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


  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
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



  • 5,550 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



  • 1,815 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-
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

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



  • 5,550 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



  • 506 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


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

    THX Video Instructor/Calibrator



  • 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



  • 5,550 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 06 1997
  • Real Name:Steve Tannehill
  • LocationDFW

Posted July 26 2006 - 06:56 AM

I've already updated my Ignore List. - Steve

#11 of 12 OFFLINE   RobertR

RobertR

    Lead Actor



  • 9,637 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 19 1998

Posted July 26 2006 - 07:07 AM

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



  • 2,130 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
In other words, you're welcome to your opinion, but it's not a debate folks here really want to engage in.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users