|
Jack Gladney posted:If something's framed for 4:3, it looks terrible in widescreen, though. The Region 2 (I think) dvds of the Buffy the Vampire Slayer tv show were done in 16:9, and not only did everything look like it was framed wrong, but the edges of other the set (and the beginnings of other sets) were visible, I think along with actors waiting to enter the frame. This happened noticeably in one episode of Friends that I've seen so far, an episode where Chandler gets drunk, the camera focuses on him in bed the next morning, and then pan/zooms out to reveal that he's in bed with his ex-girlfriend Janice... Except in 16x9 she's in the frame the whole time. The laugh track is very weirdly timed because of it. I don't care if they leave it 4x3, especially if 16x9 causes problems like that.
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 23:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 11:29 |
|
|
You don't gently caress with the aspect ratio, come on people. Really jazzed that they're doing an HD remaster finally!
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 00:14
|
|
|
Why not just give people both options on the disc? I mean, it doesn't seem like having the raw video on the discs be 16:9 and having an option to mask the sides of the frame would be all that onerous.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 05:58
|
|
|
This is basically the same bullshit as when DVDs first came along. The average consumer doesn't know or care how things were shot, they just want the picture to fill up their tv screen. Now that tvs are a different shape 4:3 is evil.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 06:50
|
|
|
SALT CURES HAM posted:Why not just give people both options on the disc? I mean, it doesn't seem like having the raw video on the discs be 16:9 and having an option to mask the sides of the frame would be all that onerous. Time to construct some blinders for the ol' flatscreen.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 07:03
|
|
|
I was just thinking along the lines of those DVDs that had 4:3 and anamorphic widescreen on the same disc, like Evil Dead 2. Something like that wouldn't be too hard, and an optional filter that crops it to 4:3 on the fly to save disc space seems like it wouldn't be too difficult for modern BD players. e: seriously how is a device that can stream from Netflix incapable of rendering two big black rectangles that never move?
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 11:51
|
|
|
Such capability would only be useful for allowing the co-existence of OAR and non-OAR versions, so who (besides people who want non-OAR versions, and are therefore wrong) gives a gently caress? In extremely rare cases where there are truly / arguably two aspect ratios that could both be deemed original / "correct", you simply include multiple encodes, possibly on multiple discs. This is actually beneficial for true alternate versions as it encourages using true scans (or the digital equivalent) of each aspect ratio (as one aspect ratio may not be a simple masking of another, and involve shot specific readjustments).
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 12:07
|
|
|
But what if the cropping isn't always in the same place? What if the wide version requires cutting off some of the top and bottom? It's likely not as simple as you think it is.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 14:09
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:But what if the cropping isn't always in the same place? What if the wide version requires cutting off some of the top and bottom? It's likely not as simple as you think it is. Exactly why you shouldn't gently caress with it. Framing matters.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 15:05
|
|
|
I rewatched my Horror of Dracula DVD last night and noticed the framing seemed off - tops of actors heads were consistently cut off. Turns out the OAR of the movie is 1.66:1, but every home release has been in an incorrect AR (my DVD is 1.77:1). So some research led me to this Blu-ray which has not only the correct 1.66 AR, but also extra scenes that had been censored from the film. Are there any plans to release this in Region A? Or is this one more reason for me to buy a region free BD player?
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 16:15
|
|
|
16x9 works beautifully as a median between the most common aspect ratios - 1.33:1, 1.85:1, and 2.35:1. Pillarboxing looks neat on a 16x9 TV and scope even neater. It's not like the days of having to suffer through Ben-Hur letterboxed on a 4x3 20" CRT. caiman posted:I rewatched my Horror of Dracula DVD last night and noticed the framing seemed off - tops of actors heads were consistently cut off. Turns out the OAR of the movie is 1.66:1, but every home release has been in an incorrect AR (my DVD is 1.77:1). So some research led me to this Blu-ray which has not only the correct 1.66 AR, but also extra scenes that had been censored from the film. I think Warner is prepping a box set of the films they have US rights to (Dracula, Frankenstein, and a few others) for next year. The UK releases all seem to be compromised with either DVNR, odd transfer choices, or wasting space with open matte versions. I'm pretty sure the Hammer Dracula is supposed to be 1.75:1, but Warner's DVD is framed incorrectly rather than at the wrong aspect ratio.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2014 01:56
|
|
|
Looks like Fox is starting to license to Olive Films... starting with DVD sets of King of the Hill.  (Olive Films has primarily released Paramount-owned films, with some UK and French stuff)
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 03:23
|
|
|
Egbert Souse posted:Looks like Fox is starting to license to Olive Films... starting with DVD sets of King of the Hill. This isn't Bluray news, but I tell you what... this is amazing news. Ever since KOTH went off of Netflix, I've been feeling lost and empty. Now, I have a reason to live. Seriously. I'm impressed that KOTH was always watchable, and often times funny. There's not a lot of shows that went on for 13 years that had great episodes spread throughout. Except for the Peggy episodes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 05:02
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:Seriously. I'm impressed that KOTH was always watchable, and often times funny. There's not a lot of shows that went on for 13 years that had great episodes spread throughout. Except for the Peggy episodes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1h54kOzvv8
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 05:20
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:But what if the cropping isn't always in the same place? What if the wide version requires cutting off some of the top and bottom? It's likely not as simple as you think it is. You can author an MPEG stream with horizontal and vertical offsets that tell the player exactly where to crop the image, no ugly centre crop required, and do so on a frame by frame basis, meaning true pan and scan. Ultimately it's 4 bytes of data. You can also define the display window to be smaller or larger than the source frame -- to zoom in and out, selectively letterbox scenes (eg credits), or crop a 2.35-in-16:9 vertically AND horizontally to fit 4:3 if you could deal with the massive resolution drop. It was not uncommon to see "Auto Pan and Scan" anamorphic DVDs in PAL regions for a while (Road Trip, Amelie, Meet the Parents and Army of Darkness off the top of my head), and its the reason there were two 4:3 options in the setup menu of your player. Set it to LB and you got the unmolested letterboxed version, set it to PS and discs that supported it would automagically pan and scan. (There was also numerous customer complaints and confusion as a result when their widescreen DVDs weren't, due to a player setting 90% of discs ignored) But it's certainly a lot easier to just deliver multiple streams or discs... or the one correct one. frumpsnake fucked around with this message at 10:35 on Sep 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 10:04
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:This isn't Bluray news, but I tell you what... this is amazing news. Ever since KOTH went off of Netflix, I've been feeling lost and empty. Now, I have a reason to live. I just think it's weird that Olive Films is releasing stuff like King of the Hill of all things. Fox seems to really be cool about licensing since pretty much every boutique label is working with them now. What's strange is that Olive's head of programming just moved to Kino (Frank Tarzi) and Kino's just moved to Olive (Bret Wood). I would have expected the first Fox licenses to be stuff like the unreleased Murnau/Borzage silents that are already out in the UK and France (like Street Angel, City Girl, and Seventh Heaven).
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 14:27
|
|
|
Has anyone heard anything about the progress of the X-FILES remastering project? I know some HD episodes are airing overseas, but I'm basically waiting for the whole series to be released so I can watch it for the first time. I'm guessing that once the whole series is done, there'll be a box set... how long after that until Netflix starts streaming it in HD I wonder?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 02:02
|
|
|
Hatter106 posted:Has anyone heard anything about the progress of the X-FILES remastering project? It's probably going to take a long time. There's a ton of episodes, they have to re-master a bunch of early 90s special effects, and there are various other issues endemic to a TV show from that period. Plus, yeah, I think they want to wait until it's all done so they can release the series in one big, pricey box set.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 02:16
|
|
|
Slate Action posted:It's probably going to take a long time. There's a ton of episodes, they have to re-master a bunch of early 90s special effects, and there are various other issues endemic to a TV show from that period. So there is no sign they'll re-master the effects though. Still, a 9 season series still takes time. Trump fucked around with this message at 02:29 on Sep 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 02:27
|
|
|
Are they going to maintain the original aspect ratio of the episodes that were shot in 4:3?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 04:36
|
|
|
It's being aired as 16/9 since it was protected for that format.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 04:59
|
|
|
Slate Action posted:It's probably going to take a long time. There's a ton of episodes, they have to re-master a bunch of early 90s special effects, and there are various other issues endemic to a TV show from that period. Really? I would have thought they'd release it a season at a time to test the waters and then get people to double dip for a fancy box set if it sells
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 06:25
|
|
|
There's also the possibility that I'm wrong about all of that. We'll wait and see.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 06:26
|
|
|
Trump posted:It's being aired as 16/9 since it was protected for that format. I know that the later seasons where shot to be viewable in 16:9 (and this is how they appear on the DVDs), but I always figured that the shots for the early poo poo was framed for 4:3. They show Seinfeld on tv in 16:9 and you can tell that a lot of shots were never meant to be seen that way.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 07:28
|
|
|
Super-16 is approx. 1.66:1 on the negative, which is how Seinfeld and a lot of other 16mm origin shows were photographed. They simply framed everything for a center crop, as well as allowing for overscan. A 2000s show would likely have 1.78:1 framing as a "safe area" option, but unlikely for something like Seinfeld. The 16x9 versions on TV look way too perfectly framed, which leads me to believe they had to adjust shot-by-shot in remastering. Which is fine. Even 1950s shows were shot with so much extra area to make up for overscan, you could theoretically crop some shows as much as 1.66:1 and still get a reasonably good framing. It just isn't how it was intended.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2014 13:58
|
|
|
Not sure you're referencing the right show there, as Seinfeld was shot on 4-perf 35mm which gives it roughly a 4x3 shape right off the bat. All the HD versions that air in 16x9 are crops, and they look godawful for it as there's often jokes that are out of the frame and don't make sense. Friends was shot 3-perf 35mm (or S35mm, I always forget) which is cheaper as it uses less film and incidentally leaves you a near 16x9 shape which is how they mastered the new HD prints for TV/Blu-ray. If Seinfeld gets an official release as a 16x9 crop, I'll be utterly pissed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2014 09:16
|
|
|
Didn't Friends still have to put a load of time and energy into reframing everything and even hiding elements?
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2014 09:21
|
|
|
PriorMarcus posted:Didn't Friends still have to put a load of time and energy into reframing everything and even hiding elements? I thought Friends was a relatively easy job. It was actually shot in something that translates to 15:9 which is why there's a tiny bit of framing that goes on so it fits 16:9. It's actually a show that looks fine wider as well. Not that there's a lot going on in the outer edges mind you. The old UK dvd's of Buffy were a pain because someone decided to release them in 16:9. Except the show was always composed for 4:3 and so you can see crew members and on occasion, catch actors waiting to walk into frame.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2014 09:26
|
|
|
PriorMarcus posted:Didn't Friends still have to put a load of time and energy into reframing everything and even hiding elements? I haven't seen that many episodes of it (but I think the remasters look fantastic, albeit really odd to see a sitcom from the 90s suddenly look like that), but I was under the impression they just left poo poo in on the new versions. There's barely any room on that negative to reframe, so barring expensive CG work that nobody would appreciate there's not much anyone could do. Also because they knew they were shooting for video tape and it didn't matter, some shots are out of focus which isn't really noticeable on the original broadcast but sticks out on the HD versions.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2014 09:50
|
|
|
EL BROMANCE posted:Not sure you're referencing the right show there, as Seinfeld was shot on 4-perf 35mm which gives it roughly a 4x3 shape right off the bat. All the HD versions that air in 16x9 are crops, and they look godawful for it as there's often jokes that are out of the frame and don't make sense. Friends was shot 3-perf 35mm (or S35mm, I always forget) which is cheaper as it uses less film and incidentally leaves you a near 16x9 shape which is how they mastered the new HD prints for TV/Blu-ray. I recall reading that Seinfeld was shot on 16mm, but it looks like I'm mistaken.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2014 13:32
|
|
|
I remember seeing some screenshot of Friends on bluray where some joke opens up with Ross in his bed and the camera pans back to show he's with some other woman but on the bluray you see her right away and the reveal is ruined. They should just keep things the way they were. At least give the option of going widescreen.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2014 14:53
|
|
|
Vintersorg posted:I remember seeing some screenshot of Friends on bluray where some joke opens up with Ross in his bed and the camera pans back to show he's with some other woman but on the bluray you see her right away and the reveal is ruined. They should just keep things the way they were. At least give the option of going widescreen. Yeah that's Chandler and Janice. It's one of the few jokes that's ruined by the wide frame. Mainly because it has the character laying there, then he turns to face her and then the 'camera' pans to reveal her.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2014 20:24
|
|
|
Just a heads-up: I popped into Best Buy to purchase Winter Soldier, and saw they had what looked like a new release of 28 Days Later for $6.99. It's actually just a new slipcover for the same meh release that's been around forever. (I didn't buy it, just an image I found on GIS.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2014 15:42
|
|
|
I don't think you can actually get any better than the Blu-Ray release of 28 Days Later because of how it was shot, right?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2014 17:09
|
|
|
Rageaholic Monkey posted:I don't think you can actually get any better than the Blu-Ray release of 28 Days Later because of how it was shot, right? Pretty much since it was shot on an SD camcorder (the XL1), though the ending could stand to use a new transfer since that was actually shot on 35mm. EDIT: Correction VoodooXT fucked around with this message at 17:51 on Sep 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2014 17:48
|
|
|
VoodooXT posted:Pretty much since it was shot on an SD camcorder (the XL1), though the ending could stand to use a new transfer since that was actually shot on 35mm. It was shot in PAL SD, so technically, if we want to be pedantic, the BD is an upgrade in resolution over the US DVD (though not an upgrade in resolution when compared to the UK DVD). The audio is lossless, and the 35mm end scene is presented in HD, so yeah - the current BD is the best one can really hope for.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2014 20:45
|
|
|
Anybody own the new bluray Twin Peaks set? I'm currently making my way through the set (slowly), and was chatting up a friend about it when I found this discussion on Amazon regarding some audio syncing issues with a couple of the discs: http://www.amazon.com/review/R2BNW5FKOHDPXM/ref=cm_cr_dp_cmt?ie=UTF8&ASIN=B00KCTG4PO&nodeID=2625373011&store=movies-tv#wasThisHelpful Amazon has actually stopped selling it seemingly as a result of the issues. I haven't had any problems yet but now I'm getting worried...
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 02:46
|
|
|
Sirotan posted:Anybody own the new bluray Twin Peaks set? I'm currently making my way through the set (slowly), and was chatting up a friend about it when I found this discussion on Amazon regarding some audio syncing issues with a couple of the discs: http://www.amazon.com/review/R2BNW5FKOHDPXM/ref=cm_cr_dp_cmt?ie=UTF8&ASIN=B00KCTG4PO&nodeID=2625373011&store=movies-tv#wasThisHelpful Amazon has actually stopped selling it seemingly as a result of the issues. I haven't had any problems yet but now I'm getting worried... Yeah I noticed that on the previously on Twin Peaks sections the audio was really off, but the episodes themselves were fine. However, I am only on disc 2 I skipped to the Fire Walk With Me discs and the audio is all off slightly and it's horrible.Thanks for bringing this up as I would've missed the deadline for replacements (September 12). I got mine from the UK Amazon, they sent me a new one free of charge, just have to mail them back the defective one (They also refund any postage) .
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 17:57
|
|
|
Neo_Reloaded posted:It was shot in PAL SD, so technically, if we want to be pedantic, the BD is an upgrade in resolution over the US DVD (though not an upgrade in resolution when compared to the UK DVD). I had read several times that the upgrade to BD from DVD isn't worth it - so, really, I've been just happy with the DVD.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 18:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 11:29 |
|
|
Safe Driver posted:Yeah I noticed that on the previously on Twin Peaks sections the audio was really off, but the episodes themselves were fine. However, I am only on disc 2 I skipped to the Fire Walk With Me discs and the audio is all off slightly and it's horrible.Thanks for bringing this up as I would've missed the deadline for replacements (September 12). I got mine from the UK Amazon, they sent me a new one free of charge, just have to mail them back the defective one (They also refund any postage) . My return window has already closed.  Guess I gotta wait for some response from CBS on this. I'm also only on the second disc, guess I'm going to have to skip ahead and check out the FWWM disc tonight. Sucks.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 18:05
|
|