RedBard 71 Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 Yes!A film maker is entitled to that.What a relief. For a second, I thought they were doing it just to screw with the audience's eyes. I'd hate to think of them as assholes. [/sarcasm]And I agree. Gotham City taking up the entire IMAX screen was eye candy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dixon Hill 4,234 Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 The chinaman is not the issue here.Dude, that is not the preferred nomenclature. Wojo 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 It doesn't have quite the effect on blu, but im not fussed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unlucky Bastard 7,782 Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 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.Yeah I remember the issues on the initial release of Parts II and III because I actually did mail mine back to Universal and received new correctly framed discs.I remember reading at the time that the reason the original film never had that issue on DVD was because it was shot anamorphically, unlike the sequels. The folks on DVDplaza.com.au must have been mistaken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488 Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 The hell with Duel. I'm watching Always right now and it looks ******* awesome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,333 Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 I'm fine with my Duel 4:3 DVD (it's not a blu-ray movie to me anyways) and the hell with Always! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fommes 153 Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 I'm confused: what is exactly the confusion here? As I see it, the BR contains the 1.85 theatrical framing, which contains a bit more information on the side but loses a bit on the top & bottom compared to the TV 1.33 framing.I don't think the original TV version has the actual complete frame as filmed, but zooms in a bit (like the mountain pic posted above).For instance, compare it to the comparison screenshots of The X-Files' first two seasons, where the 4:3 image has more information on top/bottom and the 16:9 image has more information on left/right - neither has the full complete actual filmed image.By the way, the old DVD is the theatrical edition but with a 1.33 framing consistent with the TV cut. I've quickly compared some shots and that framing seems to match the actual 1.33 TV cut's framing.I've got the TV cut on DVD-R when it was shown on TV a few years ago, so if anyone wants me to check specific timings (e.g. the 'visible Spielberg' shots), let me know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
filmmusic 1,829 Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 Ok, great! So, no confusion.Your question Stefan and Jay, is solved.DVD is the same framing with Original TV broadcast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Breathmask 555 Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 And still my question remains: is the widescreen version supposed to be significantly wider than the TV version as suggested by the Awalt quote or a crop like on the Blu-Ray? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
filmmusic 1,829 Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 And still my question remains: is the widescreen version supposed to be significantly wider than the TV version as suggested by the Awalt quote or a crop like on the Blu-Ray?This is what i was trying to explain earlier (with the BTTF example)It is not "fixed"!In other shots it's wider, in others it's about the same with the TV version.almost same width:much wider:edit: Darn it, i cannot hotlink.Well, see the comparisons in dvdbeaver:http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film4/blu-ray_reviews_63/duel_blu-ray.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay 37,364 Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 Frankly I think the widescreen composition looks better in those two examples Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Not Mr. Big 4,639 Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 The Always blu-ray's picture quality looks very meh. Especially for a Spielberg film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
filmmusic 1,829 Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 Since the latest talk is about the Spielberg box, here's what I found:Do you notice anything funny?The only film not included is ALWAYS!! Even the segment from Twilight Zone is included (i think. Couldn't match with anything else). It seems everyone wants to forget about it/or has forgotten it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Breathmask 555 Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 Isn't that Poltergeist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
filmmusic 1,829 Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 Isn't that Poltergeist?Next to E.T.?No, it's not. Just checked its ending.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488 Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 It's Twilight Zone: The Movie.Could Always have looked better? Probably. It has to have been sourced from the exact same master as the HD broadcast. I'm happy to just have it in HD. This has only been available in letterbox and the aforementioned HD broadcast and this version is better. To my eyes, it does the film justice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedBard 71 Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 It's Twilight Zone: The Movie.Could Always have looked better? Probably. It has to have been sourced from the exact same master as the HD broadcast. I'm happy to just have it in HD. This has only been available in letterbox and the aforementioned HD broadcast and this version is better. To my eyes, it does the film justice.I'm sorry, but I can't think about that movie without seeing that horrible on-set accident.It's not you. It's me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeinAR 1,949 Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 Let it go. Do you see disaster in films based on disaster? Do you constantly mourn all thing bad?How could you possibly watch Schindler's List when it's based on the death of 6 million. Don't forget Ben Hur. That poor poor stunt man who died. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wojo 2,453 Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 Plus it's based on that guy who's had billions killed in His Name for two thousand years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedBard 71 Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 Let it go. Do you see disaster in films based on disaster? Do you constantly mourn all thing bad?How could you possibly watch Schindler's List when it's based on the death of 6 million. Don't forget Ben Hur. That poor poor stunt man who died.Your questions are invalid because they're based on an assumption about me that is wrong.I didn't say nor did I imply that I was mourning those actors' death. You make it sound like I need to become desensitized to it in order to move on.By that logic, I shouldn't watch JFK, Earthquake, Twister, Pearl Harbor, Titanic, or World Trade Center, either.All I'm saying was that their deaths were tragic and I sympathize with them. That's all.fyi, Schindler's List recreates a historical event. Not the same thing as capturing somebody's accidental death on film during production.As for that stuntman in Ben Hur, I point you to this:http://www.snopes.com/movies/films/benhur.asp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488 Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 The first episode of Twilight Zone: The Movie sucks anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unlucky Bastard 7,782 Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 It's an interesting read about the circumstances surrounding the accident, but I forget about it while watching it because the final result is near about how Landis originally envisioned it anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
filmmusic 1,829 Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 1941 Extended Cut screenshots: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,333 Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 Looking crazy good! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
filmmusic 1,829 Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 Looking crazy good!well, i have seen much better looking Blurays* with excellent depiction of the grain..Same goes for Always.* eg. thishttp://caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergleiche/multi_comparison.php?disc1=3624&disc2=3623&cap1=33541&cap2=33551&art=full&image=2&hd_multiID=1505&action=1&lossless=#vergleich Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,333 Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 Cinema Paradiso looks better? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 No! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
filmmusic 1,829 Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 Cinema Paradiso looks better? Much better?The UK release.1941 is like the US release of CP.If you go back and forth between US and UK releases of CP, it's evident that there is much compression on the US release which results in no accurate depiction of grain.In the UK edition, the film was scanned from 35mm original negative in 2K.I can't say that the same seems to apply for 1941. (and Always) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,333 Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 Where do you see compression in the 1941 pics above? I don't see it. Heck, I think it looks so good, it makes me want to see the movie for the photography and the quality of the picture alone. Too bad the movie itself is so ADHD.Cinema Paradiso looks too soft (and not as handsomely photographed) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 Whatever you think of 1941, it is a handsomely shot movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
filmmusic 1,829 Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 Where do you see compression in the 1941 pics above? I don't see it. Heck, I think it looks so good, it makes me want to see the movie only for the photography and the quality of the picture. Too bad the movie itself is so ADHD.Cinema Paradiso looks too soft (and not as handsomely photographed)I see compression because the grain is not very well depicted.Do you see how the grain looks at Cinema paradiso?(i hope you moved your mouse inside the photo, right? and you don't just see the US screenshot)well, maybe it's due to the bitrates too? I don't knowCP is 34Mbps, 1941 is 26. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,333 Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 Inside the photo? I just watched the pics that are posted here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BloodBoal 7,538 Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
filmmusic 1,829 Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 filmmusic edited his post with a link (see below). That's what he's referring to:* eg. thishttp://caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergleiche/multi_comparison.php?disc1=3624&disc2=3623&cap1=33541&cap2=33551&art=full&image=2&hd_multiID=1505&action=1&lossless=#vergleichI'm sure he saw it, because he referred to Cinema Paradiso, without me having written about it.So, it means he saw the link with the screenshots.Didn't you Alex?If you move your mouse on the photo in the caps-a-holic link, you see the difference between US and UK Bluray of Cinema Paradiso.That's what I was referring to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 You are worried about how the grain is depicted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,333 Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 Ah, if I click on the 1941 pics, I can enlarge them and then you can see compression indeed. The smaller pics look great though. The colors, sharpness, the cinematography ... yummie! I didn't click on the Paradiso pics. They change if you click on them. Yes, better grain handling but not better looking movie. Question is if you gonna see the compression on your screen when your sitting 3 meters away from it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
filmmusic 1,829 Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 You are worried about how the grain is depicted?I'm just saying that CP looks much much better, and that is evident mostly by the depiction of grain.Can you see how the grain looks in the US edition of the same film and do you see the difference with the UK one?Don't tell me you prefer the US.Ah, if I click on the 1941 pics, I can enlarge them and then you can see compression indeed. The smaller pics look great though. The colors, sharpness, the cinematography ... yummie! I didn't click on the Paradiso pics. They change if you click on them. Yes, better grain handling but not better looking movie. yes, you don't click on the Paradiso pics. Just move your mouse.Mouse inside picture: UK restored Bluraymouse outside of picture: US BlurayI didn't say that it's a better looking movie (although I do think it's such), but that the grain is handled much better as you said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 Too much grain is distracting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
filmmusic 1,829 Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 Too much grain is distracting.So you prefer Digital Noise Reduction in a grainy film?Sorry, I'm gonna use again the CP example.Can you see that the US Bluray seems like a DVD comparing to the UK one?Look at the leaves.Fortunately, or unfortunately, the detail is in the grain.If you lose grain, you lose detail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,333 Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 filmmusic is right, the one with grain is much sharper. The other version is way too soft, almost blurry.But generally speaking, the film doesn't look so attractive to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 Filmmusic, too much grain, for instance from inferiour film stock, can make a film look ugly. In that case a bit of DNR can be usefull. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unlucky Bastard 7,782 Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 Filmmusic, too much grain, for instance from inferiour film stock, can make a film look ugly. In that case a bit of DNR can be usefull.You're not a real film fan. You're a fake! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,333 Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 I love digital! No grain! (what a terrible smiley) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
filmmusic 1,829 Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 I love digital! No grain! (what a terrible smiley)I'm the exact opposite! Especially in hand-drawn animation, where grain gives life, and it's not just some cells in a row.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,333 Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 Digital is more clear. It like looking through an open window. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
filmmusic 1,829 Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 Digital is more clear. It like looking through an open window. yes, that is what I don't like.That it makes it look real.I watch cinema to avoid reality, not to see something that mimics it..That's why I prefer grain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,333 Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 Don't you think there is a difference between clear and real? There are other, more conscious or intentional ways to make something real or not. I want to like a movie for what the director puts on the celluloid not because of the celluloid itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unlucky Bastard 7,782 Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 But scrubbing out the grain puts another layer of processing over the image. It doesn't make it clearer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
filmmusic 1,829 Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 Don't you think there is a difference between clear and real?There is a similarity in that the clear tries to simulate how one sees the real in front of him.I mean, you don't see grain in your real life, do you?(Unless you have an eye problem)In that aspect, clear leads to more real. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unlucky Bastard 7,782 Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 I don't see the world in square pixels either. At least grain is more organic looking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now