GoodFellas HD-DVD cropped to fit 16x9 HDTV? - Page 2

Ed St. Clair · 05-09-2006, 10:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TravisR

What's funny about it? It's true.

Did you notice the thread title?
Obviously the author of this thread cares enough to start this thread where you posted no one cares!
Don't you find that "funny"?
And on the "on one cares" statement;
Not even the director?
Not the cinematographer?
No fans of the film?
Of coarse your blatantly wrong on this, just read replies to this thread, of coarse people care.
That, to me is funny, when someone say's something that is so utterly wrong.
And, no, it is not true, just because you say its true.
No one speaks for everyone!

Ed St. Clair · 05-09-2006, 11:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jace_A

No, "this issue" is DVD of which HD-DVD is a subset (just as SD-DVD is a subset). There is one reason, and one reason only, that 1.85:1 films are transferred to 1.78:1 and that is to match the aspect ratio of a widescreen television. Given that almost all HD capable televisions have a native aspect ratio of 1.78:1 I cannot see this practice changing simply because we've moved from SD-DVD to HD-DVD. Complaining to the studios about this issue will just trivialize other, more legitimate complaints and make the studios less likely to respond on any level.

"This issue" is the thread title!
Which is about the HD DVD of the "GoodFellas" title.
"This issue" is not "DVD".

So, you are willing to except "everything" that was wrong with DVD, on HD DVD?
EE is OK with you?
It's from that fabulous "subset" DVD.
Filtering is OK with you?
Edited films are OK?
Forced ads OK?
Compression artifacts OK?
Poor mastering OK?
Incorrect soundtracks OK?
I hope this is not the case for you. I would like problems that appeared in the past to be done away with in the future with HD on disc.
Are you saying it just will not happen so forget about it?
Or, you don't care so no one else should either?

Once again, if it's no big deal, then do it right!

If HD DVD is a subset of DVD (as you posted) what is SD-DVD a subset to?
Thanks.

Vincent_P · 05-09-2006, 11:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ed St. Clair

...
And on the "on one cares" statement;
Not even the director?
Not the cinematographer?...

Okay, I'm game. Find a director or cinematographer who has a problem with their 1.85:1 films having their mattes opened up ever so slightly to 1.78:1, then report back to us with your results.

Vincent

Michael TLV · 05-09-2006, 11:42 PM

Greetings

I'd have more problems with the TV's having overscan and cutting off parts of my precious movie.

Open it up and you get a wee bit more head room above a persons head ... and you see a bit more of that sweater the person is wearing. But overscan on the TV's is such that 99% of the people can't tell the difference even if the film is 1.85 since it is part of the overscan that you never see.

Regards

Paul Hillenbrand · 05-10-2006, 12:23 AM

Please, Explain this one!

The HD DVD / DVD COMBO disc "Rumor has it.." came out today 5/9/06 and the back of the case states that side A, that has the High Definition Main Feature, is 16x9 1.78:1.

Side B that has the DVD Main Feature, is 480P Standard Definition 16x9 1.85:1 (The OAR).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael TLV

Warner uses words like "matted" and "scope" to differentiate the aspect ratio on the DVD's. If "matted" ... it's 1.85 ... originally.

Regards

The Single DVD: "Rumor has it..." states on the back of the case: "Presented in a "MATTED" widescreen format preserving the aspect ratio of it's original theatrical exhibition."

I'm puting this in its own "Rumor has it..." thread topic.

Paul

PeterTHX · 05-10-2006, 12:27 AM

The Blu-ray version of "Goodfellas" will be 1.85

Marko Berg · 05-10-2006, 03:26 AM

Paul, did you actually measure the aspect ratio of the SD DVD to verify that it is indeed 1.85:1? As stated earlier in this thread, the aspect ratio information studios put on the cover usually refers to the original theatrical aspect ratio.

I'd bet the SD DVD of Rumor Has It... is in fact 1.78:1 no matter what the cover says. The studio creates a high-definition transfer, then simply uses a down-rezzed version for the SD DVD.

Paul Hillenbrand · 05-10-2006, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marko Berg

Paul, did you actually measure the aspect ratio of the SD DVD to verify that it is indeed 1.85:1? As stated earlier in this thread, the aspect ratio information studios put on the cover usually refers to the original theatrical aspect ratio.

I'd bet the SD DVD of Rumor Has It... is in fact 1.78:1 no matter what the cover says. The studio creates a high-definition transfer, then simply uses a down-rezzed version for the SD DVD.

When I play the DVD side, there is a black line at the bottom of my 110" screen about 1" in size. When I play the HD-DVD side, it fills the screen.

Paul

Mark Zimmer · 05-10-2006, 12:35 PM

Really, one needs to pick your fights and the difference of 1.78 to 1.85 (and 2.35 to 2.39 for that matter) is pretty trivial. As I said above, no one noticed at all until the number was printed on the case. I'm much more exercised about Storaro's cropping of 2.35 down to 2.0 and everyone seems accepting of that post hoc revisionism.

cafink · 05-10-2006, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ed St. Clair

I guess it depends on what you think OAR means (not the definition, which I would think is crystal clear to all). I know OAR means Original Aspect Ratio: the ratio that the film/movie was shown in the theater (or, series was broadcast. Remember Fung Fu Season I?).

The aspect ratio of a film's theatrical exhibition is not 100 per cent consistent from venue to venue. The screen and projectors are not precisely calibrated. If we are going to be this strict about our definition of OAR, how do we determine exactly what the OAR is, then, given that the aspect ratio differs from theater to theater?

Every director and cinematographer is aware of this issu, and not one of them would ever compose his film such that it depended on having the aspect ratio exact to the pixel.

This is a non-issue.

TravisR · 05-10-2006, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Did you notice the thread title?
Obviously the author of this thread cares enough to start this thread where you posted no one cares!
Don't you find that "funny"?
And on the "on one cares" statement;
Not even the director?
Not the cinematographer?
No fans of the film?
Of coarse your blatantly wrong on this, just read replies to this thread, of coarse people care.
That, to me is funny, when someone say's something that is so utterly wrong.
And, no, it is not true, just because you say its true.
No one speaks for everyone!

Wow, if anyone seems to have the attitude of "it's true because I say so", it's you. I'll give that saying that "no one cares" is presumptious. Let me rephrase it, how often do you hear someone whine about a 2.35 movie being presented at 2.32? Not often. Why?

Quote:

Find a director or cinematographer who has a problem with their 1.85:1 films having their mattes opened up ever so slightly to 1.78:1, then report back to us with your results.

or

Quote:

Every director and cinematographer is aware of this issu, and not one of them would ever compose his film such that it depended on having the aspect ratio exact to the pixel.

This is a non-issue.

Once again, if opening the matte on 1.85 movie is such atrocity, why don't I see more people having a problem with the same thing being done to a 2.35 movie?