nuked because it is a cropped 16:9 FS

just wait for the real ws, which wont have anything missing neither from above/under neitehr from the sides

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

quote:

---

Originally posted by chiv
ok, i made these extra 'comparison images' mainly for myself, as i was unsure which version (fs or ws) i wanted, and also for those who werent sure which showed more, either... oh, and also for people who wanted more 'variety' in the comparison shots. i took heavy vfx shots and also shots where there are non (no obvious ones, atleast...).

plz dont think this is spam, i think its kinda useful.. it was very helpful to me, and somewhat opened my eyes as to how different versions are delivered.

...

dont worry, these are the last comparison images. hope this once and for all is all the material people need, to decide which release they want. laters.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

quote:

---

Originally posted by aka_r
nuked because it is a cropped 16:9 FS

just wait for the real ws, which wont have anything missing neither from above/under neitehr from the sides

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

This is really strange.
I compared your images in photoshop and made this thingy:

spidey shot

Not only does the fs got more height.. it even has in this particulary shot more of the image on the left side.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Noone is nuking for bad aspect ratio.

The image is in the correct aspect ratio.

It is nuked here because the nukers, whoever they may be, seem to think that it should have more picture to it ie 2.35:1 instead of 2.4:1 which means they think that there are 6 pixels cropped off the vertical resolution.

6 pixels!!! I can live with that even if they are missing pixels.

As for WS Vs FS - it was shown in the cinema in cinemascope format (ie 2.35 or 2.4:1) so I will have it in that format please.

Mikey

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

quote:

---

Originally posted by chiv
this is the real widescreen - you are probably mixing this one up with ANOTHER release a while back (svcd release, i think), that was cropped from fs...)

---

Neither this or the SVCD are cropped, that was nuked because the nukers didnt know any better then, im assuming/hoping they do now.

Alright mikey, i totally agree on that, especially when theres so much contradicting information out there regarding the original AR, some sites say, 2:40 others say 2:35, to be honest it doesnt matter, as you wouldnt be able to tell.
WS is how i saw it at the cinema, and thats how i want it on DVD.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pedro14
Well this release seems very screwed up to me

I get lots of green s**t and the background pixels seem to be moving in a lot of scenes. Have I got a dodgy version?.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ribert
This is really strange.
I compared your images in photoshop and made this thingy:

spidey shot

Not only does the fs got more height.. it even has in this particulary shot more of the image on the left side.

---

thats what i was trying to point out. sometimes the fullscreen shows more than the widescreen does in SOME aspects (usually vertically) but the widescreen shows more horizontally.... youll find it varys through-out the film. its interesting to watch both versions if you can, to see what your missing with the ws

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

but you're not missing anything. with the FS print you might be seeing more, but nothing you were meant to see. if you were meant to see it, it would've been in the 2.35:1 guidelines on the monitors when they were filming it. if it wasn't for the fact they release the FS version for "traitors of cinema" to lap up, there'd probably be lots of things creeping into the frame that weren't supposed to be there.

seriously, read the aspect ratio it was intended to be shown in, and watch that. more isn't always necessarily better.

__________________
563-773-1880

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

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

quote:

---

Originally posted by DaNIsH
Try upgrading to the latest version of Xvid. If that doesn't work I'd say the latter.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

quote:

---

wasn't for the fact they release the FS version for "traitors of cinema" to lap up

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

quote:

---

Originally posted by chiv
spidey 2 comparison #1
spidey 2 comparison #2
spidey 2 comparison #3
spidey 2 comparison #4
spidey 2 comparison #5
spidey 2 comparison #6
spidey 2 comparison #7
spidey 2 comparison #8
spidey 2 comparison #9

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pedro14
Thanks for that, I updated to latest (1.0.2) and it works now. I dont think the quality is perfect but its not bad, is this a telesync?.

8/8/?

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

if this was ripped from a real retail source, where is the dvd-r release ?? i also noticed that the harry potter 3 ws dvd-r is not released so it's very possible that we will see a proper release of both movies in the future.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Well Spidey2 was shot in "Super35mm", which is a home-video "friendly" format. It basically uses a larger size film stock and shoots the whole film in fullscreen and then just crops it to widescreen aspect ratio for the theatre.

Then later when the studios release the dvd, they can just uncrop the picture and they have the extra top and bottom to fill the whole screen, as opposed to the old pan-and-scan method.

However with FX shots, they are usually rendered in the widescreen aspect ratio for theatrical release and they rarely render both a widescreen and fullscreen version (there are expections of course)... so basically for spidey2 since all the FX footage was in widescreen they HAVE to pan-and-scan it. But since all the other footage was shot in Super35, they don't have to pan and scan anything they just uncrop the picture.

So it looks like this no name group, thought they could be smart and just crop the fullscreen rip and pass it off as a widescreen release.

Damn studios and their super35! Just do OAR and make the people accept it.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

quote:

---

So it looks like this no name group, thought they could be smart and just crop the fullscreen rip and pass it off as a widescreen release.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

quote:

---

However with FX shots, they are usually rendered in the widescreen aspect ratio for theatrical release and they rarely render both a widescreen and fullscreen version (there are expections of course)...

---

Evidently this is an exception and they did render the FX for the whole screen.

And for the dvd-r, I just think this group is for some reason not able to release it. Doesnt look like a group with to much experience...

ps.
I'm now convinsed this rip has the same AR as was show in the cinema. I'm new here, but can nukes be unnuked?

[Edit:: We don't nuke, we just report what's been nuked - Neversoft]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged