APOLLO 13 -- DTS or DD version: which is better? (MERGED THREAD) (1 Viewer)

[Magnus T]

ou meant to say that with a WS Super-35 transfer, we ARE getting the Director's intent. Right?

Yes. I was referring to the full frame transfer.

 

[David Von Pein]

Can't quite figure out how anybody could not possibly notice the approx. 30% MORE image on the left & right of the screen via a Widescreen 2.35 transfer??

 

[Magnus T]

Because he's NOT getting 30% more image in the widescreen version!!! He's getting 30% or so more image in the full frame version at the top and bottom!

 

[David Von Pein]

That person's WS version DOES have 30% MORE info on the left & right of screen. Has to. No way it can't, when comparing it to a 1.33 version of a 2.35 AR.

 

[Magnus T]

I give up.

 

[Rob Gillespie]

David, do a search here on Super35 and you'll understand how it works. It's been covered many times in the past so there's little point going over it again here. It doesn't work the same way as 'scope films so the 30% increase in lateral image doesn't apply.

As for the DVD, the DD and DTS versions are pretty similar in terms of sound quality, however the DD disc has slightly better video and superb extra material.

The DTS LD was the best for audio.

 

[David Von Pein]

Therefore, from what you're saying, Ron Howard's original ratio for this film was not nearly as wide as 2.35. Must have been closer to 1.66:1. Then huge mattes utilized to crop it to 2.35. Had to be....or else much more "side" info would be lost in a FF video presentation.

Correct? Or crocked?

 

[Vince Maskeeper]

Don't get confused between original and camera ratio. The intended ratio for the film is 2.35:1. The actual ratio of the camera negative that gets exposed is closer to 4:3 (someone with a bit more film tech experience might be able to give you the exact aspect of shooting flat on 35mm).

So when they filmed, they shot for a 2.35:1 aspect, but made a "safe" area above and below -- for home video tis safe area was simply exposed.

In some cases on a fullscreen transfer from super 35-- they do a littl both (open the top and bottom a little, crop the sides a little)-- but in some cases they just open the mattes and transfer it 4:3 from the full exposed negative. This results in "more" picture for full frame, but not the intended picture.

 

[Rob Gillespie]

No, the aspect ratio is 2.35:1.

I think you're misunderstanding how Super35 works. Like I said, do a search. The info is on here somewhere. It's not easy to explain in a few words.

 

[David Von Pein]

Thanks.
Therefore, there is NO Panning & Scanning needed (or done) with a Super 35 film transferred to a FF video release. Correct?

 

[Vince Maskeeper]

Well, 50/50.

In theory it is not necessary to pan & scan a super 35 film... however:

As I mentioned above effects shots are often created in the intended aspect. Because it is more expensive to render the full area of a 4:3 shot, they just render what they need to save time and money. In which case, effects shots are only 2.35:1, and there for must be cropped at the sides for 4;3.

Also, in some cases they do a mix and match- if the safe area above/below is not comppletely clean (say lighting equipment or boom mics were exposed)-- they will open the mattes a little and cut the sides a little.

There is an EXCELLENT example of this on the extras of the original T2 Se, I don't knw if this "film school" thing they included made it onto the extreme version- but the original had an excellent visual example.

 

[Robert Franklin]

I hate to chime in and spoil the fun for you guys, but it is a little unfair to compare the DD to the DTS version on this title. I for one am a strong advocate for DTS, but Apollo 13 was only mixed in DTS for the theatrical release of this film. I say again, "Apollo 13 was only mixed in DTS". If you don't believe me, go to the imdb.com and take a look for yourself. Therefore the Dolby Digital version is actually DTS converted to Dolby because of the dvd standard. So, in essence, to listen to the DTS version is EXACTLY the same as it was in the theater. Now, I must admit that I haven't heard of the LD version of this film nor, Saving Private Ryan; so I cannot comment to that fact of a better soundstage comparing the DVD to the LD. I also have both versions on DVD, and prefer the DTS version if nothing else for the mere fact that the soundstage is unbelievable! Also to boot it is a Full-bit rate transfer and it uses the same CD-ROM master that was utilized in the theater.
Studios, bring back full-bit rate DTS!! It's not just for D-Theater anymore!
You may now continue the debate!
Robert

 

[Vince Maskeeper]

Nope- DTS home and theater are completely different codecs. The DTS format from a theatrical cd would not be recognized by a home decoder.
It absolutely was, at the very least, converted. most likely, completely re-encoded from the uncompressed masters (same source for the DD version!)
This is even mentioned on one of the opening pages of DTS' site:
Although the technology used for motion pictures differs from that featured in consumer and professional audio music and home theater systems, their DTS heritage means end users can enjoy sound that closely matches the original.
-V

 

[David Von Pein]

Gee...I'll have to go back and erase some of those stupid remarks I made earlier here. Didn't fully understand the difference between Super 35 and "Scope". I do now. Thanks to the crack HTFers!
Well....it's just like Ray Murdock said on his famous show, "Ray Murdock's X-Ray" (via The Dick Van Dyke Show):
"That's what we're here for...to x-ray and enlighten."

 

[Matthew Todd]

To add to what others have said about Super-35, there is a good little explanation with a picture and example from T2 here:
http://www.widescreen.org/aspect_ratios.shtml
Matt

 

[WillG]

Therefore, there is NO Panning & Scanning needed (or done) with a Super 35 film transferred to a FF video release. Correct?

No, there is usually much P&S on a full frame Super35 transfer. It really all depends on whoever is doing the transfer, I suppose. There are many Super35 films I have seen that use signifcant P&S even during shots with no significant effects. Panic Room and the Lord of the Rings films come to mind. In pretty much ever WS/FS comparison of a Super35 film I have seen there is some cropping at the sides of the frame. Some people would have you believe that all visual effects shots are hard matted to the approximate A.R. as well, but I believe this is another myth (at least nowadays) Since computer power is so much better today, I think that the hard matting is not quite as necessary anymore.

BTW I would recommend the DD 5.1 version of Apollo 13. The DTS may be a bit better soundwise, but from what I hear the picture is worse on the DTS version. Plus, the DTS version strips down all the extras on the 5.1 C.E. and those extras are great in my opinion.

 

[Jan H]

I agree with Dave H about the regular DD track versus the DTS on this disc. I A/B'd 'em and the DD was clearly superior in my system.

 

[JeremySt]

NM

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I think the DD edition is worth having simply for the wealth of extras provided - but then again, that's just my preference for having well produced bonus features over multiple soundtracks.

 

[jonathan_little]

It sounds like these people just need to buy bigger TVs. They don't complain about the 2.35:1 framing in a theater but once it's on their 25" set, it's apparently a problem. Buy the VHS tape if you want open matte or pan and scan used to fit the film to a 4:3 screen. Buy the DVD if you want to see it the way it was presented in theaters.