Kubrick SE collection in Oct - HD + DVD

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 10 Aug 2007, 14:45

bradavon wrote:Seriously do you guys watch normal TV (which isn't broadcast in 16:9) using the 4:3 setting on your Widescreen TVs?

Totally, I wouldn't have it any other way. Pillarboxing is ultimate, when I'm watching something I don't consciously notice it.

Okay do you guys zoom non-anamorphic content (particularly 2.35:1) to better fit the screen? Why? Because the black bars are huge and fill most of the screen.

Well doing this results in massively decreased quality. Non-anamorphic DVDs are meant to be left with the black bars there but I bet most people try to hide them.

Wrong, upscaling doesn't lose quality at all. It will become blurry but sharpening can fix that.

Zoomed letterboxed != zoomed 4:3. With zoomed 4:3 you're veritically losing 20% of the picture. Zoomed letterbox loses nothing.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 10 Aug 2007, 14:58

And blurring isn't less quality? You lose loads of quality. There is no upscaling going on, upscaling isn't the same as zooming.

If you stretch a 4:3 picture and zoom it using the right TV mode (which loses a minute amount of information at the top and bottom) it sure as hell doesn't result in 20% of the picture being lost, the film wouldn't even be watchable with 20% of the picture missing.

I'd find it dubious that you even lose 20% of the resolution, any links backing that claim up?

Lourdes · Post by **Lourdes** » 10 Aug 2007, 15:11

It's basic mathematics, to fit the screen horizontally you lose 20% vertically.

And zooming 4:3 content is exactly the same as zooming letterboxed stuff. You're resampling using the most base methods and giving yourself a poorer image either way.

Shingster · Post by **Shingster** » 10 Aug 2007, 15:14

bradavon wrote:Anyway if you think what I've said was technical you're even thicker than I thought you were.

Bradavon, calling someone else thick? I think that's got to be the biggest case of the pot calling the kettle black I have ever seen!

The loss in clarity in zooming in on a non-ana 1.85/2.35 image is far more preferable from an aesthetic POV than stretching a 4:3 image to fit a 16:9 display. That's just basic common sense.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 10 Aug 2007, 15:24

Shingster wrote:The loss in clarity in zooming in on a non-ana 1.85/2.35 image is far more preferable from an aesthetic POV than stretching a 4:3 image to fit a 16:9 display. That's just basic common sense.

Preferential to you, not millions of others. It's aesthetically as bad to me, if not more so.

Common sense, please what has common sense got to do with it?

Shingster · Post by **Shingster** » 10 Aug 2007, 15:39

Jesus christ Brad, use your miniscule brain for once will you. People stretched horizontally so they look like John Travolta in Hairspray = BAD AESTHETICS.

A slight loss of clarity as your TV zooms in a little on a 4:3 letterboxed image does not alter the actual shape/feel of the image.

You're essentially arguing that a pin-sharp deformed image is preferable to a slightly softer, untampered image. This is why I fear for the sanity of the people who put stock in your technical opinions.

gasteropod · Post by **gasteropod** » 10 Aug 2007, 17:16

bradavon wrote:Okay do you guys zoom non-anamorphic content (particularly 2.35:1) to better fit the screen? Why? Because the black bars are huge and fill most of the screen.

Well doing this results in massively decreased quality. Non-anamorphic DVDs are meant to be left with the black bars there but I bet most people try to hide them.

I don't even watch non-anamorphic content, so that point doesn't apply to me.

Yes, I watch 4:3 stuff pillarboxed on my 16:9 display; like I said before, how are the black bars any different to what you'd see at the sides of a 4:3 display? Deary me.

gasteropod · Post by **gasteropod** » 10 Aug 2007, 17:18

Incidentally, did you cut the frame off your TV, Brad? (black bars, or silver)

Lourdes · Post by **Lourdes** » 10 Aug 2007, 17:36

May I present the .8*7 Samurai
Dir. Akira Kurosawa
DOP Bradavon BSC

He's also working on the third Criterion releae of Sanjuro. They're renaming it Nijuuroku.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 10 Aug 2007, 19:18

26?

Lourdes · Post by **Lourdes** » 10 Aug 2007, 19:49

I suck at basic, basic maths. I realised it should have been nijuushi.

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 11 Aug 2007, 01:07

Lourdes wrote:He's also working on the third Criterion releae of Sanjuro. They're renaming it Nijuuroku.

HAHA, nice one. Cropped scope films lose like 40% of the image, yeah?

Ironically, Brad actually likes the horizontal black bars on scope films. He claims that it gives the illusion of "cinematic grandeur" or some shit.

Lourdes · Post by **Lourdes** » 11 Aug 2007, 08:59

Above a certain point the maths just gets thrown out and it's time for torches and pitchforks.

BFI:

Bradterion:

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 11 Aug 2007, 14:37

gasteropod wrote:I don't even watch non-anamorphic content, so that point doesn't apply to me.

As a rule neither do I but you must have done in the past, you cannot get away from it 100% of the time.

gasteropod wrote:Incidentally, did you cut the frame off your TV, Brad? (black bars, or silver)

Of course

Lourdes wrote:May I present the .8*7 Samurai
Dir. Akira Kurosawa
DOP Bradavon BSC

He he very good. I'd still choose the later "on my TV" any day

Not that it's accurate, there is way too much cropping at the top/bottom than is there when you view it on a TV. Give it a try and you'll see so called basic maths or not you sure as hell don't lose 20% of the picture, as your captures claim. Most TVs have a Widescreen mode designed for 4:3 content whereby the image is stretched sideways (bad) then stretched up minutely to compensate for stretched faces, resulting in minute cropping to the top/bottom, but it's no way 20% that's just bollocks.

As for the sharpness drop agreed the first is better but then it's a screen capture so is going to show the defects way more than you'd see just watching the film.

Lourdes wrote:He's also working on the third Criterion releae of Sanjuro. They're renaming it Nijuuroku.

Huh? It must rely on you having seen the film.

EvaUnit02 wrote:Ironically, Brad actually likes the horizontal black bars on scope films. He claims that it gives the illusion of "cinematic grandeur" or some shit.

Doesn't everybody? Scope is definitely more grand to 16:9. I didn't say I like the black bars per say but the larger field of vision.

As for the rest while funny they don't have a thing to do with me. I've never said I like that.

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 11 Aug 2007, 15:06

I dont get Overscan even from any dvds and when I saw what I lost on some films I was stunned! Overscan is a massive amount of information to loose to start with (not that some people notice as they are blind and stupid), then add in Brads cropping and its a LOT more image cut off thats for sure.

Important things go missing in overscan, never mind self cropping.

You may loose 20% from Brads cropping, but your probibly loosing 7% from overscan to begin with, so that 27% image gone

Cropping of any sort is for idiots.

"Self cropping" is off the chart on the idiot scale.

Kubrick films, well I dont find the widescreen thing good for Full Metal Jacket )the only good Kubrick film on the new list), the fullscreen version looked well compsed to me. I am not sure I want a widescreen version of a film I know so well in fullscreen, yes my screen is widescreen, but hell the thought of loosing bits pains me. Zooming the fullscreen would kill me

Lourdes · Post by **Lourdes** » 11 Aug 2007, 15:44

bradavon wrote:Not that it's accurate, there is way too much cropping at the top/bottom than is there when you view it on a TV. Give it a try and you'll see so called basic maths or not you sure as hell don't lose 20% of the picture, as your captures claim. Most TVs have a Widescreen mode designed for 4:3 content whereby the image is stretched sideways (bad) then stretched up minutely to compensate for stretched faces, resulting in minute cropping to the top/bottom, but it's no way 20% that's just bollocks.

bradavon wrote:No stretching of the picture just fitting to my TV shape.

Unless you're stretching you lose 20%. And for every bit of image you get back by stretching you're getting even more distortion.

The mode you're now referring to is typically 14:9 on every set I've seen. You still lose lots of of the image, still have some black bars and the picture is stretched horizontally.

Shingster · Post by **Shingster** » 11 Aug 2007, 16:10

I think he means the Superwide (on philips sets) mode, the "intelligent" stretching mode.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 11 Aug 2007, 16:21

I've not seen the Super wide mode specifically but yes Shingster is correct. 14:9 has to be the worst TV mode out of all of them. I'd use that one.

romerojpg wrote:You may loose 20% from Brads cropping, but your probibly loosing 7% from overscan to begin with, so that 27% image gone

Since when did I invent it?

.

Besides I don't believe anyone is saying there is 20% cropping (hence the inaccuracy of those captures) but 20% less resolution, 20% cropping the film wouldn't even be watchable (by Widescreen standards).

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 11 Aug 2007, 16:34

bradavon wrote:Besides I don't believe anyone is saying there is 20% cropping (hence the inaccuracy of those captures) but 20% less resolution, 20% cropping the film wouldn't even be watchable (by Widescreen standards).

Care to offer some proof to back up this claim, rather than just speculation?

Killer Meteor · Post by **Killer Meteor** » 11 Aug 2007, 17:05

romerojpg wrote:

Kubrick films, well I dont find the widescreen thing good for Full Metal Jacket )the only good Kubrick film on the new list), the fullscreen version looked well compsed to me. I am not sure I want a widescreen version of a film I know so well in fullscreen, yes my screen is widescreen, but hell the thought of loosing bits pains me. Zooming the fullscreen would kill me

Full Metal Jacket is supposed to be in widescreen. Kubrick's preferance for 4:3 on video releases was because he didn't like the black bars. This got miscommunicated over the years so that it was thought they were supposed to be shown in 4:3

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 11 Aug 2007, 17:32

EvaUnit02 wrote:Care to offer some proof to back up this claim, rather than just speculation?

I already have. I said set your TV to the 4:3 Widescreen mode (as Shingster above points out) and you'll see for yourself.

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 11 Aug 2007, 18:19

Ivan Drago wrote:
romerojpg wrote:

Kubrick films, well I dont find the widescreen thing good for Full Metal Jacket )the only good Kubrick film on the new list), the fullscreen version looked well compsed to me. I am not sure I want a widescreen version of a film I know so well in fullscreen, yes my screen is widescreen, but hell the thought of loosing bits pains me. Zooming the fullscreen would kill me
Full Metal Jacket is supposed to be in widescreen. Kubrick's preferance for 4:3 on video releases was because he didn't like the black bars. This got miscommunicated over the years so that it was thought they were supposed to be shown in 4:3

Yup I knew that, but I got used to Fullscreen now, once they crop off the top and bottom it will feel very, odd

Depending on what them FMJ extras are like, I may or maynot upgrade. It needs a meaty documantary, hopefully the one extra that is on the dvd isnt a featurette!

Shingster · Post by **Shingster** » 11 Aug 2007, 20:55

bradavon wrote:14:9 has to be the worst TV mode out of all of them. I'd use that one.

14:9 is a godsend when you're faced with a non-ana 1.85:1 transfer where the idiots have placed the subtitles low down in the 4:3 frame. Better than any TV's "Subtitle" mode, where they just crop the top to make way for the empty space at the bottom where the subs appear.

EvaUnit02 wrote:Care to offer some proof to back up this claim, rather than just speculation?

The picture mode Brad's talking about is on pretty much all the TV sets from the top brands. It's basically a "smart" stretching mode that does some sort of differential stretching and squeezing so the picture doesn't look so distorted.

There still is some cropping in this mode, just not as much as you would get from a 16:9 zoom.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 15 Aug 2007, 14:09

The upcoming UK release of THE SHINING will be the standard 2-hr cut.

http://www.bbfc.co.uk/website/Classifie ... enDocument

It's also widescreen and been downgraded to a '15'.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 15 Aug 2007, 14:12

FULL METAL JACKET has also been passed widescreen and (surprisingly given the strong sex references and bloodshed) downgraded to a '15'.

http://www.bbfc.co.uk/website/Classifie ... enDocument