Blu-ray News and Deals

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

So essentially there is no right or wrong version? Is what you are saying?

[Jay 37,367]

Well, the blu ray should be accurate to how it screened in theaters in Europe.

As for the original TV edit and original TV framing, it hasn't been released on home video ever, though I suppose you could approximate it by cutting the sides off of the blu ray and removing the 4 bonus scenes.

EDIT: Hmmm, another thought. It's possibly that the shots of Spielberg on the sides of the frame always WHERE in the TV framing, because in the 70s, televisions actually masked information from all 4 sides of the image. It wasn't until DVDs and flat panel displays that we started seeing the complete open presentation without stuff covered up.

So maybe the old DVD reflected the TV framing after all.

Shit, this is getting crazy.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

No it makes perfect sense to me.

Must be the medication.

If the open matte picture is indeed the 1:33.1 image as on the old DVD, then any "widescreen" version from that would naturally have bits of the top and bottom cut of.

The only thing we aren't sure of is if the DVD represents the TV format as it aired in the early 70's.

But ironically this appears to be a case where "fullscreen" gives you more picture, even though the widescreen conversion isnt a mistake.

Now considering Spielberg was involved with this set, I will just assume it was done according to his wishes.

[Jay 37,367]

Well as I said, I'm sure the blu ray is a valid reproduction of what was shown in theaters. And I'm sure it's perfectly watchable.

The only issue is the original TV cut and framing.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

I suppose you could ask Steven Awalt.

[filmmusic 1,829]

I don't understand why everyone is confused.

Widescreens of films that also have a 4:3 version, are usually cropped from that 4:3 version (and offering just a bit in the sides).
There are many films like this.

Disney animation films of the 60s, some other animation films (American Tail, Secret of Nimh), I also remember a Williams scored film "Because they're young" and so on..

http://www.dvdactive.com/editorial/articles/aspect-ratios-explained-part-two.html

[Jay 37,367]

That's not where the confusion lies; The confusion lies with whether or not the old DVD had the same framing as the TV airing.

Did you read the quoted post about Spielberg appearing in shots in the theatrical framing but not TV?

[Marian Schedenig 8,193]

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

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

Cool!

[filmmusic 1,829]

That's not where the confusion lies; The confusion lies with whether or not the old DVD had the same framing as the TV airing.

Did you read the quoted post about Spielberg appearing in shots in the theatrical framing but not TV?

well, widescreen from widescreen differs in framing.

Maybe they weren't careful about the theatrical framing.

I assume in this Bluray they have corrected it.

Even in different Bluray releases you can see a difference in widescreen framing today:

(aspect ratio:same, framing: different)

http://caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergleiche/multi_comparison.php?disc1=96&disc2=97&cap1=960&cap2=972&art=full&image=0&hd_multiID=1211&action=1&lossless=#vergleich

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

I don't understand why everyone is confused.

Widescreens of films that also have a 4:3 version, are usually cropped from that 4:3 version (and offering just a bit in the sides).

There are many films like this.

Disney animation films of the 60s, some other animation films (American Tail, Secret of Nimh), I also remember a Williams scored film "Because they're young" and so on..

You dont seem to understand what we are talking about.

Also...yes most films that were aired on TV or released on home video before DVD's became popular also had a 4:3 version. This was done simply because up until the late 90's there were no widescreen TV's and airings of films in widescreen were quite rare (i recall TNT did them occasionally). There were Laserdiscs that were in widescreen and even VHS releases (i bought the Star Wars films in widescreen in the late 90's) But these were exceptions. 1.33:1 was the standard for TV and home video. Widescreen was a niche item.

A 1.33:1 version of a film made for Tv broadcasts or home video does however NOT reflect the intentions of the director in most cases. Depending on the film vital visual information can be lost. I recall 1.33:1 airings of one certain films trying to compensate by doing an artificial pan, to reveal something the viewer needed to see (BBC's fullscreen version of Raiders for instance), but that's a crude measure.

[filmmusic 1,829]

A 1.33:1 version of a film made for Tv broadcasts or home video does however NOT reflect the intentions of the director in most cases. Depending on the film vital visual information can be lost. I recall 1.33:1 airings of one certain films trying to compensate by doing an artificial pan, to reveal something the viewer needed to see (BBC's fullscreen version of Raiders for instance), but that's a crude measure.

you mean a 1.85:1?

I was confused.

in 1.85:1 vital video information can be lost.

here's another 4:3 versus widescreen:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOJ3XTc83R4

In such films, they are careful not to place vital information eg. on the top of the 4:3 (like a head or something), because it will be cut in the widescreen presentation.

So, each framing is correct, and in the intentions of the creators.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

No I mean 1.33:1, which is 4:3. The size of the average TV up untill the late 90's early 200's.

[filmmusic 1,829]

So, i don't understand.

You're suggesting that the 1.33:1 is losing information from the widescreen?

This would happen if the 1.33:1 is cropped from the widescreen.

But this is not the case here.

The widescreen is cropped from the 1.33:1.

it's not like this:

It's like this:

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

The example I gave is what normally happens with a conversion from widescreen to 1.33:1. as your first pictures showed.

In the case with Duel, it appears to be different though. Which is why me, Jason and Marc (Mr. Breathmask were wondering about it)

The old DVD appears to be "open matte".

This explains why the 1.33:1 picture on the DVD actually has more visual information then the new 1.85:1 blu-ray.

The only thing we are wondering about right now if if the DVD represents the picture as it originally aired on TV in the US in the early 70's. Or if it was initially formatted in full screen like the example of your James Bond pictures.

Like Jason said. Old TV's masked information from all 4 sides of the image. My old cheapo LCD TV that i have in my bedroom actually does this, even though it's less then 10 years old. So even if the original broadcast was open matted, like the old DVD, Spielberg's unintended cameo might still have been obscured.

[Jay 37,367]

Yes, I concur with everything Stefan just said.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Yes, I concur with everything Stefan just said.

Wow. This medication is great. I must be hallucinating!

[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?

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.

What do you mean the top was removed on the original TV airing? Did it air in letterbox?

EDIT: Hmmm, another thought. It's possibly that the shots of Spielberg on the sides of the frame always WHERE in the TV framing, because in the 70s, televisions actually masked information from all 4 sides of the image. It wasn't until DVDs and flat panel displays that we started seeing the complete open presentation without stuff covered up.

If you're referring to the overscan on old CRT monitors,that kind of image loss isn't remotely like the amount cropped when a film is pan & scanned.

here's another 4:3 versus widescreen:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOJ3XTc83R4

In such films, they are careful not to place vital information eg. on the top of the 4:3 (like a head or something), because it will be cut in the widescreen presentation.

So, each framing is correct, and in the intentions of the creators.

Wrong. They might have taken it into account, but 4:3 is not the originally intended reatio. Also, as I mentioned before (using the Back to the Future trilogy as a specific example), visual effects shots were often finished on a hard matte format, causing those scenes to be pan & scanned.

Another example of this is Who Framed Roger Rabbit. If you watch the fullscreen version, scenes with only humans are opened up, revealing more information at the top and bottom, but any time a cartoon character is in the scene, the shot is cropped (and in some cases very badly).

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Marc is correct. While a director may take notice of the fact that his film will air on TV and take that fact into account, that doesnt mean that the 1.33:1 conversion for TV is what he intended.

In most cases if you look up a film on IMDB, it will list the aspect ratio it was released in in the cinema. That's the directors intended ration.

The interesting thing about Duel is that Spielberg shot it for both the TV and cinema, which is why we are talking about this at 23:41 PM.

[filmmusic 1,829]

Marc is correct. While a director may take notice of the fact that his film will air on TV and take that fact into account, that doesnt mean that the 1.33:1 conversion for TV is what he intended.

yes, i didn't mean that.

The intended ratio is the widescreen, but the film is "protected" (i hear they say it) for TV.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

In many cases, she. But not always.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Weren't most of Kubrick's film supposedly meant to be in full screen? It was fairly late in the DVD game that they finally started releasing his films in widescreen.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

His early films were in black and white and 1.33:1 i believe.

Pretty sure 2001: ASO was meant as a widescreen presentation. ?

[filmmusic 1,829]

The only thing we are wondering about right now if if the DVD represents the picture as it originally aired on TV in the US in the early 70's. Or if it was initially formatted in full screen like the example of your James Bond pictures.

No way! (i would think)

Do you honestly think they would have all that image (in green), and would use the yellow framing??

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

It does seem unlikely. But then Spielbergs anecdote of accidentally appearing in the theatrical version seems weird.

[filmmusic 1,829]

It does seem unlikely. But then Spielbergs anecdote of accidentally appearing in the theatrical version seems weird.

did you see the screenshot comparison I posted from rambo?

2 different blurays, with the same aspect ratio but different framing.

Apparently, in the theatrical release of Duel, they weren't careful very much in their widescreen framing.

eg. the showed more on one side, while they should have shown more on the other one..

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

But we are talking about open matte here. Which isnt the case with Rambo.

With open matte you apparently use the entire width of the frame.

I've posed this question to Steven Awalt on Facebook, he will see if he has any info on this topic. Here's what he said so far.

Give me a bit of time and I will draft something up that won't be an off-the-cuff answer. "Duel" editor Frank Morriss and I talked at length about this all and he sent me diagrams and detailed info I then simplified in my book. Looking back through our correspondence just now, I think Frank explains it with precision, not just how it played on TV, but in the camera, the need for TV safe fields, and then how they soft matted when it came to the theatrical release, all that geeky tech stuff that I see so much back-and-forth on in forums talking about the new release.

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

The whole reason I'm still on this thing is that that comment about the frame being widened for the theatrical release confuses me. If the old 4:3 framing on the DVD release is correct, then I'm now worried this might be the case:

Do you see where this gets confusing now?

I've posed this question to Steven Awalt on Facebook, he will see if he has any info on this topic. Here's what he said so far.

Give me a bit of time and I will draft something up that won't be an off-the-cuff answer. "Duel" editor Frank Morriss and I talked at length about this all and he sent me diagrams and detailed info I then simplified in my book. Looking back through our correspondence just now, I think Frank explains it with precision, not just how it played on TV, but in the camera, the need for TV safe fields, and then how they soft matted when it came to the theatrical release, all that geeky tech stuff that I see so much back-and-forth on in forums talking about the new release.

Cool. It'll be nice to get something of a definitive answer.

[filmmusic 1,829]

With open matte you apparently use the entire width of the frame.

No, you don't.

See again the BTTF video comparison , and the DVDactive link with the Terminator 2 comparisons.

The widescreen framing isn't fixed.

Other times it goes more to the left, others to the right, and others it uses the entire width.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Marc. I really dont think your picture is accurate. Where does your MISSING IMAGE come from?

Remember, we are assuming the DVD is the open matte ratio. so width wise there would have been no (almost) image left on either side.

The DVD Beaver samples show that width wise the DVD and Blu-ray are pretty consistent, IMO.

No, you don't.

See again the BTTF video comparison , and the DVDactive link with the Terminator 2 comparisons.

The widescreen framing isn't fixed.

Other times it goes more to the left, others to the right, and others it uses the entire width.

Thats not what I am talking about at all.

A frame from a 35mm film print. Here, the picture is framed for the intended theatrical aspect ratio (inside the yellow box). Picture outside the yellow box is matted out when the film is shown in widescreen. For 4:3 television versions, a large portion of the picture can be used (inside the red box) with an open matte.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_matte

[filmmusic 1,829]

Marc. I really dont think your picture is accurate. Where does your MISSING IMAGE come from?

Remember, we are assuming the DVD is the open matte ratio. so width wise there would have been no (almost) image left on either side.

He just assumed that the 4:3 original TV airing (and DVD) was cropped from a widescreen version.

Which I don't think is the case here.

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

Marc. I really dont think your picture is accurate. Where does your MISSING IMAGE come from?

Remember, we are assuming the DVD is the open matte ratio. so width wise there would have been no (almost) image left on either side.

Well, yes. But there's also talk of the widescreen supposedly showing more on the sides. This is the exact point where I get confused, because it contradicts what we're seeing on the DVD/Blu-Ray comparison.

And if it shot open matte and the widescreen version is supposed to show more on the sides, then the TV version was a crop of a crop, which doesn't make any sense.

I'm not claiming to have the answer here. I don't. I'm just trying to explain where I got confused.

[RedBard 71]

Why is that, despite all the technology available to them, that the folks in post-production editing can't seem to get a consistent aspect ratio for the duration of the film?

This problem never seems to happen with analog film (for the most part, they're just windowboxed to conform to television broadcasts).

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Well in my open matte example right aboce

Well, yes. But there's also talk of the widescreen supposedly showing more on the sides. This is the exact point where I get confused, because it contradicts what we're seeing on the DVD/Blu-Ray comparison.

True. Though the open matte picture a few posts above does show the yellow box can be a little bit wider.

Like you I dont have an answer. I dont own the DVD and havent seen the torren...eeehhh blu-ray yet.

Still, it's 1 AM and we are still up, so it MUST be important.

Why is that, despite all the technology available to them, that the folks in post-production editing can't seem to get a consistent aspect ratio for the duration of the film?

This problem never seemed to happen with analog film (for the most part, they're just windowboxed to conform to television broadcasts).

Why do you say that?

The aspect ration of the film is certainly consistent.

[filmmusic 1,829]

No, you don't.

See again the BTTF video comparison , and the DVDactive link with the Terminator 2 comparisons.

The widescreen framing isn't fixed.

Other times it goes more to the left, others to the right, and others it uses the entire width.

Thats not what I am talking about at all.

A frame from a 35mm film print. Here, the picture is framed for the intended theatrical aspect ratio (inside the yellow box). Picture outside the yellow box is matted out when the film is shown in widescreen. For 4:3 television versions, a large portion of the picture can be used (inside the red box) with an open matte.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_matte

I understand what you're saying, but I'm saying that the widescreen version doesn't always use the full width.

Some times maybe it's like your picture.

But sometimes it is not.

And i brought as an example BTTF.

if you compare the 2 you will see that the widescreen sometimes offers more on the sides than the 4:3 (like your picture), and sometimes offers less (or it moves towards the left or the right)

That means that it's not "fixed" like in your picture.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

But we are discussing the rather particular case of Duel. And how the (presumably) open matte DVD compares to the 1.85:1 blu-ray.

The BTTF 3 clip really isnt relevant here.

[RedBard 71]

Why do you say that?

The aspect ration of the film is certainly consistent.

For The Dark Knight Rises, the bulk of the film is 2.40:1 but the IMAX filmed scenes are 1.78:1 (this is especially evident in the Blu-Ray release).

Personally, I would go 2.40:1 on my HDTV locally and lock it.

Other than that, the aspect ratio situation does not dispute technology difference. Rather, it fails to consider the logic of offering a common product, especially through television.

I say to the industry: Choose a universal aspect ratio (I prefer 1.85:1), and let everybody else conform.

[Marian Schedenig 8,193]

The chinaman is not the issue here.

[filmmusic 1,829]

But we are discussing the rather particular case of Duel. And how the (presumably) open matte DVD compares to the 1.85:1 blu-ray.

The BTTF 3 clip really isnt relevant here.

How it's not relevant?

Exact same case.

The image on the left is an open matte and is compared to it's 1.85:1 counterpart on the right.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Why do you say that?

The aspect ration of the film is certainly consistent.

For The Dark Knight Rises, the bulk of the film is 2.40:1 but the IMAX filmed scenes are 1.78:1 (this is especially evident in the Blu-Ray release).

Personally, I would go 2.40:1 on my HDTV locally and lock it.

Other than that, the aspect ratio situation does not dispute technology difference. Rather, it fails to consider the logic of offering a common product, especially through television.

I say to the industry: Choose a universal aspect ratio (I prefer 1.85:1), and let everybody else conform.

You are using the very rare example of The Nolan Batman films?

1.85:1 is fine for comedies, thrillers, drama's etc. But for something a little bit more epic I really do like 2.40:1, 2.20 : 1, 2:66.1

Conformity be damned. As long as the home video version gets the aspect ration right.

How it's not relevant?

Exact same case.

The image on the left is an open matte and is compared to it's 1.85:1 counterpart on the right.

That doesnt tell me anything about Duel though.

[RedBard 71]

You are using the very rare example of The Nolan Batman films?

1.85:1 is fine for comedies, thrillers, drama's etc. But for something a little bit more epic I really do like 2.40:1, 2.20 : 1, 2:66.1

Conformity be damned. As long as the home video version gets the aspect ration right.

It's still an example, is it not?

And I like where you're going with a universal standard, but instead of a single aspect ratio for everyone to conform to that there ought to bemultiple universal standards.

1.85:1 for comedies, dramas, etc.

2.20:1 and higher for epics, sci-fi, fantasy, etc.

What do you think?

And with the advent of HDTV, should windowboxing even be a viable practice anymore?

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Dude.

I have no interest in any kind of universal standard. It should be up to the people making the film. Why should I be the one who dictates what ration they are supposed to shoot in.

All I care about is that the home video version represents the directors intended aspect ratio.

What's your problem with the different types or aspect ratio anyway?

[filmmusic 1,829]

All I care about is that the home video version represents the directors intended aspect ratio.

If Spielberg told you:

"My intended ratio for TV was 1.33:1 but for the theater it was 1.85:1, that 's why i was careful about framing my shots"

what ratio would you pick for your Bluray?

(given the fact that BOTH are intended ratios by the director, just for different mediums)

I would choose:

The inclusion of BOTH, so noone complains. For heaven's sake, the Criterion

On the Waterfront Bluray, offers 3(!!!) aspect ratios and everyone is happy!

[RedBard 71]

Dude.

I have no interest in any kind of universal standard. It should be up to the people making the film. Why should I be the one who dictates what ration they are supposed to shoot in.

All I care about is that the home video version represents the directors intended aspect ratio.

What's your problem with the different types or aspect ratio anyway?

What is the matter with you?

I give you a compliment and all of a sudden you go on the offensive and snap at me.

I am merely positing an academic thought that film producers and home video distributors ought to reach a concord between aspect ratios during the transfer process so as to minimize switching ratios during viewing.

Sorry I ever brought it up to you. It won't happen again.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Again...(sigh)...that was an issue we settled quite a while ago.

We know Spielberg had 2 different aspect ratio's in mind when he shot Duel. Because he knew he was shooting a TV movie that might be released in theaters.

But that is the whole point.

Two different releases, two different version of the film. Not just ratio wise, but content wise.

I say again. they could have included the TV version, at 70+ minutes long, in 1.33:1 and the theatrical version at 90 minutes in 1.85:1.

Even Jason agreed with me here!

The only thing that isnt clear yet is if the original broadcast version was framed the same way as the DVD, which is apparently a 1.33:1 open matte ratio.

Btw, does anyone has the old DVD, and can they see Spielberg hunched down there somewhere in the car?

Dude.

I have no interest in any kind of universal standard. It should be up to the people making the film. Why should I be the one who dictates what ration they are supposed to shoot in.

All I care about is that the home video version represents the directors intended aspect ratio.

What's your problem with the different types or aspect ratio anyway?

What is the matter with you?

I give you a compliment and all of a sudden you go on the offensive and snap at me.

I am merely positing an academic thought that film producers and home video distributors ought to reach a concord between aspect ratios during the transfer process so as to minimize switching ratios during viewing.

Sorry I ever brought it up to you. It won't happen again.

The problem is that you agreed with me even though I was being sarcastic.

Anyway. no offense intended. I just dont feel directors should be told what ratio to shoot in.

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

For The Dark Knight Rises, the bulk of the film is 2.40:1 but the IMAX filmed scenes are 1.78:1 (this is especially evident in the Blu-Ray release).

Personally, I would go 2.40:1 on my HDTV locally and lock it.

If you saw The Dark Knight Rises in the cinema, you'd see the aspect ratio change from 2.40:1 to 1.43:1 for the IMAX sequences. The Blu-Ray recreates that by switching from a letterboxed 2.40:1 to a full-frame 16:9. Same with The Dark Knight. The DVD for both is 2.40:1 all the way through.

This is not something that is common, though. For Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol, the IMAX showing also switched from 2.40:1 to the IMAX format, but this is not replicated on the Blu-Ray. Like the Dark Knight DVD's, it's 2.40:1 all the way through.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

The change of aspect ratio of the 2 batman films never bothered me.

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

And it has nothing to do with post-production. Nolan and Pfister always intended for the aspect ratio to switch when going from the 35mm to the IMAX sequences in IMAX showings.

[RedBard 71]

The problem is that you agreed with me even though I was being sarcastic.

Anyway. no offense intended. I just dont feel directors should be told what ratio to shoot in.

Without somehow showing me that somebody's being sarcastic in your threads (like saying [/sarcasm] after each post),

I can't tell if somebody's being sarcastic in a forum... unless they were a Poe, and you're no Poe.

Let's just chalk this one up to communication break-down.

In the end, every little bit of information helps.

And it has nothing to do with post-production. Nolan and Pfister always intended for the aspect ratio to switch when going from the 35mm to the IMAX sequences in IMAX showings.

For what purpose? I mean other than for its own sake.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Yes!

A film maker is entitled to that.

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

And it has nothing to do with post-production. Nolan and Pfister always intended for the aspect ratio to switch when going from the 35mm to the IMAX sequences in IMAX showings.

For what purpose? I mean other than for its own sake.

Well, it was quite impressive to see Gotham take up the entire screen in IMAX. It's really a decision made for the cinema. Nolan decided to recreate it on the Blu-Ray and not on the DVD, with Blu-Ray being the high-end medium.