It is currently Sat Sep 27, 2025 12:25 pm

View unanswered posts | View active topics


Board index » Indian Media Forums » General

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 4
  [ 51 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
  Previous topic | Next topic 
Author Message
asif
 Post subject: BTTF SCREENSHOTS !!!
PostPosted: Thu Dec 12, 2002 9:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 10, 2002 3:52 pm
Posts: 705
Location: EAST END,LONDON
VIEW THESE SCREENSHOTS HERE

http://www.zulm.net/asif/

enjoy !!!
Top
 Profile  
 
urbanlegend
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 12, 2002 9:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2001 3:37 pm
Posts: 3051
Location: Somewhere in time...
Here ya go Asif Miyan ... Cheers!

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image
Top
 Profile  
 
ali
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 19, 2002 5:03 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 2:06 pm
Posts: 4944
Location: UK
Interesting screen shots on this German website to see how the full frame BTTF was matted on the DVD for a wide screen presentation (screen shots from left to right include the full frame, laserdisc wide screen and the DVD);

http://www.gluxx.de/zidznewsindex1024.s ... 21027.html

Ali



Edited By ali on 1040317462
Top
 Profile  
 
urbanlegend
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 19, 2002 5:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2001 3:37 pm
Posts: 3051
Location: Somewhere in time...
Personally bought the Fullscreen and will buy the corrected later in Febuary if they come out as the current widescreen version is incorrected matted. As per DigitalBits and DVD file forum:

Guess it wouldn't be the holiday season without a problem on a major studio DVD release. Universal's Back to the Future Trilogy DVD set contains all three films on disc, as you know. But what you may not know is that the widescreen versions of Back to the Future 2 & 3 on the set are mis-framed (badly or not depending on who you ask). But word is Robert Zemeckis and Bob Gale aren't happy, and so Universal is going to be addressing the issue in the new year with replacement discs for those who want them. The corrected discs will be available in late February - call (888) 703-0010 for all the details.

I'm not even going to comment on the fact that Universal is knowingly selling mis-produced discs to make its holiday sales numbers, hoping that most of you will never notice the problem. The studio has decided, in its wisdom, to stop providing review copies of its new titles to many (if not all) review publications. So if you're wondering why there are so few reviews of the set online and in print, it's 'cause Universal apparently wants it that way. For our part here at The Digital Bits, we will no longer be reviewing ANY Universal DVD product until they change this policy.

Anyway, if you're a fan of Back to the Future, and you haven't picked up the set yet, buyer beware. Stay tuned...


Top
 Profile  
 
Sanjay
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 19, 2002 6:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2001 1:14 pm
Posts: 2256
Location: National Capital Region (India)
urbanlegend wrote:
Personally bought the Fullscreen and will buy the corrected later in Febuary if they come out as the current widescreen version is incorrected matted. As per DigitalBits and DVD file forum:

Guess it wouldn't be the holiday season without a problem on a major studio DVD release. Universal's Back to the Future Trilogy DVD set contains all three films on disc, as you know. But what you may not know is that the widescreen versions of Back to the Future 2 & 3 on the set are mis-framed (badly or not depending on who you ask). But word is Robert Zemeckis and Bob Gale aren't happy, and so Universal is going to be addressing the issue in the new year with replacement discs for those who want them. The corrected discs will be available in late February - call (888) 703-0010 for all the details.

I'm not even going to comment on the fact that Universal is knowingly selling mis-produced discs to make its holiday sales numbers, hoping that most of you will never notice the problem. The studio has decided, in its wisdom, to stop providing review copies of its new titles to many (if not all) review publications. So if you're wondering why there are so few reviews of the set online and in print, it's 'cause Universal apparently wants it that way. For our part here at The Digital Bits, we will no longer be reviewing ANY Universal DVD product until they change this policy.

Anyway, if you're a fan of Back to the Future, and you haven't picked up the set yet, buyer beware. Stay tuned...

urbanlegend,
I think it is courteous to provide a link to the site if you are going to copy and paste from it. Just a friendly reminder, no offence meant.
Top
 Profile  
 
urbanlegend
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 19, 2002 9:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2001 3:37 pm
Posts: 3051
Location: Somewhere in time...
Sanjay wrote:
urbanlegend wrote:
Personally bought the Fullscreen and will buy the corrected later in Febuary if they come out as the current widescreen version is incorrected matted. As per DigitalBits and DVD file forum:

Guess it wouldn't be the holiday season without a problem on a major studio DVD release. Universal's Back to the Future Trilogy DVD set contains all three films on disc, as you know. But what you may not know is that the widescreen versions of Back to the Future 2 & 3 on the set are mis-framed (badly or not depending on who you ask). But word is Robert Zemeckis and Bob Gale aren't happy, and so Universal is going to be addressing the issue in the new year with replacement discs for those who want them. The corrected discs will be available in late February - call (888) 703-0010 for all the details.

I'm not even going to comment on the fact that Universal is knowingly selling mis-produced discs to make its holiday sales numbers, hoping that most of you will never notice the problem. The studio has decided, in its wisdom, to stop providing review copies of its new titles to many (if not all) review publications. So if you're wondering why there are so few reviews of the set online and in print, it's 'cause Universal apparently wants it that way. For our part here at The Digital Bits, we will no longer be reviewing ANY Universal DVD product until they change this policy.

Anyway, if you're a fan of Back to the Future, and you haven't picked up the set yet, buyer beware. Stay tuned...

urbanlegend,
I think it is courteous to provide a link to the site if you are going to copy and paste from it. Just a friendly reminder, no offence meant.

None taken Sanjay :)

Sorry for not providing the link. The reason was the info was apparently taken from Digitalbits.com which a user posted on DVDfile.com forums and also didnt provide the link. But the rumours are posted where ever BTTF DVD is being talked about even on BTTF Forum. Anyhow, here is the DVDfile.com link for their forum and other discussing the BTTF DVD:

DVDFile.com Forum

Home Theatre Forum

BTTF.com Forum

Image

Image

Image



Edited By urbanlegend on 1040333300
Top
 Profile  
 
urbanlegend
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 05, 2003 10:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2001 3:37 pm
Posts: 3051
Location: Somewhere in time...
The Back to the Future debacle turns abyssmal
January 2, 2003
Courtesy: DVD Review

As you all certainly know by now, Universals recent release of the Back to the Future Trilogy is defective and the studio is making only half-assed attempts to rectify the problem. Apart from the framing issues explained before, it also appears as if the French language track in the third part of the film is occasionally out of sync and that there is a subtitle occlusion problem on a number of players. And still, Universal feels no need to expedite things!
To top off this cake of incompetency, we hear from various ends that despite their proposed exchange offer, Universal still doesnt seem to take this issue with the right amount of seriousness. Why you ask? Well, for starters, owners of the trilogy living overseas will not have a change to obtain a corrected version. According to our sources, Universal has no plans to correct the region 2 and region 4 releases of the trilogy despite the fact that they are equally misframed. And, if youre living outside the US and bought a region 1 version of the trilogy, youre out of luck as well, because Universal will only replace the discs for US residents
I am not sure what I am more disappointed about, Universals lack of QA on this release, or their arrogance and incompetence at handling this issue. As always, our advice is to stay away from this and potentially all Universal releases for the time being. A studio that doesnt respect its customers doesnt deserve their money either.



Edited By urbanlegend on 1041764353
Top
 Profile  
 
sknath
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 05, 2003 7:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2001 4:17 pm
Posts: 2853
Location: Canada
This is what DragunR2 sent me in an e-mail
------------------------------------------------

from thedigitalbits.com:

(EARLY UPDATE - 12/19/02 - 10:30 AM PDT)

A lot of people have asked us about the mis-framing problem with the Back to the Future 2 & 3 DVDs. What appears to have happened is that the widescreen matting has been done in error, so that the image that appears on the disc is not correctly framed as it should be. a thread over at the HTFwith screen shots illustrating this, so check it out if you're interested (note that the pictures show the R2 version, but the R1 transfer is the same). Here's the e-mail Universal is sending people about this issue:

"Thank you for your email. Universal Studios will exchange Back to the Future parts 2 and 3 for copies with the updated framing in late February 2003. You may send the DVDs back now or wait until February. Please send Back to the Future disks 2 and 3, without the case, and a letter with the following information: Name, Full Mailing Address, Daytime Phone Number, Reason for Return and Return Address. Send to:

Back to the Future DVD Returns
PO Box 224468
Dallas, Texas 75260

Thank you,
Universal Studios Customer Service"

By the way, we also have a Canadian customer service number for people to call: 866-532-2202. Thanks to readers Mark P. and Scott B. for sending that in.

*********************************************
UL.. maybe there is still some hope then :)
Top
 Profile  
 
rana
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 08, 2003 7:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2001 7:27 pm
Posts: 6146
Making Wide Screen presentation by matting top and bottom makes me hopping mad.

So many thoughts have accumulated, I have no idea where to start and where to end.

It's not easy to detect if cropping or matting has been done to claim a "In Demand" Aspect Ratio.

BTTF is not a rare title where this has been done. It is just that this incident has been noticed and publicized.

Wide or Wider Screen print is NO GUARANTEE that this was the intended Aspect Ratio as envisaged by the Director or Cinematographer.

Other known instances, to me, are:
Striptease
Mira Nair's Kamasutra
Many releases of Terminator 2
Lots of Indian DVDs

Out of the camera shot, Directors can frame the film to fill up 4:3, 1.85:1, 1.66:1, 2.35:1 or some other screen size. Theatre Owners want their Screens filled up. If they are given a 2.35:1 print but their screen is say 2:1, they will present the film cropped from sides instead of reducing the height.

Often Directors will issue different AR film prints suitable for different screens. In this case it is impossible to say what is the THEATRICAL ASPECT RATIO.

Rana

P.S.
If the framing of the shot looks incorrect, then most likely, it is incorrect. Unfortunately, I notice incorrect framing in 95 % of Indian Wide Screen presentations.



Edited By ali on 1042063975
Top
 Profile  
 
DragunR2
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 08, 2003 9:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2001 3:16 am
Posts: 4259
Matting 1.37:1 to 1.85:1 and using Super 35 to matte down to 2.35:1 are common practice. For 2.35:1, I would prefer the director use anamorphic lenses, as this provides a sharper image on the big screen and doesn't waste film resolution like Super 35. But I understand if a soft, grainy look is intended. There is only one way to do 1.85:1, however. One would think that Robert Zemeckis, Bob Gale, and the DP would have supervised the transfers for BTTF.

Normally, simply matting the top and bottom of the 1.37:1 frame to 1.85:1 equally will yield the intended image, I think. Sometimes 1.85:1 is at the top of the frame, but I don't think this is common. And open matte transfers of 1.85:1 films aren't always simply 1.85:1 with the mattes removed. There may be boom mikes or other unintended objects in the matte area, so zooming and cropping is sometimes done to some shots. James Cameron is known for supervising the open matte transfers of his films (he has shot all his 'scope films in Super 35), and the T2:UE has a demo of how this is done.



Edited By DragunR2 on 1042062529
Top
 Profile  
 
ali
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 08, 2003 10:14 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 2:06 pm
Posts: 4944
Location: UK
rana wrote:
Wide or Wider Screen print is NO GUARANTEE that this was the intended Aspect Ratio as envisaged by the Director or Cinematographer.

Other known instances, to me, are:
Striptease
Mira Nair's Kamasutra
Many releases of Terminator 2
Lots of Indian DVDs

What were the issues with T2?

Ali
Top
 Profile  
 
rana
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 09, 2003 2:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2001 7:27 pm
Posts: 6146
ali wrote:
What were the issues with T2?

Ali

The first issue of T2 widescreen LD was heavily matted from top and bottom to give it a widescreen appearance.

T2 was my first Laser Disc purchase. Dolby Prologic was a big thing in those days. I paid aprox $ 60. A few days later a LD expert store told me of the hot topic of those days that Wide Screen T2 Laser Disc was made by heavily matting the top and bottom of the picture and the framing was incorrect. This was later corrected in the later versiond but the studios never admitted their fault and no refunds were issued.

Rana
Top
 Profile  
 
rana
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 09, 2003 4:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2001 7:27 pm
Posts: 6146
DragunR2 wrote:
There may be boom mikes or other unintended objects in the matte area, so zooming and cropping is sometimes done to some shots. James Cameron is known for supervising the open matte transfers of his films (he has shot all his 'scope films in Super 35), and the T2:UE has a demo of how this is done.

I saw just a glimpse of Booms and mikes in one WS title. Why are they there. If they are present, why don't we see them in the Full Screen versions of BTTF, Striptease, etc, which contains aprox 33% more picture at the top and bottom??

I will look for the info in T2 UE as well.

Rana

P.S.
In the case of Striptease, the same disc has widescreen version on one side of the disc and Full screen version on the other side. Full screen version has lot more picture at top and bottom.
Top
 Profile  
 
ali
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 09, 2003 5:02 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 2:06 pm
Posts: 4944
Location: UK
Check section 4.4 here;

http://www.cs.tut.fi/~leopold/Ld/FilmToVideo/

... T2 was shot with a aspect ratio '2.35:1 in mind'

Ali
Top
 Profile  
 
Sanjay
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 09, 2003 5:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2001 1:14 pm
Posts: 2256
Location: National Capital Region (India)
rana wrote:
P.S.
In the case of Striptease, the same disc has widescreen version on one side of the disc and Full screen version on the other side. Full screen version has lot more picture at top and bottom.

I think you have the whole letterboxing and matting issue confused. More picture on top and bottom does not neccesarily mean correct or originally intended aspect ratio. The commonly accepted defination of OAR = Original Aspect Ratio is the Aspect Ratio used for the original theatrical release. Almost 80% of Holywood films are made with some form of matting used. There are actually two ways matting is used:

1. Hard Matte: The camera is masked at the top and bottom, wherin only a certain portion of the original negative is exposed to achieve an aspect ratio of 1.85:1 (the most commonly used aspect ratio) and the projectionist just masks the top and bottom to project in the theater.

2. Soft Matte: In the second more commonly used method, the director/cinematographer marks of the top & bottom of the camera viewfinder in the intended aspect ratio (again the most common ratio being 1.85:1) then they just expose the whole negative making sure that the important parts of the picture is within the targetted aspect ratio frame. The projectionist then masks the top and bottom to project the film in a theater and for 4:3 television broadcasting no masking/matting is used. By the way this method actually ends up resulting in a lot fo unintended follies, ie. boom mics in the picture frame and other unintended things.

As for Terminator 2, I have owned every single version (barring the PAN & SCAM oops PAN & SCAN versions) of Terminator 2 ever released on Laser Disc and DVD and all of them have had the same 2.35:1 aspect ratio which is the OAR. Also the frame in each Laser Disc and DVD version is exactly the same, therefore the question of incorrect masking in the case of Terminator 2 is just not possible.

Now lets come to the Back To The Future DVD and the masking error. The problem with this DVD transfer is not as much with incorrect aspect ratio, but rather the problem is with the incorrect placement of the matting. This has resulted in more of the top picture (unintended for viewing) and less of the bottom picture being shown.

Anyhow the moral of the story is, matting is not bad, as long as it shows the final film in its intended aspect ratio and also the matting is in the right position. More importantly, 'MORE PICTURE DOES NOT ALWAYS MEAN BETTER OR EVEN CORRECT IMAGE".



Edited By Sanjay on 1042136444
Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 4
  [ 51 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Board index » Indian Media Forums » General

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group