Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Blu-ray, DVD, Streaming Video and Digital Downloads › DVD › Paramount to re-do "Godfather" DVDs
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Paramount to re-do "Godfather" DVDs - Page 5

post #121 of 289
11/13/03 at 9:15pm
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
Reply
post #122 of 289
11/13/03 at 9:41pm
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.
Reply
post #123 of 289
11/13/03 at 9:55pm
Whew, I'm glad there's SOMEONE out there who wants to talk Godfather too.
Reply
post #124 of 289
11/13/03 at 10:51pm
Ahem...

Anyhow, looking forward to these.
Reply
post #125 of 289
11/14/03 at 3:10am
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
Reply
post #126 of 289
11/14/03 at 5:36am
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.
Reply
post #127 of 289
11/14/03 at 5:44am
John, according to the article, late next year they will be released.
Reply
post #128 of 289
11/14/03 at 10:01am
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
Reply
post #129 of 289
11/14/03 at 11:37am
So does anyone know about the soundmix issue? Will the original mono mix be included this time around?
Reply
post #130 of 289
11/14/03 at 11:59am
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.
Reply
post #131 of 289
11/14/03 at 12:19pm
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?
Reply
post #132 of 289
11/14/03 at 12:26pm
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!
Reply
post #133 of 289
11/14/03 at 12:43pm
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
Reply
post #134 of 289
11/14/03 at 12:49pm
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.
Reply
post #135 of 289
11/14/03 at 1:00pm
Paramount really blows.

I hear that the upcoming HUD dvd is a LaserDisc Port ...
Reply
post #136 of 289
11/14/03 at 2:18pm
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.
Reply
post #137 of 289
11/14/03 at 3:11pm
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!
Reply
post #138 of 289
11/14/03 at 3:22pm
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...
Reply
post #139 of 289
11/14/03 at 3:27pm
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.
Reply
post #140 of 289
11/14/03 at 3:35pm
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.
Reply
post #141 of 289
11/14/03 at 5:09pm
Quote:
a "ton" of sea salt?
Refers too taking 'everything' posted here, verbatim.
Not, "10 pixels".
Reply
post #142 of 289
11/14/03 at 5:14pm
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.
Reply
post #143 of 289
11/14/03 at 5:14pm
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.
Reply
post #144 of 289
11/14/03 at 5:37pm
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.
Reply
post #145 of 289
11/14/03 at 9:27pm
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.
Reply
post #146 of 289
11/15/03 at 4:06am
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.
Reply
post #147 of 289
11/15/03 at 10:05am
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.
Reply
post #148 of 289
11/15/03 at 11:33am
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.
Reply
post #149 of 289
11/15/03 at 12:25pm
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
Reply
post #150 of 289
11/15/03 at 2:00pm
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
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: DVD
Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Blu-ray, DVD, Streaming Video and Digital Downloads › DVD › Paramount to re-do "Godfather" DVDs