Paramount to re-do "Godfather" DVDs

#121

Rating: 0

11/13/03 at 9:15pm

Robert Crawford
Crawdaddy
online

Joined: December 1998
Location: Michigan
Post Count: 17,142

I guess you don't support OAR, huh? I am not counting you as an OAR advocate.

Damin,
Cut it out, stop stoking the fires here.

Crawdaddy

G.W. McLintock: Camille, you're on your own.

#122

Rating: 0

11/13/03 at 9:41pm

Rain
Rain
offline

Joined: March 2001
Location: The Movie Snob from Vancouver, BC, Canada
Post Count: 5,020

I can't accurately comment on the existing DVDs, as I have not watched them since obtaining my RPTV and have only viewed them on a rather shoddy TV.

But I'm always game for a re-dip if there is a significant improvement to the presentations.

"Imagine all the people, living life in peace..." - Imagine by John Lennon

#123

Rating: 0

11/13/03 at 9:55pm

Britton
offline

Joined: June 2001
Post Count: 896

Whew, I'm glad there's SOMEONE out there who wants to talk Godfather too.

#124

Rating: 0

11/13/03 at 10:51pm

Kwang Suh
offline

Joined: September 1999
Post Count: 849

Ahem...

Anyhow, looking forward to these.

#125

Rating: 0

11/14/03 at 3:10am

Gordon McMurphy
offline

Joined: August 2002
Post Count: 3,522

I can't believe all these 1.78:1 vs. 1.85:1 arguments. Matting to 1.85:1 is not a golden rule, you know. The framing doesn't have to be cut to the quick. 1.78:1 is a lot safer.

Most DVDs that are stated on the packaging to be 1.85:1 are in fact, 1.78:1, just as most 2.35:1 transfers are 2.40:1.

Gordy

#126

Rating: 0

11/14/03 at 5:36am

John Alderson
offline

Joined: August 2001
Post Count: 540

Any word yet on when the new editions will be coming out? I will be curious to see A/B comparison screenshots when they do. I don't think there's anything that would get me to double dip, but it'll be interesting.

#127

Rating: 0

11/14/03 at 5:44am

Dave H
offline

Joined: August 2000
Post Count: 4,820

John, according to the article, late next year they will be released.

#128

Rating: 0

11/14/03 at 10:01am

Dan Hitchman
offline

Joined: June 1999
Post Count: 2,714

If they are a significant improvement then I will purchase this new release. Thank goodness I didn't buy the first release as there was a large group of disappointed viewers.

Dan

Go Blu!!

#129

Rating: 0

11/14/03 at 11:37am

Victoria K.
offline

Joined: October 2003
Post Count: 15

So does anyone know about the soundmix issue? Will the original mono mix be included this time around?

#130

Rating: 0

11/14/03 at 11:59am

Robert Crawford
Crawdaddy
online

Joined: December 1998
Location: Michigan
Post Count: 17,142

Thank goodness I didn't buy the first release as there was a large group of disappointed viewers.

Who's to say you would've been one of them? There are several here that are very happy with the first release dvd presentation.

G.W. McLintock: Camille, you're on your own.

#131

Rating: 0

11/14/03 at 12:19pm

Ed St. Clair
offline

Joined: May 2001
Post Count: 3,319

Quote:

I can't believe all these 1.78:1 vs. 1.85:1 arguments. Matting to 1.85:1 is not a golden rule, you know. The framing doesn't have to be cut to the quick. 1.78:1 is a lot safer.

Gordy,
Once again, does this transfer 'technique', allow the DVD too be OAR?
Still thinking, an OAR DVD has to be the same as the film!
Am I wrong?

Movies are: "The Greatest Artform".
HD should be for EVERYONE!

#132

Rating: 0

11/14/03 at 12:26pm

Ed St. Clair
offline

Joined: May 2001
Post Count: 3,319

Quote:

I sure hope you don't own any 1.33:1 transfers of 1.37:1 films, either.

I don't know.
Would sure like to find out more about this.
Funny thing I thought DVDFILE, had it wrong when they stated; Pumping Iron would be released in it's original 1,37:1 ratio.
I thought it was a misprint, of 1.33:1. :b
Learn something ALL the time, in this hobby!

Movies are: "The Greatest Artform".
HD should be for EVERYONE!

#133

Rating: 0

11/14/03 at 12:43pm

Ed St. Clair
offline

Joined: May 2001
Post Count: 3,319

Quote:

Given that the difference between 1.78:1 and 1.85:1 is usually a matter of a few lines of resolution

Damin J Toell,
Thanks for your reply.
Is the loss, JUST "resolution", or is it 'also' picture information?

Quote:

You've mentioned in the past that you own Apocalypse Now on DVD

Yes, yet it brings tears to my eye's that I am unable to see, ALL that this great film had too offer.
Can't understand why FFC would agree with his DoP, too do this.
Was also purchased before I ever this was a chop job.
Maybe I should give it to my brother-inlaw.
He LOVES the soundtrack.
Still has the album, even though he has no record player.
Did not purchase AN:Redux, because of this.
And;
Because of non-ORC, or non Original Released Cut.

Which is TOUGH, cause I am missing out on the better video & audio.

Quote:

Given that the difference between 1.78:1 and 1.85:1 is usually a matter of a few lines of resolution

Movies are: "The Greatest Artform".
HD should be for EVERYONE!

#134

Rating: 0

11/14/03 at 12:49pm

Ed St. Clair
offline

Joined: May 2001
Post Count: 3,319

Looking forward to the 'single' movie release of these titles on DVD.
There is ALWAYS room for improvement.
Let's hope these titles see an upgrade.

Movies are: "The Greatest Artform".
HD should be for EVERYONE!

#135

Rating: 0

11/14/03 at 1:00pm

R. Kay
offline

Joined: May 1999
Post Count: 308

Paramount really blows.

I hear that the upcoming HUD dvd is a LaserDisc Port ...

#136

Rating: 0

11/14/03 at 2:18pm

Dan Rudolph
offline

Joined: December 2002
Post Count: 4,030

Quote:

Is the loss, JUST "resolution", or is it 'also' picture information?

Neither, really. It's about 10 pixels at the top and bottom that have extra picture instead of being black. As these pixels will most likely be hidden by overscan, it makes no difference at all to most viewers.

My Collection

#137

Rating: 0

11/14/03 at 3:11pm

Ed St. Clair
offline

Joined: May 2001
Post Count: 3,319

Quote:

Neither, really.

Thanks Dan.
Well, 'you guy's' get me all pumped up that it's OAR or die!
And now I learn, that's just not the case.
Maybe I should take 'everything' said here with a ton of sea salt!

Movies are: "The Greatest Artform".
HD should be for EVERYONE!

#138

Rating: 0

11/14/03 at 3:22pm

Ed St. Clair
offline

Joined: May 2001
Post Count: 3,319

Quote:

It's about 10 pixels at the top and bottom that have extra picture instead of being black.

WAIT!
There IS "extra picture" ("10 pixels) missing.
RIGHT?
Digital displays, plasma's, LCoS, & LCD's (not RPTV LCD's), do not have overscan (if manufactured properly).
So, on a 'correct' LCoS, there would be 10 pixels of extra picture 'missing'.
Correct?
Not trying too beat a dead horse.
Although, I am!
I am just, SLOW!!!:b

Quote:

it makes no difference at all to most viewers.

Maybe this is where I screwup!
I don't want to be "most viewers"
Thanks again.
And now, back too our regularly scheduled program...

Movies are: "The Greatest Artform".
HD should be for EVERYONE!

#139

Rating: 0

11/14/03 at 3:27pm

Robert Anthony
offline

Joined: August 2003
Location: Portland, OR
Post Count: 3,218

a "ton" of sea salt?

10 pixels isn't pan n scan, man. If no one had ever told you about overscan, I doubt you'd ever know.

The trick is not to take everything as rigidly literal as you're applying. It's overly semantic and pretty much does nothing but what this thread turned into--a back and forth semantic debate wherein someone refuses to be even a bit flexible for the sole purpose of being anal about it. Not very conducive to good discussion

speaking of which, I own the Godfather DVD's and while the picture is soft and not very contrasty--I was always under the impression that's how Coppola shot it. It was always a very soft looking, sepia tinted picture. And it looks much better on DVD than it ever did on VHS. If this new transfer somehow crystallizes the picture razor sharp and ups the contrast, I don't think that's actually going to be doing the film a favor. I like the warm, gauze-like look the film has. I think it adds to the period feel Coppola was going for. I'm happy with the transfers, but I don't see any reason to replace these discs unless the transfer is easily better. just negligible improvements aren't going to be enough.

The best show you've never heard

#140

Rating: 0

11/14/03 at 3:35pm

Patrick McCart
Patrick J. McCart
offline

Joined: May 2001
Location: Georgia, USA
Post Count: 7,216

If you absolutely want to view a 1.78:1 transfer at 1.85:1, you simply mask a few lines of resolution on the top and bottom.

Tell The Weinstein Company to release Richard Williams' animated masterpiece The Thief and the Cobbler on DVD in Panavision widescreen and uncut! See and hear what you're missing from their Bitsy Award winner of Worst Standard Edition DVD of 2006 on YouTube!

#141

Rating: 0

11/14/03 at 5:09pm

Ed St. Clair
offline

Joined: May 2001
Post Count: 3,319

Quote:

a "ton" of sea salt?

Refers too taking 'everything' posted here, verbatim.
Not, "10 pixels".

Movies are: "The Greatest Artform".
HD should be for EVERYONE!

#142

Rating: 0

11/14/03 at 5:14pm

Robert Anthony
offline

Joined: August 2003
Location: Portland, OR
Post Count: 3,218

I know what it meant. I was basically mocking your choice of words for way overstating your already too semantic and anal-retentive case that the difference between 1.78 and 1.85 somehow transforms you from an OAR advocate to an MAR advocate.

The second sentence was simply pointing out how pointless it is to start trashing people as "Non-OAR" over 10 pixels worth of visual information--about 2 or 3 scanlines tops.

Not to seem as if I'm picking on you or anything, but is English your first language? cuz maybe this all boils down to language barrier misunderstandings or something. I dunno.

The best show you've never heard

#143

Rating: 0

11/14/03 at 5:14pm

Jeff D Han
offline

Joined: March 2003
Post Count: 566

About the Godfather set-

I bought it the day it was released (October 9, 2001),
and I have watched 1 and 2 twice (haven't bothered with
3 yet). I think the video transfers are OK, but not
great. I am very happy with the set though. The Coppola
commentaries are good, and the documentary on the bonus
disc is nice. I won't be double-dipping. If Paramount
knew in advance that the transfers were in need of work
and didn't bother to fix them, then they should be ripped
for being negligent or cheap. Hey movie distributors-
do it right the first time, and don't have us movie
fans spend twice the money for quality product.

Pretty please, with sugar on top,
clean the f**king car.

#144

Rating: 0

11/14/03 at 5:37pm

Robert Anthony
offline

Joined: August 2003
Location: Portland, OR
Post Count: 3,218

The commentaries are very good, you're right. I really liked them, especially the one for the first movie. The third movie had some really interesting insights, but overall it just wasn't as good as the first. I actually like that commentary better than Part II's, tho.

The best show you've never heard

#145

Rating: 0

11/14/03 at 9:27pm

Dave H
offline

Joined: August 2000
Post Count: 4,820

I just finished watching part I tonight. I've been meaning to watch it lately and this thread made me re-visit it sooner. I will say the transfer looks good and clean in some shots - soft and dirty (white specs, etc.) in other scenes. I am curious just how much Lowry can improve upon it. The excuse was the original elements were in horrible condition. I guess we'll find out.

#146

Rating: 0

11/15/03 at 4:06am

Joe Karlosi
offline

Joined: November 2003
Post Count: 5,464

Paramount's not getting my money twice with these films. No Way. The line has to be drawn somewhere when double (or even triple) dipping is concerned. Of course, it all depends on how much the films mean to you and how often you'll want to watch them. I'm happy with the original box set.

#147

Rating: 0

11/15/03 at 10:05am

Gordon McMurphy
offline

Joined: August 2002
Post Count: 3,522

Quote:

I hear that the upcoming HUD dvd is a LaserDisc Port

Where did you hear this? Sounds like BS to me, as practically all of Paramount's recent transfers of vintage films have been exemplary.

#148

Rating: 0

11/15/03 at 11:33am

Chris Farmer
offline

Joined: August 2002
Post Count: 1,448

I never bought the original set (it was just too expensive for me for three movies), so I'm glad to see that they're being re-done, presumably with a better price this time around. If Fox can release a nine disc Alien Quadrilogy for $100 MSRP, with a likely street price around $70-$80, then I expect we'll see this new set around $50-$60 street.

I would like to say though that there's been a lot of ripping of Paramount in this thread, saying that they knew the product was flawed from the start and should ahve never been released to begin with. That's not quite fair, the Godfather DVDs are two years old, and they'll be three when this set comes out. Back in 2001, the standards to which catalog titles were held to on DVD release weren't what they are now. While there are certainly issues, what Paramount released was certainly fine (although not incredible), for a 2001 release of a set of catalog movies. That's changed since then, with such tremendous restorations of Singing in the Rain, Adventures of Robin Hood, Indiana Jones trilogy, and similar. DVD is big enough now that putting that much effort into a restoration is a realistic way to spend money. Before there wasn't enough money to be made that the investment was worth it, now it clearly is.

Oh, and Ed. 1.78 has a few MORE scanlines of information then 1.85, so you're not losing any picture information by going to 1.78, you're gaining a fraction.

#149

Rating: 0

11/15/03 at 12:25pm

Dan Hitchman
offline

Joined: June 1999
Post Count: 2,714

I have no problem with the studios slightly opening the mattes to 1.78:1 of 1.85:1 films shot 100% open-matted as the TV's overscan (or matting on a FP set up) will usually solve most of that issue.

What I do have a problem with is modifying 1.85:1 films to 1.78:1 that were hard-matted to 1.85:1 or have SFX shots that were hard-matted to the theatrical ratio. When you add overscan and/or matting (or even pixel cropping from the player or digital display panel) on top of that then you start to run into crowded composition problems because then you really are losing picture information at around 2 to 5% or more. Case in point: MGM's zoomed and cropped 1.78:1 presentation of Rain Man on DVD (the old version and the new SE), which was hard-matted to 1.85:1.

Dan

Go Blu!!

#150

Rating: 0

11/15/03 at 2:00pm

Robert Crawford
Crawdaddy
online

Joined: December 1998
Location: Michigan
Post Count: 17,142

Paramount really blows.

I hear that the upcoming HUD dvd is a LaserDisc Port ...

Paramount has done a great job with their catalogue releases and I think the above comment is uncalled for and just plain silly.

Crawdaddy

G.W. McLintock: Camille, you're on your own.

Tags

Other Threads

Recent Reviews

What Users Want

Got Facebook?

Already a User?

Create a New Account

Recent Discussions

Recent Reviews

Recent Wikis