A Few Words About A few words about...™ A Star is Born (1954) -- in Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[BethHarrison]

Originally Posted by RolandL

Screen shots comparison of DVD vs. Blu-ray at http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film3/blu-ray_reviews51/a_star_is_born_blu-ray.htm


Maybe its my monitor but I don't see much of a difference.

To me the DVD seems to have a yellow cast to it. The flesh tones look better on the Blu-ray.


The DVD is great quality considering it was released way back in September, 2000.

 

[Jon Martin]

Originally Posted by OliverK

Last I heard TCM airs in a 704x480i SD resolution so I would not really say that an SD TV airing should be presented as a viable alternative to a lavishly produced Blu-Ray.


I think that studios would be better off to put movies on moratorium not only for packaged media sales but also for TV airings.

TCM HD was just added to my cable system. I don't know the details of the resolution, though widescreen films are shown in the proper aspect ratio.


The channel has been advertising the upcoming Blu-ray quite a bit, showing a "making of" documentary on it several times a day. So, the airing is basically a big commercial for it.

 

Are the proportions correct on the blu-ray? The dvd seems to show more picture info on the sides but it also looks vertically streched on the sides and in the center. The blu ray looks more correct as far as not being "thin." Was early Cinemascope uniform from the sides to the center or was the info. thinner on the sides and fatter in the center?

 

[Mark-P]

Originally Posted by Eric Scott Richard

Are the proportions correct on the blu-ray? The dvd seems to show more picture info on the sides but it also looks vertically streched on the sides and in the center. The blu ray looks more correct as far as not being "thin." Was early Cinemascope uniform from the sides to the center or was the info. thinner on the sides and fatter in the center?

Early CinemaScope suffered from "CinemaScope mumps" where some scenes with shorter focal points had the center of the frame stretched fatter than the ends. I've noticed that many of the DVDs and BDs have digitally corrected these distortions.

 

[Robert Harris]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric Scott Richard

Are the proportions correct on the blu-ray? The dvd seems to show more picture info on the sides but it also looks vertically streched on the sides and in the center. The blu ray looks more correct as far as not being "thin." Was early Cinemascope uniform from the sides to the center or was the info. thinner on the sides and fatter in the center?

A visit to the Wide Screen Museum seems in order. Take the family, and pack a great lunch.


RAH

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Never saw this film. Just preordered it.

 

That's what I mean, Mark. The dvd was thin all the way across while the bd looks fatter all the way across. I'm not saying one or the other isn't "correct." I'm saying I don't know. The framing is different a little bit as well.

 

[BethHarrison]

Originally Posted by Mark-P

 

[OliverK]

That is good to hear, I did not know that TCM HD was actually getting on its way, I will have to look up their schedule and if they only air real HD or also upconverts.


I understand about the idea of the airing as a commercial but I am not so sure it works that way although I hope it does.

Originally Posted by Jon Martin




TCM HD was just added to my cable system. I don't know the details of the resolution, though widescreen films are shown in the proper aspect ratio.


The channel has been advertising the upcoming Blu-ray quite a bit, showing a "making of" documentary on it several times a day. So, the airing is basically a big commercial for it.

 

[Worth]

Originally Posted by OliverK

That is good to hear, I did not know that TCM HD was actually getting on its way, I will have to look up their schedule and if they only air real HD or also upconverts.

I've had TCM HD for a while and they air about 95% upconverts with the occasional true HD title here and there. Widescreen films are generally shown in 16:9, though they're almost always significantly windowboxed.

 

[OliverK]

That sounds horrible - cropping and windowboxing is intolerable, airing 95% upconverts is even more of a joke. I can understand why TCM is rather silent about this offering.


It really is a shame though as TCM has lots of interesting movies but with that kind of quality it seems like a waste of time to even check out their program schedule.

Originally Posted by Worth





I've had TCM HD for a while and they air about 95% upconverts with the occasional true HD title here and there. Widescreen films are generally shown in 16:9, though they're almost always significantly windowboxed.

 

[AlenK]

Originally Posted by Worth
I've had TCM HD for a while and they air about 95% upconverts with the occasional true HD title here and there. Widescreen films are generally shown in 16:9, though they're almost always significantly windowboxed.

If by windowboxing you mean black space or bars on all four sides of the picture, that doesn't match what I've seen. I watch TV broadcasts on a 42" LCD (but BD normally on a projector), which has a couple of percent overscan in its normal mode (but can be quickly set to 0%). Viewing in the normal (overscan) mode, I haven't noticed any windowboxing on the widesceen titles I've watched so far on TCM HD. "Significantly windowboxed" I think would imply more space at the sides than could hide in the overscan. Next few times I watch I'll switch to 0% overscan (1:1 pixel mapping) and test you assertion directly.

 

[AlenK]

Originally Posted by OliverK

That is good to hear, I did not know that TCM HD was actually getting on its way, I will have to look up their schedule and if they only air real HD or also upconverts.

As I watched it, and knowing that the vast majority of what TCM HD shows is upconverts, I would have called the broadcast an upconvert. But after looking at the the captures at dvdbeaver comparing the 2000 DVD to new BD, there isn't a _huge_ amount of difference in resolution between them (but big differences in color cast and linearity), so it conceivably could have been the HD version on TCM HD.

 

[AlenK]

Originally Posted by RolandL
Its the Ron Haver's version - http://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/title.jsp?stid=12836&contentTypeId=130&category=promo

Is it just me or is anyone else annoyed at the practice of not identiying on-screen talking heads until midway in, after we've seen them a few (sometimes many) times? In this one Janet Wilson, colorist at Warner, is identified roughly 1/4 of the way in, after we've seen her talking twice before, Ned Price, VP of Warner and George Feltenstein, Sr. VP of Warner, are each identified around half way in. This practice is, IMO, equivalent to walking up to someone on the street and not introducing yourself before you start talking. It's kinda rude.

 

[Matt Hough]

Originally Posted by AlenK




If by windowboxing you mean black space or bars on all four sides of the picture, that doesn't match what I've seen. I watch TV broadcasts on a 42" LCD (but BD normally on a projector), which has a couple of percent overscan in its normal mode (but can be quickly set to 0%). Viewing in the normal (overscan) mode, I haven't noticed any windowboxing on the widesceen titles I've watched so far on TCM HD. "Significantly windowboxed" I think would imply more space at the sides than could hide in the overscan. Next few times I watch I'll switch to 0% overscan (1:1 pixel mapping) and test you assertion directly.

If you switch to bit-by-bit mode (no overscan), you should definitely see the windowboxing though I don't find it the least bothersome.


But TCM-HD doesn't always show anamorphic versions of widescreen films. Funny Girl, for example, looked exactly like it does on the standard TCM channel - windowboxed completely.

 

Another interesting note: the film finally has an Intermission card.

 

[Jefferson]

Looking forward to this one as it is one of my favorites.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels that the still photograph sequences don't quite "work". I am fully in favor of restoration, but somehow those sequences fall flat for me. I agree with the above that it would be fun to have an option to see the film without the still photos sequences.

 

[Rob_Ray]

Those still photos indeed don't work. I admire Mr. Haver's diligence in putting that six-minute sequence back into the film, and I'm so glad we have the opportunity to see it, but six minutes of moving from panned stills to stock shots, back to stills, then to grainy 16mm, then back to stills, sure pulls you out of the story. I wish there were a way to somehow "freshen up" that sequence. At the very least, they should smooth over the music edits, especially the one during the sea location.

 

[AlenK]

Originally Posted by MattH.
But TCM-HD doesn't always show anamorphic versions of widescreen films. Funny Girl, for example, looked exactly like it does on the standard TCM channel - windowboxed completely.

I hadn't considered that possibility - letterboxed within a 4:3 window within the 16:9 frame - mostly because I haven't had the misfortune yet to watch a title on TCM HD that did that! That really sucks because some (many?) TVs won't be able to resize it to fill the width of the screen. Mine can, but only if I identify the input as a "PC." Resolution is poor, of course. I do that to watch a few 4:3 letterbox DVDs (that I never got around to replacing) after upconversion to 1080p.

 

[Citizen87645]

Knowing very little about the film restoration going in, I actually liked the sequence of stills. Yes, it was a noticeable departure, but it also created a heightened mood around her anticipating Norman's phone call. I found it very Oliver Stone-esque, which could be viewed as either anachronistic or ahead of its time.