New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apocalypse now dvd

post #1 of 10
9/7/02 at 1:20pm
Thread Starter 
Whats the difference between the video and audio transfer for Apocalypse now and Redux.

Also is Apocalypse now a good audio reference disc.
Reply
post #2 of 10
9/7/02 at 4:27pm
Redux has a slightly cleaner brighter transfer. When Redux was released they had to remaster it so all the extra footage would blend without color differences and grain. The sound on both seem identical, maybe a tad more bass on Redux. Both sound incredible. The main difference you will see is in the transfer.
Reply
post #3 of 10
9/7/02 at 5:03pm
"...The main difference you will see is in the transfer."

...and in the AR (2.35:1 for AN, 2.00:1 for ANR)

...and in the length (153 mns for AN, 202 mns for ANR)

. . . . . .
Reply
post #4 of 10
9/7/02 at 5:09pm
Both DVD's are 2:1, the AR requested by Vittoro Storro (sic?).

Redux features a dye-transfer Technicolor print...which looks fantastic.
Reply
post #5 of 10
9/7/02 at 5:15pm
and in the AR (2.35:1 for AN, 2.00:1 for ANR)


You might want to check your facts there. Both discs are the same. 2:1 They may differ from the theatrical OAR, but in either case, the DVDs were supervised by Storraro.
Reply
post #6 of 10
9/7/02 at 7:12pm
...ahh... my 'facts' came from this review, which confidently avers "Widescreen 2.35:1 (Anamorphic)" ... whereas, as I just now noticed this review states: "...this immaculate 2.20:1 widescreen transfer..." ... otoh, with this review we are indeed in 2.00:1 territory ... and yet, this review mentions an AR of 1.85:1 ... however, this review further muddies the water by stating, confusingly "16x9 widescreen enhanced", which some people -myself included- may take to mean an AR of 1.78:1 ( = 16:9 ) ... all of which tends to prove that one should not always believe what one reads...

...on a side note: it would appear that the Norwegians got screwed by Paramount (Norge), since their DVD only offers "16:9 letterbox", which I take to mean: plain vanilla 1.78:1 with no anamorphic 'enhancement' ... but I may well be wrong (as I often am)...

(signed) Insomniac Passing Pedant

. . . . . .
Reply
post #7 of 10
9/7/02 at 9:23pm
Rafayel, I don't think AN in either form would be considered reference-quality for audio or video, but they are still quite good. Capt. Willard's voice-overs are a pretty good test for center-channel, though. They are really up-front, and always make me jump a little when they come in :b
Reply
post #8 of 10
9/7/02 at 9:41pm
Redux looks significantly better on my set-up. NO doubt about it.

ISF'd 61" Sony KP-61V80
Panasonic RV80 DVD player
Reply
post #9 of 10
9/7/02 at 11:22pm
Redux should look damn fine as it was gorgeous in the theaters. I don't like this version of the film nearly as much, but the colors/print in general were wonderful.

The real reason for buying one or the other is the actual cut of the film you prefer. For me that is the original, not Redux (though I also own that DVD).
Reply
post #10 of 10
9/8/02 at 2:33am
I still the framing is too tight in 2.1, Vittario got it wrong in my opinion
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Archived Threads 2001-2004