logo Sign In

MGM's DVD Class Action Settlement — Page 2

Author
Time
Post link
^^^

True, dat!

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: Sadly, I believe the prequels are beyond repair.
<span class=“Bold”>JediRandy: They’re certainly beyond any repair you’re capable of making.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: You aren’t one of us.
<span class=“Bold”>Go-Mer-Tonic: I can’t say I find that very disappointing.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>JediRandy: I won’t suck as much as a fan edit.</span>

Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Since no proper framing of a widescreen movie (open matte or whatever) should cause information from the sides to be cut.
Look at Robocop. Verhoven released his preferred version through Criterion on LD (later transferred to DVD) in open-matte 1.66:1. The theatrical 1.85:1 print (that MGM released) is cropped on all four sides of the film. There's nothing wrong with it, it is the theatrical print with correct framing. It appears Verhoven liked it in 1.66:1, and the studio went ahead and made the 1.85:1 print.
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: Warbler
except that whatever the directer intends, is not always the best thing. That's why OT.com exists.


Lucas would be the minority in the minority.

Gentlemen, you can’t fight in here, this is the war room!

Author
Time
Post link
This lawsuit is bull. Read this to better understand what these idiots are claiming.

Princess Leia: I happen to like nice men.
Han Solo: I'm a nice man.

Author
Time
Post link
God, I hate people sometimes.

Gentlemen, you can’t fight in here, this is the war room!

Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Criterion's DVD was released before the company was doing anamorphic widescreen transfers, so 1.66:1 was used at director Paul Verhoeven's request.
Not entirely accurate. Their DVD is a direct copy of their LD, since they used the same source material, and did not remaster for the DVD, of course it's non-anamorphic (which is GOOD because it's 1.66:1).

And they didn't even mention Panavision (anamorphic filming).
Author
Time
Post link
They didn't mention Panavision filming because the idiots bringing the suit are proceeding on the basis that all films are shot flat. While the aperture for an anamorphic film does cut off some information during projection, this is understood from the get-go and is never an issue when it comes to video transfers.


Keep in mind that Panavision is only a brand name now; although it used to apply to certain widescreen processes, the company's cameras are now used for all formats of shooting, flat and anamorphic (or scope as it is referred to in the industry).

Princess Leia: I happen to like nice men.
Han Solo: I'm a nice man.

Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: DanielB
Quote
Criterion's DVD was released before the company was doing anamorphic widescreen transfers, so 1.66:1 was used at director Paul Verhoeven's request.
Not entirely accurate. Their DVD is a direct copy of their LD, since they used the same source material, and did not remaster for the DVD, of course it's non-anamorphic (which is GOOD because it's 1.66:1).


Why is that good? I'd take anamorphic enhancement over non-enhanced material (unless it's fullframe)

Gentlemen, you can’t fight in here, this is the war room!

Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: bad_karma24
Quote
Originally posted by: DanielB
Quote
Criterion's DVD was released before the company was doing anamorphic widescreen transfers, so 1.66:1 was used at director Paul Verhoeven's request.
Not entirely accurate. Their DVD is a direct copy of their LD, since they used the same source material, and did not remaster for the DVD, of course it's non-anamorphic (which is GOOD because it's 1.66:1).
Why is that good? I'd take anamorphic enhancement over non-enhanced material (unless it's fullframe)
It's good because the aspect ratio (1.66:1) cannot be presented through anamorphic encoding. Your TV (or computer) will remove the top and bottom of the picture and leave you with a 1.78:1 (16:9) ratio. You have to think of 1.66:1 as full-frame, or being close to it anyway.

If it was anamorphic you'd have to choose between watching it anamorphic, but cropped to 1.78:1 - or watching it non-anamorphic with those awful digital jaggies you get from removing every fifth line. The increase in resolution is not enough to justify that. -and I might add that PC's will force you to watch only the 16:9 area, since the players consider everything outside of this to be useless information they can just repleace with solid black boarders.
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: DanielB
Quote
Originally posted by: bad_karma24
Quote
Originally posted by: DanielB
Quote
Criterion's DVD was released before the company was doing anamorphic widescreen transfers, so 1.66:1 was used at director Paul Verhoeven's request.
Not entirely accurate. Their DVD is a direct copy of their LD, since they used the same source material, and did not remaster for the DVD, of course it's non-anamorphic (which is GOOD because it's 1.66:1).
Why is that good? I'd take anamorphic enhancement over non-enhanced material (unless it's fullframe)
It's good because the aspect ratio (1.66:1) cannot be presented through anamorphic encoding. Your TV (or computer) will remove the top and bottom of the picture and leave you with a 1.78:1 (16:9) ratio. You have to think of 1.66:1 as full-frame, or being close to it anyway.

If it was anamorphic you'd have to choose between watching it anamorphic, but cropped to 1.78:1 - or watching it non-anamorphic with those awful digital jaggies you get from removing every fifth line. The increase in resolution is not enough to justify that. -and I might add that PC's will force you to watch only the 16:9 area, since the players consider everything outside of this to be useless information they can just repleace with solid black boarders.


Uh... no. Watch the Lion King. It's 1.66 and anamorphically enhanced, as is the new Dr. Strangelove. They simply box off the left and right sides. But because of overscan it's not even noticeable anyway. I always zoom my 1.66 DVDs in (like Barry Lyndon), because you're not really losing much. Even 1.85:1 gets cut off a bit.

Gentlemen, you can’t fight in here, this is the war room!

Author
Time
Post link
"Uh... no. Watch the Lion King. It's 1.66 and anamorphically enhanced, as is the new Dr. Strangelove. They simply box off the left and right sides."

I've never seen a presentation like that before, but yes I'm happy for them to make 1.66:1 anamorphic if they keep the entire picture viewable in the 16x9 area (though this does mean on 4x3 displays you will see black borders on all four sides). The anamorphic DVD's I've seen simply throw out the top and bottom of the picture when viewd at 16x9.
Author
Time
Post link
Actually, no you won't; overscan covers up the black bars to the left and right when viewing on a 4:3 screen (and even on some 16:9 screens for that matter). The only way to truly tell that it is 1.66:1 is to view it either on a computer or a front projector (where overscan is not an issue).

Princess Leia: I happen to like nice men.
Han Solo: I'm a nice man.

Author
Time
Post link
uh-huh, do you mean it will appear fullscreen on 4:3 and 1.66:1 on 16:9?
Author
Time
Post link
No, what I mean is that on any direct-view display (CRT television or rear-projection), overscan is going to obscure the black bars to the left and right, so a 1.66:1 movie will appear to be 1.78:1 on both a 4:3 and a 16:9 display. The only way you will know that there are bars all around is to watch it on a display where you can truly control the dimensions of the image (computer monitor or front projector). Any clearer?

One more thing: anamorphic DVDs in any of the 'flat' ratios (1.66, 1.75, 1.78, 1.85) will only appear 'fullscreen' on a 4:3 display if you have 'wide' selected in your DVD player's setup menu.

Princess Leia: I happen to like nice men.
Han Solo: I'm a nice man.

Author
Time
Post link
I have never heard of this before, how does overscaning work? what do they use to cover up the black bars on the sides?
Author
Time
Post link
I think I know what he's saying. Overscan is the area of the CRT image that doesn't make it to the viewable area - that sits outside the screen dimentions. But this isn't always true. Anyway, on computer CRT monitors, front-projectors, Plasma screens and LCD screens (at least) there is no overscan.

Author
Time
Post link
thankyou DanielB, but Gundark seemed to indicate that somthing covered up the black bars on the sides. I would still like to know what that is.


Also while we are in a thread about DVD's that might or might not have problems with the widescreen editions. I having been wondering this for a long time now. I purchased the Godfather movies on DVD when they were first released. The picture on the DVDs does not seem to be as wide proportionally as I have seen them when the movies have been shown on T.V. or on VHS (I think). Are the DVD versions framed correctly? Do they use the correct dimensions? I'm Gundark may be able to answer. It would seem he is the resident expert on these issues.
Author
Time
Post link
Daniel B is correct; it is overscan, since it affects all 4 sides of the image, not just top and bottom or left and right. In the case of a letterboxed image, it would only affect the left and right sides of the image because of the black bars. Overscan is built into CRT TVs and rear projectors becuase the image created by the electron beam actually shinks with age.

Princess Leia: I happen to like nice men.
Han Solo: I'm a nice man.

Author
Time
Post link
But overscan is not the reason why you can't see all the picture in 1.66:1 anamorphic DVDs on 16:9 displays.
Author
Time
Post link
When was the last time you watched a 1.66:1 anamorphic image on a 16:9 display? Mine was last week @ Costco, and the pillarboxing (what they call the black bars at the sides) was clearly visible.

Princess Leia: I happen to like nice men.
Han Solo: I'm a nice man.

Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: GundarkHunter
When was the last time you watched a 1.66:1 anamorphic image on a 16:9 display? Mine was last week @ Costco, and the pillarboxing (what they call the black bars at the sides) was clearly visible.


The one you saw at Costco might have been calibrated to eliminate (or lessen) overscanning. My 16:9 display has no such pillarboxing.

Gentlemen, you can’t fight in here, this is the war room!

Author
Time
Post link
DanielB some Discovery Channel DVDs are presented in the third format you showed.
“Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” — Nazi Reich Marshal Hermann Goering
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: Warbler

Also while we are in a thread about DVD's that might or might not have problems with the widescreen editions. I having been wondering this for a long time now. I purchased the Godfather movies on DVD when they were first released. The picture on the DVDs does not seem to be as wide proportionally as I have seen them when the movies have been shown on T.V. or on VHS (I think). Are the DVD versions framed correctly? Do they use the correct dimensions? I'm Gundark may be able to answer. It would seem he is the resident expert on these issues.

The framing on the Godfather movies is correct; Coppola shot them flat, which is easy to forget when you consider their epic feel. On a similar note, I remember my brother complaining that Aliens was in the wrong aspect ratio because it is the only one of the Alien films released on video in a 1.85:1 aspect ratio. I had to remind him that it was shot that way, because I distinctly remembered (and still do) the dimensions of the film when we saw it on the big screen in 1986.

Princess Leia: I happen to like nice men.
Han Solo: I'm a nice man.

Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: GundarkHunter
When was the last time you watched a 1.66:1 anamorphic image on a 16:9 display? Mine was last week @ Costco, and the pillarboxing (what they call the black bars at the sides) was clearly visible.
I have 2 anamorphic 1.66:1 DVDs, and when I watch either of them on this computer (where I don't have to worry about losing any of the picture to overscan) it cuts off the top and bottom. It does this because PowerDVD believes everything outside the 16x9 area must be black - so for all intents and purposes it is equal to watching it on an overscan-free 16:9 display.