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

Can anyone comment on what the Theatrical aspect ratio was in Digital 3D? Given that this was shot on HDCAM SR, I would not be surprised in the  least if this was the A/R in 3D and that we would be looking at an Avatar-type situation which would actually be the first major studio release in an MAR format.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark-P 

We knew it was bound to happen sooner or later. Sure there have been a few minor catalog titles such as Gulliver's Travels (1939) to have their aspect ratio modified to fill the screen, but on April 8th Fox will release The Chronicles of Narnia: Voyage of the Dawn Treader modified to fit your TV screen. The original theatrical aspect ratio was 2.35:1 and the Blu-ray is 1.78:1. Most of us saw that in the press release but just assumed (as usual) that it was a misprint. Reports on the internet are now confirming that the Blu-ray is indeed 1.78:1. I was first alerted to in in this post (with screencaps):  http://www.hometheaterforum.com/forum/thread/306710/chronicles-of-narnia-the-voyage-of-the-dawn-treader-quick-review/30#post_3795650

Questions? call 1-888-223-4369 or visit www.foxconnect.com, think we need to do this as much as possible to get a correct aspect ratio disc

The big question is what Apted approves. He may very well want the home video release to be 1.78:1 rather than the theatrical 2.35:1. It wouldn't be an unprecedented move.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brandon Conway 

The big question is what Apted approves. He may very well want the home video release to be 1.78:1 rather than the theatrical 2.35:1. It wouldn't be an unprecedented move.

not unprecendented, but i think that it takes away from the film, for them to change the aspect ratio, 2:35:1 was more inline with the disney presentations of the first two films

Voyage of the Dawn Treader used HDTV cameras instead of Super 35mm like the first two films. It is possible the effects were rendered in 1.78 before matting, however I doubt it.

Seems to be the exact same deal as Avatar. Review states no side cropping only additional information on the top and bottom.

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-Chronicles-of-Narnia-The-Voyage-of-the-Dawn-Treader-Blu-ray/19648/#Review

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brandon Conway 

Seems to be the exact same deal as Avatar. Review states no side cropping only additional information on the top and bottom.

 

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-Chronicles-of-Narnia-The-Voyage-of-the-Dawn-Treader-Blu-ray/19648/#Review

If that's so, then I'll put up with it, since we're actually seeing more, but I would like to know if the films' director and producers are okay with this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ethan Riley 

If that's so, then I'll put up with it, since we're actually seeing more, but I would like to know if the films' director and producers are okay with this.

I would also like to know for sure, but the fact that they would have done all the special effects in preparation for opening up the image suggests they are.

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.

Someone with the disc needs to listen to the commentary to see if Apted says anything regarding the presentation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryan Tuck 

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.

It was pretty obvious even from the trailers that they'd made the switch. 3D + Super 35 go together like hot oil and water.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lord Dalek 

It was pretty obvious even from the trailers that they'd made the switch. 3D + Super 35 go together like hot oil and water.
 

 

No, it would just look more like an early 80s 3D movie.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen_J_H 

No, it would just look more like an early 80s 3D movie.
 

 

My point exactly.
 

I saw FRIDAY THE 13TH PART III projected in 3-D/35mm a couple years and it looked fantastic with brilliant 3-D.  There's no reason 3-D and 35mm can't work together.  I mean, IMAX does great 3-D and they're using 15-perf 65mm film.

Vincent
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lord Dalek 

 

My point exactly.
 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen_J_H 

No, it would just look more like an early 80s 3D movie.
 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vincent_P 

I saw FRIDAY THE 13TH PART III projected in 3-D/35mm a couple years and it looked fantastic with brilliant 3-D.  There's no reason 3-D and 35mm can't work together.  I mean, IMAX does great 3-D and they're using 15-perf 65mm film.

 

Vincent

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.

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?

Quote:

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

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Quote:

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.