Giant 2 Disc SE (1 Viewer)

[Gordon McMurphy]

the lack of anamorphic enhancement and other factors make me strongly suspect that it is...

But Warner's 1.66:1 films on DVD are never anamorphically enhanced. The remastered A Clockwork Orange DVD transfer was made from a new videomaster made from a new print and was digitally cleaned up.

I'm not sure how this DVD transfer was created, and I would like to know, just as well as you do!

Isn't it possible that Warner got the best elements (which may not be in great shape) they have and digitally cleaned and colour-corrected the picture?

I don't think that Warner is in the habit of using old Laserdisc masters for their current DVD releases, especially on their '2-Disc Special Editions'. Non-anamorphic 1.66:1 aside, they seem dedicated to quality.

Great stuff!


Gordy

 

[DeeF]

I apologize for presenting the rumor that the Giant disks were made years ago. They have obviously been made new, using DVD-18s.

Now that I've learned about DVD-18s, I've looked through my collection. The first one I can find is Ben-Hur, which dates to 2001. Ben-Hur is 212 minutes, but on side B there is a long documentary, making this more like 300 minutes overall.

But why use a DVD-18 at all for Giant? The similarly-packaged The Right Stuff has 2 2-layer disks, with the second disk devoted to extras. The Right Stuff says 193 minutes, compared to 201 for Giant. Is that extra 8 minutes long enough to require 2 extra layers?

About the movie itself, I wish somebody (Mr. Harris?) would weigh-in on the "restoration" history. The transfer isn't great. It isn't bad either, but it looks... like an older transfer. The color is too contrasty in many shots.

I wonder what shape the original materials are in, particularly the audio stems. The audio seems oddly tinny and hollow, particularly the music.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the lack of anamorphic enhancement and other factors make me strongly suspect that it is...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But Warner's 1.66:1 films on DVD are never anamorphically enhanced.

Okay, then scratch the absence of anamorphic enhancement from my reasons why I think it's an old transfer - let's just go with those "other factors"...

 

[Patrick McCart]

DVD-18 for a 200 minute film like Giant is great. I'm sure the digital aspect of the transfer (besides the automatic horribleness of it due to no 16x9 enhancement :wink is wonderful.

Whenever possible, films need to use as much bitrate as they can handle.

 

[Vincent Matis]

IIRC, the first DVD-18 was either The Stand (TV) or T2: Whatever Edition

Vincent

 

[DaViD Boulet]

I view the "4x3 lbxed" problem of a 1.66:1 title as serious as I view it as a problem with a 2.35:1 titles.

I won't buy a 2.35:1 title that's not 16x9 encoded. Neither will I buy a 1.66:1. In fact, the 1.66:1 issues makes it *more* problematic by necessitating either cropping of the top/bottom of the image (which almost always looks too cramped on these titles...and don't give me the "they were projected theatrically at 1.85:1 so it should be ok" because the studios has already over-matted these transfers for DVD so that you're cropping more from the top/bottom than would have been done theatrically in almost every case).

If WB can't master a DVD correctly then they don't deserve my dollars for that title. I'll either wait until alternate-region version becomes available done right or spend my time/$$ buying another title. Heck...I already own more DVDs than I can keep up with watching. Why add a 4x3 lbxed 1.66:1 title to the list when other studios (and other titles from WB) have been properly presented on DVD?

When WB listens to the consumer base who cares most for the quality of their films presented on DVD and releases 1.66:1 titles properly 16x9 encoded, I'll purchase them.

-dave