SpiderMan 2 dvd is in very good hands indeed (1 Viewer)

[Ray H]

I think they're the little brown blobs that occassionally pop up on screen (in theaters) for a frame or so every now and then.

 

[ToddJ]

What do they do? I know about 'cigarette burns" and their function...but I haven't heard of the other ones....

 

[WillG]

Yes, it's a way to identify a print. That way, if bootlegs get out, they can use the codes to identify the source.

 

[Sean Moon]

I didnt notice the dots on my screening, I was too busy watching the movie to notice them

As for Charlie doing the DVD to this, THANK GOD! Looks like we will get a Spidey DVD that we all deserve now. And Charlie, if you are reading this, please, PLEASE make the AV quality on this stellar the first time, or push for a Superbit Deluxe off the bat.

 

[oscar_merkx]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/Movi....ap/index.html

could this be the first dvd extra as Molina Talks Doc Ock Gag

 

[Alex K.]

This is absolutely great news. I do think I only own two DVD's with the de Lauzirika label, but they are both excellent. Alien Quadrilogy and Matchstick Men. I know he's a regular of Ridley Scott, but what else has he done?

 

[PeterTHX]

Good news.

The "Matrix" sequels credit "Filmed in Panavision" yet they are Super35.

I really, really wish directors wouldn't be so afraid of anamorphic lenses and shoot true widescreen 'scope. Gibson did it for "Passion".

 

[Ray H]

Aside from Scott discs like Gladiator, Hanibal, Thelma & Louise SE, and the Blck Hawk Down DE, he's also done Die Another Day and the Alien Quadrilogy among others.

 

[WillG]

It's funny, if you look at "Revolutions" when they show the exteriors of the ship, the lights give off oval lens flares. I wonder if they used anamorphic lenses for some shots. I don't know what purpose it would serve, though.

 

[Heinz W]

I wonder if Charlie did (or is doing) the 1492 DVD coming Nov. 16th? I figured he might be since it's also a Scott project. Anyone know?

 

[Travis W.]

That's just sad. The dots are there for like a milli-second even at that. And it's not like they're present during the entire film, I've seen Spidey twice now and not one print I saw had them. You're actually going to skip out on seeing a great film because of a millisecond distraction? If that's truly your reason then it's your loss.

 

[PeterTHX]

Will G:


Probably for effect. Lots of people actually like the look. JJ Abrams filmed a segment of the "Alias" pilot (Sydney & her Dad in the car) with anamorphic lenses just to get the oval effect of the background lights.

 

[WillG]

Is it the actual use of anamorphic lenses or just CGI?

 

[PeterTHX]

Actual anamorphic lenses (source: JJ Abrams on the commentary track).

 

[WillG]

Well at least they are still being used for something.

 

[David_Blackwell]

I will check out this DVD. The print of Spider-Man 2 I watched wasn't the best as it played out in the theater, but I know the DVD print will be without those damages.

 

[Dan Rudolph]

A single frame is about 42 milliseconds, certainly enough to be noticeable.

 

[Travis W.]

Well...maybe I was just saying millisecond as a figure of speech? Do you think I'll really take the time to count how many milliseconds a bunch of dots are on the screen?

So you're justifying people avoiding Spider-Man 2 because of "42 milliseconds" of dots?

 

[Dan Rudolph]

Lots of groups of 42 milliseconds, actually. In Matrix Reloaded the dots were very noticeable, here they weren't. Maybe they have less conspicous placing on local prints.

 

[WilliamG]

I saw Spidey 2 Fri. night and I'm going back for the early matinee today; and I saw the dots 2, maybe 3 times in a 15 minute span. They 'took me out' for only a few seconds. Believe me- don't let those things deter you from this motion picture. This thing works on so many different levels!

I can NOT wait for this on DVD!!