[DanG]

Quote:

Originally posted by arnett what about someone like david lynch? did you see mulholland drive ? it's probably the best thing i've seen out of hollywood in a long, long time (although i admit i don't watch modern movies that much).

Haven't seen that movie. There have been some decent movies from Hollywood in the past few years -- Being John Malkovich, Fight Club, Memento were all solid movies if sometimes a bit simplistic. We're just not going to get a Jean Renoir or a Kurosawa in Hollywood, but we can get directors who can capture the attention of the unwashed masses while still including elements interesting to us snobs. I'll see if our college library has Mulholland Drive on DVD or tape.

 

[wallijonn]

Kuber: Bingo.

don't worry, in two weeks the dvd will go up to $24.95. and then 6 months later the 6.1 version will come out. and finally the "high-bit" version will come out. of course somewhere in there a "director's cut" will be issued. then a re-mastered version. and one with the deleted scenes put back in...

look at "Lord of the Rings"...

the music comapnies charge what they do because that's what we are willing to pay. heaven help you if you get the 100,00th pressing, though. their marketing departments came up with realisations - "we charge $10 for a LP. the cd is better. charge $15..." the "median-correct point" for a video card is $149.95. as is a game console. as is a headphone. anything beyond that and people start to scream bloddy murder. therefore 1/10th of $150 = $15. cd price. i'm more willing, and likely, to buy a dvd at $15 than at $25. they can sell more product at $15 than at $25. it's actually a $5 profit, relatively speaking. you can't do that with cd's because there is so much product out there.

just remember - if the dvd locks up - send it back! i bought "8 Legged Freaks" and it hung on 41:57. the transition wasn't supposed to happen until 42:19. i took it back. the replacement ran fine.

 

[ServinginEcuador]

Quote:

Originally posted by wallijonn Kuber: Bingo. don't worry, in two weeks the dvd will go up to $24.95. and then 6 months later the 6.1 version will come out. and finally the "high-bit" version will come out. of course somewhere in there a "director's cut" will be issued. then a re-mastered version. and one with the deleted scenes put back in...

Good point. I mistakenly bought a fullscreen LotR and didn't like it, so I had to buy a widescreen version. Then my dad told me they released anoter version that included another 30 minutes of video they cut from the original to bring it within time constraints. WHAT'S NEXT????? I now own three complete versions of this movie and I only wanted ONE!!

Thank God I have some friends in Ecuador who'll buy the other two versions from me for what I paid for them, but what do you do if you buy one version and they keep releasing other versions every few months that are better,stronger,faster, etc??

AAAAAAARRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH!!!

 

[redshifter]

servinginecuador,
this may or may not make you feel better, but the fullscreen version of fotr is actually open matte. they filmed it in super 35mm, which in simple terms is "fullscreen". for the theater they matted it, or covered the top and bottom of the screen to make it "widescreen". the fullscreen version of fotr is just the film without the matte, so it is not strictly pan & scan, but open-matte. i am not saying one version is better than the other, just letting you know what it is (and it is a little more complicated than i stated, but it is essentially right). in the open-matte version of fotr you see more picture on the top & bottom and a little less on the sides.

i own 3 versions of "jurassic park", btw. i have widescreen cav laserdisc, fullscreen open-matte dvd, and widescreen anamorphic dts dvd. it is a long-time favorite movie and i wanted a complete collection of all versions (except the vhs and cut for tv versions, of course).

not all fullscreen movies are open matte. most are pan & scan, which really sucks. the best examples of open-matte dvd's are some of kubrick's movies. look at the remastered dvd version of "the shining"--it was filmed to work both in widescreen (for theaters) and fullscreen open-matte (for tv).

of course some older films were shot in "fullscreen" or academy ratio. a famous one is "willy wonka", which was shot and shown in theaters in academy ratio, but when they released it on dvd in fullscreen (which is essentially the original aspect ratio), the fans screamed bloody murder so the studio released a fake widescreen (with the top and bottom of the screen covered by a matte) version. the same with "the evil dead", where there are a number of fake widescreen versions (including the "book of the dead" version), and only one original aspect ratio version from elite dvd.

 

[LobsterSan]

Quote:

Originally posted by redshifter of course some older films were shot in "fullscreen" or academy ratio. a famous one is "willy wonka", which was shot and shown in theaters in academy ratio, but when they released it on dvd in fullscreen (which is essentially the original aspect ratio), the fans screamed bloody murder so the studio released a fake widescreen (with the top and bottom of the screen covered by a matte) version. the same with "the evil dead", where there are a number of fake widescreen versions (including the "book of the dead" version), and only one original aspect ratio version from elite dvd.

That's pretty funny... people were getting mad about not getting the full picture, and for their efforts they got less than the full picture.

That's good info, redshifter. I wonder why more people don't know about that? So then I guess Kubrick's Full Metal Jacket is filmed open matte? I always wondered why that DVD wasn't "widescreen".

The DVD companies should make a point of saying open matte on the back of the DVDs to alleviate confusion.

 

[redshifter]

Quote:

Originally posted by LobsterSan That's pretty funny... people were getting mad about not getting the full picture, and for their efforts they got less than the full picture. That's good info, redshifter. I wonder why more people don't know about that? So then I guess Kubrick's Full Metal Jacket is filmed open matte? I always wondered why that DVD wasn't "widescreen". The DVD companies should make a point of saying open matte on the back of the DVDs to alleviate confusion.

rest assured that ANY kubrick dvd not in widescreen is in open-matte, and is exactly as the director intended it. there is a version of kubrick's "dr. strangelove" where for the laserdisc kubrick himself changed the aspect ratio from fullscreen to widescreen and a few other aspect ratios in between depending on the scene (it was not shown this way in theaters afaik).

there is a great deal of confusion out there about widescreen, anamorphic, fullscreen, pan&scan, and open-matte. personally i am a fan of WELL DONE open-matte presentations, and old academy ratio movies. i like vertical height in a movie's aspect ratio.

 

[ServinginEcuador]

Thanks for the info Redshifter!! I had no idea that the movie was the same!! The only problem is: I'm confused as to how you convert a full screen movie to widescreen? Widescreen has the top and bottom cuot off while full screen is, as the name implies, full screen. If you just matte teh top and bottm you don't change the aspect ratio of the screen unless you actually chop out part of teh top and bottom to make it fit side to side but not top to bottom. Can you clarify what you said in laymens terms so I can get a better understanding of how it's done. I know next to nothing about cinematography, so I am interestedin learning something new.

Thanks!!

 

[redshifter]

you're welcome!

here is what "air force one" looked like in theaters, and the aspect ratio is 2.35x wide as it is high (2.35:1):

here is the same scene with the matte removed. the rectangle shows what part of the frame was used for the widescreen version.

you'll notice you can see more on the top & bottom, but a little less on the sides. james cameron stated he prefers the open-matte versions of his films, like "terminator" and "the abyss", but i've never seen them on dvd.

check out widescreen-o-rama for a simple and interesting explaination of movie aspect ratios.

 

[arnett]

interesting link. thanks, redshifter!

 

[andrzejpw]

Nah, LOTR's release wasn't bad. At least when they released the first, theatric version, they told us that they'd be releasing the extended version on Nov 5th.

That's the reason I'm not buying star wars episode II. In my own way, I give lucas the finger, after he's given it to me so much. I'm going to wait it out, and wait for the star wars episode II DTS superbit director's cut uber edition+1.

 

[ServinginEcuador]

Redshifter,

Looks like I had my thinker on backwards. Most movies lose out when they go from widescreen movie presentations to the full screen versions, but it looks like that depends upon how the movie was shot!! In this case it would seem better to watch LotR in teh full screen version as you get all there is in the original shots. Interesting and extremely helpful RedShifter!!!! Awesome job with the pics with Harrison Ford.

 

[kelly]

James Cameron shoots on Super 35. Most people don't. Regardless, the way a movie is sized for the theater and for home video is fairly individual to the film and filmmaker. Nothing can be assumed.

In my experience, directors tend to frame the shot for widescreen and if any thought it given to how it will look full screen, it's an afterthought and a second priority. Again, this isn't true for everyone and James Cameron is certainly a notable exception.

With that said, I buy the widescreen versions whenever they're available. While there may often be more information in the top and bottom of a full screen version if a matte was used to achieve widescreen framing and the format allotted for significantly more vertical information, it's not information I care about.

I look at direction and cinematography as an art and I see the theatrical presentation as the original artwork. Tampering with that would be akin to walking into a museum and asking the curator to if he knew if Divinci saved any of his trimmings because you'd like to make the painting a bit taller.

The only exception in my mindi is animated films because in this case, I actually tend to care more about the actual cell painters than the director. Disney films, for example, are painted and shot 1.77:1 and then presented in the theater at 1.85:1, slightly trimming the top and bottom to fit the screen. Disney releases their films on DVD (and at one time laserdisc) in 1.77:1. Even though thisi snot fully accurate to the original vision, I understand and agree with their decision.

I guess my only point is that you shouldn't oversimply this regardless of your preferences.

 

[Joe Bloggs]

Quote:

Originally posted by kelly James Cameron shoots on Super 35. Most people don't. Regardless, the way a movie is sized for the theater and for home video is fairly individual to the film and filmmaker. Nothing can be assumed. In my experience, directors tend to frame the shot for widescreen and if any thought it given to how it will look full screen, it's an afterthought and a second priority. Again, this isn't true for everyone and James Cameron is certainly a notable exception. With that said, I buy the widescreen versions whenever they're available. While there may often be more information in the top and bottom of a full screen version if a matte was used to achieve widescreen framing and the format allotted for significantly more vertical information, it's not information I care about. I look at direction and cinematography as an art and I see the theatrical presentation as the original artwork. Tampering with that would be akin to walking into a museum and asking the curator to if he knew if Divinci saved any of his trimmings because you'd like to make the painting a bit taller. The only exception in my mindi is animated films because in this case, I actually tend to care more about the actual cell painters than the director. Disney films, for example, are painted and shot 1.77:1 and then presented in the theater at 1.85:1, slightly trimming the top and bottom to fit the screen. Disney releases their films on DVD (and at one time laserdisc) in 1.77:1. Even though thisi snot fully accurate to the original vision, I understand and agree with their decision. I guess my only point is that you shouldn't oversimply this regardless of your preferences.

How the heck do you define 'the original version'? I know I would be confused as heck in the case of buying James' films... which is the 'original'--fullscreen or widescreen??

 

[kelly]

Quote:

Originally posted by Joe Bloggs How the heck do you define 'the original version'? I know I would be confused as heck in the case of buying James' films... which is the 'original'--fullscreen or widescreen??

Joe
In the text you quoted I was clearly alluding to the theatrical cut.

 

[Joe Bloggs]

I don't know... for AF1 as in redshifter's example I would definitely choose fullscreen... it was obviously made that way before being cut for theatre... so guess which is more 'original'?