What's new

I want a TOP GUN SE! (1 Viewer)

Kieran Coghlan

Second Unit
Joined
Oct 26, 1998
Messages
262
>SIGH< :frowning: I guess this thread is doomed to die a lonely death...
SPREAD THE WORD, FOLKS! There's got to be more interest than this!!! :D
 

JayM

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Aug 16, 2001
Messages
122
"The defense department regrets to inform you that you sons are dead because they were stupid.....Great Balls of Fire!"
 

Grant H

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2002
Messages
2,844
Real Name
Grant H
I too would like to see a Special Edition of Top Gun. I didn't think the soundtrack was that bad though. Probably, pretty faitful to the release(though I've never heard the laserdisc), though it certainly could be done better for today's theaters and home theaters.
As for the framing, at 1.95 instead of 2.35:1, does anyone know anything about this?
I wonder...It seems to be I remember reading that Star Trek VI came out as a 2:1 aspect ratio on video, rather than the 2.35:1, but it was actually a more accurate framing than the theatrical version (the top and bottom was cropped for wide movie screens).
Do you think that it may be the same case with Top Gun? You actually get more on video than in the theater?
 

Matt Pasant

Second Unit
Joined
Jan 16, 2001
Messages
493
The movie was supposedly shot in Super 35, however when I saw the film at a midnight revival a few years ago I SWEAR there was some information that I had never seen in the video presentation of my 100+ viewings of the movie.
For instance, there is a shot of all the pilots when Viper is talking at the introduction and you see both Mav and Goose, and Hollywood and Wolfman.
Here are two shots of the video, the Pan and Scan and the letterboxed..


But when I saw the revival, Hollywood and Goose were in that shot. So, maybe the pan and scan is zoomed in, and not just lifting the mattes. But There is also I believe information missing from the sides also.
--Matt
 

Grant H

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2002
Messages
2,844
Real Name
Grant H
Ok, I was talking about the widescreen transfer on the DVD which I recall isn't 2.35:1 as your screen capture appears to be. Is that from the laserdisc?
What I was trying to determine is if the framing at approximately 2:1 is trying to get the best of both worlds, ( a little more top and bottom like in the "Pan & Scan, but not really, Super 35 full frame" version, but also the additional width benefitted in the theatrical 2.35:1.
I believe it IS the same story as with Star Trek VI. Perhaps this is a newer trend dealing with Super 35 films to try to give you more picture all around. (Just so we don't get any boom mikes or bedroom slippers in the shots)As we know, Air Force One was shot Super 35, and the widescreen version is so tight, I actually watch the full-frame version (Hold your curses), become it doesn't seem to give up much, if any width.
I have to say now for the record, I HATE, director's use of Super 35 as some kind of compromise between cinema-land and TV-land. Pick your damn aspect ratio, and go with it!!
To think, this all came from a post in a Star Trek thread with someone wanting a SE of ST VI properly framed at 2.35:1. I say, there may be no need if 2:1 formatted DVD has more picture info. I know there are purists out there who want it EXACTLY like it was on the movie screen even if we're cutting off people's hair and chests, but I'm usually for more picture all around. I watch all the Batman flicks in Full Screen, because they are clearly just matted for the widescreen. Somebody madt thos bat ears and built-in muscle chest for a reason, let's see them. Again, I HATE that("matted" widescreen) AND Super 35. Think of all the confusion for people who don't understand widescreen or letterbox in the first place. I hate when I explain to people "They're NOT cutting off the picture with those black bars...except sometimes.: Arrgh :angry:
Excuse me for venting my frustrations. :)
Funny, this just reminded me of the "Steven Seagal's super widescreen letterbox" film on MAD TV. :b
 

Jeffrey Gray

Second Unit
Joined
Aug 11, 2001
Messages
488
Star Trek VI was NOT opened up. They cropped the 2.35:1 theatrical version to 2:1 due to a mastering error. And furthermore, the image is lopsided, since all the cropped information came from the left side of the image.
 

Matt Pasant

Second Unit
Joined
Jan 16, 2001
Messages
493


Thats a screen capture from the DVD, I used both the pan and scan and letterboxed frame from that timestamp.

-- Matt
 

Kieran Coghlan

Second Unit
Joined
Oct 26, 1998
Messages
262
Matt,
Awesome sig, dude! LOL! :D Way to "keep the dream alive" ;) (or was that "keep the tradition alive"? God, I can't believe I've forgotten a line from Top Gun! AHHHH... I need my Special Edition... STAT!)
 

Rob Tomlin

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2000
Messages
4,506
I would definitely buy an anamorphic SE of this movie!

Shouldn't this be posted in the "Studio Feedback" forum?
 

wally

Second Unit
Joined
Feb 12, 2001
Messages
473
This is getting a bit off-topic, but I think the only way to create a realistic CGI-based dogfight scene would be to use a top-notch flight simulator model, like Falcon4.0 or one of the more recent ones, to simulate the flight paths and aircraft orientations as the jets fly around. THEN use the CGI to paint over the the simulator's graphics with photo-realistic graphics and explosions, etc. What ruins most CGI-based dogfight or otherwise aerial scenes is that the animators haven't a clue as to how aircraft actually look and behave as they fly along their course. As a result, the jets make turns and maneuvers that to the educated eye are totally impossible, and therefore look totally fake.
Trust me, the dudes at ILM and other (top notch) CGI shops are quite versed in all aspects of flight dynamics and physics. They understand what the performance envelope is for all the various aircraft they represent and build their motion paths accordingly.
To suggest that a $30 computer game would export a more realistic flight model uninformed.
Alright, now “let’s see some of that pilot sh#@” :)
 

Paul McElligott

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2002
Messages
2,598
Real Name
Paul McElligott
To suggest that a $30 computer game would export a more realistic flight model uninformed.
Some flight sim games are better than others. The Falcon series of sims have always been aimed at the more hardcore realism junkie than others (and Falcon 4.0 was close to $60 when it first came out, so there :D).
Even if a program Falcon 4.0 is not absolutely flawless, it would still do a better job than whoever did the fighter battle in Air Force One.
And who's to say that ILM will stoop to using a commercially available game? They're ILM! They would have access to real flight simulators if they wanted.
 

Kieran Coghlan

Second Unit
Joined
Oct 26, 1998
Messages
262
Trust me, the dudes at ILM and other (top notch) CGI shops are quite versed in all aspects of flight dynamics and physics. They understand what the performance envelope is for all the various aircraft they represent and build their motion paths accordingly.
To suggest that a $30 computer game would export a more realistic flight model uninformed.
Trust you? Why? Who are you and what do you know about ILM, or for that matter aircraft performance and dynamics? Have you looked carefully at any, ANY, of the cgi dog fight scenes in movies lately? Name me ONE that has realistic looking aircraft flight behavior, please. They all look completely fake. Granted the detail of the aircraft are impressive, but the paths they take through the sky are completely fake. NO ONE used a realistic flight model to generate those flight paths, I *guarantee* you. They may have used SOME flight model, but what ever it was, it didn't even come close to what "a $30 computer game" could generate. Falcon 4.0 has one of the most realistic and exhaustively detailed flight models of the F-16 aircraft ever created by a non-government paid entity. ILM and the other CGI houses out there would be doing them selves a favor if they spent the $60 bucks or so on a game like Falcon4.0 (which is easily had for about $10 now) to generate accurate flight paths for dog-fighting sequences.
Back on topic: Can we get this thread posted to Studio Feedback? I guess I should have posted it there in the first place... :rolleyes
 

Kieran Coghlan

Second Unit
Joined
Oct 26, 1998
Messages
262
Lewis B:

You disagree about the DD5.1 track on the DVD? I'm surprised. I really think it's a pathetic excuse for a DD5.1 sound track. The surround channels are virtually silent for the majority of the film, even during flight scenes. There is OCCASIONAL activity in the surrounds when there is a jet flyby, but it is very poorly implemented and short lived. If you watch the DD2.0 track instead, with DPL engaged, the ambiance is MUCH improved, IMHO.
 

wally

Second Unit
Joined
Feb 12, 2001
Messages
473
I am a corporate designer/animator and airplane nut.
My point was not to get into an argument with you about the realism of CG aircraft, it was to agree with you that most do look pathetic. That is why Top Gun deserves SE treatment.
When researched and done correctly, CGI can be almost indistinguishable from reality, almost. Like those Dodge and Pontiac commercials last year.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
356,814
Messages
5,123,660
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
0
Top