Giant 2 Disc SE

Discussion in 'DVD' started by Matt Brighton, May 16, 2003.

  1. Matt Brighton

    Matt Brighton Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    May 17, 1999
    Messages:
    76
    Likes Received:
    0
    Got the new Giant DVD for review today and I popped it in and the image is fairly clean. Though the 1.66 aspect ratio is not 16:9. Any ideas on this? Warner embargoes reviews until 2 weeks prior to street (June 10), but I'll post a link to it then.
     
  2. GerardoHP

    GerardoHP Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2001
    Messages:
    703
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Los Angeles, California
    Real Name:
    Gerardo Paron
    Do you mean, it's not anamorphic?
     
  3. Patrick McCart

    Patrick McCart Lead Actor

    Joined:
    May 16, 2001
    Messages:
    7,555
    Likes Received:
    186
    Location:
    Georgia (the state)
    Real Name:
    Patrick McCart
    Well, at least it ought to be a good enough transfer so that 16x9 set users can enlarge it a bit.

    At least it's not 16x9 and overmatted to 1.78:1.
     
  4. Rain

    Rain Producer

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2001
    Messages:
    5,015
    Likes Received:
    0
    When was it officially stated that it would not be anamorphic?

    Some of us were hoping it might be Warner's first 1.66:1 anamorphic transfer.
     
  5. Matt Brighton

    Matt Brighton Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    May 17, 1999
    Messages:
    76
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's not anamorphic. Sorry. I wish it was. It still looks good in "enlarged" mode on my TV, but I was hoping for a North by Northwest type transfer. That's 1.66:1 and looked great. In any case, even on the back of the box it doesn't state "...enhanced for widescreen televisions". I did compare it to my Canadian import version and the picture is noticeably improved (and that was supposedly "enhanced for widescreen TV's"). At any rate, it's a good picture and it's the best the movie has ever looked. So I suppose we should be thankful for that. Really!
     
  6. Rain

    Rain Producer

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2001
    Messages:
    5,015
    Likes Received:
    0
    My apologies. I must have misread as I didn't realize you had the disc already. Oops.

    Oh well, as long as the image is improved (which would not be difficult), it's ok with me.

    This has got to be the only instance I know of where a non-anamorphic transfer is released as an SE after an anamorphic transfer had already been released.
     
  7. Jonathan.e

    Jonathan.e Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2001
    Messages:
    90
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not sure what (if any) differences there’ll be but this is listed as a 3 disc Sp Ed in the UK. Maybe a small chance this could be a different (anamorphic) transfer?
     
  8. Ronald Epstein

    Ronald Epstein Founder
    Owner

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 1997
    Messages:
    47,696
    Likes Received:
    5,066
    Real Name:
    Ronald Epstein
     
  9. Matt Brighton

    Matt Brighton Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    May 17, 1999
    Messages:
    76
    Likes Received:
    0
    I've posted nothing, Ronald. I just wanted to let people know how the new transfer of this DVD was...
     
  10. Gordon McMurphy

    Gordon McMurphy Producer

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2002
    Messages:
    3,530
    Likes Received:
    0
    I wish I could ask you about this transfer, Mark, but I can't - none of us can! [​IMG]

    We'll all just have to wait until at least the 26th. I have no problem with that.

    Gimme! Gimme! [​IMG]


    Gordy
     
  11. oscar_merkx

    oscar_merkx Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2002
    Messages:
    7,626
    Likes Received:
    1
    same here, oh well two weeks is fine with me

    [​IMG]
     
  12. Joel Vardy

    Joel Vardy Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 1998
    Messages:
    573
    Likes Received:
    0
    The fact that after all this time Giant is being released in non-anamorphic fashion is a bit of a shock to me. Given Warner's role in promoting the DVD format and the stature of this title this move seems a bit short-sighted, especially with the steep curve of more widescreen sets being sold. I'm a bit baffled by their behavior [​IMG]. Perhaps they are setting this up as a rerelease down the line.

    Joel
     
  13. Jeffrey Gray

    Jeffrey Gray Second Unit

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2001
    Messages:
    488
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, they just think that people won't want to see it overmatted (which we don't), and that doing it in anamorphic with side-bars is a waste of resolution (which it isn't for 16x9 TV owners, but is for 4x3 TV owners)...

    I own a 4x3 set, so 1.66:1 non-anamorphic doesn't bother me. And as long as 4x3 TV sets exist in the homes of DVD owners, this is probably the way it's gonna stay at WB...
     
  14. GerardoHP

    GerardoHP Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2001
    Messages:
    703
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Los Angeles, California
    Real Name:
    Gerardo Paron
    With all due respect, Jeff, and I do mean that, speak for yourself. Besides, how can you know what they/WB/whoever was thinking?
     
  15. Dan Hitchman

    Dan Hitchman Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 1999
    Messages:
    2,713
    Likes Received:
    0
    I won't buy it then. Warner Brothers can stick their non-anamorphic widescreen DVDs up their...

    On widescreen TV's these 1.66:1 non-anamorphic discs get the royal screw over.

    Dan
     
  16. Scott Merryfield

    Scott Merryfield Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 1998
    Messages:
    12,063
    Likes Received:
    925
    Location:
    Michigan
    I think I'll be cancelling my pre-order on this as well due to the non-anamorphic transfer. I really hate non-anamorphic 1.66:1 transfers on my 16x9 TV. My Panasonic RP-91 can handle 1.85:1 and greater non-anamorphic transfers very well with its built-in scaler, but it crops the image on 1.66:1 discs (the scaling is not adjustable).
     
  17. Joel Vardy

    Joel Vardy Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 1998
    Messages:
    573
    Likes Received:
    0
    I wonder if there is still some uncertainty on this issue:

    DVDFile announced:
     
  18. Colin Jacobson

    Colin Jacobson Producer

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2000
    Messages:
    6,095
    Likes Received:
    635
     
  19. Matt Brighton

    Matt Brighton Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    May 17, 1999
    Messages:
    76
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thank you Colin! Jeez, I had no idea what I was starting here!

    Ok, just so there's no confusion: Giant is 1.66:1 and non-anamorphic! Warner told me it would be anamorphic as well (it was originally reported as full-frame, hence my question to them). It even says on the back of the box "This film is presented in a matted widescreen..." and it doesn't say "enhanced for widescreen televisions" at the end of it. I'll bring my copy when I go home for lunch and scan it if you all want to see it.

    But, the picture is very good, despite being non-anamorphic it's a major improvement over that Canadian disc! That's all I know...

    matt
     
  20. Patrick McCart

    Patrick McCart Lead Actor

    Joined:
    May 16, 2001
    Messages:
    7,555
    Likes Received:
    186
    Location:
    Georgia (the state)
    Real Name:
    Patrick McCart
    If it looks bad on your 16x9 TV, why not play it on a 4:3 monitor?
     

Share This Page