Giant 2 Disc SE (1 Viewer)

[Patrick McCart]

Perhaps the guy who got fired from the NY Times got a job at DVDFile.

 

[Steve Holland]

Hi,

According to the specs on play.com the new R2 version is a 3 disc special edition in 1.66 anamorphic widescreen.

http://www.playserver4.com/play247.a...2&title=114073

Steve

 

[DaViD Boulet]

I too just saw the dvdfile review which goes out of it's way to talk about the 16x9 anamorphic status and pillarboxing etc.

Are they just plain wrong? That's something that's hard to miss...maybe they were using a dvd player that auto-upscaled for 16x9???

In any case,

I WON'T BUY IT W.B. YOU'RE SCREWING ALL 16X9 VIEWERS WHO NOW HAVE TO WATCH IT "CROPPED" OR WINDOWBOXED ON ALL 4 SIDES...NOT TO MENTION LOOSING RESOLUTION

16x9 encoding of 1.66:1 is a win-win for all viewers. 4x3 viewers loose practically nothing and see no pillarboxing bars due to overscan. Then large-screen HD and projection systems that are 16x9 get the max resolution where it counts...it doesn't matter how many people have 27" 4x3 TVs...the resolution is 1000 times more important on one 100" screen...the difference viewed from 10 feet away from a 27" 4x3 set is neglibigle.

Why can't WB figure it out? Are the stupid? There must be some guy there in charge who just "doesn't get it" and has to have things his way. When he's gone (hopefully soon) maybe we'll finally get 1.66:1 titles done right.

Until then...I just won't buy 'em. I'm ordering a Malata DVD player and I'll get them from other regions and enjoy them mastered the way they should be.

-dave

 

[Mark Zimmer]

Of course, with a Malata you have a nearly-perfect solution, since you can scale nonanamorphic 1.66 discs up to the size they ought to be---granted, you're losing the extra resolution from an anamorphic transfer, but it's the next best thing, and you can remove overscan to boot.

Yes, still preaching the Malata gospel in the wilderness. :b

 

[Danny_N]

According to the specs on play.com the new R2 version is a 3 disc special edition in 1.66 anamorphic widescreen

Play is often wrong with its specs. According to the Warner announcement for R2 it will be a 2-disc SE like R1: http://www.dvdtimes.org.uk/index.cgi?page=News&id=4486
More than likely the picture will not be anamorphically enhanced either, at least the press statement does not say so.

 

[Scott Merryfield]

I'm with you on this one, David. I cancelled my pre-order for Giant a couple of weeks ago once it was known that this would be a non-anamorphic release. There is absolutely no reason for Warner Brothers to continue to release 1.66:1 films in a non-anamorphic format, and I hate the way they look on my 16x9 set.

 

[PaulEB]

DVDFILE has updated their review. I will not purchase this disc as well!

 

[Colin Jacobson]

There is absolutely no reason for Warner Brothers to continue to release 1.66:1 films in a non-anamorphic format

Sure there is - I'd bet dollars to donuts the transfer's recycled from the old laserdisc.

 

[DeeF]

I don't know if the transfer came from the laserdisk, obviously.

But this release is curious. The movie disk is a flipper -- you play one side, and then you turn it over and play the other side.

In the packaging, the "flipper" disk is blank, but the 2nd disk,with extras, has a nice printed picture on it, and a big DISK 2.

Why this inconsistency?

Is it possible these disks with the non-anamorphic picture, mono sound and no printed material, were made up years ago, say, 1998? And then they couldn't release them, for some reason? And now that they are getting around to releasing the movie, they simply print up new disks with extras, and add the old movie disk to the packaging?

Just a thought... I don't have any actual facts at my disposal.

 

[Randy A Salas]

Is it possible these disks with the non-anamorphic picture, mono sound and no printed material, were made up years ago, say, 1998? And then they couldn't release them, for some reason? And now that they are getting around to releasing the movie, they simply print up new disks with extras, and add the old movie disk to the packaging?

Just a thought... I don't have any actual facts at my disposal.

Here are some facts:

In August 1997, Giant was announced as one of Warner's first-quarter 1998 DVD releases in Europe. (Did that ever come out then? I can't find a record of it.)

On Jan. 8, 1998, as part of the Consumer Electronics Show, Warner officially announced the following titles as being among its upcoming U.S. releases in a press release touting the DVD popularity of its classic movies:

My Fair Lady
Camelot
The Music Man
Giant
Cabaret
The Outlaw Josey Wales
Rebel Without a Cause

By mid-1999, all of those titles had been released--except Giant.

It's unclear if the discs were manufactured back then, but that first disc in the new release of Giant sure does look like the old Warner format. Either way, it seems obvious that Giant was intended for DVD at least four years earlier than now (at least close to the time the Canadian version came out).

 

[Patrick McCart]

Looks like "Grease" syndrome.

Is the movie disc a DVD-10 or DVD-14? If it's a DVD-10, it could be an older disc.

 

[DeeF]

I don't know, Patrick, how can you tell the difference?

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Looks like "Grease" syndrome.

While I strongly suspect it's a recycled LD transfer, this definitely isn't a disc that sat on warehouse shelves for five years...

 

[Gordon McMurphy]

This is new transfers, I'm pretty sure of that. And the George Steven's Jnr commentary was recorded last year, was it not?

I bet that if this DVD was 1.66:1 anamorphic, everyone would be wetting themselves over it, but simply because of that one descrepency (and I agree, it is a annoying to a certain degree) the entire set is being poo-pooed, and it just strikes me as being a bit silly.

I would have loved the transfer to have been anamorphic, but it isn't and you may be waiting a long time before you ever get an anamorphic DVD or HD-DVD or Ultra-HD-DVD - ad infinitum edition. Maybe one day Warner will bend, and do anamorphic 1.66:1, but until then I'm going to buy whatever DVD of theirs takes my fancy.

I'm not trying to rile anyone, I'm just saying that this set looks like a quality, value-for-money edition, and I can live with the lack of anamorphic.

Controvertial!


Gordy

 

[DeeF]

I don't know about the commentary, what year it was recorded.

But the introduction by George Stevens Jr. has a big title, saying, "recorded in 1996, the 40th anniversary of the movie."

Also, the documentaries each have copyrights of 1998.

The lack of anamorphic transfer, older documentaries, flipper disk, and the actual picture quality lead me to believe that this disk was ready for release some years ago, and then something held it up.

The packaging is new, admittedly.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

The lack of anamorphic transfer, older documentaries, flipper disk, and the actual picture quality lead me to believe that this disk was ready for release some years ago, and then something held it up.

Did you see my post? DVD-18 = new disc. Not necessarily new transfer or new extras, but there's no way these discs were replicated in 1998 - the first DVD-18's didn't go into production until later than that...

 

[Gordon McMurphy]

Well, Colin... I'll come clean; I'm can't be "sure" of this, as I don't have the disc yet (will do on monday) but the transfer is most certainly different from the Canadian version (screenshot on previous page).

And all of Warner's 2-disc SEs are new transfers.

I could be wrong though.


Gordy

 

[DeeF]

No one is disputing you Colin. How do you know it's a DVD-18? I don't know how to make these distinctions, myself.

But I don't quite understand why Warners did it this way, with a flipper disk that doesn't match the packaging.

On the new disk of "Once Upon A Time In America," the packaging (from Warners) is very similar to "Giant."

There are two disks, one a dual-layer disk with the feature, the second disk with extras. Both have lovely printed art on the face of the disk.

But "Giant" wasn't done this way. Why?

You could say it's a long movie, but "Once..." is longer, 229 minutes versus 201 minutes for "Giant."

Anyway, the lack of anamorphic transfer isn't completely terrible, but it does make me wonder whether this project wasn't already completely in the works by 1999, and therefore a new transfer wasn't made in 2003.

 

[Gordon McMurphy]

There are two disks, one a dual-layer disk with the feature, the second disk with extras. Both have lovely printed art on the face of the disk.

But "Giant" wasn't done this way. Why?

That's a good question, DeeF. Perhaps it is because Giant has more special features on disc 2? I don't know.


Gordy

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Well, Colin... I'll come clean; I'm can't be "sure" of this, as I don't have the disc yet (will do on monday) but the transfer is most certainly different from the Canadian version (screenshot on previous page).

And all of Warner's 2-disc SEs are new transfers.

All of the others have been, sure, but that doesn't mean this one IS a new transfer. I don't claim to know for a FACT that it's the old LD one recycled, but the lack of anamorphic enhancement and other factors make me strongly suspect that it is...