THE ABYSS anamorphic release? (MERGED THREAD) (1 Viewer)

[ChadMcCallum]

I have the single disc Canadian release and it doesn't have the 5.1 track. I'm sure about any other version though since I've held off buying the two disc in hopes that an anamorphic version will come out. It look like blu-ray is our only hope.

 

[TravisR]

IF a Blu-Ray disc happens in the next couple of years, they'll do an anamorphic SD disc from that new transfer.

 

[David_P]

I have the two-disc Canadian version, and it has a DD5.1 track... it also says anamorphic, though it's not.

 

[Dick]

This June 5th release has a slipcase that, yet again, pronounces THE ABYSS to be an "anamorphic" tranfer. How difficult would it be, through the course of three separate releases (and new box/cover art each time), to remove that claim from the box? Someone at Fox is asleep at the switch.

 

[Lee-c]

If you want to get the Abyss on DVD, then I'd recommend getting the Special Edition released in 2000, which has the DD 5.1 soundtrack. I have this version, and while it would be nice to have it in anamorphic, the picture quality is actually quite high, the movie looks really good. And the DD 5.1 soundtrack sounds great!

 

[Ed St. Clair]

It says "anamorphic" on the 'box' cause its anamorphic.
Talk about; "Someone at Fox is asleep at the switch" that's what happen all those years ago. Someone at Fox had the anamorphic transfer done; WITH THE LETTERBOX BARS!!!

(Hope this is the last time I have too post this!)

 

[Paul.S]

This requires some unpacking please, Ed. Are you being facetious? If not, what are you talking about please?

 

[TravisR]

I rarely (if ever) can decipher Ed's posts.

 

[RickER]

He lost me too?

 

[TonyD]

ed??

 

[Jim Peavy]

Oh, Ed...?!

Paul S., you must be Catholic (I've not heard the term "unpacking" outside of Catholic circles).

 

[Paul.S]

OMG I was even an altar boy! LOL.

(Having said that, I/we did use that word in the context of explaining/deconstructing something in literary theory classes . . .)

 

[Ric Easton]

As I walked into a Hollywood Video today and saw the fancy new lenticular cover and checked the specs on the back I was stunned to see that they are still listing it as anamorphic.

Assuming that is is still not... How can FOX continue to do this? Are they indeed asleep at the switch or maybe they somehow... have not heard about it???

 

[CraigF]

I too saw that yesterday, and for some reason it really peed me off. I rarely get annoyed at stuff, but when a "mistake" gets repeated umpteen times, I have to assume the repeat offender is either stupid or intentionally misleading...is there another option in this case? There's got to be a dozen versions of covers they've printed for R1, probably more if you count the bilingual Canadian ones. All wrong.

I really like this film, this non-anamorphic issue has gone on just a bit too long, I can't believe they can still get away with milking such a sub-standard presentation. Not that it looks bad for non-anamorphic by any means, but that's kinda 20th century... Does not everyone who wants this version own it yet? And the price was much higher than versions with the flat cover.

 

[TheBat]

it has been stated that the menus are enhanced for widescreen, but not the movie.. which is probably why it still says that.

Jacob

 

[Ric Easton]

Wow, anamorphic menus... sweet!

 

[Dave Simkiss]

Just to let everyone know - The Abyss was shown in anamorphic 2.35 (or there abouts) on E4 in the UK last night.

Pointless news for anyone looking to record it I know. (I was annoyed as I tuned in half way through) But a UK TV showing of a film of this age usually indicates an upcoming new DVD release.

When I say 'usually' the examples that spring to mind in the past have been Superman and Supergirl, both of which were shown quite a bit on UK TV just before the announcments of a DVD release.

I know this is just all high hopes and Im still kicking myself for missing the anamorphic broadcast. But just thought people would like to know.

 

[TonyD]

do you mean a hi def broadcast?

 

[Bob Cashill]

I imagine the Cameron canon, including THE ABYSS and TRUE LIES, will be revisited on DVD next year with the release of his new film, AVATAR.

 

[Paul.S]

Dave:

I think you're confusing the term "anamorphic" as it has been traditionally used in still photography and cinematography, on the one hand, with how it has (confusingly) become to be used in the DVD era regarding telecine.

In photography, the "anamorphic" "squeeze" is achieved with the use of a non-spherical lens. In telecine, the squeeze is achieved by the authoring house "encoding for 16x9 displays." Analogous processes but completely separate from one another.

I think you're coming at the topic from the (understandable, traditional photographic) perspective of referring to a 2.35 widescreen movie as "anamorphic." But you can shoot a 2.35 movie with a spherical lens. And you can shoot a 1.85 movie with an anamorphic lens (and then crop it).

The anamorphic we're clamoring for in this thread involves telecine. It has nothing to do with television broadcast, and can't be accomplished via the end consumer taping a broadcast.

Some more info: Anamorphic format - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Now, if it was an HD broadcast, that's a whole 'nother subject insofar as the highest ATSC HD standards are based upon a 1.78 frame not a 1.33 frame.)