There's a picture in this article that shows one of the mixes available:
https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2018/07/2001-in-70mm-luxuriate-in-variously-evolved-humans-going-places-eating-things/
Here it is on it's own:
The label for the mix reads, in part:
Doesn't "70mm (5-front)" suggest the...
So I listened to this hour-long podcast interview with Michael Pellerin :
http://geekleagueofamerica.com/2015/12/09/leaguecast-bonchael-pellerin/
At about the 54:45 mark they briefly talk about how the LOTR footage was shot, but unfortunately they don't go into any more detail than that it's...
Interesting to look back and see what I was right and wrong about about UHD Blu-ray. :)
I found this blog post from Costa Botes that states his footage was SD, but doesn't specify the format:
https://costabotes.com/making-of-lord-of-the-rings/
Michael Pellerin did the bulk of the LOTR...
No. Reading the original press release, Singulus says that the 100GB discs are "ideal for," "suitable" for, and "in time for" 4K content, but not that the discs are part of any 4K standard. Their press release even states that the BDA has not yet established a new standard.As stated before...
Could you please provide links to what you've read, because I can't find anything but rumors from September based on a misreading of a German press release for 100GB Blu-ray XL dics.To my mind, once a format is completely unreadable on a current player, it is no longer an extension of an...
That's like calling Blu-ray an extension of DVD, since many Blu-rays include a DVD version of the movie as well. On a technical level, they won't be the same format, regardless of branding.
H.264 is claimed to be "at least twice as efficient as MPEG-2", so the change from DVD to Blu-ray saw a 6x...
The rumor of UHD Blu-ray discs apparently started in Sept because of this German press release:
http://www.singulus.de/de/press-news/press-releases/press-release/article/singulus-technologies-presents-production-technology-for-100-gb-blu-ray-disc/7.html
Of course, the press release doesn't say...
One: No Blu-ray will ever be in UHD. UHD will require some new video format for delivery (like REDRay, which isn't a disc format).Two: The Extended Edition Blu-rays maximize the quality of the Blu-ray format, with lossless audio and a relatively high video bitrate. They could've squeezed it all...
Jackson picked Ian Holm because he didn't think he'd make The Hobbit (rights were a tangled mess at that point) and he wanted to pay Ian Holm tribute for his previous portrayal of Frodo in the radio adaptation. It's similar to how the film version of Les Misérables casted Colm Wilkinson, the...
It's possible, but it doesn't seem likely. PJ hasn't really shown a penchant for going back and revising the films, even on seemingly minor things. On the FOTR EE commentary, PJ jokes about replacing the Gollum footage with the revised model they used for TTT and ROTK, but nothing's come of that...
Here's the link to the interview:
http://collider.com/philippa-boyens-the-hobbit-interview/217111/
She's talking about the extended edition of The Hobbit, which will contain a scene with Bilbo and Elrond that will add resonance to the scenes with Bilbo in Rivendell in LOTR. They're not...
First off, when discussing specific aspect ratios and how they're presented, it's important to note what it's being presented on. A 1.37:1 film is going to be presented a different way on a 35mm print for theatrical screening than it is going to presented on a Blu-ray for home video.
In...
Another early review indicates that the quality of this release is on par with the Arrow UK Blu-ray release, which was released over a year ago. The Arrow 4-disc LE also had more extras than this Anchor Bay release. http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/6270/battle_royale_complete.html Before...
As for the running times of the EEs, they run between 3 1/2 hours to 4 hours long, although the full credits for ROTK EE extend it to around 4 1/3 hours.
The technical term for this matting on the sides is "pillarboxing," as the mattes look like pillars on the sides of the image.
The process Stephen_J_H described, which results in matting on all 4 sides of the film frame, is called windowboxing, although typically the image ends up looking...
More details on the fiasco here:
http://www.smart.co.uk/dreams/tidecrop.htm
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/forum/thread/246991/tideland-terry-gilliam-s-latest-on-dvd-2-27
So, even with a director involved, there's no guarantee that the finished product is correct, especially if the...
Quote:
There's a difference between what's "acceptable" to a director and what's preferred. After all, there were thousands of 4:3 MAR transfers that were "acceptable" to directors back in the beginning of home video, so should nobody have complained when studios released many films in 4:3...
I don't think it can be said with absolute certainty that there's no 1.66:1 DVD available. However, none of the screenshots provided are strictly that resolution.
However, none of them are 1.52:1 either. Some have been measured 1.59:1, or at worst 1.58:1. In this blog post, the author...
WilliamMcK ,
I think the fuzzy sides was a result of the theater possible using the correct aperture plate, but on a screen that was wider than 1.66:1
From a very informative article:
http://lennylipton.wordpress.com/2008/03/20/the-projection-dilemma/
From your description...
Leo, have you seen the associated TV series? I don't recall being confused by the movie at all, but that's perhaps because I saw it after having watched the 26 episode series. I can see how being suddenly thrust into everything the TV show had slowly built up over the course of the series could...
All the discs are the same as what was previously released on Blu-ray, with the exception of Lolita and Barry Lyndon, which didn't have a previous Blu-ray release.
The aspect ratios are "correct" in the sense that they are the original widescreen theatrical aspect ratios for all the films...
Quote:
What is the evidence for this?
The first evidence for this was posted a number of days ago by user Feego over on criterionforum, after making some comparison shots:
http://criterionforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=339203#p339203
On the same forum, user Oedipax posted...
Quote:
But the question is: why was such constant adjusting of the frame necessary for this transfer, and should it be necessary for a film transfer in the proper aspect ratio? Do normal 1.78:1 transfers of 1.85:1 films have to resort to this type vertical P&S as well?
Obviously, Kubrick...
Going back to Jerome's comparison pics in post 43 of this thread, it looks like the 1.78:1 frame actually crawls up and down the 1.66:1 frame, depending on the shot, suggesting a vertical P&S transfer for the 1.78:1 Blu-ray. If this vertical P&S truly happened (as the screenshots suggest it...