Search results

Remember this smoking gun post in this very thread: http://www.hometheaterforum.com/topic/331675-marty-1955-blu-ray-available-for-preorder/?p=4119749 which proved there was at least one shot in Marty that was significantly zoomed? I guess that was just an Internet fake to discredit Kino? :rolleyes:

I said "putting their public relations spin aside." Who else would I blame? MGM of course.

And I feel kind of foolish now, because I was one of the doubters who held out hope that it would be an unmolested open-matte transfer which I could have worked with. I don't blame Kino for this (putting their public relations spin aside) because they had no leverage to get anything other than...

If ever one needed proof that some shots of the Blu-ray have been zoomed in, then there you have it. All the other comparisons show only slight differences in framing but that one shot has the Blu-ray significantly zoomed in. Edit: Let me say, I am really on the fence about this now. I had...

You do realize that the studio you are talking about is the exact same one that is in complete denial about the condition of the 70mm elements of The Alamo, don't you? Good luck with that!

I echo the sentiment that anyone who chooses not to patronize Kino because of those comments should certainly do so. Personally I don't feel that way. Insult me all you want Kino, but put out good quality product and I'll happily buy it. Reviews are already showing that some of the Blu-rays...

I hadn't read that quote comparing Jeffrey Wells to Ken Ham. Thank you, Mr. Wells for referencing it, I thought it was the funniest thing I've heard in a long time!

Here is the same frame from the DVD of the shot that is windowboxed on the Blu-ray:

That's not a fair comparison. You are overlaying 2 completely different shots. Give me a second and I will grab the exact frame from the DVD to match the windowboxed Blu-ray shot.

Yeah. I'm making no claims that the DVD isn't zoomed as well. My point is that I had hoped that the Blu-ray would be less zoomed, not more! However, it's only slight and the Blu-ray should still matte fairly well.

I compared some screenshots of the DVD to Blu-ray.com screenshots and and my assessment is that Kino's newer master is "slightly" zoomed by comparison. DVD: Blu-ray.com (resized):

If it is not zoomed, but simply open-matte, then I wouldn't consider that botched. No more than I would consider the purchase of an unmatted film print to be botched. Why? Because I have the ability to project the image matted to any ratio that I so choose. Others may not have that ability, so...

If the final product turns out to be zoomed and doesn't matte well, then I'll join in with all the negativity, but until then, just let me be a cock-eyed optimist! :D

As soon as I receive the Blu-ray on July 16th, or shortly thereafter, I will screen in on my projector at 1.66:1 and report back how it looks.

Personally, I'm not buying the argument that Kino has a "zoomed in" or compromised transfer. It's my belief that we will be getting it uncompromised open-matte. I'm basing this on Kino's Facebook statement "After examining the film elements..." Did they misspeak there by using the word "film"...

Did I miss something? Did MGM strike some licensing deal with Kino? The past few weeks have seen the announcments of Marty, Witness for the Prosecution, Separate Tables, Duel at Diablo, and On the Beach.