|
Here's the thing about, "The bars are a distraction." Sure they are, if you loving look at them. When you have something that fills the screen, do you look at the bezel of the TV? Do you look at the shelf it's sitting on? How about the floor? And yet, wasn't Stanley Kubrick against letter boxing or am I imagining I read that?
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2012 01:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 03:52 |
|
|
Mr. Funny Pants posted:Here's the thing about, "The bars are a distraction." Sure they are, if you loving look at them. When you have something that fills the screen, do you look at the bezel of the TV? Do you look at the shelf it's sitting on? How about the floor? Or "I paid for this big screen and I want to watch things at the size I paid for!" I once heard this yelled angrily at someone who had the audacity to suggest that the actors looked weird when stretched.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2012 01:26
|
|
|
Lizard Combatant posted:Or "I paid for this big screen and I want to watch things at the size I paid for!" I once heard this yelled angrily at someone who had the audacity to suggest that the actors looked weird when stretched. Do they go up to the manager in a theater and complain about the loving ceiling? "Hey, that wall under the screen takes away from the experience. I want ever square millimeter of my visual field covered by movie! If I blink I should still be able to see Sandra Bullock's hijinks!"
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2012 01:31
|
|
|
Mr. Funny Pants posted:Here's the thing about, "The bars are a distraction." Sure they are, if you loving look at them. When you have something that fills the screen, do you look at the bezel of the TV? Do you look at the shelf it's sitting on? How about the floor? Kubrick didn't want the movie he had painstakingly worked to create end up losing impact on a 4:3 screen when he moved into panoramic aspect ratios - so he simply designed his storyboards, lighting and blocking to incorporate that they would work in either format. There's details to be found on either side of the central block, but nothing imperative to understanding the movie's themes or character motivations. Like so: 
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2012 01:35
|
|
|
Mr. Funny Pants posted:And yet, wasn't Stanley Kubrick against letter boxing or am I imagining I read that? He shot his last few films protected for open-matte so that when they went to home video or were aired on TV there wouldn't be a need to pan-scan like they did with 2001, but he certainly wasn't against letterboxing (I think he would have been thrilled with Blu-Ray and HDTV and it sucks he isn't alive to oversee them because I think we would've gotten some of the best transfers ever). edit gently caress beaten
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2012 01:35
|
|
|
The Cameo and Magic Hate Ball posted:Interesting and cool poo poo about Kubrick. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2012 01:43
|
|
|
Fun factoid: the BBC once aired a letterboxed version 2001, but filled in the black space with a starfield.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2012 01:49
|
|
|
kuddles posted:There was even the occasional scandal where - since most people still bought fullscreen at the time - studios saved money by releasing a bunch of DVDs in the "Widescreen Edition" by merely adding black lines to the transfer they did for the Fullscreen one. It has nothing to do with "saving money". It just means those films were shot with soft mattes and the 4:3 versions were created by opening them. It doesn't make it "fake" widescreen. It's not unusual for fullscreen versions to show more information, even to this day with 1.78:1 versions for HDTV. A lot of lovely distributors (*cough*Alliance Atlantis*cough*) put these HDTV masters on Blu-Ray:   New Line didn't "save money" by adding black lines, it's how it's meant to be. frumpsnake fucked around with this message at 03:12 on Jul 18, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2012 02:46
|
|
|
Full screen versions have always been an extra expense and I don't understand why they ever even bothered. "When you watch a movie it looks different suck it up" makes a lot more sense than "Let's make two versions of every movie in our catalog . . . "
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2012 03:17
|
|
|
frumpsnake posted:Um, no. It's killing me that I can't think of the movie that those screencaps are from. Help?
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2012 03:17
|
|
|
Professor Clumsy posted:Look again. Trouble in Paradise is DVD only. loving boo. I need some more Lubitsch on Blu-ray, dammit.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2012 04:58
|
|
|
Dickeye posted:I actually wish my BR player didn't automatically upscale things because I love watching The Wire in 4:3. This has nothing do with upconversion. You have to change the setting on your tv to 4:3.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2012 05:15
|
|
|
Re-Animator is getting a Blu-Ray release from Image. September 4 Preorder is already up at Amazon. Only $12.58 http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0...ASIN=B008CYDDWI quote:DVD and BD packed with bonus features (existing from earlier DVD releases), including audio commentaries from the film's director, producer and cast, interviews, extended scenes, galleries, and more!
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2012 05:21
|
|
|
Sporadic posted:Re-Animator is getting a Blu-Ray release from Image. gently caress YEAH!
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2012 05:22
|
|
|
morestuff posted:It's killing me that I can't think of the movie that those screencaps are from. Help? Se7en, it's the guy who sells the knife dildo.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2012 05:31
|
|
|
Sporadic posted:Re-Animator is getting a Blu-Ray release from Image. September 4 How are image's releases? I almost placed an order, but then had flashbacks of when i had pre-ordered The Deadly Spawn.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2012 06:16
|
|
|
The Phantom Goat posted:How are image's releases? Normally pretty good. You can see what they've released at Blu-Ray.com http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/movies.php?studioid=18
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2012 06:20
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:I'm Vittorio Storaro and I don't approve of this aspect ratio. I bet he even cuts his sandwiches at 2.00:1.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2012 07:44
|
|
|
frumpsnake posted:Um, no. You are wrong though. I have a VHS of the 1990 version of Night of the Living Dead that has blackbars smacked onto the fullscreen version. It looks horrible and is very obvious. I know the same happened to a few other movies, but can't really remember the titles.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2012 08:37
|
|
|
Trump posted:You are wrong though. I have a VHS of the 1990 version of Night of the Living Dead that has blackbars smacked onto the fullscreen version. It looks horrible and is very obvious. I know the same happened to a few other movies, but can't really remember the titles. There was a controversey over this in the early 2000s when some guy tried to sue MGM over them selling cropped 4:3 transfers was widescreen DVDs. It turns out he was wrong. I can't remember the technical details but it had something to do with the lenses the films were shot on and the differences between different wide aspect ratios. Basically the DVDs that were supposedly "fake widescreen" were more or less presented as intended. What I think happened was that people didn't understand that a lot of 4:3 transfers weren't cropped, but actually had the masking removed that made them widescreen. So VHS stuff for example was showing us more than what we're supposed to see instead of less. edit: I'm not sure how often this happened but the 1999 Yellow Submarine DVD released by MGM has fake widescreen that hosed up the image because the film was made in 1:33. So there's that. CPL593H fucked around with this message at 09:52 on Jul 18, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2012 09:46
|
|
|
Trump posted:You are wrong though. I have a VHS of the 1990 version of Night of the Living Dead that has blackbars smacked onto the fullscreen version. It looks horrible and is very obvious. I know the same happened to a few other movies, but can't really remember the titles. No, I'm not wrong, and again, that has absolutely nothing to do with 'saving money'. What *is* a common error is that soft-matted or open-matte films actually get framed incorrectly because they matte out the wrong information. It happened on the original DVDs for Back to the Future pt 2 and 3, and it happened on the Blu-Ray for Pirates of the Carribean. That error may very well have happened for Night of the Living Dead too, but its equally likely thats how it appeared theatrically. According to IMDb the film was a) presented theatrically at 1.85:1, and b) shot with spherical lenses, meaning the 1.85:1 was created by cropping the 4:3 negative. CPL593H posted:edit: I'm not sure how often this happened but the 1999 Yellow Submarine DVD released by MGM has fake widescreen that hosed up the image because the film was made in 1:33. So there's that. Again, it's not a shoddy DVD with 'fake' widescreen or a mastering error, that's exactly how it was shown in theatres. Yellow Submarine was given an extensive (and expensive) 4K restoration and released on Blu-Ray just last month...in its theatrical aspect ratio (a very 60s-European 1.66:1) cropped from the 1.33:1 negative. There is some merit to cases like Yellow Submarine which have been animated/designed from scratch at a different ratio, and fake, non-theatrical ratio widescreen and butchering does happen (see: The Evil Dead), but that's more of a modern thing as 16:9 has become the norm and old 4:3 content the new enemy of black bar haters. Except for a handful of 1.33:1 films, anyone talking about 'fake widescreen', particularly in reference to the early days of DVD, is almost undoubtedly misunderstanding open matte films shot with spherical lenses. frumpsnake fucked around with this message at 12:00 on Jul 18, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2012 11:16
|
|
|
frumpsnake posted:Except for a handful of 1.33:1 films, anyone talking about 'fake widescreen', particularly in reference to the early days of DVD, is almost undoubtedly misunderstanding open matte films shot with spherical lenses.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2012 13:52
|
|
|
I just watched an episode of Breaking Bad at a friend's dad's house, and he had the widescreen TV set to take a 4:3 signal and fill the screen with the sides stretched. Then he had the output on his player set to 4:3, so because it was a widescreen show, it actually squished whatever was going on in the center of the screen and the edges were stretched to the correct scale. I decided that someone that dumb wouldn't understand my explanation if I tried.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2012 16:58
|
|
|
The last night I spent with my girlfriend before I broke up with her, I fixed the settings on her TV for her. It was an HDTV that was stretching things out and also cropping them like it was trying to fill the screen from a letterboxed 4:3 picture. That last movie we watched together was the best her TV ever looked. I like to think that was one of my better breakups. Sure, her heart was broken, but she had a properly calibrated TV to soothe her soul.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2012 18:14
|
|
|
Lawrence of Arabia confirmed for Nov. 14... After a theatrical rerelease on Oct 4 It looks like the theatrical rerelease is going to be more than a crappy 1080i Fathom stream. The new restoration is 4K from the 65mm camera negatives (scanned at 8K). They even have new 70mm prints. Egbert Souse fucked around with this message at 18:18 on Jul 18, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2012 18:15
|
|
|
What's the consensus on the Dollars Trilogy? Good transfers, poo poo, mediocre, what?
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2012 19:00
|
|
|
Dickeye posted:What's the consensus on the Dollars Trilogy? Good transfers, poo poo, mediocre, what? Only For a Few Dollars More had a good transfer, the rest are just sorta average. Fistful of Dollars got a good Italian transfer, though. However, these are still the best transfers of the Dollars Trilogy and at least they're not terrible like Predator. I think the set's also been like $20 at some point, which is a drat fine price for them. DVDBeaver review: http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film3/blu-ray_reviews51/man_with_no_name_trilogy_blu-ray.htm
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2012 19:08
|
|
|
GrandpaPants posted:Only For a Few Dollars More had a good transfer, the rest are just sorta average. Fistful of Dollars got a good Italian transfer, though. However, these are still the best transfers of the Dollars Trilogy and at least they're not terrible like Predator. I think the set's also been like $20 at some point, which is a drat fine price for them. Yeah those screen captures don't look half bad. It'll be one of the things I keep an eye on, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2012 19:11
|
|
|
If they'd release the American cut of The Good, The Bad and The Ugly I'd settle for average transfers. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2012 19:17
|
|
|
While we're on the subject, I just got a pile of Amazon Blu-rays I ordered a while ago on sale, and noticed that the Bluray for Once Upon A Time In The West promotes the fact that it includes both the "Theatrical" and "Restored" version, with the only clear noted difference being the latter runs 1 minute longer. Quick googling turned up nothing. Does anyone know what the difference is? Are we just talking a quick addition of Claudia Cardinale's nipples or are there more substantial changes throughout the film? EDIT: Never mind, found out the answer is just an additional part of a scene that has always been there whenever I saw it. Also, I always felt that For A Few Dollars More was the superior film out of the trilogy. Does that make me a crazy person? kuddles fucked around with this message at 20:03 on Jul 18, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2012 19:44
|
|
|
kuddles posted:Also, I always felt that For A Few Dollars More was the superior film out of the trilogy. Does that make me a crazy person? No, I was actually chatting with a friend about this the other day and we both consider that one the best. You're in good company.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2012 20:09
|
|
|
I wouldn't put it far behind TGTB&TU. It's pretty awesome, and a surprising step up from Fistful.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2012 21:42
|
|
|
kuddles posted:While we're on the subject, I just got a pile of Amazon Blu-rays I ordered a while ago on sale, and noticed that the Bluray for Once Upon A Time In The West promotes the fact that it includes both the "Theatrical" and "Restored" version, with the only clear noted difference being the latter runs 1 minute longer. Quick googling turned up nothing. There are actually four extended scenes, but three of them really are blink-and-you-miss it. It's actually only 21.5 seconds of more footage, the biggest addition to the running time is the credits for the restoration. (At least it's not bad as the Sin City DC, where 7 of the 14 added minutes are credits.) http://www.movie-censorship.com/report.php?ID=991957 kuddles posted:If you watch the original UK DVD "Widescreen" release of Wild At Heart, there are times where character's foreheads are chopped out of the picture, because it is not a true widescreen transfer. Not true at all. The framing of the initial R2 widescreen just happens to be identical to the restored & director-approved R1 Special Edition, 2008 French Blu-Ray, and 2011 UK Blu-Ray. http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDCompare7/wildatheart.htm (  )And the US 4:3 VHS clearly shows cropping compared to the US Laserdisc, US DVD and UK DVDs, all of which are framed identically: http://www.lynchnet.com/wah/censoring.html There *is* an old cropped 1.85 Japanese disc, however, and it was even initially reported on one Lynch fansite that the UK release was also cropped to 1.85, but a) it was a false alarm, and b) The 1.85 transfer wouldn't involve heads being chopped off, but the sides being chopped off. Wild At Heart was shot with anamorphic lenses, meaning not only was 2.35:1 intended, there is no additional information outside that area and every other aspect ratio *must* be a cropped version. frumpsnake fucked around with this message at 00:21 on Jul 19, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2012 23:50
|
|
|
Egbert Souse posted:Lawrence of Arabia confirmed for Nov. 14... After a theatrical rerelease on Oct 4 Turns out it's the 13th and a boxset release but still!  quote:Widely considered one of the greatest and most influential films in the history of cinema, David Lean’s masterpiece Lawrence of Arabia returns to the big screen 50 years after its 1962 premiere in a 4K digitally-restored version of the Director’s Cut. Following its international debut at Festival Du Cannes this past May, Lawrence of Arabia will screen nationwide in a digital-only theatrical event in theaters starting October 4th. The film will be available in a Blu-ray™ 3-disc collectible boxed set starting November 13th from Sony Pictures Home Entertainment. Additionally, the film will be featured for one night only on Turner Classic Movies, November 16th at 8:00PM in a television exclusive. The U.S. premiere of the new restoration will take place in Los Angeles on July 19th with a special 4K presentation at the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2012 00:29
|
|
|
Lionsgate's new release of Total Recall is $9.86 on Amazon. Presuming it's the same transfer as the UK "Ultimate Rekall" disc released last week (and it should be), it looks quite a bit better (despite some decidedly non-1990 colour alterations) in terms of grain structure and lack of oversharpening, but particularly so compared to the old US Blu-Ray: http://caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergleiche/multi_list.php?hd_multiID=63 frumpsnake fucked around with this message at 00:45 on Jul 19, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2012 00:42
|
|
|
GrandpaPants posted:Only For a Few Dollars More had a good transfer, the rest are just sorta average. Fistful of Dollars got a good Italian transfer, though. However, these are still the best transfers of the Dollars Trilogy And before you ask, there are no English soundtracks or subtitles on the Italian release.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2012 05:13
|
|
|
Green Vulture posted:And before you ask, there are no English soundtracks or subtitles on the Italian release. If you own both releases, someone on AVSForum actually made an AVISynth script to sync up the English MGM audio to the Italian Mondo disc. I burned the results to a BD-R. The second and last time I ever used my cheap Blu-Ray burner, but I like to think it was worth it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2012 05:43
|
|
|
frumpsnake posted:If you own both releases, someone on AVSForum actually made an AVISynth script to sync up the English MGM audio to the Italian Mondo disc.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2012 06:01
|
|
|
TNG Season 1 Review
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2012 02:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 03:52 |
|
|
Boy, that's tempting. I'm gonna wait for a Black Friday sale or something though, need to save money at the moment. Coming from Olive, October 16: Letter from an Unknown Woman (Ophuls) Up Tight! (Dassin) Three Secrets (Wise) The Sterile Cuckoo (Pakula) The Slender Thread (Pollack) Up Tight is already on my watchlist (Dassin! Ruby Dee!). I like the Ophuls but not enough to buy it. The other three have potential.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2012 05:37
|
|
