logo Sign In

Info: Harry Potter TV Edits? — Page 3

Author
Time
Ok, assuming we are seeing the full frame between both versions of the film you would have:

http://adventureclub.postrock.net/merge.jpg

Or (in my lame overlay anyway) about 780x470 which is 1.66, so halfway between 4x3 and 16x9.

On HD-DVD I'd like to see something closer to this AR. They could give us a little more picture and thinner black bars.

Dr. M

Author
Time
So was Prisonar of Azkaban and Gobet of Fire filmed on super 35 or jsut normal film?!?!
Author
Time
Judging from the screenshots posted over at that page, I would assume that the Prisoner of Azkaban was not shot in Super 35. Haven't seen Goblet of Fire in fullscreen.
Author
Time
I think they shot Goblet of Fire in super 35 because it does not look as bad as The Prisoner of Azkaban Fullscreen DVD did.


Author
Time
Originally posted by: Doctor M
Ok, assuming we are seeing the full frame between both versions of the film you would have:

http://adventureclub.postrock.net/merge.jpg

Or (in my lame overlay anyway) about 780x470 which is 1.66, so halfway between 4x3 and 16x9.

On HD-DVD I'd like to see something closer to this AR. They could give us a little more picture and thinner black bars.


That sort of makes the 4:3 frame look the more complete than the widescreen crop.
Author
Time
Heh heh, anyone want to do that overlay thing frame by frame for the whole film with the P&S and WS DVDs?
I can't see black squares in the 4 corners being any more distracting than black bars.

Wookiegroomer?

Dr. M

Author
Time
omg, that would be hilarious AND interesting!

...i'd watch it
Author
Time
Originally posted by: Doctor M
Heh heh, anyone want to do that overlay thing frame by frame for the whole film with the P&S and WS DVDs?
I can't see black squares in the 4 corners being any more distracting than black bars.

Wookiegroomer?


I'd watch something like that
Author
Time
So has anyone seen Rikter's discs yet? I'm curious about how they are and quality of the DL vs. SL.

Dr. M

Author
Time
Originally posted by: Doctor M
So has anyone seen Rikter's discs yet? I'm curious about how they are and quality of the DL vs. SL.


- I don't think I sent copies to anyone except my brothers

“My skill are no longer as Mad as the once were” RiK

Author
Time
Oh, was there a problem? I thought these were good to go.

Dr. M

Author
Time
Originally posted by: Doctor M
Oh, was there a problem? I thought these were good to go.


No, there is nothing wrong with them, I only upload my DVD's I don't PIF them.

“My skill are no longer as Mad as the once were” RiK

Author
Time
I'm currently working on 2 versions of HP2 from the HD raw captures.
I will hopefully have a standard single layer DVD and an enthusiest DVD-ROM with 720p x264/ac3 content.

I will be doing a little clean up and restoration (restoring 24 frames, generating english subs, replacing mediocre audio, etc.).
Full details are on another editing site but I'm just getting started.

What IS important is this: http://www.darkmark.com/c.c?l=n/archives/2007/06/harry_potter_ma_2.txt
A supposed marathon of the first 3 movies, extended, in HD and on ABC.

I cannot cap these myself.
Does anyone have the know-how, an HD cap card, a good strong HD signal for ABC and a LOT of HDD to spare?
I would gladly upgrade my project to do all 3 films if I had a source for the raws.

Dr. M

Author
Time
Don't bother with the POA extended edition. It only has one extra scene in it, and it is the Sir Cadagon scene. It amounts to maybe 40 extra seconds.


Author
Time
I wouldn't mind seeing someone go back and using AfterEffects to complete a couple of the delete scenes on it.

Dr. M

Author
Time
Aren't the Potter films Super35 though? Wouldn't PoA be worth capturing if only for a "more image" fullscreen version?

To contact me outside the forum, for trades and such my email address is my OT.com username @gmail.com

Author
Time
the 1st, 2nd and 4th were super 35, but the 3rd was not, so anything other than the OAR will give you less image.

It kind of makes sense that the Cadagon scene is the only one included as it's the only one that was fully finished on the dvd, I plan to do an extended version using more of the deleted scenes (and more than ADM used in his version), but it keeps slipping down my to-do list for various reasons.
Author
Time
First I disagree, Imdb lists Azkaban being Super35 as well: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0304141/technical

So yes, the original frame was probably closer to 4x3, but the 16x9 version is a bit better (than the full screen version).
Here is Chamber of Secrets for an examle:

Full and Wide Screens (overlayed)
http://img68.imageshack.us/img68/905/03240coe6.jpg
HD
http://img292.imageshack.us/img292/4257/howlerux0.jpg


As you can see on the whole only a bit of information is lost from the left and right.
Sure this probably isn't what the Director intended, but the composition doesn't seem to get as far off as a full frame version.

Dr. M

Author
Time
I was basing my answer on the fact that the full-screen dvd releases of 1,2 and 4 are Open Matte but POA is pan and scan, although this is not conclusive it would be a very odd choice if it was filmed on super 35, perhaps IMDB is wrong because people have assumed they are all the same, or maybe it is super 35 but it was pan and scanned because the effects weren't done in full-screen as they were on the others. see here for details on the framing of the fullscreen dvds.

Also I seem to recall that all the screenshots I've seen from previous airings of POA in HD have been cropped down on the sides.
Author
Time
Originally posted by: Doctor M
First I disagree, Imdb lists Azkaban being Super35 as well: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0304141/technical

So yes, the original frame was probably closer to 4x3, but the 16x9 version is a bit better (than the full screen version).
Here is Chamber of Secrets for an examle:

Full and Wide Screens (overlayed)
http://img68.imageshack.us/img68/905/03240coe6.jpg
HD
http://img292.imageshack.us/img292/4257/howlerux0.jpg


As you can see on the whole only a bit of information is lost from the left and right.
Sure this probably isn't what the Director intended, but the composition doesn't seem to get as far off as a full frame version.


The film was said to be Super35, but the film was way over-cropped for the Fullscreen DVD. The film was even cropped on the top and bottom. I present you evidence of that here:POA Widescreen vs. Fullscreen


Author
Time
So the question is was the conversion to full frame just a badly botched job, was there matte to be opened, was it super35 or not?
And if so what does the HDTV version have? Do they open the matte (that we've yet to see) or do they crop the left and right?

Anyone have screenshots of the HD version?

Dr. M

Author
Time
Ok, I now whole heartedly agree.
My source is NOT the ABC extended broadcast (this is from one of the other non-extended HD versions floating on the net) but there is no way that this HD version was made from Super35: No one transferring the film could be so stupid and crop this much unless they had to.

Widescreen DVD:
http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/2617/hp3wszg8.jpg

HD (resized to match DVD):
http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/2891/hp3hdbql5.jpg

View the full sized 720p version here if you don't believe me:
http://img53.imageshack.us/img53/7304/hp3hdck5.jpg

I'm now terrified about what a future BluRay/HDDVD release might look like since they love to go full 16x9 rather than preserving the OAR.

Dr. M

Author
Time
Originally posted by: Doctor M
So the question is was the conversion to full frame just a badly botched job, was there matte to be opened, was it super35 or not?
And if so what does the HDTV version have? Do they open the matte (that we've yet to see) or do they crop the left and right?

Anyone have screenshots of the HD version?


The HD version of POA is the widescreen version with the sides cropped so it fits in a 1.85:1 area. It has nothing added to the top or bottom. At least the version I have seen did not.


Author
Time
Heh, you replied faster than I could fix and replace my last post.

Dr. M