Back To The Future W/S Framing Issues Here- (1 Viewer)

[Steve_M_S]

those of you who are saying that the botched matting isn't a big deal are missing the point. people buy widescreen becuase they want to see the movie the way it was seen in the theater. this problem with BTTF 2 & 3 means that there is no option for those of us care to have a perfect version of the movie. if this issue doesn't matter to you one way or another i don't understand why you even bother to buy widescreen in the first place. but to me and many others who feel the same way this is a big deal. i've been waiting on these movies since the beginning of the format and it angers me to have waited all that time only to be given imperfect versions of the movies which are hardly better than pan & scam.

 

[Qui-Gon John]

Steve, not only what you say, but Doc pushing that button on the jacket is the key part of that shot. Even in the dreaded P&S, this visual information would be shown. Not showing it is just a notch down from Greedo shooting first. Or it would be like in Raiders of the Lost Ark, the swordsman scene, not showing Indy's hand draw the gun and shoot. Just instead seeing the scene from higher up, hearing the gun shot, then seeing the swordsman get hit and drop.

 

[Dave H]

I agree with Steve. I think there is definitely a double stand here with some people. Nearly every single individual would be outraged if Universal did not issue an OAR (1:85) of BTTF. Yet, many don't mind a mis framed picture - which is tantamount to INCORRECT OAR. We are not seeing what was intended to be seen by the director, nor what was shown in the theater. The point is not how big or how small of a problem it is - the point is that part II and III are incorrect. Period. I am glad these are going to be corrected and I will not watch parts II and III until I get my replacements, just like I wouldn't watch this in pan and scan or in some other hacked aspect ratio.

 

[David Lambert]

Look, guys: I'm not failing to be upset that the framing was "botched". It's irritating as hell.

I also realize that nobody, but NObody, can wave a magic wand and fix it instantly. Give them time to work the problem, is all I've said all along!


And this coming from someone who is not exactly Universal's biggest fan lately, so don't think I'm kissing anyone ass when I say that. I just don't see how you can expect more from them than we're getting so far. Patience, young Jedi!

 

[Dave H]

I am glad to see the problem corrected.

 

[Bob_Hay]

It appears there has been a framing problem with "Back to the Future" (disc 1) as well. In the scene where Marty arrives at Doc Brown's mansion in 1955 to convince the Doc that he came from the future and he needs help getting back, the entire scene was mis-framed. I noticed this by comparing the DVD transfer with the 1986 home video, because I didn't have a LaserDisc copy. On the video, Marty says, "I'm from the future. I came here in a time machine that YOU invented! Now I need your help to get back to the year 1985." The video clearly shows Marty using his hands to help express what he is saying (something everybody does, even George McFly). The widescreen DVD transfer shows him standing still w/ no movement from the rest of his body. I feel the whole film should be re-framed. My question is, do we send our BTTF1 DVDs back to Universal Studios Home Video as well? Are they redoing the framing for that film at all? Bob Gale, I hope you're reading this because this is an atrocity to BTTF fans everywhere!

 

[Damin J Toell]

Bob Gale, I hope you're reading this because this is an atrocity to BTTF fans everywhere!

You'll need a lot more proof than a full-frame VHS comparison before you can accurately call this an "atrocity."

DJ

 

[Qui-Gon John]

See, now Bob Hay's post really worries me. I think, if he's accurate, that the full-frame version of that scene would be more enjoyable to watch than the WS version. I keep getting closer to buying the FS version this time out. Even though I strongly support OAR and prefer WS over Pan and Scan anyday, the choice is not as clear when we're talking about an open-matte piece.

 

[Michael Reuben]

Quote:

John, why don't you just pick a version? In the time you've spent agonizing over the issue, you probably could have watched all three movies -- twice.
M.

 

[Qui-Gon John]

Michael, because as I said, whether you want to believe me or not, I usually do prefer WS, and in the case of P&S films, it's an open and shut case.

Interesting how you describe the technique for BTTF1. Basically, as you describe it, that process yields a result not that dissimilar from open-matte.

Thanks for your input.

 

[Michael Reuben]

Interesting how you describe the technique for BTTF1. Basically, as you describe it, that process yields a result not that dissimilar from open-matte.

What I've described is what often gets called "open matte". It's the same process described from different points in the chain. Films that are shot "flat" with a soft matte for projection at 1.85:1 are usually transferred to video with an open matte. "Open matte" refers to the transfer procedure, not the photographic process.
And BTW, "open matte" doesn't always mean what you think it means. Selectively, on a shot-by-shot basis, the frame may be zoomed, panned, tilted or otherwise modified during the transfer to video for a whole variety of reasons (boom mikes, dolly tracks, film damage, etc.). So "open matte" isn't the panacea that some people think it is. (And let's not forget hard-matted special effects shots.)
M.

 

[Bob_Hay]

What VHS tape were you comparing this to? A full-frame one? Just because it was visible in a full-frame VHS transfer doesn't mean it was ever meant to be within the 1.85:1 widescreen frame.

I doubt Universal released a widescreen copy of the film on VHS in 1986. Isn't widescreen able (or supposed to be) to show everything that was shot in the frame, with no cropping? I like the widescreen format just as much as any "movie-buff" because I can see things that the P&S technique doesn't allow you to see. Dosn't the widescreen Laserdisc version show the details that the VHS did, like the hand gesturing? Apparantly, a "Benjamin_Dorsey" said there was a mis-framing on part 1 as well, so I can't be wrong if someone else noticed it too. Like Bob Gale said on the chat, "I want to see the product be as perfect as possible, and as good a value as well." I agree with him completely on that. He also said, "The new pressings will also have letterbox versions of the trailers." So, I'm probably going to send disc 1 in the mail too, so I won't have to pay $39.99 for the re-pressings. That's all.

 

[Michael Reuben]

Quote:

No, it doesn't. (I still have my copy.)
M.

 

[Qui-Gon John]

Michael, then what is the difference between I and II/III. Somewhere in all these threads I remember reading something about why there were supposedly no problems with I, but mis-framing with II & III. I thought the reasons were I was hard-matted to 1.78:1 while II & III were open-matte transfers which had to go through the process of matting to 1.78:1 for the transfer to the WS DVD's, which obviously got flubbed up. But your 4:18pm post makes it seem like all 3 had the same process. Hope you can clear this one up.

 

[Michael Reuben]

The difference is that a technician made mistakes on the matting for certain scenes on the widescreen DVDs of parts II and III. Mr. Hay notwithstanding, no one has identified any such mistakes on the widescreen DVD of part I. And having actually watched the disc, I'm pretty confident that there aren't any.

All three films were shot with a soft matte, with the exception of special effects scenes for parts II and III, which were hard-matted at 1.66:1.

M.

 

[Jason Whyte]

And BTW, "open matte" doesn't always mean what you think it means. Selectively, on a shot-by-shot basis, the frame may be zoomed, panned, tilted or otherwise modified during the transfer to video for a whole variety of reasons (boom mikes, dolly tracks, film damage, etc.). So "open matte" isn't the panacea that some people think it is. (And let's not forget hard-matted special effects shots.)

This comment should be immortalized on this forum. This is what I have been saying for over two years now, and yet people STILL don't listen: a full frame transfer does not fully expose a 1.85:1 shot film (unless you're Kubrick, of course).
To also add to the bracketed reasons that Michael has listed, composition is another reason for reframing pictures during a full frame telecine transfer. A close-up in a 1.85:1 film will also want to look like a closeup on a full-frame transfer, so in ya zoom.
Jason

 

[Richard Schultz]

If Parts 2 and 3 Are Misframed why Are The Opening Credits Centered Perfectly?

 

[Britton]

If Parts 2 and 3 Are Misframed why Are The Opening Credits Centered Perfectly?

Parts of Parts 2 and 3 are misframed.

 

[AdamD]

I don't know where i got these from, and if it was from someone's post on another board and they get jumpy about me pinching them, then sorry, but i jus thought i might aswell post these cos it seems the only screenshots in this thread (that i've seen anyway) were quite small.
This is the bad one (looks like this on my copy i checked this morning) - Bad n this is the good one - Good
Anyway. How would I go about contacting Universal for a replacement? Live in the UK, got the dvd trilogy off amazon.co.uk. And would they replace the first movie also, although nobody's sure whether it's defective or not?
Cheers. -Adam D

 

[Richard Schultz]

Back To The Future Part 1 is not defective it is matted perfectly at 1.85:1.