as when I watched the Season 5 DVDs.

>>>Take a look at these 4:3 Broadcast screenshots:
>>>http://www.xfroadrunners.com/epimages/season5/badblood/badblood1.html
>>>
>>>Then take a look at these 16:9 DVD screenshots:
>>>http://xfphotos.fredfarm.com/season5/bad-blood/index.html
>>>
>>>So what you're seeing on the DVD is actually *more* than what you saw on
>>>the original 4:3 broadcast. Not that it's necessarily better, as any WS
>>>vs. Open-Matte proponent can tell you.
>>
>>
>>That's exactly wrong. If you look at the shot where Gillian Anderson is
>>holding something between here thumb and her forefinger, for example,
>>you'll notice the image is cropped all the way down to her eyebrow in
>>the 16 x 9 format, and further up her forehead in the 4 x 3 image.
>
>
> If you mean these images:
> http://www.xfroadrunners.com/epimages/season5/badblood/badblood018.jpg
> http://xfphotos.fredfarm.com/season5/bad-blood/x-files035.jpg
>
> They're not exact frame matches. Gillian has moved her head between the
> two screenshots, which could explain the difference on the top. You see
> more of her hand on the WS version, for example, as well as more on the
> sides.
>
> A better comparison would be between closer frame matches. such as:
> http://www.xfroadrunners.com/epimages/season5/badblood/badblood026.jpg
> http://xfphotos.fredfarm.com/season5/bad-blood/x-files070.jpg

That is a better comparison.

> In this shot there is clearly more image on the sides of Mulder, while the
> top and bottom info are nearly identical.

Yeah, now I'm going to have to pull the DVDs and see if I get the same
results. We could be talking about two different things, i.e. the DVD
release vs. what was broadcast.

Again, I would need confirmation that we're talking about vidcaps from
the DVDs as opposed to what was originally broadcast. The only other
thing I can think of is that the DVDs were non-anamorphic, which
wouldn't make a whole lot of sense.

Jay G.

unread,

Jan 22, 2005, 4:54:53 PM1/22/05

to

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 12:41:19 GMT, trotsky wrote:

> Jay G. wrote:
>> On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 03:24:13 GMT, trotsky wrote:
>>>Jay G. wrote:
>>
>>
>> Basically he is right, yes. MGM's statements were misleading. Where the
>> plaintiff is wrong is that he doesn't understand that it's *supposed* to be
>> that way. He seems under the mistaken impression that the WS version crops
>> something that was meant to be seen, or something that was originally seen
>> in the theaters, which isn't true.
>
>
> Why Jay, how utterly naive of you. I would say there is a high
> percentage chance that he knows exactly this, but found grounds for a
> lawsuit based on MGM's claims.

That's odd, because before you implied he was ignorant of such differences.
I personally find that taking what he claims to know as more valid than
speculation on what he may or may not know. As for the lawsuit, getting to
trade in some old DVDs for a new one or $7 hardly seems worth it unless he
felt he had a genuine grievance against MGM.

>> No, the fault lies on MGM, and others, who oversimplify the benefits of WS
>> as "you see more picture." Time and time again people buy into this,
>
>
> Well, in some cases it's true. I don't know if there are statistics on
> open matte vs. pan and scan, but "pan and scan" doesn't exist as a term
> for no reason.

Exactly, which is why I called it an over simplification and not a lie.

> The thing about letterbox or widescreen is not
> necessarily "more" picture, but the amount of picture the director
> intended you to see. I remember way back when when laserdiscs were
> around, Pioneer had a thing explaining letterbox, and showed a scene
> from "Pee Wee Herman's Big Adventure". In it Pee Wee is pulling a chain
> from out of nowhere for whatever reason. In the pan and scan
> release--which you apparently would refer to as "open matte", you can
> clearly see the chain is just coming out of a canvas bag, as opposed to
> what was supposed to be depicted, the chain coming from out of nowhere.

Also, there is a sequence in the film where road signs are coming at the
camera. In the full-frame version you can see the wheels the signs are on
as they approach, ruining the illusion that it was the camera that was
moving, not the signs.

However, even if a full-frame version is sans any errors or flubs, the
extra information does not necessarily make it better. You're exactly
right when saying that it's not about which has "more," but which has what

the director intended you to see.

>> only
>> to feel betrayed later when they find out that's not actually true all the
>> time. I was correct in stating that part of the problem was the
>> plaintiff's lack of understanding regarding widescreen, although as you
>> point out that lack of understanding is not exclusively his fault.
>
> You have no idea what the plaintiff understands, you just know what the
> basis for the lawsuit was.

I know what the plaintiff has *claimed* to understand. I'll judge him on
his own statements until other evidence proves otherwise.

As for the feeling of betrayal, that has more to do with opinions expressed
by others in newsgroups whenever the discussion of open-matte films comes
up, typically when someone's found out that "WS shows more" as they were
told isn't always true. More specifically it was generated by this message
on a similar thread in alt.video.dvd:

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.video.dvd/msg/3779454a26ee6fbd

People get hooked into the "WS is better because it shows more" argument,
feel lied to when they find out about open-matte, and decide that if
"more=better," than open-matte must be better than WS. The over
simplification of the argument for WS eventually comes round to bite WS
supporters in the ass.

> You also made it sound that there wasn't a
> problem if the 4 x 3 image is "open matte",

I don't think so. The link I provided in my first post clearly shows the
disadvantages of open-matte, and in my second post I said "Not that [more
is] necessarily better, as any WS vs. Open-Matte proponent can tell you."

> MGM was just wrong if they claimed "more information", they
> should've been claiming "the right amount of information."

Exactly, they were wrong, which is why the settlement isn't idiotic.

>>>>X-Files switched to 3-perf Super35 in the later seasons, which has an
>>>>aspect ratio of 1.78:1. Like most modern shows, the 4:3 image was then
>>>>cropped from the center of the 1.78:1 image.
>>>

<snip>

>>>>Take a look at these 4:3 Broadcast screenshots:
>>>>http://www.xfroadrunners.com/epimages/season5/badblood/badblood1.html
>>>>
>>>>Then take a look at these 16:9 DVD screenshots:
>>>>http://xfphotos.fredfarm.com/season5/bad-blood/index.html
>>>>
>>

>> A better comparison would be between closer frame matches. such as:
>> http://www.xfroadrunners.com/epimages/season5/badblood/badblood026.jpg
>> http://xfphotos.fredfarm.com/season5/bad-blood/x-files070.jpg
>
> That is a better comparison.
>
>> In this shot there is clearly more image on the sides of Mulder, while the
>> top and bottom info are nearly identical.
>
> Yeah, now I'm going to have to pull the DVDs and see if I get the same
> results. We could be talking about two different things, i.e. the DVD
> release vs. what was broadcast.

I'm not sure what you mean.

This site is clearly labeled "The X-Files DVD Screen Grabs Archive":
http://xfphotos.fredfarm.com/season5/bad-blood/index.html

As for:
http://www.xfroadrunners.com/epimages/season5/badblood/badblood1.html

It doesn't explicitly say where the grabs came from, but seeing as many of
the pictures have a station bug on them, I'd say it's safe to assume
they're from the broadcast versions.

-Jay