VCDQuality Forums - The Girl Next Door *FS* *SVCD* - DVD SCR

Pages (3): « 1 [2] 3 »
Show all 53 posts from this thread on one page

VCDQuality Forums (http://forum.vcdq.com/index.php)
- VCD (http://forum.vcdq.com/forumdisplay.php?forumid=19)
-- The Girl Next Door *FS* *SVCD* - DVD SCR - SCREAM (http://forum.vcdq.com/showthread.php?threadid=42423)

Posted by crAzym0f0 on 07-04-2004 09:15 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by Muzak
im guessing you wont be posting much after that idiotic post, lmao. unmatted, awesome...

*psst, STFU stupid!*
and your guess is as dum as your first reply in this topic!
"whee, whee, me made the fist reply, while I have no fucking clue"

and dumass, next time u rush to make a first post, check what u actualy have on hands, insted of putting bunch of bullcrap.
This bitch has the longest fucking watermarks ever, but yeah who has time to check when u have to make a first post, it's easier to crap over something with *FS* tags. Go back to kindergarden, maybe they'll teach u the difference between fullframe and pan&scan.

Posted by ModernAnimism on 07-04-2004 11:50 AM:

*kinderGARDEN*? lol .....your probably not going to win a argument on intelligence...."dumass" was pretty funny as well = p

though valid point on the watermark , im surprised no else mentioned it..the movie was excellent in my opinion ..better then most of those teen-comedy styled flicks : )

Posted by horizonstar on 07-04-2004 12:44 PM:

And he continues to post!

Please keep 'em coming, crAzym0f0 ... I haven't had this much fun since the last time Dwaggy fisted me!

__________________

Scrobble all you want, we'll make more!

Posted by EL3CTRIC on 07-04-2004 02:32 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by horizonstar
I haven't had this much fun since the last time Dwaggy fisted me!

You must then have a sad life....

(First post here, couldn't resist not posting lol)

Posted by joey_75051 on 07-04-2004 06:25 PM:

post was erased

Posted by walfordweb on 07-04-2004 06:38 PM:

Is this a screener of the rated or unrated version? anyone know?

thx

Posted by GrizzlyAdamsM on 07-04-2004 06:59 PM:

erm.... i'm struggling to see why you're all hacking chunks out of crazymofo. He's the only one that knows what he's talking about!

I haven't seen this rls, but maybe it was filmed open frame and matted later. With some films, you can just tell.

I'm really hoping people on this board know the difference between Pan-scan and open frame, and even more than that, i'd hoped that everyone here would at least check before bitching at someone.

Play nice children. Really. There are bigger things in life to get this arsey about.

Posted by Sh3rw1n on 07-04-2004 07:48 PM:

FS vs Pan & Scan

Just to clarify what crAzym0f0 was trying to say:

He was claiming that this is showing the full frame of the film, unmatted. Now, I haven't seen this copy, but if indeed the source is a DVDscr, then this would be impossible since the people who made the DVDscr probably used a PAN & SCAN version of the movie.

He is partially right about the whole "full frame" idea, though. All movies filmed at 1.85:1 aspect ratio on standard 35mm film with spherical lenses ARE actually matted when shown in the theater, meaning that there's extra visible stuff on the top and bottom of the frame, as crAzym0f0 claims.

Yes, you'd be able to see the full frame when projected if you took off the matte, BUT you're NOT MEANT to see this extra space on the top and bottom because the filmmakers have framed the movie for this matted, 1.85:1 aspect ratio. In fact, a lot of times, you'll see the boom mic in this top area... 'cause they usually want the boom to get as close as they can to the actors. You'd usually see too much head space, which would mess up the intended composition.

Either way, FULL SCREEN or PAN & SCAN is NOT how you were meant to see a 1.85:1 film.

Hope that makes sense.

Posted by crAzym0f0 on 07-05-2004 01:07 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by ModernAnimism
*kinderGARDEN*? lol .....your probably not going to win a argument on intelligence...."dumass" was pretty funny as well = p

what are you one of those; pick on spelling, when all else fails, assholes ? I did win, u even admitted it u blind fucking bonehead.

and it suppose to be
....you are probably...
and
...win an argument....

dum brick!

Posted by crAzym0f0 on 07-05-2004 01:35 AM:

Re: FS vs Pan & Scan

quote:
Originally posted by Sh3rw1n
Just to clarify what crAzym0f0 was trying to say:

Thanks, it was pretty useless since u reversed almost every point!
It was not filmed at 1.85, but at ~1.33, then matted to 1.85 for theater.

quote:
Originally posted by Sh3rw1n
if indeed the source is a DVDscr, then this would be impossible since the people who made the DVDscr probably used a PAN & SCAN version of the movie.

Yes, you'd be able to see the full frame when projected if you took off the matte, BUT you're NOT MEANT to see this extra space on the top and bottom because the filmmakers have framed the movie for this matted, 1.85:1 aspect ratio. In fact, a lot of times, you'll see the boom mic in this top area...

where the fuck do u pull this bullcrap, nonsense from? and these days when filmed at full frame, directors are careful enough not to have boom mics in the frame, learn that!

I was hopeing someone here would have at least half of brain to post the obvious, obviosly thats not the case, so I'll do it;

UNMATTED:

MATTED:

Posted by osdia on 07-05-2004 06:40 AM:

That cam release is severely cropped from the up and bottom, and a little from the sides.

I think you can make a better comparison with the trailer, which you can download from here:

http://www.thegirlnextdoormovie.com

Posted by HuFFKING on 07-05-2004 09:14 AM:

WIcked Rls

This was execlent rls and movie the sound was great little bar flicker bottom.. who cares. No black and white shit which was good... this rls to me is a 10

Posted by Sh3rw1n on 07-05-2004 12:34 PM:

Re: Re: FS vs Pan & Scan

quote:
Originally posted by crAzym0f0
Thanks, it was pretty useless since u reversed almost every point!
It was not filmed at 1.85, but at ~1.33, then matted to 1.85 for theater.

where the fuck do u pull this bullcrap, nonsense from? and these days when filmed at full frame, directors are careful enough not to have boom mics in the frame, learn that!

I was hopeing someone here would have at least half of brain to post the obvious, obviosly thats not the case, so I'll do it;

Ok, you're some 11 year old troll, but I don't like people spreading misinformation.

Yeah, that second pic you posted was from a cropped cam which as another poster pointed, out proves nothing.

You are wrong. This movie was filmed at 1.85:1. If you ask the cinematographer what aspect ratio this move was filmed at ... he'll tell you 1.85:1 and NOT 1.37:1 (full frame). Sure, the negative and the release prints have the full frame picture, but the filmmakers framed for the 1.85:1 box in the ground glass. So, it should be matted when projected and shown at 1.85:1, omitting the top and bottom portions.

So since this film was NOT filmed at full frame, there are probably a few shots where the boom poked into the full frame... but GUESS what? They'll be matted out when projected properly. Simple enough for you?

IMDB isn't always right, but check the tech specs for this film. It WILL say 1.85:1, not full frame, which is correct for this film. Now check the specs for Elephant (2004)... guess what? It says 1.37:1 because this film WAS shot in full frame.

Almost no theatrical films are filmed at full frame anymore (Elephant was a recent exception, for example).

The reason why I wouldn't like to see a full frame copy of The Girl Next Door is because I wouldn't wanna have to put duct tape on the top and bottom of my TV. It's a lot to do for a silly comedy.

Posted by dotmusik on 07-05-2004 03:30 PM:

I hoped crazymofo was right cos it would have been funny. But as shown below... incorrecto esay

Posted by Martin Q. Bla on 07-05-2004 04:26 PM:

I made up a comparison -

http://home.iprimus.com.au/griffins...rcomparison.jpg

But then on other shots it seems crazy mofo is right...

.http://home.iprimus.com.au/griffins...comparisonb.jpg

i'm not sure if it's a mixture of unmatted and pan/scan or what, it doesn't seem like an open/shut either way... an awful lot of shots look unmatted, but then there seems to be more to it than that. and of course you probably shouldn't trust a trailer as gospel. so the only answer must be....

crazymofo is wrong

Posted by Skummy on 07-05-2004 11:06 PM:

quote:
It is matted for theater, since WS fits better theatrically and no u don't loose the sides, but u do gain top and bottom, but u would know that if u actualy checked.

well ... if u compare:
The Girl Next Door *FS* *SVCD* - DVD SCR - SCREAM and The Girl Next Door *WS* *SVCD* - DVD SCR - NOX you will see that u don't loose the sides, but u actually do gain top and bottom as crAzym0f0 sed earlier ...

my 5 cents ..

Posted by osdia on 07-06-2004 12:38 AM:

But you can see that you do lose some image from the sides, yeah its minimal, Sh3rw1n is giving the right information.

Posted by kslad on 07-06-2004 07:15 AM:

I was wonderinf why everyone hates FS. I personally hate WS I hate seeing heads chopped off half body shots and special effects flip off the screen they say you get the whole picture with WS and I think it's BS. But then again just my two cents...

Posted by dotmusik on 07-06-2004 01:38 PM:

Haha this is funny....

Look at Martin Q. Blank's post more carefully....

You will notice that everyone has been right. On the WS trailer you DO get extra bits on the side (this was the first thing I noticed) but then I looked more closely and also noticed on this FS release you DO get extra bits at the TOP and BOTTOM.... It appears everone is correct.

This shows maybe it is recorded in something else. Those pictures prove its not filmed in 1.85:1 or 4:3 or whatever anyone without cropping. I'm reckoning its recorded in 4:3 than cropped or whatever... but then that would kinda be wierd for the cinema, so maybe its 1.85... lets face it, none of us know

Anyway more importantly this is not an action movie so IT DOESN'T MATTER, SO ALL YOU FS WHINNERS.... SHHHH!!

Posted by pHo on 07-06-2004 01:57 PM:

sh3rwin is correct, and is making his point well. crazymofo nearly has a point, but is posting so badly its hard to tell at times.

at the end of the day, it doesn't matter what its filmed in, this movie was filmed with guideframes for 1.85:1 and thats the AR that its supposed to be watched in. at least with open matte films the FS version doesn't chop stuff off, but the extra stuff on screen is nothing to get excited about. its not supposed to be there.

and yes, boom mics crop up all the time in unmatted movies, and almost all CG is rendered in the final AR even if its open matte anyway.

quote:
I was wonderinf why everyone hates FS. I personally hate WS I hate seeing heads chopped off half body shots and special effects flip off the screen they say you get the whole picture with WS and I think it's BS. But then again just my two cents...

you're wrong.

__________________
563-773-1880

<Dwaggy> i caught you a delicious Bass
<The404> This is because you are an idiot

All times are GMT. The time now is 08:00 AM.

Pages (3): « 1 [2] 3 »
Show all 53 posts from this thread on one page