![Max Fleischer's Gulliver's Travels [Blu-ray]](http://static.hometheaterforum.com/imgrepo/thumbs/d/d8/B001M6SH7Y-51ybI2BkjFL.jpg/60x60px-LS-B001M6SH7Y-51ybI2BkjFL.jpg)
|
Originally Posted by iDarren
Commonly used - YES. But it also refers to images that FILL a 16x9 set in modern analysis.
|
|
Originally Posted by Jason_V
Again, I'm asking for sources.
|
...retired at last!!!
|
Originally Posted by Jason_V
Which I find funny, considering THEY didn't point this out at all. Especially Mr. Harris, not to put the spotlight on him. If he or Bill Hunt/Jeff Kleist at the Bits called me on this, I'd bow to their superior knowledge. BTW: no matter what definition of "full screen" we use, the release is still wrong. It doesn't "fill the screen" nor is it pillarboxed. So, in the end, does it really matter? |
"All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible. This I did." T.E. Lawrence
I don't like SPAM!
|
Originally Posted by Keith Paynter
Sadly, I've seen studios take 4x3 classic films like "Treasure of the Sierra Madre", and make zoomed 16x9 HD transfers for HD broadcasts - I saw it this way on Treasure HD. Hollywood still lives in fear of the "black bar backlash", regardless of whether the set belonging to the uneducated/unwilling consumer costs $500 or $5000. |
Carl Fink
Insect Politics
|
Originally Posted by WilliamMcK
This whole thread has me extremely worried about the future of academy ratio films. I've been toying with subscribing to MGMHD, but after reading that they butchered The Red Shoes, I'll pass. I guess the problem is that the average viewer is not concerned with the aesthetics of what they're watching (and this isn't meant as some kind of elitist put-down... we all have our various passions... for the average viewer, movies are entertainment of the boredom-killing variety--and there's nothing wrong with that). I suppose it's possible that a company or network (such as Turner) could sponsor an education blitz that explains to the viewer how films come in all different shapes and sizes, and that one shouldn't expect a properly shown movie to truly fill a 16x9 screen (except in rare cases: but I, for one, advocate the very slight opening up of open-matte 1.85 film to 1.78--as long as there's no cropping; but I realize I could get horse whipped for this in certain circles ;-)). The problem with the education campaign (and I'm thinking of something along the lines of an update of TCM's "letterbox" short) is that I think it would fall on deaf ears.
I'd like to think that when TCM eventually broadcasts in HD that they will continue to show films in the correct ratio regardless of where the "black bars" may fall (but I assume MGMHD is run by the same people who run TCM... so I'm more than a little nervous). |
|
Originally Posted by Robert Harris
As far as I know, the original negative should neither be problematic, nor be in need restoration. Paramount no longer owns this film.
|
|
Originally Posted by WadeM
Which just makes it that much more maddening that we don't have a good release, and have had to settle with trying to pick the best of the worst.
Outside of WB, I hate the lack of treatment for Fleischer. |
|
Originally Posted by Patrick McCart
The situaion with the Republic library licensed by Lionsgate is terrible.
You now how The Quiet Man has an absolutely terrible DVD? UCLA apparently restored and preserved the film years ago from the original negatives and other elements. High Noon is the only film out of this library that has been remastered and it's only because it was for a R2 Paramount DVD. That was the basis for Lionsgate's 2-disc SE. I'm guessing no one has gotten around to a new transfer of The Quiet Man since it's just as ugly in R2. |
|
Originally Posted by cafink
I've seen the term "full screen" used to describe a 1.78:1 image on a 16:9 display as far back as 2000, on Artisan's initial DVD release of Stir of Echoes.
|
\"My opinion is that (a) anyone who actually works in a video store and does not understand letterboxing has given up on life, and (b) any customer who prefers to have the sides of a movie hacked off should not be licensed to operate a video player.\"-- Roger Ebert
|
Originally Posted by Stephen_J_H
Buena Vista Social Club. States fullscreen transfer, but also indicates that by fullscreen, it means 16:9.
|
|
Originally Posted by NetworkTV
Where did you see that? The DVD cover only states "16x9 Widescreen Digitally Restored". And, BTW, that would be 1999, not 2000. I have the DVD in front of me.
|
Carl Fink
Insect Politics
|
Originally Posted by cafink
As I said, that verbiage is on the back of the original Stir of Echoes DVD. Are you sure you aren't looking at the later "special edition" release? You can see the cover of the original version here. In the upper-left-hand corner, it states: "16:9 Fullscreen Version."
Also, although Stir of Echoes was a 1999 theatrical release, it was not available on DVD until February 2000. |
|
Originally Posted by Ensign Eddie
I think we have all seen weird, non-standard stuff on DVD covers.
But come on. Does anyone REALLY think that a DVD marked "FULL SCREEN" is going to be anything other than 1.33:1? Really? |
|
Originally Posted by NetworkTV
Your link isn't working. Either way, the only "Full Screen" listing I can find for that movie is a 1.33:1 edition.
|
| If you are referring to the 1.78:1 Region 2 release, that's Europe's problem, not ours. Gulliver's travels lists it incorrectly in the US release. |
Carl Fink
Insect Politics
I don't like SPAM!
|
Originally Posted by Keith Paynter
The 'Stir Of Echoes' R1 'fullscreen' 16x9 may be a typo...Check the fine print: "Fullscreen:Formatted from its original version to fit your screen. Enhanced for 16x9 television." Is this a double sided disc? (along the lines of dual-sided WB titles - WS one one side, FS on other)
Sorry to keep dragging this thread off-topic... |
|
Originally Posted by Brandon Conway
"Full Screen" is a marketing term. Nothing more, nothing less.
|
I don't like SPAM!
|
Originally Posted by Brandon Conway
"Full Screen" is a marketing term. Nothing more, nothing less.
|
"All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible. This I did." T.E. Lawrence
|
Originally Posted by WilliamMcK
This whole thread has me extremely worried about the future of academy ratio films. I've been toying with subscribing to MGMHD, but after reading that they butchered The Red Shoes, I'll pass.
|
|
Originally Posted by Robert Harris
Actually "full screen" is a meaningless term.
|
|
Originally Posted by Robert Harris
Actually "full screen" is a meaningless term.
|
|
Originally Posted by JulianK
Anyone who thinks "Full screen" only applies to screens that are 4:3 shaped is a bit behind-the-times!
|
|
Originally Posted by compson
I can't imagine anyone calling a 16X9 image "full screen," since that would be terribly confusing. A lot of people still use 4X3 televisions, after all.
|
