VCDQuality Forums (http://forum.vcdq.com/index.php)
- SVCD (http://forum.vcdq.com/forumdisplay.php?forumid=20)
-- Spiderman 2 *WS* - DVDRIP - VCDCentral (http://forum.vcdq.com/showthread.php?threadid=47006)
Posted by Redemption198 on 09-24-2004 05:36 AM:
quote:
Originally posted by pHo
there's nothing wrong with using mattes... believe me, the guides they use on the monitors are the final a/r guides. they don't just crop in post, its shot in full frame with the intention of using a 2.35:1 output, so anything out of that frame isn't meant to be seen. hence extra bits popping into copies that show the full matte.
Yeah i agree, anything outside the 2:35:1 frame is not important to the story or the film, so isnt needed.
Though i would rather it was filmed Anamorphicly for films like this, but there must still be a big market in the US for FS versions.
Posted by DividedSky on 09-24-2004 05:51 PM:
quote:
Originally posted by Redemption1980
Though i would rather it was filmed Anamorphicly for films like this, but there must still be a big market in the US for FS versions.
There are many other factors influencing the shooting format than the FS market. Super 35 has a number of other advantages over anamorphic, such as a smaller/lighter lens, I believe, that makes it easier to work with.
Of course, whenever I watch a movie and see that it was shot anamorphically (because of the type of lens flare and other visual artifacts from anamorphic lenses) it just makes it look like a more expensive production. Super 35 just feels cheaper to me, for some reason. Never mind that the grain is worse because you're blowing up a smaller part of the negative, since that's not really going to be noticeable on DVD anyway...
Oops, way off topic. So, from the TC vs. SVCD screenshots, it looks like this was a legit release. Too bad, it looks hard to find because of the nukes.
Posted by bcool2k on 10-05-2004 12:24 PM:
quote:
Originally posted by Redemption1980
Yeah i agree, anything outside the 2:35:1 frame is not important to the story or the film, so isnt needed.
Though i would rather it was filmed Anamorphicly for films like this, but there must still be a big market in the US for FS versions.
Ok something about this is driving me nuts being that i review dvdr of legit retails. Anamorphic WS is fairly new to DVD. Aspect Ratio and Anamorphic are NOT the same thing. All Anamorphic truly means is that with a Anamorphic print and compatible tv the image can be stretched without loss of quality to fill the entire screen. ie Anamorph your tv to fill the pic with its original Aspect Ratio without anything being Cut out. This release was a dupe and Nuke. Just wait for a true proper and a REAL Retail DVDR. However, please realize that Anamorphic is a Feature Enhancement Not the Aspect Ratio, and No worries it used to confuse the hell outta me also. End Rant!!
Posted by Redemption198 on 10-05-2004 04:07 PM:
quote:
Originally posted by bcool2k
Ok something about this is driving me nuts being that i review dvdr of legit retails. Anamorphic WS is fairly new to DVD. Aspect Ratio and Anamorphic are NOT the same thing. All Anamorphic truly means is that with a Anamorphic print and compatible tv the image can be stretched without loss of quality to fill the entire screen. ie Anamorph your tv to fill the pic with its original Aspect Ratio without anything being Cut out. This release was a dupe and Nuke. Just wait for a true proper and a REAL Retail DVDR. However, please realize that Anamorphic is a Feature Enhancement Not the Aspect Ratio, and No worries it used to confuse the hell outta me also. End Rant!!
Not exactly, I know AR and Anamorphic aren't the same thing, but Anamorphic WS on DVD has been around for years.
Anamorphic is not a new format, it has been about for 50 years, its not a DVD thing.
Anamorphic is a way of shooting a film with special lenses that squash the filmed image onto 35mm film, the film is then stretched by the projector and projected in a nice WS ratio.
The same thing aplies to DVD but the TV stretches the image, not the Projector.
What i meant by that comment was, that i wish it was filmed with Anamorphic lenses that stretch the image to fit the whole of the 35mm film, meaning no cropping is involved.
Not too sure if ive explained this too well, please ask if what ive typed looks like bullshit
Powered by: vBulletin Version 2.3.0
Copyright © Jelsoft Enterprises Limited 2000 - 2002.
