-

Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

WTF - Opening Credits of Thunderball on BR are Pillarboxed


This topic has been archived.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

#1 of 61 EnricoE

EnricoE

    Supporting Actor

  • 516 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 13 2003

Posted October 17 2008 - 08:14 AM

what is this stupid thing with studios who pillarbox credits? this is freaking annoying thing. sure it might give people who have overscan the full creadits but for those who don't have overscan it becomes a distraction.

this was a horrible habbit on dvd and now we see this kinda shit on blu-ray ... thank you very much Posted Image

#2 of 61 Carter of Mars

Carter of Mars

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 245 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 31 2006

Posted October 17 2008 - 09:45 AM

It was that way on the previous DVD. The main titles on The World Is Not Enough were partially squeezed, which is much more offensive than pillarboxing. I would hope that is corrected when the eventual Blu-ray is released.

#3 of 61 Bob-ATL

Bob-ATL

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 53 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 25 2003

Posted October 17 2008 - 01:24 PM

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!

I f'ing hate that.

I had been hearing reports about some of the problems with color timing, audio mixes, etc. were fixed on these. I was hoping this issue would be corrected as well.

I asked this question at AVSForum, and was directed to a screen grab of the title sequence from For Your Eyes Only and it did not appear to be window boxed.

I guess I'l find out for sure on Tuesday.

I remember the first time I experienced a window boxed title sequence. It was on the 2nd DVD release of Grease. It was so jarring, I felt like I had been punched in the face.

Studios need to stop this shit!
"She's into malacas, Dino!" Gary-Weird Science

#4 of 61 Douglas Monce

Douglas Monce

    Producer

  • 5,514 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 16 2006

Posted October 17 2008 - 02:53 PM

Maurice Binder was in the habit of being pretty free with his title placement, and they frequently went well outside the "title safe" area. This means that if presented with out the slight pillerbox, many even new HDTVs would have some part of the lettering going off of the screen. Some theaters even had problems with his title sequences.

This is also the case with many golden age films. Casablanca for instance has the titles sequence reduced slightly.

Its not uncommon for older films and I wouldn't expect to see them done any differently as most TVs are not able to display that area.

Doug
"I'm in great shape, for the shape I'm in."
Bob Hope in The Ghostbreakers

#5 of 61 Bob-ATL

Bob-ATL

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 53 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 25 2003

Posted October 18 2008 - 12:54 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Douglas Monce
Maurice Binder was in the habit of being pretty free with his title placement, and they frequently went well outside the "title safe" area. This means that if presented with out the slight pillerbox, many even new HDTVs would have some part of the lettering going off of the screen. Some theaters even had problems with his title sequences.

This is also the case with many golden age films. Casablanca for instance has the titles sequence reduced slightly.

Its not uncommon for older films and I wouldn't expect to see them done any differently as most TVs are not able to display that area.

Doug

The Bond DVDs prior to the UEs did not have the window boxed title sequences and on a tv or projector with no overscan, there was not a problem with any of the titles. I had them all and watched them all.

I'm aware that most tvs have varying degrees of overscan, but altering the presentation to accomodate for these sets is ridiculous.

We've fought for proper presentation of widescreen vs pan and scan in the early days of the dvd format as well anamorphic enhancement. Now we have another altering of the original presentation to contend with.

"Some theaters even had problems with his title sequences."

If this was a case for some theaters, I suspect it was improper projection of the film.

Only once in my life have I seen this type of thing in a theater. A small theater in Atlanta was showing Scream. Many of the opening credits were running off the screen. I knew something was wrong, only to realize that they were not projecting the image in the 2.35 aspect ratio.

Of the 400 plus DVDs/Blu Rays that I own and the hundreds more that I have rented, windowboxing of the opening title sequences/opening credits is a phenomenon that I first saw with Grease and the James Bond UEs (I'm talking widescreen movies).

I have seen the window boxing on older 4x3 movies and figured that the reason for it was exactly the same. Again, not necessary for properly set up monitors.

I suspect that this may be being done as to not upset those whose "credit" may be "cut off" due to overscanned televisions. Probably a suggestion of the legal department. It's a shame.

Respectfully,

Robert in Atlanta
"She's into malacas, Dino!" Gary-Weird Science

#6 of 61 EnricoE

EnricoE

    Supporting Actor

  • 516 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 13 2003

Posted October 18 2008 - 02:00 AM

thunderball on the first dvd release was also pillarboxed. i checked it yesterday myself. another film who had this crap was le mans. honeslty, who ever was responsible should be slapt right in the face!

#7 of 61 PaulDA

PaulDA

    Screenwriter

  • 2,577 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 09 2004
  • Real Name:Paul
  • LocationSt. Hubert, Quebec, Canada

Posted October 18 2008 - 02:13 AM

Is it really "like a punch in the face"? Really?

I like coming here to learn about new releases or catalogue releases. There are some knowledgeable people here and I've learned a lot about the technical side of filmmaking and the technical aspects of HT gear set up. I've probably purchased nearly 40 films that I would otherwise have passed by, thanks to things I've learned here. But lately it seems people are going into "paroxyms of agony" over relatively minor things. "Windowboxed" title credits (less than 1% of a movie, generally) is "like a punch in the face". There are almost ten SECONDS (not minutes, seconds) missing from a final sustain chord of the score of a movie at the end of the original credits--I demand that these discs be recalled and "fixed".

I understand such gripes as they relate to the controversy about The Last Emperor and the modified AR for the most recent release. I can sympathize with those who are upset the original mono soundtrack for a catalogue film is not on offer. I was on the front lines expressing my distaste for P&S back in VHS days (bought letterbox when I could and was pissed the UK had many more such options on VHS--options I could not use).

It seems to me, though, that if we're down to this level of nitpicking, there is really relatively little left to complain about. There are still snafus (no extras when they exist for SD DVD and would be easily ported over, major DNR issues like Patton and so on) but, honestly, at what point do we go from expressing disappointment (it's too bad the titles are windowboxed on this release, I hope it won't be the case for all of them) to hysterical hyperbole (the windowboxed credits are like a "punch in the face"). I've played on hockey teams in my youth and I worked in a bar where brawls were not uncommon (also in my youth)--I've been punched in the face more than once. A slightly different framing of a few minutes of title credits is NOT "like getting punched in the face".

Let's keep some perspective here.
Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes time, and it annoys the pig.

#8 of 61 Bob-ATL

Bob-ATL

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 53 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 25 2003

Posted October 18 2008 - 02:37 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulDA
Is it really "like a punch in the face"? Really?

I like coming here to learn about new releases or catalogue releases. There are some knowledgeable people here and I've learned a lot about the technical side of filmmaking and the technical aspects of HT gear set up. I've probably purchased nearly 40 films that I would otherwise have passed by, thanks to things I've learned here. But lately it seems people are going into "paroxyms of agony" over relatively minor things. "Windowboxed" title credits (less than 1% of a movie, generally) is "like a punch in the face". There are almost ten SECONDS (not minutes, seconds) missing from a final sustain chord of the score of a movie at the end of the original credits--I demand that these discs be recalled and "fixed".

I understand such gripes as they relate to the controversy about The Last Emperor and the modified AR for the most recent release. I can sympathize with those who are upset the original mono soundtrack for a catalogue film is not on offer. I was on the front lines expressing my distaste for P&S back in VHS days (bought letterbox when I could and was pissed the UK had many more such options on VHS--options I could not use).

It seems to me, though, that if we're down to this level of nitpicking, there is really relatively little left to complain about. There are still snafus (no extras when they exist for SD DVD and would be easily ported over, major DNR issues like Patton and so on) but, honestly, at what point do we go from expressing disappointment (it's too bad the titles are windowboxed on this release, I hope it won't be the case for all of them) to hysterical hyperbole (the windowboxed credits are like a "punch in the face"). I've played on hockey teams in my youth and I worked in a bar where brawls were not uncommon (also in my youth)--I've been punched in the face more than once. A slightly different framing of a few minutes of title credits is NOT "like getting punched in the face".

Let's keep some perspective here.

"It seems to me, though, that if we're down to this level of nitpicking, there is really relatively little left to complain about."

This level of nitpicking has resulted in some good things. Remember the misframed sequence in POTC? When it was brought to light, a lot of posters jumped on the poor guy, stating that it was barely noticeable, it didn't bother them, maybe the original was wrong and this is corrected, etc. Only to be reissued by Disney months later.

My point is, the earlier version of the DVDs weren't window boxed and they displayed fine on proper displays. This is a step backwards in quality and proper presentation.

And my punch in the face comment is an exaggeration of my reaction when watching the latest version of Grease when the aspect ratio changed for the title sequence. It was jarring because I wasn't expecting it. And again, the first release of Grease on DVD did not alter the ratio for the title sequence.

This practice is an alteration of the proper presentation. That is my point. It should not be done and should not be excused.

Regards,

Robert
"She's into malacas, Dino!" Gary-Weird Science

#9 of 61 EnricoE

EnricoE

    Supporting Actor

  • 516 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 13 2003

Posted October 18 2008 - 02:43 AM

paul, it might sound a bit harsh but we are folks who want the best of the best in terms of quality. some people invested many thousand dollars in the equipment so see and hear the best possible presentation. a pillarboxed credit scene is distracting and since it wasn't done for the artistic it feels just out of place. the electronic industry recognices our battles and include more and more tvs without overscan and then comes a movie studio and ruins that.
if anyone feels displeased by missing letters on a movie, get a better setup. i for one want the whole picture and not a squezzed down version of it.
as for the missing ten seconds of a score on a movie's end credits, i don't know any film that this problem.

please remember, if no one complains about a problem, then nothing will change even it's (for you) a minor problem of windowboxed opening credits.

#10 of 61 PaulDA

PaulDA

    Screenwriter

  • 2,577 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 09 2004
  • Real Name:Paul
  • LocationSt. Hubert, Quebec, Canada

Posted October 18 2008 - 02:52 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by EnricoE
paul, it might sound a bit harsh but we are folks who want the best of the best in terms of quality. some people invested many thousand dollars in the equipment so see and hear the best possible presentation. a pillarboxed credit scene is distracting and since it wasn't done for the artistic it feels just out of place. the electronic industry recognices our battles and include more and more tvs without overscan and then comes a movie studio and ruins that.
if anyone feels displeased by missing letters on a movie, get a better setup. i for one want the whole picture and not a squezzed down version of it.
as for the missing ten seconds of a score on a movie's end credits, i don't know any film that this problem.

please remember, if no one complains about a problem, then nothing will change even it's (for you) a minor problem of windowboxed opening credits.
It's not about the right to complain--it's about HOW one complains. "A punch in the face" is such an overreaction that if I'm a studio person lurking about in here, I'm laughing at it and moving on. It kills the impact of a properly formulated complaint like "why should the studios cave to faulty display designs with uncontrollable overscan?" That IS a legitimate gripe, and framed that way, it is worth noting for future reference.

The ten second music thing is from the new Godfather BDs (and, presumably, the SD DVDs as well). Look around and you'll find someone thinking it's an affront to humanity or some other such exaggeration.

When I first watched my HD DVD of Casablanca, I noticed the same phenomenon and thought there was something wrong with my setup. It cleared up quickly and I subsequently learned it was deliberately made that way. Would I prefer it wasn't that way? Sure. But I don't think WB would be all that receptive if I framed my complaint as a "punch in the face" or something similar.
Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes time, and it annoys the pig.

#11 of 61 RickER

RickER

    Producer

  • 5,130 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 04 2003
  • Real Name:Rick
  • LocationTulsa, Oklahoma

Posted October 18 2008 - 03:03 AM

I have to agree with Paul on this one. Its not about taking note, pointing out a change. Its the way some will say it, and the threats they may make, while saying it. The information may be good to know, and then we can make informed decisions based on that. We may also want to write or e mail the studio in question. But saying, for example, and its a funny one too, Luca$ stole my youth!, is almost as good as pillarboxed credits are a punch in the face. Now if the credits were squished "tall" like they used to do on TV with widescreen movies, that might be like a smack to the back of the head, but still not a punch in the face. Posted Image

#12 of 61 Vern Dias

Vern Dias

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 142 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 27 1999

Posted October 18 2008 - 03:50 AM

So, whatever happened to "Recreating the original theatrical experience"?

Nothing destroys the ability to recreate the original theatrical experience more than this misguided process of windowboxing titles to make up for shortcomings in displays.

The first thing that the viewer notices in that the screen is not completely filled when the image starts. (Note, assuming CIH here). Then at some random point in the movie in some random scene, all of a sudden the image changes size!

Very disturbing.

Vern

#13 of 61 Bob-ATL

Bob-ATL

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 53 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 25 2003

Posted October 18 2008 - 03:56 AM

Apologies to anyone who feels my punch in the face comment was out of line.

It was meant in jest. Perhaps I should have put a smiley after that comment.

All I am saying is that I would prefer movies to be presented as they were theatrically.

In this case, not window boxing the title sequences.
"She's into malacas, Dino!" Gary-Weird Science

#14 of 61 Zack Gibbs

Zack Gibbs

    Screenwriter

  • 1,687 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 15 2005

Posted October 18 2008 - 04:39 AM

The window boxing was a choice, not a mistake, so there's nothing to correct. I'm with Paul, it's no big deal. You can always just turn on your overscan. Posted Image
"Because he's the hero that Gotham deserves, but not the one it needs right now... and so we'll hunt him... because he can take it... because he's not a hero... he's a silent guardian, a watchful protector... a DARK KNIGHT."

#15 of 61 Bob-ATL

Bob-ATL

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 53 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 25 2003

Posted October 18 2008 - 05:09 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zack Gibbs
The window boxing was a choice, not a mistake, so there's nothing to correct. I'm with Paul, it's no big deal. You can always just turn on your overscan. Posted Image

A choice top alter the original theatrical image. I never said it was a mistake.
"She's into malacas, Dino!" Gary-Weird Science

#16 of 61 Craig_Ehr

Craig_Ehr

    Second Unit

  • 326 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 15 2002

Posted October 18 2008 - 05:46 AM

Let me see if I get this straight...

You say the opening credit sequence is "pillar" boxed. Not having the disc yet myself, are you saying that this segment of film is merely not as wide as the rest of the feature, or that it is zoomed out (where there would additional "boxing" on all four sides)? Because if the former, perhaps the restoration used more horizontal information from the OCN than was used in theatrical prints (i.e. due to soundtrack issues or what have you.) If the aspect ratio of the footage from the OCN was indeed wider than what was ever created for the title sequence, then as a result it would have to be pillar-boxed, unless you feel the rest of the film should be cropped to compensate?

#17 of 61 EnricoE

EnricoE

    Supporting Actor

  • 516 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 13 2003

Posted October 18 2008 - 07:00 AM

you are right paul and i overreacted. i apologize for this Posted Image

as for how much it was pillarboxed, just take a look at the screenshots i made. it should be noted that the first scene after the opening credits is also pillarboxed. when the first cut after this scene comes, the movie goes back to normal screensize.

Posted Image

Posted Image Quickpost this image to Myspace, Digg, Facebook, and others!

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image Quickpost this image to Myspace, Digg, Facebook, and others!

click the pics to see them in full hd res.

#18 of 61 Craig_Ehr

Craig_Ehr

    Second Unit

  • 326 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 15 2002

Posted October 18 2008 - 07:16 AM

Okay, from those images it appears the opening titles are approx. 2.15:1 or thereabouts while the full width of the screen would be 2.35:1. I have no answer for this then; the sides are either cropped as was suggested or the image is somehow zoomed out...the top and bottom proportions staying constant however tends to make me believe the former rather than the latter scenario.

I'm not thrilled about it either, but it isn't a deal-breaker for me.

#19 of 61 PaulDA

PaulDA

    Screenwriter

  • 2,577 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 09 2004
  • Real Name:Paul
  • LocationSt. Hubert, Quebec, Canada

Posted October 18 2008 - 07:53 AM

Some of the early Bond films were 1.66:1, were they not? I know when I watched From Russia With Love on the most recent boxed set of SD DVDs, it was "windowboxed" on my 16:9 screen.

As for the recreating the "theatrical experience"--that is the ideal goal, of course. But if one truly wants to be anal about it, it should include random background noises of people eating popcorn, slurping drinks, whispering/talking on cell phones and a bit of coughing every once in a while. While we're at it, for older films, it's not complete without cigarette smoke wafting in the air.

I try to recreate the "theatrical experience" as well as I can--I have a front projector, a 64 inch 16:9 screen (but, at 7.5 feet away, it is like sitting just a bit further than the middle row at an average cinema), a 5.1 audio setup in which I sank more money on speakers/receiver than most people do into ALL their gear, HD DVD and BD players and so on. I even notice the anomalies like the ones discussed in this thread and I would prefer they were not there. But do we need to get apoplectic over minor details like this?

I guess my "pet peeve" is people overreacting (and it's not confined to the realm of HT). Make a note and complain about issues that bother you--by all means. But let's keep a sense of proportion. But excessive hyperbole simply makes it more difficult to accurately discuss more serious issues (something that causes a lot grief in my profession, so perhaps I'm a bit more irritated by exaggeration than others).
Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes time, and it annoys the pig.

#20 of 61 EnricoE

EnricoE

    Supporting Actor

  • 516 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 13 2003

Posted October 18 2008 - 08:21 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulDA
Some of the early Bond films were 1.66:1, were they not? I know when I watched From Russia With Love on the most recent boxed set of SD DVDs, it was "windowboxed" on my 16:9 screen.

this has to bee done if the aspect ratio is smaller then 1.78:1. this doesn't involve croping and it's absolutly ok and not an issue like the problem with the credits on thunderball and other films.


Back to Blu-ray



Forum Nav Content I Follow