VCDQuality Forums - No Country For Old Men *READNFO* *XViD* - DVD SCR

Pages (2): « 1 [2]
Show all 36 posts from this thread on one page

VCDQuality Forums (http://forum.vcdq.com/index.php)
- DIVX (http://forum.vcdq.com/forumdisplay.php?forumid=23)
-- No Country For Old Men *READNFO* *XViD* - DVD SCR - BaLD (http://forum.vcdq.com/showthread.php?threadid=79756)

Posted by dan solo on 01-03-2008 07:33 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Marco5
According to IMDB the movie was shot in the 2.35:1 aspect ratio. This release is cropped to 16:9. It means that almost 25% of the screen is missing...

screens for comparison:
http://i12.tinypic.com/821kxmw.jpg
http://i19.tinypic.com/7w788hx.jpg

v: 9

a: 9

m: 10 (i loved this film)

Posted by vanzans on 01-03-2008 09:37 PM:

Looks lovely... V:9 A:9 M: ?

Please stop talking about the ending....some of us haven't watched the film yet.

__________________
"Now we can do this easy, or we can do this REAL easy": Denton Van Zan, Reign of Fire.

Posted by corniche on 01-03-2008 11:40 PM:

I'm surprised that so many of you dismiss the AR issue. I have seen the full 2.35 movie and there is no question in my mind that this 16:9 "full screen" rip seriously degrades the visual compositions of the theatrical release.

The release is certainly of exceptional high quality. It's just that the high quality is applied to only three fourths of the movie.

This AR thing, it seems, will NEVER go away. So many people...so little comprehension. I wonder how many of them have praised "The Good The Bad and ... the Missing."?

Posted by bratt31999 on 01-04-2008 01:11 AM:

Wow, this is a keeper. Great job by BaLD, keep up the good work. I wasn’t going to dl this because I already had a scr. but I kept seeing all the high ratings and just couldn’t resist (Who cares) anyway.

A/9 V/9 M/7 (IMO ending sucked balls)

Posted by modistru on 01-04-2008 02:04 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by corniche
I'm surprised that so many of you dismiss the AR issue. I have seen the full 2.35 movie and there is no question in my mind that this 16:9 "full screen" rip seriously degrades the visual compositions of the theatrical release.

The release is certainly of exceptional high quality. It's just that the high quality is applied to only three fourths of the movie.

This AR thing, it seems, will NEVER go away. So many people...so little comprehension. I wonder how many of them have praised "The Good The Bad and ... the Missing."?

... whining should be against the rules. Just enjoy the better release for the next 12 weeks before you go and purchase the 'correct' aspect ratio (which will be the same). Super 35... look it up.

v - 9
a - 9
m - 9.5

'sall good.

Posted by corniche on 01-04-2008 06:48 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by modistru
... whining should be against the rules. Just enjoy the better release for the next 12 weeks before you go and purchase the 'correct' aspect ratio (which will be the same). Super 35... look it up.

v - 9
a - 9
m - 9.5

'sall good.

Wasn't whining, and not looking for a fight. I could have been clearer and said, "you either lose a quarter of the picture or see too much of it, which ruins the intended frame composition." I understand matting, hard and soft, as well as film types.

Comparing my 2.35 copy with this one, I grant that the differences are mostly due to absence of matting rather than side cropped pan-scan. I still prefer the director-cinematographer to make the decision. NCFOM looks BETTER to me in 2.35. Especially the awesome initial landscapes.

Aspect ratios matter...Would you cut the sides off your favorite painting OR use a frame that included large parts of the wall, top and bottom?

All that aside, the current rip is certainly very fine indeed...as I said before.

Cheers

Posted by J Fresh on 01-04-2008 08:09 PM:

you guys do realize that this 16x9 copy is UNCROPPED

It shows MORE than the 2.35:1

Now I'm all for correct AR but this could be even better

besides, I'm sure most media players and DVD players can change it to the correct AR on the fly

__________________

Posted by corniche on 01-04-2008 08:41 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by J Fresh
you guys do realize that this 16x9 copy is UNCROPPED

It shows MORE than the 2.35:1

Now I'm all for correct AR but this could be even better

besides, I'm sure most media players and DVD players can change it to the correct AR on the fly

Unmatted, more accurately. Shown in a theater, a mask would be placed over the lens to produce the proper 2.35. I wonder, now that some multiplexes are using dlp digital projectors, if this could be an actual copy of the theatrical release supplied to those exhibitors.

PS...I still think MORE is LESS. Let the director decide.

Posted by [-BiG_W-] on 01-04-2008 09:13 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by corniche
Unmatted, more accurately. Shown in a theater, a mask would be placed over the lens to produce the proper 2.35. I wonder, now that some multiplexes are using dlp digital projectors, if this could be an actual copy of the theatrical release supplied to those exhibitors.

PS...I still think MORE is LESS. Let the director decide.

If this was the retail then I 100% agree with your criticism. But this is a pre-retail dvd screener, and as such it's a blinding release. I'm happy with this copy until the retail comes out. Hell, it's not even out in the theaters in my country and this beats a cam/ts/tc/r5 any day of the week, correctly matted or not

Posted by corniche on 01-04-2008 09:22 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by [-BiG_W-]
If this was the retail then I 100% agree with your criticism. But this is a pre-retail dvd screener, and as such it's a blinding release. I'm happy with this copy until the retail comes out. Hell, it's not even out in the theaters in my country and this beats a cam/ts/tc/r5 any day of the week, correctly matted or not

We've no disagreement, then. I always remind people about AR issues because I believe too many people accept s**t from their tv providers, eg, that has been "modified to fit your screen"....and others complain about those awful black bars that broke their TV set.

It just seems that an awful lot of people don't understand the problem at all.

And, I confess, I'm sort of a fanatic about it.

I take every opportunity I can find to get on the AR soapbox.

Posted by OSH on 01-04-2008 09:35 PM:

When it comes to the crop/AR nothing is missing that isn't supposed to be missing.

Posted by Rotor1999 on 01-04-2008 11:46 PM:

http://www.modeemi.cs.tut.fi/~leopold/AV/FilmToVideo/

read the bit on Super-35

Posted by denmat on 01-06-2008 05:41 PM:

too many people worrying about very little IMO, the ar looks fine, its 16:9 and if there is any thing lost at the side it's not much. Als on a quick run through this looks clean from watermaks and scrollers (which everyone else seems to have overlooked) which makes this all the more excellent. One of the best movies of all time. The ending, well I for one am sick of the old cliched hollywood ending where the goodguy always comes out on top. So enough on the ending. Think on those who have not watched yet.

V=9.5
A=8 (excellent, pity its not ac3)
M=11/10 (yeah its that good, and its the Coen Brothers back to their old selfs.

Posted by FF-73 on 01-16-2008 10:17 PM:

V:10
A:10
M:10 - Brilliant movie.

Posted by CARR73 on 01-19-2008 09:20 PM:

V : 9
A : 9
M : ?

"Don't Fuck With The Baldies" Great release.

Posted by Jassll on 01-29-2008 04:30 AM:

Video - 9/10 - basically perfect
Audio - 9/10
Movie - 7/10 - I will need to read up on this

All times are GMT. The time now is 10:36 PM.

Pages (2): « 1 [2]
Show all 36 posts from this thread on one page