|
Egbert Souse posted:By the way, Kino Lorber is releasing a 4K restoration of Rawhead Rex into theaters, then to Blu-Ray. I'm going to buy this terrible movie.
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 00:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 16:56 |
|
|
Woah I heard about the blu ray but I didn't know there was gonna be a theatrical run. Really hope one of my local theaters picks that up.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 01:06
|
|
|
Rusty Staub posted:you had to flip early DVDs too Back then a lot of the movies had Full Screen on one side, and Widescreen on the other. I don't know if they were inconsistent among movies or studios, or if I could just never remember correctly, but I feel like sometimes if I wanted to watch the widescreen, on some movies the side with widescreen on it needed to face down because that was the side it was on, other times it acted as a label, so that widescreen label needed to face up. Sometimes I'd put the movie in, get to the menu, start the movie, get through a black screen credits for a few minutes, until the movie starts and, "god drat it, it's on the wrong side."
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 02:04
|
|
|
Nihonniboku posted:Back then a lot of the movies had Full Screen on one side, and Widescreen on the other. I don't know if they were inconsistent among movies or studios, or if I could just never remember correctly, but I feel like sometimes if I wanted to watch the widescreen, on some movies the side with widescreen on it needed to face down because that was the side it was on, other times it acted as a label, so that widescreen label needed to face up. Sometimes I'd put the movie in, get to the menu, start the movie, get through a black screen credits for a few minutes, until the movie starts and, "god drat it, it's on the wrong side." Some longer movies were split in the middle and needed to be flipped over. The first Goodfellas DVD was one of these.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 02:07
|
|
|
I remember taking a online film class in high school that was just me and one other guy, and we had to watch Gone with the Wind. So we started it and were really surprised when the movie opened with Scarlett O'Hara murking a dude with a shotgun. We didn't realize we had started with disc 2 until after the period was over.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 02:13
|
|
|
Those double sided DVDs with widescreen/fullscreen were weird. The movie Bean opens with him shaving his face. In the widescreen version, it's a shot of his reflection in the mirror. In the full screen, the POV is directed at his face. I always wondered what other movies had such drastic differences between the wide/fullscreens.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 02:16
|
|
|
Spatulater bro! posted:Lots of films had to be flipped, even not especially long ones. The issue was dual-layered DVDs weren't a thing yet so they could only store 4.7 GB per side. The only one I owned the was first Seven release. Yep, the first time I saw Goodfellas was on a dual sided DVD. I started on the scene where Karen pulls a gun on Henry in bed, aka the second side because I didn't know better and DVDs were new to me. I got a fair way through the movie before it twigged that I realised that I had no real idea what was going on and checked. I also had a Trainspotting DVD that had fullscreen and widescreen editions on different sides, which was just useless.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 05:32
|
|
|
Detective No. 27 posted:Those double sided DVDs with widescreen/fullscreen were weird. The movie Bean opens with him shaving his face. In the widescreen version, it's a shot of his reflection in the mirror. In the full screen, the POV is directed at his face. I always wondered what other movies had such drastic differences between the wide/fullscreens. A lot of movies have opening credits that straight up do not function when cropped. Back when we didn't get ubiquitous widescreen versions of everything, some movies would gently caress with you by starting in widescreen and then when the credits ended just snap into pan and scan. Total tease. I think Die Hard was one of those. Mrs Doubtfire did it too, not sure why I remember that. The Sci Fi channel would do special widescreen showings of movies, that was nice. Kids who like movies got it too drat easy nowadays. Of course, our forefathers didn't have "home video" in any form.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 16:31
|
|
|
My VHS copy of Return of the Jedi (Not Special Edition) snaps into letterbox at the end of the YubYub sequence right before the credits. As a kid I didn't really know about any of this stuff and thought it was an original stylistic choice.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 16:39
|
|
|
As a kid, I had letterboxed tapes of Amadeus, It's a Mad World, West Side Story, and 2001. I had seen Amadeus on TV in pan and scan, found it boring. Saw the letterboxed version and loved it. Ended up taping Psycho and Vertigo off AMC. But my parents got me the cropped Star Wars twice without knowing letterboxed tapes existed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 17:19
|
|
|
Gremlins 2 was my first exposure to Letterbox. For whatever reason my video store only had letterbox versions of Gremlins 2, of course being about 9, I didn't give a poo poo after the hijinks started.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 17:33
|
|
|
My first letterbox tape was Ghostbusters 2, which was part of a bizarre experiment where the video was panned and scanned, but at a 1.66:1 ratio. Don't know why. I also remember how some films would zoom in when they left letterbox mode. Now, people think the black bars make things look cinematic. We've won. Except for 4:3 material.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 17:46
|
|
|
Detective No. 27 posted:Those double sided DVDs with widescreen/fullscreen were weird. The movie Bean opens with him shaving his face. In the widescreen version, it's a shot of his reflection in the mirror. In the full screen, the POV is directed at his face. I always wondered what other movies had such drastic differences between the wide/fullscreens. Lots of scenes in the full screen version of Ghostbusters have entire characters missing. http://www.theraffon.net/~spookcentral/widescreen.htm When I was a kid I thought this was part of the joke in Pee Wee's Big Adventure: 
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 18:20
|
|
|
TheScott2K posted:Kids who like movies got it too drat easy nowadays. Unless they watch stuff off premium movie channels, where lots of things still get cropped. Home media is much improved, though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 19:11
|
|
|
TheScott2K posted:Kids who like movies got it too drat easy nowadays. Of course, our forefathers didn't have "home video" in any form. I worked in the media department at Best Buy in 2005, and people would regularly get upset because they didn't want the widescreen version because it chopped off half of the movie. They never accepted my explanation that actually the full screen version did that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 23:46
|
|
|
I can't stand when people use a tvs stretch feature tp make 4:3 fill their screen. I'm not going to freak out on them or anything but it's kind of irriirritating.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 23:49
|
|
|
Casimir Radon posted:I can't stand when people use a tvs stretch feature tp make 4:3 fill their screen. I'm not going to freak out on them or anything but it's kind of irriirritating. When I went back home for Christmas, I had to turn off the motion smoothing option on almost every tv in every house of every family member I visited. I didn't even bother asking permission because most also didn't even realize anything changed after I did it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 23:52
|
|
|
ruddiger posted:When I went back home for Christmas, I had to turn off the motion smoothing option on almost every tv in every house of every family member I visited. It pains me that this ridiculous "feature" is turned on by default.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 23:57
|
|
|
ruddiger posted:When I went back home for Christmas, I had to turn off the motion smoothing option on almost every tv in every house of every family member I visited. Is that the poo poo that makes everything look flat like it's shot on video? Nobody ever knows what I'm talking about when I notice something's wrong with the picture on their tvs, and it makes scared that one day that feature will be on my tv and I'll just get used to it and be like Donald Sutherland at the end of Body Snatchers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 00:07
|
|
|
I see motion interpolation as making everything look too real and uncinematic. That's why it works okay for sports. But I watched Existenz in a hotel room once with it on and it felt like watching a stage production.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 00:19
|
|
|
It interpolates extra frames to give the movie a soap opera effect. I don't know if the stigma of high FPS looking "cheap" will ever go away... That reminds me. Have the Hobbit movies been released as the 60 FPS versions on home video? I'm curious about seeing them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 00:24
|
|
|
Boinks posted:It interpolates extra frames to give the movie a soap opera effect. I don't know if the stigma of high FPS looking "cheap" will ever go away... Nope. They didn't even release the 3rd one in 48FPS because no one gave a poo poo about the first two. I saw both, I thought it was very very good unless there was a lot of fast movement going on (Radagast being chased was like Benny Hill). It really makes the 3D pop and adds a lot to the clarity and fluidity of most action. But yeah interpolation is the dumbest poo poo and every time I am the only one who notices it and I just don't know how. GonSmithe fucked around with this message at 00:40 on Apr 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 00:35
|
|
|
Boinks posted:That reminds me. Have the Hobbit movies been released as the 60 FPS versions on home video? I'm curious about seeing them. The Hobbit was 48 fps, which isn't supported by the Blu-ray format. In theory, they could do it by converting to 60 fps through the same sort of 3:2 pull down that's used to convert 24 fps film to 30 for TV. Blu-ray supports that interlaced at 1920x1080, and UHD supports it in progressive at the full 4K. I don't see them putting out an interlaced version of a movie, but it's not impossible we'd see a high frame-rate option in a theoretical 4K release. Not sure anyone would bother, though, considering the technology wasn't exactly a huge hit and it would still require modifying the frame rate from how it was originally projected. Sir Kodiak fucked around with this message at 00:40 on Apr 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 00:35
|
|
|
I wish I could have seen that (without the 3D). The first Hobbit movie is what made me decide to limit what I see in theaters. Not because of the film itself, but more the quality of the image. Early on in the first film the camera flies around a large room with many tall skinny pillars. The motion blur was so choppy it was impossible to see anything or focus your eyes properly. I'm willing to be the extra framerate would help that issue. Some other film after that had a blown speaker in the room, so any dialog that was played from behind made the actor sound like it was coming from a tin can. Since then, I've been more likely to wait for a home release of a film, unless it is a Disney Marvel film, because I'm a manchild.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 00:40
|
|
|
Actually, come to think of it, I've literally never seen the first two movies in anything but 48FPS. The reason for that bad motion blur was because he filmed it in 48FPS.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 00:42
|
|
|
The barrel scene looked arguably worse in HFR. It made it really obvious how unfinished the CGI was. The same goes for the scene where Legolas slides down a rope and it looks like an original XBOX cutscene.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 00:42
|
|
|
Considering that Youtube supports high frame rates, it's weird that there's no HFR trailers for Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk (other than homemade motion interpolated ones).
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 00:45
|
|
|
The best thing about widescreen was why it was created in the first place. It was an attempt by the movie industry to appear more epic then tv and have something that tv can not do.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 00:48
|
|
|
Did the HFR in BLHW actually fo anything for it? My only thoughts upon hearing that it was coming out was that it probably would have been more popular if it came out a decade ago during the worst of Iraq.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 00:50
|
|
|
Ah, interesting. The UHD for Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk is 60FPS, half the theatrical frame rate.Casimir Radon posted:Did the HFR in BLHW actually fo anything for it? My only thoughts upon hearing that it was coming out was that it probably would have been more popular if it came out a decade ago during the worst of Iraq. Someone would have had to have seen it to be able to tell you.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 00:51
|
|
|
Nihonniboku posted:I worked in the media department at Best Buy in 2005, and people would regularly get upset because they didn't want the widescreen version because it chopped off half of the movie. They never accepted my explanation that actually the full screen version did that. Even early on, I thought of widescreen being more about seeing a movie the way it was intended rather than more image. Which is true since a lot of times, you're seeing less image than you may have seen on tape or TV. Which doesn't matter. Blu-Ray is about making home video as close to a proper theatrical presentation as possible. No one ever saw movies like Dr. Strangelove, Touch of Evil, Psycho, or A Hard Day's Night in any reputable theater in anything but widescreen. Who gives a gently caress about whether a VHS had a certain framing or color timing? Filmmaker changes and exceptions aside, what a film looked like during its original theatrical run should be the only thing that matters. Just thinking of it as more image is besides the point. It's about showing a film the way the filmmakers intended it. Proper framing, original sound mix, accurate color grading, etc. Blu-Ray is the best thing to happen to home video so far because of this. Someone else noted that they were amazed by seeing Lawrence of Arabia on Blu-Ray because in the desert rescue scene, you couldn't see the "dot" in the distance on DVD, but it was clearly visible now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 01:10
|
|
|
Ah yeah 48 FPS not 60, I mixed it up with video games. Great answers, thanks. Got my fingers crossed for a 48 FPS 4K UHD release even if the chance is slim.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 03:51
|
|
|
If I wasn't seeing it with family I would have walked out of Hobbit in 48fps because it looked so lovely.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 04:59
|
|
|
The dvd of DIE HARD had a feature that basically sat you down and explained why pan and scan was poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 11:16
|
|
|
fun fact: True Lies had a "Director's Pan & Scan" LD
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 12:43
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:I see motion interpolation as making everything look too real and uncinematic. That's why it works okay for sports. But I watched Existenz in a hotel room once with it on and it felt like watching a stage production. You know, I was wondering why this 'feature' even existed after I got my 4K tv and found it was on by default for the movie setting. Noticed it very quickly when watching Rogue One and quickly shut it off. There was like four different options for that crap, but wonder when ANY had any use beyond sports?
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 14:04
|
|
|
Rirse posted:You know, I was wondering why this 'feature' even existed after I got my 4K tv and found it was on by default for the movie setting. Noticed it very quickly when watching Rogue One and quickly shut it off. There was like four different options for that crap, but wonder when ANY had any use beyond sports? For old people. It keeps getting turned back on whenever I leave my parents house. Even when I explain to them that this is why their shows look crappy. They don't put much thought in to it beyond "this is new technology, therefore it must be best to use it."
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 14:23
|
|
|
Rusty Staub posted:fun fact: True Lies had a "Director's Pan & Scan" LD James Cameron opted to personally supervise the pan & scan versions of his films. The first Terminator 2 "ultimate edition" had a feature on this showing the pan & scan and widescreen versions side-by-side along with the full aperture negative image. He'd have each shot completely reframed to look best in 4x3 rather than just open up the image. If a shot was supposed to be a close-up in widescreen and became a medium unmatted, he'd have the shot zoomed in further to maintain the effect.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 15:36
|
|
|
Egbert Souse posted:James Cameron opted to personally supervise the pan & scan versions of his films. The first Terminator 2 "ultimate edition" had a feature on this showing the pan & scan and widescreen versions side-by-side along with the full aperture negative image. He'd have each shot completely reframed to look best in 4x3 rather than just open up the image. If a shot was supposed to be a close-up in widescreen and became a medium unmatted, he'd have the shot zoomed in further to maintain the effect.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 17:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 16:56 |
|
|
Back in my budding cinephile days it was always a challenge for me to convince people (which I saw as my duty to do for some reason) that even if you might see more image in a fullscreen version, it's still not the right image.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 17:18
|
|