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
- - - - -

A couple questions about these new Hi Def releases


This topic has been archived.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

#1 of 12 OFFLINE   Viper

Viper

    Second Unit



  • 371 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 16 2005

Posted July 25 2006 - 12:48 AM

1. Why don't any of the sites selling them list the aspect ratios!? I assume they're all widescreen only, but some of us would actually like to know whether we'd be getting 1.85:1, 2.35:1, etc. I don't see many features listed like DVDs normally have either. Not that I ever really cared about most of that junk; it just seems strange.

2. Are the transfers of Super35 movies the same total crap seen in the old DVD transfers or are they giving us the whole frames now? I mean, if you watch something like Gladiator on VHS then watch the extended cut DVD it's all too obvious that the frames look cut at the top and bottom. Widescreen transfers of other movies look great, but things like Gladiator and Collateral look like the camera was too close; people's heads look chopped off real bad, etc. There are several examples of Super35 movies' of pan & scan frames compared to the widescreen transfers floating around to prove my point. I even saw somewhere that the director(?) of Air Force One prefers the pan & scan transfer because of this.

#2 of 12 OFFLINE   Steve Tannehill

Steve Tannehill

    Producer



  • 5,547 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 06 1997
  • Real Name:Steve Tannehill
  • LocationDFW

Posted July 25 2006 - 01:38 AM

1) My site lists the aspect ratio. As for the features, I'm not in the business of transcribing all the gory detail from the box art or the disc itself. Too little time, and too many HD DVD's to watch.
2) I prefer OAR

- Steve

#3 of 12 OFFLINE   Ed St. Clair

Ed St. Clair

    Producer



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

Posted July 25 2006 - 07:37 AM

1. Lazy.
2. That would be on a title per title bases.

If the director preferred the full frame (not P&S!), the director should have released the film in their preferred aspect ratio.
Movies are: "The Greatest Artform".
HD should be for EVERYONE!

#4 of 12 OFFLINE   Vincent_P

Vincent_P

    Screenwriter



  • 1,760 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 13 2003

Posted July 25 2006 - 10:41 AM

I'm not interested in getting into a Super-35 debate here, BUT-

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Fisk
... Are the transfers of Super35 movies the same total crap seen in the old DVD transfers or are they giving us the whole frames now? ...Widescreen transfers of other movies look great, but things like Gladiator and Collateral look like the camera was too close; people's heads look chopped off real bad, etc...

While a small portion of COLLATERAL was shot on film, the vast majority of it was shot digitally, and mostly using the Thompson Viper shooting at a native 2.35:1 aspect ratio. I suppose the small amount of actual filmed footage was probably Super-35, and some shots used the Sony 24P HD cameras which need to be matted from 1.78:1 to 2.35:1, but most of COLLATERAL is native 2.35:1 aspect ratio shot using the Thompson Viper.

Vincent

#5 of 12 OFFLINE   Viper

Viper

    Second Unit



  • 371 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 16 2005

Posted July 26 2006 - 02:41 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent_P
I'm not interested in getting into a Super-35 debate here, BUT-



While a small portion of COLLATERAL was shot on film, the vast majority of it was shot digitally, and mostly using the Thompson Viper shooting at a native 2.35:1 aspect ratio. I suppose the small amount of actual filmed footage was probably Super-35, and some shots used the Sony 24P HD cameras which need to be matted from 1.78:1 to 2.35:1, but most of COLLATERAL is native 2.35:1 aspect ratio shot using the Thompson Viper.

Vincent

Well, the shots I'm referring to in Collateral were the ones inside the cab where it always looks like Tom Cruise's head is chopped off. It's even worse in Gladiator. Especially that scene where Maximus is talking to Marcus in private near the beginning of the movie.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Tannehill
2) I prefer OAR

- Steve

I really don't see how chopping the top and bottom off the original frames is anymore OAR than chopping off the sides. At least pan and scan tries to preserve the RIGHT parts of each frame. If they did that with cropping the top and bottom, the damn things might look alright.

#6 of 12 OFFLINE   Steve Tannehill

Steve Tannehill

    Producer



  • 5,547 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 06 1997
  • Real Name:Steve Tannehill
  • LocationDFW

Posted July 26 2006 - 03:37 AM

OAR preserves the theatrical aspect ratio. Get it?

Most home theater enthusiasts, especially those at this forum, want to see movies in their home theaters the way they were presented in movie theaters.

- Steve

#7 of 12 OFFLINE   Darren Gross

Darren Gross

    Supporting Actor



  • 500 posts
  • Join Date: May 16 2001

Posted July 26 2006 - 06:23 AM

While it's not a sales site, we list the aspect ratio in our reviews on www.avrev.com

#8 of 12 OFFLINE   Viper

Viper

    Second Unit



  • 371 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 16 2005

Posted July 26 2006 - 06:33 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Tannehill
OAR preserves the theatrical aspect ratio. Get it?

Most home theater enthusiasts, especially those at this forum, want to see movies in their home theaters the way they were presented in movie theaters.

- Steve

and noone cares about seeing the whole bloody frames? In a lot of cases, Super 35 is complete garbage the way they make the transfers, and I'm amazed nobody else can see a problem with it. Posted Image

#9 of 12 OFFLINE   Michael TLV

Michael TLV

    Screenwriter



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

Posted July 26 2006 - 06:53 AM

Greetings

Make these aspect ratio arguments go away please.

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


#10 of 12 OFFLINE   Steve Tannehill

Steve Tannehill

    Producer



  • 5,547 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 06 1997
  • Real Name:Steve Tannehill
  • LocationDFW

Posted July 26 2006 - 06:56 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael TLV
Greetings

Make these aspect ratio arguments go away please.

Regards

I've already updated my Ignore List.

- Steve

#11 of 12 OFFLINE   RobertR

RobertR

    Lead Actor



  • 9,547 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 19 1998

Posted July 26 2006 - 07:07 AM

Quote:
noone cares about seeing the whole bloody frames?
People here are interested in seeing the film as it was shown in theaters. You're free to dislike the director's framing choices, but you have no business demanding that the framing be altered to suit you.

#12 of 12 OFFLINE   GlennH

GlennH

    Screenwriter



  • 2,127 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 28 1998
  • Real Name:Glenn

Posted July 26 2006 - 07:24 AM

Joe, please refer to the Widescreen FAQ on this very forum:

http://www.hometheat...home/wsfaq.html
Quote:
... When transferring the movie to home video for a P&S version, the Super 35 image is used, since the additional footage caught on film allows the filmmakers to fill up the entire space of a TV, without resorting to massive cropping. However, the composition of the original theatrical image is still destroyed, because you are losing the intended widescreen effect.

...
So, knowing that many movies are matted or shot on Super 35mm film, why do many of the members of the Home Theater Forum still overwhelmingly prefer widescreen? If nothing is lost from the sides of the picture, why would we still want widescreen? The answer goes back to what I said at the very beginning of this (lengthy) post. For many of us, the greatest joy in the hobby of home theaters lies with recreating the way in which a film was originally presented in theaters. This not only means using whatever equipment we have to recreate the quality of a high-end theatrical sound system or the film-like image quality of a movie. It means viewing the original composition of every shot as it was seen in the theater. We want as few differences between the presentation of a film in the theater and at home as there can possibly be. How can we do that if we violate the original theatrical composition of the images just to fit into our TVs?

...
To those of you who still want your TV screens to be filled, let me just say that you are certainly welcome to be an active member of the Home Theater Forum. However, please keep in mind that the vast majority of members here are avid supporters of original aspect ratio (OAR), which presents films as they were originally shown in theaters. The Forum's mission statement even declares,

We believe that the purpose of Home Theater is not only to provide entertainment, but to preserve the artistic integrity of film in the video format as well. We stress the need for accurate reproduction of film and strive to create, as closely as possible, the theater experience in our homes.

While we respect your desire to watch movies in the format of your choice, we ask that you do not post any messages advocating P&S or full-framed movies in anyway, as doing this will only stir up trouble. It would be like going to the Star Wars forums at TheForce.Net and declaring that Star Trek is better. You're not likely to win many friends this way.
In other words, you're welcome to your opinion, but it's not a debate folks here really want to engage in.


Back to Blu-ray



Forum Nav Content I Follow