[royboy2k]

I just picked up...

-Simpsons: The Complete Second Season
-Lord of the Rings

Anyone else?

 

[acs236]

I picked up Simpsons 2nd Season a couple days ago. I'm a tad disappointed with the video quality -- though I shouldn't be, it's a blocky cartoon, but I wanted perfection. Nonetheless, it's better than my crappy EP recorded tapes and it is a great season!

I also picked up Clash of the Titans. I remember watching it over and over when I was a kid.

 

[redshifter]

i'm picking up lord of the rings today, and getting the extended version in november too. why? becasue it is two different cuts of the film, with entirely different suppliments, and i'm a nut.

 

[grinch]

i'm ordering the four-disc version from amazon.co.uk and i can't wait! i should run to best buy and grab the sissy version now too.. (WIDESCREEN FOR LIFE!)

 

[raymondlin]

I got LOTR last week, DVDsoon shipped a week before that! Seen it twice already!

 

[bootman]

Reviews? (of LOTR)

BTW I want that 4 disk set!

 

[markl]

Just finished screening Fellowship. I was a real Tolkien geek as a kid, and I must say, they did a fantastic job bringing it to life. Best sound I've ever heard in my HT! Thumbs way way up!

markl

 

[grinch]

last night i had a little viewing of the lord of the rings dvd. since the cardas cable is so easy to manage (compared to the wretched clou red) and the perfect length, i decided to listen to the movie via my hd 600's.

my setup is as follows:

video: sony ns500v -> monster s-video cable -> sony trinitron 27" (nothing special i know, but better than most people's bedroom setups)

audio: sony ns500v -> msb link iii dac -> sugden headmaster -> cardas -> hd600

beverages: coca-cola, guinness

bathroom breaks: 3

holy cow what a glorious film. i think i liked it even more the second time i watched it, all three hours of it. the sound was incredible; that movie's soundtrack really is something incredible and i HAVE to buy it soon. the hd600 really bring to life all of the characters and voices and music all together into one glorious performance. awesome awesome disc and i can't wait to see the extended 4-disc version.

everyone owes it to themselves to get this film widescreen and on dvd, it's just glorious.

 

[redshifter]

grinch,
after the wife went to bed i watched the end of fotr with headphones: panasonic rv80 dvdp->cha47->cd1700. i actually much preferred the 5.1->2 channel to the stereo track on the dvd on headphones. which did you listen to?

i have a sony wega and in anamorphic mode this dvd has one of the best, compression artifact-free pictures i've ever seen. i hope pacific digital does all the other lotr dvds.

in addition to the extended version in november i plan on getting the "standard" non-widescreen version too. why? because it is not pan & scan, but open matte. i'll probably pick it up used. i know the oar is how jackson wanted it to be seen, but i have that version already. sometimes i like to watch full frame too (like many of kubricks movies on dvd).

 

[jerikl]

I picked up the Simpsons Season 2. Oh, and btw, if anyone is wanting to buy this and season 1, Best Buy is offering $10 off for season 1 if you buy season 2 as well. Total, $55 for everything. Not bad.

 

[grinch]

what's the difference between pan&scan and open matte? i've never heard that term before.

i always set the dvd (if it has it) to the 2.0 stereo track. i do not have a 5.1 system nor do i think i ever will have one so i prefer using their 2.0 setup whenever possible.

i don't like anamorphic mode at all; my dvd player is set at 4:3 letter box and always will be. i dislike the idea of widescreen tvs since they destroy the whole idea of releasing films on widescreen anyway. it's meant to keep the movie at the aspect ratio at which it was filmed, not to stretch it to 16x9.

the reason why many of kubrick's films are fullscreen on dvd is because he filmed them that way. however, most of them do have a small amount of bar on the top/bottom to keep the screen just right. he used odd aspect ratios, but he made it work.. most people can't seem to do that these days.

also, i don't think the 4-disc version is coming out fullscreen. at least, i haven't seen it mentioned anywhere..

 

[redshifter]

Quote:

what's the difference between pan&scan and open matte? i've never heard that term before.

fotr was filmed in 4:3, the matted for theaters to widescreen. in open matte, they remove the matte so it is full screen again. instead of pan & scan where they cut off the sides of a widescreen movie, in open matte you get more information on the top and bottom of the screen without cutting off the sides. in reality there are many exceptions to this of course, but that basically is what it is.

Quote:

i don't like anamorphic mode at all; my dvd player is set at 4:3 letter box and always will be. i dislike the idea of widescreen tvs since they destroy the whole idea of releasing films on widescreen anyway. it's meant to keep the movie at the aspect ratio at which it was filmed, not to stretch it to 16x9.

you are one of the many people who don't understand anamorphic enhancement. please check out this page for an explaination of what it is. btw, issues of tv overscan and authoring errors aside, watching a dvd in 16:9 does not change the aspect ratio at all, unless you have set up your ht incorrectly. all it does is increase the resolution by 33%, which is a GOOD thing.

Quote:

the reason why many of kubrick's films are fullscreen on dvd is because he filmed them that way. however, most of them do have a small amount of bar on the top/bottom to keep the screen just right. he used odd aspect ratios, but he made it work.. most people can't seem to do that these days.

that's partially correct. kubrick composed his shots to work both in matted and open matte (widescreen and 4:3). he is the only filmmaker i know of who is able to pull this off. "the shining" on a 4:3 tv you will not see any black bars ever. in "dr. strangelove" the aspect ratio is all over the place, which is of course as he intended. remember, he wanted his films matted for the theater. when he was alive he sometimes would fed-ex the correct matte to any theater around the world that was showing one of his movies in the incorrect aspect ratio.

Quote:

i always set the dvd (if it has it) to the 2.0 stereo track. i do not have a 5.1 system nor do i think i ever will have one so i prefer using their 2.0 setup whenever possible.

most dvd players convert the 5.1 tracks into 2.0 when you use the stereo line out on the dvdp. i did a direct comparison between the 5.1 and 2.0 tracks on fotr and the 5.1->2.0 and (as with most dvds) the dd track was far superior to the dolby surround (2.0) track. of course, if the dvd was authored using pcm for the 2.0 track, that will be the superior sounding track.

 

[grinch]

Quote:

Originally posted by redshifter fotr was filmed in 4:3, the matted for theaters to widescreen. in open matte, they remove the matte so it is full screen again. instead of pan & scan where they cut off the sides of a widescreen movie, in open matte you get more information on the top and bottom of the screen without cutting off the sides. in reality there are many exceptions to this of course, but that basically is what it is.

where did you find this out? i haven't been able to find any details about the dvd and filming anywhere..

Quote:

you are one of the many people who don't understand anamorphic enhancement. please check out this page for an explaination of what it is. btw, issues of tv overscan and authoring errors aside, watching a dvd in 16:9 does not change the aspect ratio at all, unless you have set up your ht incorrectly. all it does is increase the resolution by 33%, which is a GOOD thing.

everytime i have ever seen an anamorphic picture on a widescreen tv it has looked like ****. you can let your tv and dvd player stretch images back and forth all you want, but i'll take the studio's original aspect ratio at the correct display without any stretching.

Quote:

most dvd players convert the 5.1 tracks into 2.0 when you use the stereo line out on the dvdp. i did a direct comparison between the 5.1 and 2.0 tracks on fotr and the 5.1->2.0 and (as with most dvds) the dd track was far superior to the dolby surround (2.0) track. of course, if the dvd was authored using pcm for the 2.0 track, that will be the superior sounding track.

i know this, but i don't trust the dac of a $160 dvd player as oppose to a studio's authoring machines. i'll try and test it later just to see if the 5.1 sounds any better though..

 

[redshifter]

fotr was shot on super 35 mm film, which has an aspect ratio of roughly 4:3. this is them matted to create the wide screen ratio.

i take it you didn't bother to read the anamorphic link. there is no stretching or distortion of the picture in anamorphic. what you are describing is sometimes called the "zoom" mode. they are two different things.

when you set your dvdp setting to 16:9 (widescreen) television, if the dvd is anamorphically encoded the picture appears stretched vertically. the television then squishes the picture down to the correct aspect ratio, so the black bars on the top and bottom contain no pixils (if it is a 4:3 set). the pixils that would have been wasted in the black bars are now being used to create the film image, thus the 33% increase in resolution.

if you watch an anamorphic dvd with your dvdp setting on 4:3 television (standard), the dvdp removes every 4th line from the picture to get the correct aspect ratio. so essentially you are watching a picture with missing information.

if you watch a 4:3 broadcast or film on a widescreen 16:9 tv, it will have black or grey bars on the sides. this can be stretched out to fill the picture which YES is distorted and NO is not what anamorphic is. this is also true for a non-anamorphic widescreen dvds.

again this is a gross simplification of aspect ratios and anamorphic. i'm sure there are other ht fanatics here that can back me up.

Quote:

i know this, but i don't trust the dac of a $160 dvd player as oppose to a studio's authoring machines. i'll try and test it later just to see if the 5.1 sounds any better though..

what matters is the amount of bandwidth and the care put into each audio track. my experience has been dvd authors tend to put the most amount of work and bandwidth into the dolby digital 5.1 track, and the dolby surround 2.0 track has to take a back seat. there are of course exceptions, but this has been my experience. this is of course comparing both using the admittedly sub-par dacs (by audiophile standards) found in most dvdps. by all means try it out for yourself and use what you like best.

 

[acs236]

I'll back you up redshifter. Watching an anamorphic dvd on a 16:9 see is about as good as it gets right not (except for maybe D-VHS).

There is no distorting of the image, because the information on the DVD is encoded to be displayed on a 16:9 set, just as the information on a non-anamorphic dvd is encoded to be displayed on a 4:3 set -- or at least that's an easy way to think about it.