A Few Words About A few words about... Full Metal Jacket -- In High Definition (1 Viewer)

[JohnPM]

Do you suppose there was ever a theatre -- anywhere -- that actually projected any of those later Kubrick films full-frame upon original release?

http://greenbriarpictureshows.blogspot.com/

 

[Juan C]

However, Peter Bracke (formerly of dvdfile and now on HighDef Digest) complains of "wonky" and "reddish, like a pig" fleshtones.

 

[Mark Zimmer]

I don't like the whites of the skies. Frequently, especially if there's a tree or a building in the background, they come alive with what seems like compression artifacting and the skies look like white writhing worms. My sharpness is all the way off so I'm curious as to whether anyone else is seeing this. It's not constant, but it happens often enough to annoy me.

Otherwise I think it looks dandy.

 

[Ed St. Clair]

What happened to the original mono soundtrack?
Who/how/when was this soundtrack created?
Thanks.

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

Define "a ton". Other than an unconvincing attempt at "defending the indefensible" with respect to Warner's policy at the time to not anamorphically enhance 1.66:1 releases, I don't remember a ton of errors from the various interviews he conducted at the time of the previous DVD releases.

I'm glad that these titles are starting to appearing at or near their theatrical ratios, which are completely legitimate, but I don't doubt that Kubrick liked to present the films unmatted when possible.

Regards,

 

[Mark Anthony]

All the current Warner Kubrick 5.1 remixes were done around 2000-2001 for future hi-def use and a then re-release on dvd.

They were supervised by Kubrick's assistant mentioned above, (and from memory with Mr K's blessing too) although re-mix perhaps isn't the right word as although they are upgraded from mono to multi-channel, the sound level's are exactly the same as on the mono multi-track DME master tapes they are just re-channelled to give a stereo and multi-channel effect and a more spatial sound pallete.

Where music cues were needed I believe they went back to the original stereo/multi-track recording sessions, where available, rather than stereo-ize a mono copy of a stereo source!

The difference on some of the titles, especially compared to the original lower-fidelity dvd releases is startling, and sounds very natural and "right".

This is how all 5.1 upconversion's should be.

Red Rum in 5.1 on a decent Home Theatre will chill any viewer!

M

 

[JediFonger]

as with the thread on goodfellas, i'm curious about how "filmic" it is. is it a CLEAN filmic or is the HD transfer from a dirt-filled negative? i'm talking about black patches that appear every now and then on older film negatives. see any signs of that?

 

[Robert Harris]

This is neither an "older" film negative, nor does negative age have any real bearing on quality.

There should be no problems with these negatives or IPs.

RAH

 

[JediFonger]

i've watched some of the HD broadcasts via my cable set top box and you just know that that the studios simply dumped an uncleaned film negative into the HD telecine. i'm just curious if the HD transfers on these discs are cleaned and therefore look just as good as a film that comes out today.

in another hopes, i hope studios aren't just dumping the film into these new HD discs without an iota of QA.

 

[Mark Anthony]

Im confused about your comments Yi Feng, any transfer from film may have some dirt or marks on it - it's the nature of the beast - but generally speaking the majority of transfers made by major studios over the last 5-10 years have looked cleaner than ever before due to better QC and the availability and cost reduction of digital-clean-up.

There may be the odd mark on a title, but none of the reviews I've seen on any HD disc has mentioned it as a problem worth worrying about - indeed with the exception of a few very old films with less than pristine elements virtually all dvd's I've seen over the last few years have been practically spotless.

Again your comments about QA are also baffling - as the generally good reviews on picture quality, by numerous reviewers can attest too.

With regard to HD broadcast masters, don't forget studio's have been playing with HD and creating master's for well over a decade, so just because it is broadcast in HD doesn't mean that the same master will be used for HD home theatre software.

M

 

[Ed St. Clair]

Thanks, Mark!
"All the current Warner Kubrick 5.1 remixes were done around 2000-2001 for future hi-def use",
so this soundtrack is 24/96?

 

[Vincent_P]

It's not exactly a "ton", but I do recall that in defending the practice of WB to not anamorphically-enhance the 1.66:1 titles, Vitali made an analogy where he compared anamorphically-enhanced video to the use of different lenses to shoot movies, and that comparison had nothing to do with what was being discussed quite frankly. I believe his exact comparison had to do with an argument Kubrick had with Luicen Ballard re: using a 50mm lens vs. a 25mm lens while shooting THE KILLING. What that had to do with anamorphically-enhancing 1.66:1 movies on home video I'll never know...

Vincent

 

[JediFonger]

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/...51#post2864551
^check it out there.

 

[Mark Anthony]

I've no idea to be honest, but bearing in mind we're talking about titles that have source elements from 20 to almost 50 years ago, a 24/96 master created from decades old analogue stem's and recording sessions may have no significant sonic advantage over a 16-20/48 master. But there are always exceptions!

M

 

[Dave Moritz]

I was glad to see Full Metal Jacket on a HD format. I had held out on buying this movie on dvd because it was full screen. I was considering buying into HD-DVD but now have decided to stay away from it. I hope this movie is available for Blu-ray soon. It seems that there are just too many issues with Toshiba's HD-DVD player to spend even $500 on it. I would rather spend more on a Sony or Pioneer Blu-ray at this point in time a get something that is true 1080p. HD-DVD is 1080p on the disc but the player seems to only be able to do 1080i.

 

[Robert Harris]

Possibly those around me are existing in some protective bubble, but none of the people that I know who have added the Toshiba players to their systems have had problems. All went with the X1 model.

RAH

 

[Ed St. Clair]

The problems he speaks of, Mr. Harris, are with the "$500" A1, not your friends $699US X(A)1.

 

[Robert Harris]

Bill Hunt over at The Bits has commented on a problem confirmed by Toshiba which has to do with the sensitivity of the remote, and the possibility of secondary (confusing) signals to the player. There will be a fix for this one.

RAH

 

[Ed St. Clair]

Robert Harris,
A pleasure talking with you in real time!
Yes, both Tosh's are highly upgradable.
Being a PC in HD DVD clothing is a sore point with some. I don't know why because computers & home theater get closer everyday. And what I like about it is the cost benefit to getting great prices on parts for the computer industry.
Good night and good luck!

 

[Stan Rozenfeld]

I haven't had a single problem with my hd-a1 player. I know several people personally who have this player as well, and none have any problems. By the way, you don't have to spend $500 for hd a1. If you can find a partner, you can get two at value electronics for $900, plus each one gets two free Warner hd dvds, plus there is the $25 Toshiba certificate, that I just received. I never thought that I could get such a big jump in audio and video quality for so little money.