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
- - - - -

GoodFellas HD-DVD cropped to fit 16x9 HDTV?


This topic has been archived.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

#21 of 46 OFFLINE   PerryD

PerryD

    Supporting Actor



  • 739 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 28 2000

Posted May 08 2006 - 05:23 AM

I also have no problem with 1.85 -> 1.77 cropping or open-matte.

Disney also opens up the matte on their animated movies, far enough that they have to add black bars on the sides, to go from theatrical 1.85 to the DVD's 1.66 ratio. Granted, with animation, I can understand that people would want to see the whole animated frame rather than the theatrical OAR.

#22 of 46 OFFLINE   Ed St. Clair

Ed St. Clair

    Producer



  • 3,320 posts
  • Join Date: May 07 2001

Posted May 08 2006 - 07:12 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by PerryD
I also have no problem with 1.85 -> 1.77 cropping or open-matte.
This forum is pro-OAR.
Does the forum have any problem with "1.85 -> 1.77 cropping or open-matte"?
Thanks.
Movies are: "The Greatest Artform".
HD should be for EVERYONE!

#23 of 46 OFFLINE   Paul.S

Paul.S

    Producer



  • 3,813 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 29 2000
  • Real Name:Paul
  • LocationHollywood, California

Posted May 08 2006 - 08:00 AM

An arguably truer acid test of how Warner is going to approach this issue is the hopeful HD correction of titles that were screwed up on SD. Prolly not a title many of ya'll own, but New Line's Set It Off was shot 2.35 and annoyingly presented on SD DVD at 1.78.

#24 of 46 OFFLINE   Jace_A

Jace_A

    Second Unit



  • 293 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 19 2005

Posted May 08 2006 - 10:23 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Agermose
Warner does print the aspect ratio on their region 2 dvd's.
The Region 2 DVD of Goodfellas is 1.85:1 according to the cover.

The cover is wrong. The DVD, like all of Warners 1.85:1 films on DVD, is 1.78:1. Columbia also release all their 1.85:1 films in 1.78:1 on DVD, but erroneously state a 1.85:1 aspect ratio on their R1 DVD covers.

Given the Studios have been releasing 1.85:1 films on DVD in a 1.78:1 aspect ratio since 1997, I'm surprised people are just now raising concern over this issue, simply because they are replicating the practice on HD-DVD. The horse has long bolted on this issue.

#25 of 46 OFFLINE   Ed St. Clair

Ed St. Clair

    Producer



  • 3,320 posts
  • Join Date: May 07 2001

Posted May 08 2006 - 12:12 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jace_A
Given the Studios have been releasing 1.85:1 films on DVD in a 1.78:1 aspect ratio since 1997, I'm surprised people are just now raising concern over this issue, simply because they are replicating the practice on HD-DVD. The horse has long bolted on this issue.
"This issue" is HD.
Not what has be going on with DVD since '97. That's another forum!
We have been hoping 'things' that were done on the 'old horse' DVD, would not be saddled on the 'new horse' HD on disc.
Are we "surprised" by EE on HD on disc?
No.
Are we to give up on fighting EE on HD on disc because "the horse has long bolted on this issue"?
Of coarse not!
If you are happy with this practice, then fine with me. If some people are not, I would hope that would be OK with you.
I guess it depends on what you think OAR means (not the definition, which I would think is crystal clear to all). I know OAR means Original Aspect Ratio: the ratio that the film/movie was shown in the theater (or, series was broadcast. Remember Fung Fu Season I?).
You on the other hand, do not think this makes enough difference to worry about.
Then I would say; if it does not make that much of a difference, why can we not have the OAR?
Movies are: "The Greatest Artform".
HD should be for EVERYONE!

#26 of 46 OFFLINE   TravisR

TravisR

    Studio Mogul



  • 22,187 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 15 2004
  • LocationThe basement of the FBI building

Posted May 08 2006 - 02:20 PM

Quote:
You on the other hand, do not think this makes enough difference to worry about.
No one cares when a movie shot at 2.35 is actually presented at 2.28 or 2.32 on DVD.

#27 of 46 OFFLINE   Ed St. Clair

Ed St. Clair

    Producer



  • 3,320 posts
  • Join Date: May 07 2001

Posted May 09 2006 - 06:51 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by TravisR
No one cares when a movie shot at 2.35 is actually presented at 2.28 or 2.32 on DVD.
That's funny!!!
Movies are: "The Greatest Artform".
HD should be for EVERYONE!

#28 of 46 OFFLINE   TravisR

TravisR

    Studio Mogul



  • 22,187 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 15 2004
  • LocationThe basement of the FBI building

Posted May 09 2006 - 09:24 AM

What's funny about it? It's true.

#29 of 46 OFFLINE   Jace_A

Jace_A

    Second Unit



  • 293 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 19 2005

Posted May 09 2006 - 11:25 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ed St. Clair
"This issue" is HD.

No, "this issue" is DVD of which HD-DVD is a subset (just as SD-DVD is a subset). There is one reason, and one reason only, that 1.85:1 films are transferred to 1.78:1 and that is to match the aspect ratio of a widescreen television. Given that almost all HD capable televisions have a native aspect ratio of 1.78:1 I cannot see this practice changing simply because we've moved from SD-DVD to HD-DVD. Complaining to the studios about this issue will just trivialize other, more legitimate complaints and make the studios less likely to respond on any level.

#30 of 46 OFFLINE   Bruce Hedtke

Bruce Hedtke

    Screenwriter



  • 2,249 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 11 1999

Posted May 09 2006 - 12:18 PM

Quote:
"This issue" is HD.
Not what has be going on with DVD since '97.

If Warner has been doing this to their 1.85:1 titles since the beginning of DVD but not to their 2.35:1 titles, I don't see them changing this practice. If you are absolutely dead-set on having the correct aspect ratio, you're still going to detest the practice, but it is much better than the alternative of cropping the 2:1 and above aspect ratios.

Bruce
The Mads are calling

#31 of 46 OFFLINE   Ed St. Clair

Ed St. Clair

    Producer



  • 3,320 posts
  • Join Date: May 07 2001

Posted May 09 2006 - 02:54 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by TravisR
What's funny about it? It's true.
Did you notice the thread title?
Obviously the author of this thread cares enough to start this thread where you posted no one cares!
Don't you find that "funny"?
And on the "on one cares" statement;
Not even the director?
Not the cinematographer?
No fans of the film?
Of coarse your blatantly wrong on this, just read replies to this thread, of coarse people care.
That, to me is funny, when someone say's something that is so utterly wrong.
And, no, it is not true, just because you say its true.
No one speaks for everyone!
Movies are: "The Greatest Artform".
HD should be for EVERYONE!

#32 of 46 OFFLINE   Ed St. Clair

Ed St. Clair

    Producer



  • 3,320 posts
  • Join Date: May 07 2001

Posted May 09 2006 - 03:11 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jace_A
No, "this issue" is DVD of which HD-DVD is a subset (just as SD-DVD is a subset). There is one reason, and one reason only, that 1.85:1 films are transferred to 1.78:1 and that is to match the aspect ratio of a widescreen television. Given that almost all HD capable televisions have a native aspect ratio of 1.78:1 I cannot see this practice changing simply because we've moved from SD-DVD to HD-DVD. Complaining to the studios about this issue will just trivialize other, more legitimate complaints and make the studios less likely to respond on any level.

"This issue" is the thread title!
Which is about the HD DVD of the "GoodFellas" title.
"This issue" is not "DVD".

So, you are willing to except "everything" that was wrong with DVD, on HD DVD?
EE is OK with you?
It's from that fabulous "subset" DVD.
Filtering is OK with you?
Edited films are OK?
Forced ads OK?
Compression artifacts OK?
Poor mastering OK?
Incorrect soundtracks OK?
I hope this is not the case for you. I would like problems that appeared in the past to be done away with in the future with HD on disc.
Are you saying it just will not happen so forget about it?
Or, you don't care so no one else should either?

Once again, if it's no big deal, then do it right!

If HD DVD is a subset of DVD (as you posted) what is SD-DVD a subset to?
Thanks.
Movies are: "The Greatest Artform".
HD should be for EVERYONE!

#33 of 46 OFFLINE   Vincent_P

Vincent_P

    Screenwriter



  • 1,745 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 13 2003

Posted May 09 2006 - 03:12 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ed St. Clair
...
And on the "on one cares" statement;
Not even the director?
Not the cinematographer?...

Okay, I'm game. Find a director or cinematographer who has a problem with their 1.85:1 films having their mattes opened up ever so slightly to 1.78:1, then report back to us with your results.

Vincent

#34 of 46 OFFLINE   Michael TLV

Michael TLV

    Screenwriter



  • 2,909 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 16 2000
  • Real Name:Michael Chen
  • LocationCalgary, Alberta

Posted May 09 2006 - 03:42 PM

Greetings

I'd have more problems with the TV's having overscan and cutting off parts of my precious movie. Posted Image

Open it up and you get a wee bit more head room above a persons head ... and you see a bit more of that sweater the person is wearing. But overscan on the TV's is such that 99% of the people can't tell the difference even if the film is 1.85 since it is part of the overscan that you never see.

Regards
Michael @ The Laser Video Experience
THX Video Systems Instructor/ISF Instructor
Lion A/V Consultants Network - TLVEXP.com


#35 of 46 OFFLINE   Paul Hillenbrand

Paul Hillenbrand

    Screenwriter



  • 1,269 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 16 1998
  • Real Name:Paul Hillenbrand

Posted May 09 2006 - 04:23 PM

Please, Explain this one!

The HD DVD / DVD COMBO disc "Rumor has it.." came out today 5/9/06 and the back of the case states that side A, that has the High Definition Main Feature, is 16x9 1.78:1.

Side B that has the DVD Main Feature, is 480P Standard Definition 16x9 1.85:1 (The OAR).

Posted Image

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael TLV
Warner uses words like "matted" and "scope" to differentiate the aspect ratio on the DVD's. If "matted" ... it's 1.85 ... originally.

Regards

The Single DVD: "Rumor has it..." states on the back of the case: "Presented in a "MATTED" widescreen format preserving the aspect ratio of it's original theatrical exhibition."

I'm puting this in its own "Rumor has it..." thread topic.

Paul
Avatar: "The Annunciation to the Shepherds" Painting by Nicolas Berchem (1680-1683)
BD 3D, BD, HD DVD, DVD collection


#36 of 46 OFFLINE   PeterTHX

PeterTHX

    Screenwriter



  • 2,034 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 30 2002

Posted May 09 2006 - 04:27 PM

The Blu-ray version of "Goodfellas" will be 1.85 Posted Image

#37 of 46 OFFLINE   Marko Berg

Marko Berg

    Supporting Actor



  • 856 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 22 2002

Posted May 09 2006 - 07:26 PM

Paul, did you actually measure the aspect ratio of the SD DVD to verify that it is indeed 1.85:1? As stated earlier in this thread, the aspect ratio information studios put on the cover usually refers to the original theatrical aspect ratio.

I'd bet the SD DVD of Rumor Has It... is in fact 1.78:1 no matter what the cover says. The studio creates a high-definition transfer, then simply uses a down-rezzed version for the SD DVD.

#38 of 46 OFFLINE   Paul Hillenbrand

Paul Hillenbrand

    Screenwriter



  • 1,269 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 16 1998
  • Real Name:Paul Hillenbrand

Posted May 10 2006 - 02:58 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marko Berg
Paul, did you actually measure the aspect ratio of the SD DVD to verify that it is indeed 1.85:1? As stated earlier in this thread, the aspect ratio information studios put on the cover usually refers to the original theatrical aspect ratio.

I'd bet the SD DVD of Rumor Has It... is in fact 1.78:1 no matter what the cover says. The studio creates a high-definition transfer, then simply uses a down-rezzed version for the SD DVD.
When I play the DVD side, there is a black line at the bottom of my 110" screen about 1" in size. When I play the HD-DVD side, it fills the screen.

Paul
Avatar: "The Annunciation to the Shepherds" Painting by Nicolas Berchem (1680-1683)
BD 3D, BD, HD DVD, DVD collection


#39 of 46 OFFLINE   Mark Zimmer

Mark Zimmer

    Producer



  • 4,268 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 31 1969

Posted May 10 2006 - 04:35 AM

Really, one needs to pick your fights and the difference of 1.78 to 1.85 (and 2.35 to 2.39 for that matter) is pretty trivial. As I said above, no one noticed at all until the number was printed on the case. I'm much more exercised about Storaro's cropping of 2.35 down to 2.0 and everyone seems accepting of that post hoc revisionism.

#40 of 46 OFFLINE   cafink

cafink

    Producer



  • 3,041 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 19 1999

Posted May 10 2006 - 05:08 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ed St. Clair
I guess it depends on what you think OAR means (not the definition, which I would think is crystal clear to all). I know OAR means Original Aspect Ratio: the ratio that the film/movie was shown in the theater (or, series was broadcast. Remember Fung Fu Season I?).

The aspect ratio of a film's theatrical exhibition is not 100 per cent consistent from venue to venue. The screen and projectors are not precisely calibrated. If we are going to be this strict about our definition of OAR, how do we determine exactly what the OAR is, then, given that the aspect ratio differs from theater to theater?

Every director and cinematographer is aware of this issu, and not one of them would ever compose his film such that it depended on having the aspect ratio exact to the pixel.

This is a non-issue.
 

 



Back to Blu-ray



Forum Nav Content I Follow