Blu-ray News and Deals

[Jay 37,346]

If you want to import the Japanese version, is about $100 this week

http://www.amazon.co.jp/dp/B00NGCXJN4

[Naïve Old Fart 9,515]

Is that a lot?

[Jay 37,346]

Well, the US version is $91.99 this week

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00LFHYX2I

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

From what I'm hearing, Always looks pretty good.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

I ordered The Blob remake from SAE. For some reason it's an extremely popular title that's about to sell out.

[filmmusic 1,826]

Review of DUEL and screenshot comparisons with DVD:

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film4/blu-ray_reviews_63/duel_blu-ray.htm

I would prefer the full frame picture.

Also, the good news is that it includes the original audio track!

as for 1941,

it was confirmed by someone that bought the European release, that it has 2 discs for it, a version in each!

It remains to be seens about the bitrates, if they are higher or not.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Hmmm....those Duel pics look suspect

[filmmusic 1,826]

Hmmm....those Duel pics look suspect

Suspect of what?

[A24 4,331]

You lose a bit on top and below.

[filmmusic 1,826]

You lose a bit on top and below.

yes, we knew that..

update on 1941 European release:

Theatrical version disc is 26 Mbps

Extended version disc is 34 Mbps

So, it's the European set for me (although I liked the US box better).

US disc (that includes both versions on the same disc via seamless branching) is 26Mbps.

unboxing video of US set:

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

But according to Steve Awalt Duel was shot in widescreen, so there should not have been anything cut of from the top or bottom?

[filmmusic 1,826]

But according to Steve Awalt Duel was shot in widescreen, so there should not have been anything cut of from the top or bottom?

here's a response i got about this at bluray.com (I think James is a member here too)

You can't shoot 1.85 on film. You shoot 1.33 and then matte the top and bottom. I just popped my DVD in and compared it to the BD caps on the previous page, and the 1.33 DVD has enormous amounts of headroom and extra image on the bottom, as a result of the mattes being opened.

There is a minimal amount of extra image on the sides in the 1.85 framing, most visible on the left in the shot of Weaver walking to the cafe, below, but it's probably just a result of the 1.33 version not quite using the entire negative area. The 1.33 is certainly not cropped from a 1.85 original image, however

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

This is getting confusing!

Which is the correct version?

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

But according to Steve Awalt Duel was shot in widescreen, so there should not have been anything cut of from the top or bottom?

You can frame for widescreen and still have a larger negative format.

A lot of movies that are framed for 2.40:1 and are shot spherical are actually shot at 16:9 (which is a native aspect ratio when you're shooting digitally). Skyfall is a recent example. It was 1.85:1 if you saw it in IMAX, but you ended up with a lot of pointless headroom in a lot of shots. 2.40:1 is clearly the preferred ratio.

I'm on the fence about this Duel scenario though. What's the source on Spielberg's intended aspect ratio? A lot of those 4:3 frames look pretty good to me, sometimes better than the widescreen version.

[filmmusic 1,826]

I'm on the fence about this Duel scenario though. What's the source on Spielberg's intended aspect ratio? A lot of those 4:3 frames look pretty good to me, sometimes better than the widescreen version.

What's the confusion?

The film was originally a TV film so, the original intended ratio was 4:3.

Then they thought of shooting some more scenes and released it theatrically in Europe.

The intended ratio on that one was the 1.85:1.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

I'm on the fence about this Duel scenario though. What's the source on Spielberg's intended aspect ratio? A lot of those 4:3 frames look pretty good to me, sometimes better than the widescreen version.

Well since it was originally shot for TV in the early 70's we can be pretty sure he shot it with 1.33:1 in mind. Any kind of widescreen broadcast would have been unheard of at the time.

[filmmusic 1,826]

I'm on the fence about this Duel scenario though. What's the source on Spielberg's intended aspect ratio? A lot of those 4:3 frames look pretty good to me, sometimes better than the widescreen version.

Well since it was originally shot for TV in the early 70's we can be pretty sure he shot it with 1.33:1 in mind. Any kind of widescreen broadcast would have been unheard of at the time.

But maybe he had in mind for the shots to look good on 1.85:1 too for a possible theatrical release?

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Well sure. But It still seems odd to me why the 4:3 ratio actually has more image.

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

I'm on the fence about this Duel scenario though. What's the source on Spielberg's intended aspect ratio? A lot of those 4:3 frames look pretty good to me, sometimes better than the widescreen version.

What's the confusion?

Because I want to know what the cameraman framed for on set. Not what format they decided to go with afterwards because they had the footage anyway or were bound by network broadcasting restrictions. I haven't found a definitive quote on that yet.

Well sure. But It still seems odd to me why the 4:3 ratio actually has more image.

That's simply because they recorded more than the widescreen image. This is called "open matte" photography. The final framing can be done as late as when the film is projected. A bad projectionist can even screw this up, leaving you with excess headroom and the occasional boom mic popping into frame when you're watching the movie in the cinema, even though they're not supposed to be there. The 4:3 ratio is roughly the same as that of the negative, so you're basically seeing all the information that was captured. Now whether the shots were actually framed for that aspect ratio is the discussion we can't seem to get a straight answer to. According to filmmusic, it's a mixed bag, depending on whether a scene was shot before or after the TV broadcast, but I'm wondering what the source of that info is.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Well, again. Steven Awalt, a noted Spielberg expert told me of FB.

The film was shot in 1:85, but matted for television, then opened up again for the international theatrical release. I wish beyond reason that Universal would have (still could, down the line) include the television cut and the theatrical cut in HD.

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

Ah, thanks. I got a bit lost in the discussion above. 1.85:1 it is then.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

You lose a bit on top and below.

A haircut?

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

The widescreen version looks improperly framed. I prefer the television version.

As for Always, boy, oh boy does it look great:

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Ah, thanks. I got a bit lost in the discussion above. 1.85:1 it is then.

Ok, glad to be of service. But how does Mr. Awalts statement mesh with the one above?

You can't shoot 1.85 on film. You shoot 1.33 and then matte the top and bottom.

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

There's shooting and there's framing. You may shoot a 1.33 image, but you can frame that for 1.85, putting all the important visual information in the part of the frame that gets cropped for theatrical showing. Many films have been shot that way.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

So does that mean when Mr. Awalt says the film was shot in 1.85:1, he actually means it was framed for 1.85:1?

Sorry if I'm confused on this matter?

[Jay 37,346]

35mm film is 4:3. The cameras on set where filming a 1.33:1 image. Period.

For some films, the cinematographer ONLY cares about the middle of the shot, completely ignoring what is appearing in frame at the top and bottom, knowing they will not be shown in theaters (unless the projectionist screws up).

For other films, the cinematographer pays complete attention to that, making sure all shots would still work if that tops and bottoms of the captured image (the parts not shown in theaters) where later shown wit the rest.

And of course for other films, 1.33:1 is the INTENDED aspect ratio - it's perfectly valid to shoot in 1.33:1 on purpose if you desire (like, if you are shooting for TV).

Now, when these 35mm films airs on TV, there are two things you can do with this full 1.33:1 image

1. "Open up the matting", meaning not only show the middle of the frame that was seen in theaters, but also the "extra" stuff at the top and bottom. This can sometimes work out perfectly fine - if they prepared for it ahead of time (or they just get lucky) - and can sometimes lead to disastrous results, such as boom mikes being visible or - in the case of early airings of Pee Wee's Big Adventure - ruining a joke, such as in that film when he pulls the never ending bike-chain up, in the early TV airings you can see the chain is just a big loop because the bottom of the frame that was never intended to be seen was now shown.

2. "Pan and scan" - meaning cut off the sides (one one side if you want to show the other side of the frame) of the theatrical 1.85:1 image, completely ignoring the "extra" image appearing above and below the intended theatrical framing.

Hope that make sense to your drug-addled state.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

I thought BTTF was shot in anamorphic widescreen, but the sequels were shot in spherical. Wrong?

[filmmusic 1,826]

The widescreen version looks improperly framed. I prefer the television version.

As for Always, boy, oh boy does it look great:

Well, it could have been better with a proper restoratin, but ok...

I understand it's not a film that anyone would want to spend much money on.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

35mm film is 4:3. The cameras on set where filming a 1.33:1 image. Period.

For some films, the cinematographer ONLY cares about the middle of the shot, completely ignoring what is appearing in frame at the top and bottom, knowing they will not be shown in theaters (unless the projectionist screws up).

For other films, the cinematographer pays complete attention to that, making sure all shots would still work if that tops and bottoms of the captured image (the parts not shown in theaters) where later shown wit the rest.

And of course for other films, 1.33:1 is the INTENDED aspect ratio - it's perfectly valid to shoot in 1.33:1 on purpose if you desire (like, if you are shooting for TV).

Now, these 35mm films airs on TV, there are two things you can do with this full 1.33:1 image

1. "Open up the matting", meaning not only show the middle of the frame that was scene in theaters, but also the "extra" stuff at the top and bottom. This can sometimes work out perfectly fine, if they prepared for it ahead of time, and can sometimes lead to disastrous results, such as boom mikes being visible or - in the case of early airings of Pee Wee's Big Adventure - ruining a joke, such as in that film when he pulls the never ending bike-chain up, in the early TV airings you can see the chain is just a bit loop because the bottom of the frame that was never intended to be seen was now shown.

2. "Pan and scan" - meaning cut off the sides (one one side if you want to show the other side of the frame) of the middle 1.85:1 framing that was shown in theaters.

I actually asked your illustrious predecessor, who went to school for this. No need to get bitchy about it.

Hope that make sense to your drugg addled state.

You mean drug, right?

[Jay 37,346]

There is not a single thing bitchy in my entire post, Stefan.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

I'd love to get an anamorphic lens for my DSLR.

http://petapixel.com/2014/05/07/shooting-anamorphic-lens-dslr/

[A24 4,331]

I'd love to get an anamorphic lens for my DSLR.

http://petapixel.com/2014/05/07/shooting-anamorphic-lens-dslr/

Wow!

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

I'd love to get an anamorphic lens for my DSLR.

http://petapixel.com/2014/05/07/shooting-anamorphic-lens-dslr/

Wow!

There's a supposedly good anamorphic lens called the Panasonic LA 7200. I'd love to test these glass sets on my EOS 6D. This would also be ideal -

http://www.vid-atlantic.com/lensshop/isco-19x-anamorphic-lens

I've run into a lot of so-called experts who reckon you get the same effect by mounting a wider lens, take a few steps back and crop it in post, but that's completely wrong!

The camera position and the width it captures in the 2.35:1 frame is significant in the composition you're trying to achieve. If I'm using a full frame camera and plain old prime lens, then I'll compose the image for that format, not crop it later to create a faux widescreen still image. Idiots!

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Steven Awalt was in error when he told me Duel was shot in 1.85:1 and asked me to post his correction here.

Here is his correction

"I clearly misspoke yesterday (although the responder is wrong that you can't shoot with a wider frame (hard matte 1.85), my apologies. Here's the part in my "Duel" book where both Spielberg and editor Frank Morriss talk about framing and reframing for both 1.33 and 1.85:

http://books.google.com/books?id=yjsfAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA334...

If the link doesn't work right, it's on pages 185, 186.

The larger point being: this isn't "fake" widescreen as someone said over there. They had the additional information on all sides, clearly, since they shot open matte and then soft matted after the fact."

[Jay 37,346]

Neat!

When Duel was expanded for theatrical release, no only were four additional scenes shot and cut into the picture, but the film was presented theatrically in a widescreen format. Originally lensed with graphic consideration for presentation in either 1.33 (for the squarer television frame) and 1.85 (for potential theatrical exhibition), the opening of the right and left side of the fame for wider presentation caused a bit of unseen trouble, namely, the accidental on-screen appearance of the film's director.

"I have a couple of appearances in the movie,", Steven Spielberg said. "For one thing, I needed to be in the car sometimes with Dennis so I sat in the back seat way over to the left and on the television frame I was fine, but when the film was eventually rleased overseas on certain 1.85 aspect ratios, you can see part of me sitting in the back seat"

During the film's short editing schedule, Spielberg, Morriss, and the editing team failed to notice shots where Spielberg was hunkered down in the Plymouth's backseat, directiong as Dennis Weaver drove the car. The view screen on the editing Moviolas would cut off a few millimeters on either side of the image, unfortunately just enough to conceal Spielberg during the editing process. Once the film was projected in the proper television Academy aspect ratio during the end of post and screenings prior to the television broadcast, evenyone was oblivious to Spielberg's unwanted cameos until work commenced on the theatrical edition. By this time, there was nothing that could be done to cut around the problematic shots, since they were selected takes without suitable replacements.

"Unfortunately, it was a piece of film we could not substitute for or od anything optically to get rid of Steven," Frank Morriss said. "We figured if we got letters about that, people were watching the movie at least."

At the time, Spielberg addressed the mistake, reasoning, "If I was a really dedicated filmmaker, I would have blown those shots up once the film was going to Europe in 1.85:1. But there's something I hate more than seeing myself in a movie, it's seeing grain on screen. I just let it go... and no many people have picked up on that."

Since Duel's theatrical release in the early 1970s, Spielberg has learned to embrace intentional on-screen appearances in films starting with his own Something Evil and in other director's work such as The Blues Brothers, Gremlins, and Vanilla Sky, amongst others. More, any admirer of Spielberg's modern works knows he certainly, indisputably, has stopped worrying and learned to love film grain.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

I wonder if his unintended cameo is still there or if they CGI'd it out?

Anyway the point is that the widescreen is legit.

Though they should have included both the TV version, in 1.33:1 and the extended theatrical version in 1.85:1.

[Jay 37,346]

Though they should have included both the TV version, in 1.33:1 and the extended theatrical version in 1.85:1.

YES, YES, 1000x Yes!

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Someone needs to make a TV edit!

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

I thought BTTF was shot in anamorphic widescreen, but the sequels were shot in spherical. Wrong?

Wrong. Back to the Future was never shot in anamorphic widescreen. It has always been an open matte 1.85:1 shot on regular, spherical lenses. The open matte thing is what led to the framing issues on Back to the Future part II and Back to the Future part III when they were first released on DVD. This only got more confusing when people started comparing the widescreen DVD to the fullscreen DVD (yes, God help us, there was such a thing as fullscreen DVD's back in 2002), which had the entire picture as it was recorded on film, but not the intended framing.

The visual effects shots, however, I believe were done either in VistaVision or in a regular hard matted 35mm format. This is why, if you were to watch a fullscreen version of the Back to the Future trilogy, most shots will have additional information at the top and bottom of the screen, but the visual effects shots will be cropped and there will be some stuff missing from the sides of the frame.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Why, in 2014, would anyone watch BTTF in fullscreen?

Btw, most screens are 16:9 now, so the term fullscreen no longer denotes 1.33:1!

[publicist 4,643]

Off the benzendrine now?

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

It's not benzedrine!

And no!

[publicist 4,643]

Not that the posts got more intelligible...

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Oh yeah!

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

When Duel was expanded for theatrical release, no only were four additional scenes shot and cut into the picture, but the film was presented theatrically in a widescreen format. Originally lensed with graphic consideration for presentation in either 1.33 (for the squarer television frame) and 1.85 (for potential theatrical exhibition), the opening of the right and left side of the fame for wider presentation caused a bit of unseen trouble, namely, the accidental on-screen appearance of the film's director.

So, wait. This suggests the widescreen presentation should be wider than the original 4:3 release, not a cropped version. Does that mean they screwed up the framing on this Blu-Ray after all?

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

That was my concern after seeing the stills.

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

Why, in 2014, would anyone watch BTTF in fullscreen?

Beats me. I couldn't see why anyone would want to watch it in that format back in 2002 when it was widely available in the widescreen format.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

People thought black bars were evil at the time!

[Jay 37,346]

When Duel was expanded for theatrical release, no only were four additional scenes shot and cut into the picture, but the film was presented theatrically in a widescreen format. Originally lensed with graphic consideration for presentation in either 1.33 (for the squarer television frame) and 1.85 (for potential theatrical exhibition), the opening of the right and left side of the fame for wider presentation caused a bit of unseen trouble, namely, the accidental on-screen appearance of the film's director.

So, wait. This suggests the widescreen presentation should be wider than the original 4:3 release, not a cropped version. Does that mean they screwed up the framing on this Blu-Ray after all?

To me it means the original TV airings had the tops AND sides removed from the full frame; The Theatrical release had the tops only removed; Then the eventual DVD opened up the matte entirely to have no missing information; IE, it had more on the tops than the theatrical cut, and more on the tops AND sides than the original TV airing.