Two directors respond to HTF reviews. Read what Bob Gale has to say about BTTF.... (1 Viewer)

[Arif]

Half-bitrate DTS on DVD has been a sham for a long time ('tweaked', hell 'rigged' releases like Saving Private Ryan and Jurassic Park not withstanding). Few of us who have blind tested extensively have been willing to speak up and say so.
I'd like to see it dropped from all releases to free up bit budget for supplements, and/or bitrate budget for picture quality.
Even on the Superbits.

I couldn't more totally disagree with you!
Dropping the DTS track on an older title like BTTF is perfectly acceptable since it wasn't orginally encoded that way. But to suggest that even half-bitrate DTS should be dropped from newer titles is absolutely ridiculous!
I for one (and I'm sure I can safely speak for many others), definitely prefer DTS tracks no matter how "tweaked" or "rigged" they may be. Ultimately, watching a movie presentation on DVD is not only about experiencing the best picture possible, but the best audio quality as well!

 

[David Lambert]

Can we move the obligatory DD vs. DTS discussion elsewhere?

I just want to help Ron bask in the glow of his newfound celebrity! Good goin' Ron!

 

[Jeff Bamberger]

Translation - if Walmart wants to be a bully, bully them back. Review a P&S only dvd, and give it the kiss of death.

Ron, this would seriously be a great way for you to help promote OAR. Review a dual release and do comparisons of how much is lost. Yes, we have sites out there that have screen caps from previous dual releases, but to catch the wave of a new release would be much better. And if you concentrated on 2.35:1 ratios where you would lose the most information, it would certainly drive home the benefits of OAR.

Anyways, this thread is getting a bit of topic.....I'll bring it back.....

Again, for the second time, great review and great job building good relationships with the insiders. And most importantly.....

Only 12 more days to go!!!!

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Though Back to the Future wouldn't be a good title to start with, since the P&S version has significantly more picture information in most shots.

 

[David James]

"since the P&S version has significantly more picture information in most shots."

What do you base this on? Have you seen the DVD?

 

[Damin J Toell]

What do you base this on? Have you seen the DVD?

BTTF was available in both WS and MAR on LD, so one need not have seen the DVD yet to compare the two framings.
DJ

 

[David James]

Thanks - I wasn't aware that the LD and DVD widescreen were the same.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

What do you base this on? Have you seen the DVD?

Hey David,

BTTF is one of those "open matte" films that was shot "flat". In other words, it was actually filmed full-frame on 4x3 film stock. When they send the prints to the theaters the picture is full-frame even on those prints...and then the theater "mattes" the picture at the top and bottom during projection to produce the widescreen effect.

The exception is that some of the special effects sequences would have been created in true widescreen and so would some scenes would not have necessarily filled the 4x3 frame on the film print.

So when they go to make a 'pan and scan' DVD of a movie like this...for the most part they just show you the complete 4x3 image that's there on the original print (for the scenes that were shot open matte like this) and then they only literally pan and scan the special effects scenes that were hard-matted widescreen.

BTW, sorry if you knew all this already...it just sounded like maybe some of the confusion had to do with the difference between true hard-matted widescreen and "open matte" films.

It does complicate the p/s issue...especially when the normal (and sometimes false) thing to say to newbies is that the widescreen picture show you *more* and that the full-frame image cuts off the side. As you can see...this isn't always the case...sometimes the full-frame actually shows you more (at least on some scenes).

Bottom line is that most directors compose the image to look correct in the widescreen aspect ratio and don't intend for you to see the 'extra' stuff above and below the 1.85:1 area...but not always. James Cameron films his movies *planning* on the home-video viewer to see stuff above and below the widescreen image seen in the theater, so it's not really so black and white.

BTW, while the framing of the "full frame" DVD is likely to be the same as the LD, the widescreen DVD is clearly different...the matting was shifted vertically on a few shots compared to the LD version.

-dave

 

[David James]

Thanks David, I am somewhat familiar with the issues. What I am trying to determine is this. Does the DVD p/s version of BTTF show "more" than the DVD w/s version?

Adam says matter of factly that it does, which is when I asked how does he know.

Damin implies he knows because of the LD p/s and w/s versions.

You say the DVD & LD w/s versions are clearly different.

I'm just trying to seek out the answer, and how that answer was derived.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Hey David,

Adam is most likely correct, and it's reasonable for him to comment with the conficence he has. the reason is that since BTTF is an open-matte full-frame film, the rule with such films is that their "pan and scan" video versions always open-up the matte which *does* reveal more picture above and below the widescreen window (hence my explaination about this film process etc.). It would be extremely unlikely (however possible) for a studio to create a new "full frame" master and literally pan-and-scan the already-cropped widescreen image.

In this case, the variability between the widescreen image is a result of the matting having been shifted vertically on several scenes comparing the LD master to the DVD version. It's much more likely that the the full-frame DVD will be identical to the P/S LD at least on the scenes where all that's going on is the matting being opened up to reveal the full 1.33:1 frame image.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Sorry about any tone I may have had. To build on what Damin and DaVid have said, I know this because I saw screencaps of the DVD superimposed on 4x3 shots from German television, which showed that significantly more picture was visible.
I am, however, getting the widescreen box set, since that has what was meant to be seen!
I'll try to remember to state my source in the future.

 

[Brian Harnish]

*points to title of thread*

What happened to the second director that was supposed to respond to our reviews?

 

[Michael Reuben]

*points to title of thread*
What happened to the second director that was supposed to respond to our reviews?

*points to part of title that says 'HTF Reviews", then points to title of any of Ron's reviews that says "HTF REVIEW", then gives the following links:*
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htfo...16#post1050316
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htfo...94#post1055494
LIVE CHAT WITH JOHN BADHAM
M.

 

[Brian Harnish]

Gah! My bad. Took the title in the wrong context. :b