Re: Independence Day on Blu-ray delayed
Monday, December 3, 2007
Member since:
March 2002
March 2002
"I know the cut off heads and altered framing of the entire 109 minutes of the Top Gun HD DVD made me a slightly pissed of purple guy. And Paramount's response? Silence." --Skyhawk
Skyhawk,
Could you provide a link to a reliable source for this information? I reviewed the HD DVD of "Top Gun" and saw no such framing problems, but, then, I did not have the original print with which to compare it.
I did, however, just now take a look at other HD DVD reviews of "Top Gun," and none of the major sites mention any such framing problem: Not DVD Review, Monsters and Critics, High-Def Digest, Home Theater Spot, Home Theater Forum, Movie Freak.com, DVD Verdict, DVD File, or DVD Beaver. Nor has anyone mentioned the problem at the AVS Forums, which is where there would certainly have been outrage at such a thing.
What's more, a friend of mine with connections in the disc replication business tells me that the standard-definition and high-definition versions of "Top Gun" share the same master, yet I cannot find any reviews of the most-recent SD version that mention a framing problem, either, and that includes our own DVD review by Hock Guan Teh.
So, if you could tell us where you got your information, I'd appreciate it. On the other hand, if it's simply a personal observation, you might want to say that, too.
John
[Post edited by John J. Puccio on Dec 3, 2007]
Skyhawk,
Could you provide a link to a reliable source for this information? I reviewed the HD DVD of "Top Gun" and saw no such framing problems, but, then, I did not have the original print with which to compare it.
I did, however, just now take a look at other HD DVD reviews of "Top Gun," and none of the major sites mention any such framing problem: Not DVD Review, Monsters and Critics, High-Def Digest, Home Theater Spot, Home Theater Forum, Movie Freak.com, DVD Verdict, DVD File, or DVD Beaver. Nor has anyone mentioned the problem at the AVS Forums, which is where there would certainly have been outrage at such a thing.
What's more, a friend of mine with connections in the disc replication business tells me that the standard-definition and high-definition versions of "Top Gun" share the same master, yet I cannot find any reviews of the most-recent SD version that mention a framing problem, either, and that includes our own DVD review by Hock Guan Teh.
So, if you could tell us where you got your information, I'd appreciate it. On the other hand, if it's simply a personal observation, you might want to say that, too.
John
[Post edited by John J. Puccio on Dec 3, 2007]
Monday, December 3, 2007
Member since:
October 2007
October 2007
Hi John,
None of the reviewers noticed any framing issues in POTC either. The Top Gun framing issue was uncovered on the same forum as POTC's was - the AVSForum. Unfortunately we don't know whether Top Gun HD DVD represents the director's intent or not since with Super 35 it was framed differently with even different aspect ratios on 3 different SD DVD releases! I'm guessing the "right" one is the one without any heads cut off.
I believe Xylon posted as few screen captures somewhere on the forum of Top Gun's problematic scenes, the same way he posted shots of the POTC scene and eventually got the studios and reviewers attention. There was discussion of it on more than one thread.
Concerning the master for Top Gun, it was filmed in Super 35 meaning the master negative is close to Academy aspect ratio. It was even shown in two different aspect ratios in the theaters 2.20 : 1 and 2.35 : 1. I suspect your friend might be mistaking this film for another.
http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0092099/technical
[Post edited by Skyhawk on Dec 3, 2007]
None of the reviewers noticed any framing issues in POTC either. The Top Gun framing issue was uncovered on the same forum as POTC's was - the AVSForum. Unfortunately we don't know whether Top Gun HD DVD represents the director's intent or not since with Super 35 it was framed differently with even different aspect ratios on 3 different SD DVD releases! I'm guessing the "right" one is the one without any heads cut off.
I believe Xylon posted as few screen captures somewhere on the forum of Top Gun's problematic scenes, the same way he posted shots of the POTC scene and eventually got the studios and reviewers attention. There was discussion of it on more than one thread.
Concerning the master for Top Gun, it was filmed in Super 35 meaning the master negative is close to Academy aspect ratio. It was even shown in two different aspect ratios in the theaters 2.20 : 1 and 2.35 : 1. I suspect your friend might be mistaking this film for another.
http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0092099/technical
[Post edited by Skyhawk on Dec 3, 2007]
Monday, December 3, 2007
Member since:
June 2006
June 2006
John said -
Yeah, I'm thinking that it's more inclined to be his personal observation, and here's why... director TONY SCOTT (Ridley's brother).
Tony's style of directing is very unique as to framing, especially of close-ups. Tony always 'pushes' his close-ups as tight as possible, and will often keep much of an actor's hair out of the shot!
You can view the extreme close-ups and tight framing shots in many of his movies, such as TOP GUN, REVENGE, TRUE ROMANCE, ENEMY OF THE STATE, CRIMSON TIDE, THE LAST BOY SCOUT, THE HUNGER, THE FAN etc.
It's really noticeable when viewing BEVERLY HILLS COP [directed by Martin Brest], and it's sequel BEVERLY HILLS COP 2 [directed by Tony], where his trademark tight close-ups are more obvious than those in Martin's directing.
So, I'm thinking Skyhawk might be thinking some of the picture has been "cropped" off, because of these tight close-ups.
Well, that's just my opinion.
Edit: I see from Skyhawk's above reply, that he feels it's a technical problem with the mastering. Would like to know more. I have the SpEd standard DVD ($10), and am not interested in an HD-DVD upgrade, because of the "bare bones" edition released by Paramount, compared to the deluxe SD DVD.
-Love Hendrix! (The Loverboy)
~ DVD/HD-DVD/Blu-ray owner ~
[Post edited by Love Hendrix! on Dec 3, 2007]
Quote:
"So, if you could tell us where you got your information, I'd appreciate it. On the other hand, if it's simply a personal observation, you might want to say that, too."
Yeah, I'm thinking that it's more inclined to be his personal observation, and here's why... director TONY SCOTT (Ridley's brother).
Tony's style of directing is very unique as to framing, especially of close-ups. Tony always 'pushes' his close-ups as tight as possible, and will often keep much of an actor's hair out of the shot!
You can view the extreme close-ups and tight framing shots in many of his movies, such as TOP GUN, REVENGE, TRUE ROMANCE, ENEMY OF THE STATE, CRIMSON TIDE, THE LAST BOY SCOUT, THE HUNGER, THE FAN etc.
It's really noticeable when viewing BEVERLY HILLS COP [directed by Martin Brest], and it's sequel BEVERLY HILLS COP 2 [directed by Tony], where his trademark tight close-ups are more obvious than those in Martin's directing.
So, I'm thinking Skyhawk might be thinking some of the picture has been "cropped" off, because of these tight close-ups.
Well, that's just my opinion.
Edit: I see from Skyhawk's above reply, that he feels it's a technical problem with the mastering. Would like to know more. I have the SpEd standard DVD ($10), and am not interested in an HD-DVD upgrade, because of the "bare bones" edition released by Paramount, compared to the deluxe SD DVD.
-Love Hendrix! (The Loverboy)
~ DVD/HD-DVD/Blu-ray owner ~
[Post edited by Love Hendrix! on Dec 3, 2007]
Monday, December 3, 2007
Member since:
March 2002
March 2002
Skyhawk,
Again, I would ask you to please provide a link or two to confirm your assertion. It's a pretty serious criticism you're leveling against a transfer that virtually no one else has taken issue with.
Yes, Paramount has released "Top Gun" on tape and disc in various aspect ratios, including non-anamorphic, which does not prove which one is "correct." Anyway, I cannot find the AVS post to which you allude. And how did this one anonymous poster at AVS know that the framing on "Top Gun" was all wrong on the latest editions? Was it simply his opinion? Did he compare screen shots with the original print as shown in theaters, or did he compare screen shots from the various other tape and DVD releases, which, as I say, proves nothing?
As to my friend confusing this film with some other film, no, he's not. Paramount made both of the latest SD and HD DVD transfers from the same high-defintion master. Meaning that reviewers of either the latest SD or HD DVD versions would be able to notice any framing problems. They haven't.
John
[Post edited by John J. Puccio on Dec 3, 2007]
Again, I would ask you to please provide a link or two to confirm your assertion. It's a pretty serious criticism you're leveling against a transfer that virtually no one else has taken issue with.
Yes, Paramount has released "Top Gun" on tape and disc in various aspect ratios, including non-anamorphic, which does not prove which one is "correct." Anyway, I cannot find the AVS post to which you allude. And how did this one anonymous poster at AVS know that the framing on "Top Gun" was all wrong on the latest editions? Was it simply his opinion? Did he compare screen shots with the original print as shown in theaters, or did he compare screen shots from the various other tape and DVD releases, which, as I say, proves nothing?
As to my friend confusing this film with some other film, no, he's not. Paramount made both of the latest SD and HD DVD transfers from the same high-defintion master. Meaning that reviewers of either the latest SD or HD DVD versions would be able to notice any framing problems. They haven't.
John
[Post edited by John J. Puccio on Dec 3, 2007]
Monday, December 3, 2007
Member since:
June 2006
June 2006
Well, I did notice the following INFO on IMDB...
"The widescreen VHS version released in 1996 had an aspect ratio of 1.85:1. The theatrical prints and the DVD version released in 2004 have an aspect ratio of 2.35:1."
I wonder if this might be related to the thoughts concerning the HD-DVD mastering, and comments about "cropped" off images.
-Love Hendrix! (The Loverboy)
~ DVD/HD-DVD/Blu-ray owner ~
"The widescreen VHS version released in 1996 had an aspect ratio of 1.85:1. The theatrical prints and the DVD version released in 2004 have an aspect ratio of 2.35:1."
I wonder if this might be related to the thoughts concerning the HD-DVD mastering, and comments about "cropped" off images.
-Love Hendrix! (The Loverboy)
~ DVD/HD-DVD/Blu-ray owner ~
Monday, December 3, 2007
Member since:
March 2002
March 2002
Skyhawk,
I finally found the old thread you alluded to at AVS: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=916912
It's a bunch of guys comparing the various previous LCD and DVD incarnations of the movie to the new SD and HD DVD versions and arguing about which one is "right." The only person with any credibility here is CamMan, a cinematographer with experience in actually filmming the movie. He says several times that the framing in the new versions looks perfect to him. Other posters are just miffed that the director chose to cut off a few hairlines here and there with his tight closeups. Well, it is his movie.
John
I finally found the old thread you alluded to at AVS: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=916912
It's a bunch of guys comparing the various previous LCD and DVD incarnations of the movie to the new SD and HD DVD versions and arguing about which one is "right." The only person with any credibility here is CamMan, a cinematographer with experience in actually filmming the movie. He says several times that the framing in the new versions looks perfect to him. Other posters are just miffed that the director chose to cut off a few hairlines here and there with his tight closeups. Well, it is his movie.
John
Monday, December 3, 2007
Member since:
October 2007
October 2007
John, yes I agree that ALL various aspect ratios and framing attempts were made from the original Super 35 master. But this has nothing to do with framing and aspect ratios. Framing is done *from* the master to come out with a "print". If this movie was ever released in the OAR of the "master", all various versions would be closer to 4x3 and fill your standard TV rather well.
One thread on AVSForum can be found here: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=916912
There used to be comparison DVD to HD DVD screen shots in this thread also, but they seem to have been removed now which is too bad. The comparison screen shots referenced by this quote were very interesting:
[Post edited by Skyhawk on Dec 3, 2007]
One thread on AVSForum can be found here: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=916912
There used to be comparison DVD to HD DVD screen shots in this thread also, but they seem to have been removed now which is too bad. The comparison screen shots referenced by this quote were very interesting:
Quote:
In my example screenshots above, why would you want to show Cruise pumping his fist at the passing jet if you couldn't even see his fist? The presentation at 2.0:1 corrects that. There are several examples such as this throughout the film.
[Post edited by Skyhawk on Dec 3, 2007]
Monday, December 3, 2007
Member since:
March 2002
March 2002
Skyhawk,
Sorry, but a few guys at AVS who have no proof to offer for their claims beyond the fact that they don't happen to like it and are, in fact, countered by even more guys on the other side of the argument is not proof of anything "wrong" with the current framing on "Top Gun." Reviewers haven't mentioned any framing issue because it is not a problem worth mentioning. And the studio has been silent because there is nothing more to say. These latest releases of "Top Gun" are the ones the director has signed off on. End of story.
John
Sorry, but a few guys at AVS who have no proof to offer for their claims beyond the fact that they don't happen to like it and are, in fact, countered by even more guys on the other side of the argument is not proof of anything "wrong" with the current framing on "Top Gun." Reviewers haven't mentioned any framing issue because it is not a problem worth mentioning. And the studio has been silent because there is nothing more to say. These latest releases of "Top Gun" are the ones the director has signed off on. End of story.
John
Monday, December 3, 2007
Member since:
March 2002
March 2002
What's this? Skyhawk is spreading FUD? Isn't this the same Skyhawk that accused me of spreading FUD about the PS3 a few weeks ago? I must say, he wasn't very friendly about it, either! And here he is with his pants caught down spreading FUD over Top Gun! I love it!!!
Ah, sometimes Karma is the sweetest revenge of all.
Ah, sometimes Karma is the sweetest revenge of all.
Monday, December 3, 2007
Member since:
October 2007
October 2007
Yes, I suppose it's possible that all the various aspect ratios and framing techniques used for the various theatrical and DVD releases of Top Gun just means the director kept on changing his mind. I just wished they moved the frame up in many scenes. Again, what's the point of showing Cruise shaking his fist if they don't actually show the fist in some versions? Well at least I know the "grain" in the movie 300 was the director's intent because it's present in all releases (theatrical, DVD, HDM).
Apart from Spielberg and Lucas, I sometimes wonder just how much involvement directors have in the re-re-release of a studio's 20 to 30 year old catalogue titles.
[Post edited by Skyhawk on Dec 3, 2007]
Apart from Spielberg and Lucas, I sometimes wonder just how much involvement directors have in the re-re-release of a studio's 20 to 30 year old catalogue titles.
[Post edited by Skyhawk on Dec 3, 2007]
