First (Major) Blu-ray release to have a MAR (1 Viewer)

[Bryan Tuck]

Has anyone found out if this was a creative decision on the part of the filmmakers? From what I've read, it seems that some shots are cropped on the sides, and some are not, which makes it sound like this was a full-frame 16:9 transfer prepared for HD broadcasts. Could this have been just an honest mistake, with the wrong version being used for the Blu-ray/DVD?

 

[Douglas Monce]

Originally Posted by Bryan Tuck

As others have stated, this is a little different than Avatar, as it was shown theatrically in both ratios, but Dawn Treader was apparently shown exclusively at 2.35:1 in theaters. As for the effects being rendered for 1.78:1, that actually still happens a lot on big effects films in anticipation of television airings, but it doesn't mean that's the ratio that the filmmakers prefer. Does anyone know if this is happening with Gulliver's Travels, which I believe was also 2.35:1? If not, maybe it is a filmmaker decision. It would still be nice to hear something official, though.


Also, as I side note, I didn't realize this was shot on HDSR tapes. I dunno; if I had $150 million to make a major fantasy film, I think I'd shoot on something a little higher-res than 1080p. At least get a Red or something.

1080p projected digitally will often times exhibit more detail than a film release print. Recent tests have shown that the average film release print has roughly the resolution of 720p video. The release print is after all 4 to 5 generations away from the camera original, digital is 1 to 1 with no generational loss.


Doug

 

[Bryan Tuck]

Originally Posted by Douglas Monce




1080p projected digitally will often times exhibit more detail than a film release print. Recent tests have shown that the average film release print has roughly the resolution of 720p video. The release print is after all 4 to 5 generations away from the camera original, digital is 1 to 1 with no generational loss.


Doug

That can be true, but that's the highest resolution it will ever have. Release prints wear out, of course, but I would think it'd preferable to have something higher than 1080 as your master, especially if 2.40 is your intended ratio. Certainly 4k and even 2k would give you more picture information to work with, from which better release prints and also better 1080p projections could be created.

 

[Brandon Conway]

Originally Posted by Bryan Tuck

this have been just an honest mistake, with the wrong version being used for the Blu-ray/DVD?

No. Far, far too much QC for it to be unintended by Fox.

 

[cafink]

Originally Posted by Brandon Conway

No. Far, far too much QC for it to be unintended by Fox.

I don't know that this is necessarily true. DVDs and Blu-rays have been released with similar errors before, after all. Superman had the wrong audio track, Frantic has an audio track where some parts of the movie are dubbed into French, and a handful of discs (mostly from Warner, if I recall correctly) have been inadvertently released in 1080i instead of 1080p. Why couldn't a similar screw-up have occurred here?

 

[Mark-P]

I think it's unlikely in this case because even the early press releases had 1.78:1 in the list of specs. I do wish somebody from Fox would speak up about it. Shortly after the kerfuffle about Avatar's ratio, James Cameron did an interview stating that he preferred the 1.78:1 ratio and that the 2.35:1 was just straight extraction of the 1.78:1 with no additional picture information on the sides. After his statement, everything settled down.

Originally Posted by cafink



I don't know that this is necessarily true. DVDs and Blu-rays have been released with similar errors before, after all. Superman had the wrong audio track, Frantic has an audio track where some parts of the movie are dubbed into French, and a handful of discs (mostly from Warner, if I recall correctly) have been inadvertently released in 1080i instead of 1080p. Why couldn't a similar screw-up have occurred here?

 

[Brandon Conway]

Originally Posted by cafink



I don't know that this is necessarily true. DVDs and Blu-rays have been released with similar errors before, after all. Superman had the wrong audio track, Frantic has an audio track where some parts of the movie are dubbed into French, and a handful of discs (mostly from Warner, if I recall correctly) have been inadvertently released in 1080i instead of 1080p. Why couldn't a similar screw-up have occurred here?

Audio tracks: QC facilities are told what configuration they are (5.1, 2.0, etc), and verify that, along with general quality. If there's an alternate version of the audio out there QC facilities comprised of people who may not have seen this particular film before have no way of knowing. Those higher up the chain in the process gathering the files are the ones who need to verify they got the right content vs. what else may be available.


The only Warner disc with a 1080i feature I recall is the PIP version (and not the regular feature) of Terminator 3.


Aspect ratios for a feature are an entirely different matter, especially for a new release (note all the issues you listed were for catalog titles). The preparation needed along all the several steps in the process make it extremely unlikely. And anyone that is even somewhat familiar with Fox home video knows that they are on the pickier side of things when it comes to QC.

 

[cafink]

Fair enough, that makes sense. Just a couple of notes:


I know of at least one DVD release that had the wrong audio configuration. She's All That was initially released with a 2.0 track instead of the advertised 5.1 mix. It was a pretty early DVD release; I dunno if that means anything in terms of quality control.


According to the HTF's Blu-ray Glitch List, Terminator 3 was displayed in 1080i for the regular version, not the PIP version. Also, I seem to recall Full Metal Jacket , The Fugitive, and possibly some others (no titles come immediately to mind) being 1080i, as well.

 

[Brandon Conway]

Originally Posted by cafink , Terminator 3 was displayed in 1080i for the regular version, not the PIP version. Also, I seem to recall Full Metal Jacket , The Fugitive, and possibly some others (no titles come immediately to mind) being 1080i, as well.

In regards to She's All That, more than likely that was a case of the package art department being in poor communication with the disc authoring department. Most such issues occur because package art is typically based on very early plans and no one bothers to follow-up with them when changes are made to the disc spec.


You're right about T3. I was remembering it backwards.


I'm pretty sure The Fugitive, first release of FMJ etc. are 1080p, with the issue related to the source master's encoding and not the disc itself.

 

[cafink]

Originally Posted by Brandon Conway

In regards to She's All That, more than likely that was a case of the package art department being in poor communication with the disc authoring department. Most such issues occur because package art is typically based on very early plans and no one bothers to follow-up with them when changes are made to the disc spec.

I'm pretty sure it was an actual error, because Disney re-authored the disc with the 5.1 track. Again, this was in the early days of DVD. I remember exchanging mine for a corrected copy at Suncoast.

 

[Brandon Conway]

Originally Posted by cafink



I'm pretty sure it was an actual error, because Disney re-authored the disc with the 5.1 track. Again, this was in the early days of DVD. I remember exchanging mine for a corrected copy at Suncoast.

Fair enough.

 

[Vincent_P]

I never said anything about a "conversion". FRIDAY THE 13TH PART 3 was FILMED in 3-D, and on 2-perf 35mm which has even less image area than Super-35 not to mention this was the early 1980s when film stocks weren't as good as they are now, and it looked fantastic projected in 35mm 3-D with great 3-D effects. I don't see what "typical focal lengths" have to do with it either since cinematographers have any number of lens lengths to choose from.


Vincent

Originally Posted by Lord Dalek

I'm not saying 3D on 35mm is impossible, I'm saying that the grain and focal lengths typically utilized in Super 35mm photography render it highly difficult to make the conversion process successful. Case in point, the most recent Harry Potter which had to abandon 3D because of difficulties presented by Super 35.


Obviously Imax which is 65mm and 15-perf is going to be less of a hassle to execute this than a typical 3-perf 35mm production shot on fast stock.

 

[Matt Hough]

My review will go up later tonight, but Michael Apted in the commentary does indeed mention that he altered the aspect ratio to give the film a more intimate feel for an at-home audience. So, the aspect ratio is his idea and with his blessing.

 

[Adam Gregorich]

Thanks for the clarification Matt

 

[Bryan Tuck]

Thanks, Matt. I'm not sure why a seafaring adventure in a magical land needs to have a more intimate feel for an at-home audience, but it's good to know it was a conscious decision made by the director.

 

[Matt Hough]

Judging from his commentary, he saw the film as a character-based one with each of the children undergoing spiritual journeys to test their moral fiber. The epic qualities didn't seem to have interested him as much. He admits that he really didn't have a feel for the size of the film until near the end of the process as the CGI elements were adfded.

 

[Bryan Tuck]

Originally Posted by MattH.

Judging from his commentary, he saw the film as a character-based one with each of the children undergoing spiritual journeys to test their moral fiber. The epic qualities didn't seem to have interested him as much. He admits that he really didn't have a feel for the size of the film until near the end of the process as the CGI elements were adfded.

I agree that the film did seem more character-driven than fantasy-driven, but then why didn't they just frame for 1.85 (or 1.78) from the beginning? Oh well; seems a strange decision to me, but at least it's a creative decision by the filmmaker.

 

[Mark-P]

Thank you for that clarification! So there is no need to blame Fox - this was a filmmaker decision. So I'm okay with it. He decided to recompose the picture with a different aspect ratio which added additional picture information vertically as well as subtracted information horizontally in some scenes. It's not what I would have preferred for my wide home theater setup, but I'll respect the director's decision.

Originally Posted by MattH.

My review will go up later tonight, but Michael Apted in the commentary does indeed mention that he altered the aspect ratio to give the film a more intimate feel for an at-home audience. So, the aspect ratio is his idea and with his blessing.

 

[Douglas Monce]

Originally Posted by Bryan Tuck




That can be true, but that's the highest resolution it will ever have. Release prints wear out, of course, but I would think it'd preferable to have something higher than 1080 as your master, especially if 2.40 is your intended ratio. Certainly 4k and even 2k would give you more picture information to work with, from which better release prints and also better 1080p projections could be created.

Resolution is not the end all be all of cinematography. Many DP's feel that the Red has a harsh image quality and that it clips whites rather drastically. Some people feel that the Sony Cinealta and Panavision digital cameras have a warmer, more organic feel to the image. I don’t necessarily agree with this point of view. The Red has a nasty habit of over heating and shutting itself down on the set causing production delays.


Also there is some question as to the actual real world resolution of the Red. Yes the specs say 4k, but some people who have done tests with it say that it is really little more than 2k. 2k is actually 2048×1080, not that drastically higher in resolution than HD at 1920x1080.


Personally if I were going to shoot a 2.40:1 film digitally, I'd be looking at the Thomson Viper. It can shoot 2.40 natively using what they call Dynamic Pixel Management, with no loss of resolution as when the image is cropped.


Doug

 

[Bryan Tuck]

Originally Posted by Douglas Monce




Resolution is not the end all be all of cinematography. Many DP's feel that the Red has a harsh image quality and that it clips whites rather drastically. Some people feel that the Sony Cinealta and Panavision digital cameras have a warmer, more organic feel to the image. I don’t necessarily agree with this point of view. The Red has a nasty habit of over heating and shutting itself down on the set causing production delays.


Also there is some question as to the actual real world resolution of the Red. Yes the specs say 4k, but some people who have done tests with it say that it is really little more than 2k. 2k is actually 2048×1080, not that drastically higher in resolution than HD at 1920x1080.


Personally if I were going to shoot a 2.40:1 film digitally, I'd be looking at the Thomson Viper. It can shoot 2.40 natively using what they call Dynamic Pixel Management, with no loss of resolution as when the image is cropped.


Doug

Fair enough; I'm an editor, not a cinematographer. I admit I'm not all that well-versed in the technical details of each camera available. And it's true that resolution is not the only factor. I've even seen 16mm footage that looked better than something that was shot on Super 35, simply because the DP utilized the available light better.


It ultimately has to come down to what will work best for the story you're trying to tell (with budgetary concerns, of course, being factored in). Personally, I think actual 35mm would have suited Dawn Treader better, and even though the budget was reduced compared to the first two, film still would have been feasible.


I didn't know that about the Viper; wasn't that what David Fincher's Zodiac was filmed with?