Jump to content



Sign up for a free account to remove the pop-up ads

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and remove the pop-up ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

Photo

Widescreen version of "Karate Kid" ????


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
24 replies to this topic

#1 of 25 OFFLINE   Jeff Holton

Jeff Holton

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 93 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 18 2002

Posted January 02 2003 - 04:42 AM

I really want to add "The Karate Kid" to my collection, but the only versions I have been able to find on DVD are formated 3:4 version...

Has anyone seen, or know about a widescreen version?
"I would kill every person in this room for one drop of sweet beer."

- Homer S.

Pictures of my "Baby"

#2 of 25 OFFLINE   Jason Whyte

Jason Whyte

    Screenwriter



  • 1,442 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 03 1999

Posted January 02 2003 - 06:04 AM

moving to software....
Buy National Treasure on DVD today..."The best movie I saw on Saturday night from 7pm to 9:30. The DTS track is freakin' awesome!" --Multiplex Drone

#3 of 25 OFFLINE   DaViD Boulet

DaViD Boulet

    Lead Actor



  • 8,805 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 24 1999

Posted January 02 2003 - 06:35 AM

Jeff,

we're all waiting for Columbia to wake up on this one. We're there with ya!

-dave
Be an Original Aspect Ratio Advocate

Supporter of 1080p24 video and lossless 24 bit audio.

#4 of 25 OFFLINE   Walt Riarson

Walt Riarson

    Supporting Actor



  • 809 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 13 2002

Posted January 02 2003 - 07:12 AM

This just seems like a title that they will eventually re-release as a SE. I mean, they did put a couple of extra features on their Karate Kid II disc. Then again, this isn't the same Columbia of a couple of years ago. I hope they'll consider a SE of Karate Kid.
"My advice to young film-makers is this: Don't follow trends. Start them!" -- Frank Capra

#5 of 25 OFFLINE   Jeff Adkins

Jeff Adkins

    Screenwriter



  • 1,765 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 18 1998
  • Real Name:Jeff Adkins

Posted January 02 2003 - 08:14 AM

You can get all three of them here for $17.81, all in anamorphic widescreen if you can do PAL Region 4.

Here is a review. Looks like the Australia and UK discs are the same, only the Aussie version is much cheaper.

Jeff

#6 of 25 OFFLINE   Gary_O

Gary_O

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 62 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 01 2001

Posted January 02 2003 - 10:25 AM

I've been waiting for this as well.

I'm guessing they may be holding off until 2004 so they can do a 20th Anniversary SE

#7 of 25 OFFLINE   Louis C

Louis C

    Supporting Actor



  • 739 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 05 2002

Posted January 02 2003 - 12:44 PM

I too am patiently waiting. It seems ridiculous you can get Karate Kid II in widescreen but not the more popular first one.

#8 of 25 OFFLINE   David Von Pein

David Von Pein

    Producer



  • 5,736 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 04 2002

Posted April 01 2003 - 04:44 PM

Is the current Karate Kid (1.33:1 DVD) Full-Frame or Pan-and-Scan?

What is the OAR of TKK? 1.85 or 2.35?

If 2.35, then (obviously) it's gonna be a P&S 1.33 DVD. But aren't MOST 1.85 AR films matted, with no P&S'ing needed/required? (Is P&Scanning even needed on a 1.85 ratio?)

If TKK is not P&S (but matted instead), I don't see any huge reason to be overly upset by a 1.33 DVD release. You won't be missing any picture information. Just like Anatomy Of A Murder, which is 1.33, but not P&S'ed.

Anatomy is just TOO good a film to not be in most people's DVD collections (FF or otherwise). IMO.

#9 of 25 OFFLINE   Jeff Kleist

Jeff Kleist

    Executive Producer



  • 11,286 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 04 1999

Posted April 01 2003 - 05:09 PM

It's open matte

#10 of 25 OFFLINE   Patrick McCart

Patrick McCart

    Lead Actor



  • 7,474 posts
  • Join Date: May 16 2001
  • Real Name:Patrick McCart
  • LocationAlpharetta, GA, USA

Posted April 01 2003 - 05:10 PM

Karate Kid is 1.85:1. The DVD is presented sans matting.

Anatomy of a Murder is a different situation in that it wasn't made for a lot of matting. 1.85:1 ends up making very unbalanced compositions. IMO, 1.66:1 would be the ideal matting ratio for DVD, but Columbia doesn't do anything lesser than 1.85:1 for DVD.

#11 of 25 OFFLINE   David Von Pein

David Von Pein

    Producer



  • 5,736 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 04 2002

Posted April 01 2003 - 05:20 PM

Thanks, Jeff & Patrick.

I assume, then, since "Karate" is 1.85 Open Matte, this means it's NOT a P&S release? Correct?

It was shot in 1.33, but matted to 1.85 for theaters...correct?

If I am assuming correctly....then many, many DVD e-tailers (and DVD Profiler as well) are in error when listing TKK as "P&S". It makes it very difficult to figure out what's correct and what's not.

Amazingly (obviously an oversight), DVD Empire shows that "Karate 1" is the very first Anamorphic 1.33:1 DVD! Posted ImagePosted Image

#12 of 25 OFFLINE   Damin J Toell

Damin J Toell

    Producer



  • 3,761 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 07 2001

Posted April 01 2003 - 05:24 PM

Quote:
It was shot in 1.33, but matted to 1.85 for theaters...correct?


It was probably shot for 1.85:1 and shown correctly at 1.85:1 for theatres. That the negative probably exposes a 1.37:1 area is irrelevant.

DJ

#13 of 25 OFFLINE   David Von Pein

David Von Pein

    Producer



  • 5,736 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 04 2002

Posted April 01 2003 - 05:28 PM

Quote:
That the negative probably exposes a 1.37:1 area is irrelevant.
Verify this again for me.....TKK IS NOT P&S. Correct?

Because if it's a FF (no P&S'ing) DVD, I can't see a big deal about the extra few inches of nothingness at top & bottom of image area. Who cares? (as long as feet & cables aren't constantly being seen).

#14 of 25 OFFLINE   Damin J Toell

Damin J Toell

    Producer



  • 3,761 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 07 2001

Posted April 01 2003 - 05:33 PM

Quote:
Verify this again for me.....TKK IS NOT P&S. Correct?


Probably correct, although even so-called "open-matte" or "fullframe" transfers are zoomed in to remove excessive headroom, resulting in a loss of visual information from the sides that should be there.

Quote:
Because if it's a FF (no P&S'ing) DVD, I can't see a big deal about the extra few inches of nothingness at top & bottom of image area. Who cares (as long as feet & cables aren't constantly being seen).


Who cares? Probably the cast and crew of the film who spent weeks of their lives helping to set up shots and compose them for 1.85:1. Adding visual information that shouldn't be seen can utterly destroy a film's composition. Adding visual information that shouldn't be there can be as harmful as taking visual information that should be there. I'm sorry that you can't see a big deal about that.

DJ

#15 of 25 OFFLINE   David Von Pein

David Von Pein

    Producer



  • 5,736 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 04 2002

Posted April 01 2003 - 05:47 PM

Quote:
Adding visual information that shouldn't be there can be as harmful as taking visual information that should be there. I'm sorry that you can't see a big deal about that.
That 2 inches of sky or ceiling isn't going to send me into hysterics, no.

As long as it's not that horrid moving Panning crappola, a 1.33:1 is probably going to be OK.

Take "Anatomy" (as mentioned earlier). Great film....even in FF. Looks great.

BTW...(Although it's doubtful anyone here has Anatomy on DVD, since it's in FF)...A real treat on that DVD is an animated Photo Gallery, with music from the film [Duke Ellington]. (Plus, ability to Pause on images.)

I wish EVERY Gallery was composed this way. Excellent.

#16 of 25 OFFLINE   Damin J Toell

Damin J Toell

    Producer



  • 3,761 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 07 2001

Posted April 01 2003 - 06:00 PM

Quote:
That 2 inches of sky or ceiling isn't going to send me into hysterics, no.

I wonder if people who prefer P&S transfers that fill up their screens say the same thing? "Those missing 2 inches of walls aren't going to send me into hysterics."

It's easy to classify the added image as simply being harmless "sky or ceiling," but it misses entirely the point of the artistic value of a film's visual presentation.

Quote:
As long as it's not that horrid moving Panning crappola, a 1.33:1 is probably going to be OK.

Take "Anatomy" (as mentioned earlier). Great film....even in FF. Looks great.


Or take the hundreds of other films I've seen that were clearly composed for 1.85:1 and had their compositions destroyed with "fullframe" transfers.

It's great that you are still satisfied with films that have had their visual presentations ruined. I'm not.

DJ

#17 of 25 OFFLINE   PhilipG

PhilipG

    Screenwriter



  • 2,003 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 13 2000

Posted April 01 2003 - 06:02 PM

Quote:
Columbia doesn't do anything lesser than 1.85:1 for DVD

Oh no? Well then, you must not have Columbia's excellent DVD of Curse/Night of the Demon, which is presented in anamorphic 1.66:1.

#18 of 25 OFFLINE   David Von Pein

David Von Pein

    Producer



  • 5,736 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 04 2002

Posted April 01 2003 - 07:00 PM

Quote:
It's great that you are still satisfied with films that have had their visual presentations ruined. I'm not.

OK. Fine.

But 2 mattes being removed (with no P&S being done) does not magically deem the film "unwatchable", and (IMO) is a far cry from having the "visual presentation ruined".

#19 of 25 OFFLINE   David Coleman

David Coleman

    Supporting Actor



  • 762 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 05 2000

Posted April 01 2003 - 07:19 PM

Yes, this one needs to be released as an SE!!

#20 of 25 OFFLINE   DaViD Boulet

DaViD Boulet

    Lead Actor



  • 8,805 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 24 1999

Posted April 02 2003 - 12:55 AM

Perhaps if you're just watching a DVD on "TV" it's not as serious a problem...

But if you've got a nice 16x9 HD rear-projection or front projection set up and you're attempting to project/display films in "theater" style, you not only loose the director-intended 1.78:1 framing, but you loose the resolution of the widescreen image if you attempt to "zoom" the 4x3 lbxed image to matte it on-the-fly on your 16x9 screen.

And as others have pointed out, there are very few 100% open-matte 4x3 full-frame transfers. Most involve a combination of open-matting, zooming, and PanScanng. It's never (rarely) a simple matter of them "opening up the matte" for the entire film.

In any case, it's really pathetic when you've got a 16x9 100" screen to get a hold of a DVD of a film and project it 1.33:1 when it was released theatrically as 1.85:1!

-dave
Be an Original Aspect Ratio Advocate

Supporter of 1080p24 video and lossless 24 bit audio.


Back to DVD



Forum Nav Content I Follow