______HDTV___________Blu-ray______
http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/7434/tru1hdz.th.png (http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/7434/tru1hdz.png)http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/7986/tru1bd.th.png (http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/7986/tru1bd.png)
http://img710.imageshack.us/img710/4813/tru2hd.th.png (http://img710.imageshack.us/img710/4813/tru2hd.png)http://img294.imageshack.us/img294/8396/tru2bd.th.png (http://img294.imageshack.us/img294/8396/tru2bd.png)
http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/1188/tru3hdn.th.png (http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/1188/tru3hdn.png)http://img710.imageshack.us/img710/6877/tru3bd.th.png (http://img710.imageshack.us/img710/6877/tru3bd.png)
http://img710.imageshack.us/img710/7406/tru4hd.th.png (http://img710.imageshack.us/img710/7406/tru4hd.png)http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/2712/tru4bd.th.png (http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/2712/tru4bd.png)
http://img121.imageshack.us/img121/2756/tru5hd.th.png (http://img121.imageshack.us/img121/2756/tru5hd.png)http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/6537/tru5bd.th.png (http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/6537/tru5bd.png)
http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/7048/tru6hd.th.png (http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/7048/tru6hd.png)http://img121.imageshack.us/img121/7112/tru6bd.th.png (http://img121.imageshack.us/img121/7112/tru6bd.png)
http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/4998/tru7hdw.th.png (http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/4998/tru7hdw.png)http://img710.imageshack.us/img710/2083/tru7bd.th.png (http://img710.imageshack.us/img710/2083/tru7bd.png)
http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/6793/tru8hd.th.png (http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/6793/tru8hd.png)http://img294.imageshack.us/img294/9741/tru8bd.th.png (http://img294.imageshack.us/img294/9741/tru8bd.png)
http://img706.imageshack.us/img706/3210/tru09hd.th.png (http://img706.imageshack.us/img706/3210/tru09hd.png)http://img294.imageshack.us/img294/9183/tru09bd.th.png (http://img294.imageshack.us/img294/9183/tru09bd.png)
http://img121.imageshack.us/img121/2559/tru10hdp.th.png (http://img121.imageshack.us/img121/2559/tru10hdp.png)http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/6496/tru10bd.th.png (http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/6496/tru10bd.png)
http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/8035/tru11hd.th.png (http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/8035/tru11hd.png)http://img694.imageshack.us/img694/8605/tru11bd.th.png (http://img694.imageshack.us/img694/8605/tru11bd.png)

Paramount intro from The Hunt from Red October, scaling matches the HDTV cap so the Blu-ray is stretched horizontally.
http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/3083/para.th.png (http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/3083/para.png)

http://img710.imageshack.us/img710/7163/25008276.png

Truly pathetic.

Sitting at a nomal distance from the TV watching the movie "live" I doubt many folks could even tell the two apart...they'd have to walk right up to the TV or sit a foot or two away to keep up with the subtle differences.

"Pathetic" qality as stated above...? hardly imo.

In the HBO HDTV cap there's a few shots here and there of cameras, equipment etc (for the movie, not the TV show in the movie :p ), I don't see why they couldn't have cropped and stretched just those shots, not the whole movie :rolleyes:

http://hdimage.org/images/svjo0ehfvfl763c06ihc_tru7bd_thumb.png (http://hdimage.org/images/svjo0ehfvfl763c06ihc_tru7bd.png)http://hdimage.org/images/4xvqm5w9e5dvxbpdsjps_tru7hd_thumb.png (http://hdimage.org/images/4xvqm5w9e5dvxbpdsjps_tru7hd.png)

There is a clear difference seen between the Blu-ray and HDTV versions upon close inspection. Look at the third comparison where Carrey is holding a newspaper. The words "WESTSIDE ARTISTS LTD" in the background are clearly visible and well-defined on the Blu-ray while only "WESTSIDE" is even faintly visible on the HDTV version. Colors and flesh tones look superior also on the Blu-ray. It is unmistakable though that the Blu-ray's image has been stretched horizontally in comparison to the broadcast version.

I would say Paramount did okay here for a minor catalog title based off the screen captures but I will withhold final judgment until seeing it in action. Not every movie is going to look spectacular on Blu-ray.

There is a clear difference seen between the Blu-ray and HDTV versions upon close inspection. Look at the third comparison where Carrey is holding a newspaper. The words "WESTSIDE ARTISTS LTD" in the background are clearly visible and well-defined on the Blu-ray while only "WESTSIDE" is even faintly visible on the HDTV version. Colors and flesh tones look superior also on the Blu-ray.

I'm not trying to point out detail/clarity level because obviously a low bitrate broadcast is not going to hold up well. A high bitrate disc encode of the non-butchered transfer would have much more detail than the HDTV version. I'm trying to point out the horrendous application of DNR and EE.

First off...What do you all mean by the image has been stretched horizontally ?

That's the second time i have heard someone mention this about a Paramount title....Event Horizon was the other movie mentioned as having been stretched and i'm just wondering what exactly this is doing to the image and does this mean we are not getting a proper cinematic edition in the correct ratio ?

Of course being the second time i have heard this phrase used and both times about Paramount titles it begs the question just how many more new Paramount catalog titles have this issue ?

( Yah i'm asking a newbie type question but i honestly haven't heard the phrase used before )

Secondly the Blu Ray screenshots show a horrendous amount of edge enhancement which i just hate.

First off...What do you all mean by the image has been stretched horizontally ?


Horizontally stretched means excatly what it sounds like it does, i.e that the picture has been cropped on the sides and stretched horizontally, thus breaking the correct width-to-height ratio, which again makes everyone look shorter and fatter :(

I totally agree with you about the EE. It's horrible and totally unnecessary.

Horizontally stretched means excatly what it sounds like it does, i.e that the picture has been cropped on the sides and stretched horizontally, thus breaking the correct width-to-height ratio, which again makes everyone look shorter and fatter :(

I totally agree with you about the EE. It's horrible and totally unnecessary.

Well thats absolutely disgusting...Why would Paramount do that ?

I was thinking of ordering Ghost but i'm going to hold off in case that too has been stretched.

I was thinking of ordering Ghost but i'm going to hold off in case that too has been stretched. All of Paramount's new release have been fantastic, no processing at all, I wouldn't worry it. Their catalog releases are really random though, Event Horizon, released on the same day as Truman Show, doesn't have any DNR or EE whatsoever.

Well thats absolutely disgusting...Why would Paramount do that ?


I have no Idea, Foxy :confused: Incompetence I guess.
Incidently the Event Horizon seems to be vertically stretched, making people look taller, and round objects looking oval.

I believe the Truman show was shot 1.66 ratio, as I seem to recall the DVD being pillarboxed. This could account for the stretching to make it 1.78. IMDB has the aspect ratio incorrect. Peter Weir often shot in this ratio.

All of Paramount's new release have been fantastic, no processing at all, I wouldn't worry it. Their catalog releases are really random though, Event Horizon, released on the same day as Truman Show, doesn't have any DNR or EE whatsoever.

Perhaps so but on the thread in my signature it was reported Event Horizon is also stretched and if so it makes me wary of picking up catalogue titles from Paramount and when i said new i just meant as in new catalogue releases as their older ones don't seem to have stretching....Perhaps their latest batch does which is why i'm now wary of blind buying Ghost.

I believe the Truman show was shot 1.66 ratio, as I seem to recall the DVD being pillarboxed. This could account for the stretching to make it 1.78. IMDB has the aspect ratio incorrect. Peter Weir often shot in this ratio.

The original DVD from 1999 is non-anamorphic 1.66:1; the 2005 DVD is cropped to 1.78:1 and is anamorphically encoded.

This new Blu-ray foul up is a real shame, as it's one of my favorite movies and deserves much better treatment. I'll just stick with the 2005 DVD for the time being, which looks very good upconverted (YMMV; subject to screen size and viewing distance, of course).

Perhaps so but on the thread in my signature it was reported Event Horizon is also stretched and if so it makes me wary of picking up catalogue titles from Paramount and when i said new i just meant as in new catalogue releases as their older ones don't seem to have stretching....Perhaps their latest batch does which is why i'm now wary of blind buying Ghost.

Oh I forgot about that catalog title, I thought you meant Ghost Town :p
Event Horizon is indeed also stretched, but I believe for a different reason than Truman. Event Horizon's stretching looks to have been accidental, while it was on purpose for Truman show.

The HDTV capture of Truman is considered "open matte", as you can see a few posts up the camera crew is in the shot.

Ben Williams' Blu-ray.com review (http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/movies.php?id=1813&show=review) gave the picture 4.5/5. I went to their forum and used his own screenshots to prove several things wrong about his review, and I was banned permanently.

Here are some screenshots from the review:
1 (http://images.blu-ray.com/reviews/842_1_1080p.jpg) | 2 (http://images.blu-ray.com/reviews/842_2_1080p.jpg) | 3 (http://images.blu-ray.com/reviews/842_3_1080p.jpg) | 4 (http://images.blu-ray.com/reviews/842_4_1080p.jpg) | 5 (http://images.blu-ray.com/reviews/842_5_1080p.jpg) | 6 (http://images.blu-ray.com/reviews/842_6_1080p.jpg) | 7 (http://images.blu-ray.com/reviews/842_7_1080p.jpg) | 8 (http://images.blu-ray.com/reviews/842_8_1080p.jpg) | 9 (http://images.blu-ray.com/reviews/842_9_1080p.jpg) | 10 (http://images.blu-ray.com/reviews/842_10_1080p.jpg)

Additionally, you can also find 1080p shots in the DVD Beaver review (http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDReviews43/the_truman_show_blu-ray.htm).


The Truman Show arrives on Blu-ray in fantastic 1080p transfer.

You can only down-up the shots to 1280x720. That's better than DVD, but I wouldn't tout "1080p." I also wouldn't call it "fantastic," for the same reason a teacher wouldn't write "fantastic! C+" on your homework.

The film’s original matted aspect ratio of 1.85:1 has been opened up for this release, allowing the film to fill the entire 1.78:1 frame that is native in 16:9 high definition televisions.

When I first saw the screenshots (first at DVD Beaver and then on Blu-ray.com), I just had the feeling I was watching TNT, if you know what I mean. The moon's a great example of what should be a perfect circle. (click for full-size)

http://images.blu-ray.com/reviews/842_4.jpg (http://images.blu-ray.com/reviews/842_4_1080p.jpg)


Notice that the moon is wider than it is tall. It should be 126x126, but instead it's 133x126.

http://i333.photobucket.com/albums/m366/n-jaws-yo/Movies/BDvsHD/trumanshow/ar/ar_blu-ray.jpg http://i333.photobucket.com/albums/m366/n-jaws-yo/Movies/BDvsHD/trumanshow/ar/ar_proper.jpg


I applied the adjustment (shrinking 5%) to several screenshots, and everyone appeared to be breathing better.

http://images.blu-ray.com/reviews/842_4.jpg
http://i333.photobucket.com/albums/m366/n-jaws-yo/Movies/BDvsHD/trumanshow/ar/04.jpg

http://images.blu-ray.com/reviews/842_1.jpg
http://i333.photobucket.com/albums/m366/n-jaws-yo/Movies/BDvsHD/trumanshow/ar/01.jpg

http://images.blu-ray.com/reviews/842_2.jpg
http://i333.photobucket.com/albums/m366/n-jaws-yo/Movies/BDvsHD/trumanshow/ar/02.jpg

http://images.blu-ray.com/reviews/842_3.jpg
http://i333.photobucket.com/albums/m366/n-jaws-yo/Movies/BDvsHD/trumanshow/ar/03.jpg

http://images.blu-ray.com/reviews/842_5.jpg
http://i333.photobucket.com/albums/m366/n-jaws-yo/Movies/BDvsHD/trumanshow/ar/05.jpg

http://images.blu-ray.com/reviews/842_6.jpg
http://i333.photobucket.com/albums/m366/n-jaws-yo/Movies/BDvsHD/trumanshow/ar/06.jpg

http://images.blu-ray.com/reviews/842_9.jpg
http://i333.photobucket.com/albums/m366/n-jaws-yo/Movies/BDvsHD/trumanshow/ar/09.jpg



The film looks fresh and crisp and doesn’t suffer from distracting dirt or residue. It’s about as pristine as they come.

..because it's been smeared away with a putty knife.


I didn’t detect a trace of edge enhancement...

Maybe this will help (click for original 1080p image)
http://i333.photobucket.com/albums/m366/n-jaws-yo/Movies/BDvsHD/trumanshow/ee/09.jpg (http://images.blu-ray.com/reviews/842_9_1080p.jpg)


I don't want anyone giving me crap about judging the PQ without seeing it in motion. The only problem that goes away in motion is grain, which was smeared out anyway. When it comes to EE, sure I'm not going to catch every single halo if I only have 3 seconds to evaluate a shot, but halos are really just HALF of the problem- you can't miss the blotted messy look that it leaves in its wake. It just looks like texture-less cel-shaded animation. And the other issues (run-of-the-mill 720p resolution and distorted aspect ratio) don't go away in motion either. So no, I don't need to waste my time and money renting it just so I can say it still looks equally bad in motion.


After I posted this on Blu-ray.com, I got this:
You have been banned for the following reason:
repeatedly attacking reviewers in spite of warnings. Screenshot science crusade.

Date the ban will be lifted: Never
Ah, the old shut-up-the-poster-before-they-hurt-our-integrity tactic. That wasn't so smart considering where I'm posting this now...

Oh, and

In a comparison to the film’s original DVD release, this Blu-ray edition is a clear upgrade featuring significantly improved and more saturated colors, vastly increased detail and much more pleasing contrast and black levels. The Truman Show looks spectacular on Blu-ray.

As long as it looks better than the $9 DVD...

Audiophile/Videophile for 25 years.


And he's 34 currently.

Hilarious. Didn't the same happen to some other guy as well for "exposing" the reviewer? Blu-ray.com is good for screenshots, but that's about it. That pasty mess is supposed to be half a point away from the best it could possibly look on BD?

The worst part is that several of the reviewers include that type of "I did not detect any EE/DNR/etc." text when they clearly have no idea what they're talking about. If you don't know how to assess the technical quality in that kind of detail then at least have the courtesy to stick to the "colours look solid" boilerplate and simply slap a score on it.

cakefoo

What exactly *is* the correct aspect ratio for this film?
Imdb lists two (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120382/technical), the negative ratio of 1.37 and the intended of 1.85. I would assume if this is the case, it is cropped for theatrical?

What are you claiming the two ratios you present?

ted

Correct me if I am wrong, but a lot are filmed in 1.37 and cropped to 1.85. It is a standard procedure.

Sometimes, the films are opened back up for DVD releases (like Kubrick films) and cause some controversy.

-----------------

Regarding this film, I am relatively sure that it was 1.85 theatrically (in the US).

Somebody mentioned 1.66 earlier. If it was 1.66, would it have less information on the sides or more information on the top and bottom than these 1.85 screenshots?

Also, does the DVD release resemble the Blu-ray (cropped and stretched) or the TV version? I will have to put the stretched version on my do not buy list.


EDIT: I am probably mistaken. All evidence points to 1.66 being the correct ratio.

cakefoo

What exactly *is* the correct aspect ratio for this film?


We can't really know the answer unless someone projecting the movie or involved tells us what the *intended* AR really is (btw, the intended ratio might be different from the projected ratio in the cinema). But if we presume that the matting on the Blu-Ray is correct, we can calculate the correct AR from the screenshots Ted posted with the corrected height-to-width ratio. His shot (09.jpg) has an aspect ratio of 1.67:1. So it's safe to say that the AR of the movie, with the matting as presented on the Blu, should be 1.67:1 if they hadn't screwed up. :cool:

cakefoo

What exactly *is* the correct aspect ratio for this film?
Imdb lists two (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120382/technical), the negative ratio of 1.37 and the intended of 1.85. I would assume if this is the case, it is cropped for theatrical?

What are you claiming the two ratios you present?

ted
I couldn't say what the intended AR of the film is- I can only say that the Blu-ray screenshots need to be shrunken horizontally.

We can't really know the answer unless someone projecting the movie or involved tells us what the *intended* AR really is (btw, the intended ratio might be different from the projected ratio in the cinema). But if we presume that the matting on the Blu-Ray is correct, we can calculate the correct AR from the screenshots Ted posted with the corrected height-to-width ratio. His shot (09.jpg) has an aspect ratio of 1.67:1. So it's safe to say that the AR of the movie, with the matting as presented on the Blu, should be 1.67:1 if they hadn't screwed up. :cool:

Sure, but ultimately I would have speculated that in the cropping you don't suppose it was possivle some horizontal stretching was added if cropping was not entirely satisfactory? I would call this speculative because if the intent was 1.85 then they would be likely shooting protected.

More to the point is it not possible that some of the horizontal stretching was because of the regular use of wide angle lenses (see here (http://www.theasc.com/protect/jun98/life/index.htm)) plus the additon of an Aspheron (http://www.easternvideo.com/equipmentforsale/pdf/Aspheron.pdf) adaptor? I'm not about to argue this but I know which "truth" I would choose.

ted

Correct me if I am wrong, but a lot are filmed in 1.37 and cropped to 1.85. It is a standard procedure.

Sometimes, the films are opened back up for DVD releases (like Kubrick films) and cause some controversy.

-----------------

Somebody mentioned 1.66 earlier. If it was 1.66, would it have less information on the sides or more information on the top and bottom than these 1.85 screenshots?



In a constant height setup (where ratios are concerned you need a sonstant as reference) then 1.66 would not be as wide as 1.85. Since most displays are constant *width* then a 1.85 would not have as much *height* as 1.66.

ted

I swear reading things like this are sooo depressing. Its like more than half of all Blu-ray releases are ****ed up in some way...

The Truman Show was shown in 1.85:1 theatrically. I believe the original DVD was 1.66:1 due to Peter Weir's preferences. This is similar to The Criterion DVD of RoboCop being 1.66:1 at Paul Verhoeven's insistance, while later versions were in 1.85:1. I have no issues with the 1.77:1 AR for the SE DVD and BD of the Truman Show, since this is close to the original theatrical aspect ratio.

Why do people even pay attention to blu-ray.com reviews....the reviewer or reviewers are absolutely ridiculous. Half the movies they review have a 5/5 PQ...it's a complete joke.

You don't go to blu-ray.com for real information about blu-rays except for maybe release dates. It's like going to NewEnglandPatriots.com and expecting to see fair critique and unbias judgment of the team.

I'm not a huge fan of Truman Show, but thought it was a good movie, looking forward to renting it and judging for myself.

This almost makes me want to cry.

You know, it's one thing when a master is lacking. I realize that new masters are expensive, and we can't expect them to do one unless there's a new DVD to go along with it. Transfers from a few years ago should be good anyway, provided that there isn't DNR and EE baked into them.

What's really frustrating though, is when they apparently have a good one already, and then they go out of their way to muck it up with DNR and EE. Now, we have to worry about stretching too? Unbelievable.

I think I might have a new rule of thumb... if Jim Carrey is in the movie... expect the blu-ray release to be mediocre due to any number of reasons *not* involving the content of the film itself. :(. Not a big fan of this movie, but this is disappointing news regardless.

This almost makes me want to cry.

You know, it's one thing when a master is lacking. I realize that new masters are expensive, and we can't expect them to do one unless there's a new DVD to go along with it. Transfers from a few years ago should be good anyway, provided that there isn't DNR and EE baked into them.

What's really frustrating though, is when they apparently have a good one already, and then they go out of their way to muck it up with DNR and EE. Now, we have to worry about stretching too? Unbelievable.

Seriously? You almost feel the need to cry over THIS?

The images presented here look absolutely fine...and to the naked eye when the movie is actually PLAYING I bet next to NOBODY will be able to pick out the supposed "flaws" during playback.

You folks are REALLY getting worked up over the most minute things.

Both versions shown in this thread look perfectly fine.

Now if the Blu version came out looking like a copy of a copy of a VHS version I'd be crying foul to the studio...but cry over THIS...that's absurd imo.

The images presented here look absolutely fine...and to the naked eye when the movie is actually PLAYING I bet next to NOBODY will be able to pick out the supposed "flaws" during playback. Not even the overly fat faces from the stretching bothers you? You must have extremely low standards or have no clue what a quality HD transfer is supposed to look like.

http://hdimage.org/images/nyzcgtnne0qntbnjhbf_tru8bd_thumb.png (http://hdimage.org/images/nyzcgtnne0qntbnjhbf_tru8bd.png)http://hdimage.org/images/r3hv7pvl60v8z6suxy9_tru8hd_thumb.png (http://hdimage.org/images/r3hv7pvl60v8z6suxy9_tru8hd.png)

I think I might have a new rule of thumb... if Jim Carrey is in the movie... expect the blu-ray release to be mediocre due to any number of reasons *not* involving the content of the film itself.


You folks are REALLY getting worked up over the most minute things.


got my votes;)

ted

Sitting at a nomal distance from the TV watching the movie "live" I doubt many folks could even tell the two apart...they'd have to walk right up to the TV or sit a foot or two away to keep up with the subtle differences.

"Pathetic" qality as stated above...? hardly imo.

If that's the case, why should I even bother with Blu-ray? If many folks can't tell the difference between 10Mbps broadcast MPEG-2 stream and 30Mbps AVC encoded stream, what does that say for future of Blu-ray?

FAR from it. There are over 1100 titles now on blu-ray. How many of them have major issues? People only make noise when something is wrong. There are tons of great looking titles out there that no one here even discusses.
its because you have to pay for every title, not just the good looking ones

Not even the overly fat faces from the stretching bothers you? You must have extremely low standards or have no clue what a quality HD transfer is supposed to look like.



Me two obviously.:rolleyes:
except..
except..
escept..

I view film content on a 127' 2.35 screen *with* this (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=763022 and)and *work* in HD video production on a daily basis with this (http://bssc.sel.sony.com/Professional/docs/brochures/mvs8000.pdf).

Now this doesn't necessarily mean that you are wrong in your assumption but it sure does give me the right to say you presume too much.

ted

No offense but that doesn't impress me. People using even more sophisticated equipment are the ones who made this transfer and many others like it.


No offense taken, I wasn't trying to impress anyone other than to impart that I do take film viewing seriously and have the experience (since its in my job description) to asess video content.
Iit shouldn't impress you anyway as there are many on this forum who have considerably better equipment an more expertise in many areas that I will never venture into).

What does surprise me though is that you think that the statements I've made would somehow put me in disagreement with this:

FAR from it. There are over 1100 titles now on blu-ray. How many of them have major issues? People only make noise when something is wrong. There are tons of great looking titles out there that no one here even discusses.

confusing that....
ted

Ted, I'm not sure I understand, what did you mean when quoting me? That I was over-reacting in my post?

Great job Paramount! This just went from a must buy to a not in you life would I ever pay for this crap Paramount.

The studios wonder why catalog titles don't sell, maybe it is because they treat them like this and think nobody will ever notice. If they would put a little more effort into some of these releases then I'd be willing to put a little more effort into buying them.

Great job Paramount! This just went from a must buy to a not in you life would I ever pay for this crap Paramount.

The studios wonder why catalog titles don't sell, maybe it is because they treat them like this and think nobody will ever notice. If they would put a little more effort into some of these releases then I'd be willing to put a little more effort into buying them.

exactly!
What happened Paramount?
A couple of years back you released The Warriors in HD and it is a MUCH older and more low budget film and it looked excellent.

Ted, I'm not sure I understand, what did you mean when quoting me? That I was over-reacting in my post?

Not at all - loved the statement though I'm not sure you meant as I chose to understand it. i.e. any movie with Jim Carrey is questionable to begin with which I agree with - though there are things I like about the Truman Show. For me at any rate, this has more to do with Peter Weir than Carrey.

ted

Oh, gotcha. I was meaning whether you like Carrey or not the PQ of any movie with him in it seems to be sketchy. I like a handful of his movies, this isn't one would be a rental. I mistakenly thought that you thought I was over-reacting about the PQ of movies like Dumb & Dumber, The Mask, the film in question, etc. :).

Both versions shown in this thread look perfectly fine.

Then we don't need HD. DVD is good enough. :rolleyes:

got my votes;)

ted

Ted i can't understand how you can say people are overreacting....The films got worse edge enhancement than The X Files - Fight The Future and trust me when i say my enjoyment was spoiled when watching that one because of the EE and not only that it's been stretched so everyone and everything is slightly out of shape...Indeed the link made in your earlier post even confirms the Blu Ray is just wrong as the images show the correct aspect ratio and yet you seem to be defending the release or saying people who complain about it are overreacting....Why ? Do you think it hasn't been stretched ?

Now i get that some shots in the movie are meant to show barrel pin cushion type distortion which you can do to pictures in photoshop such as the scene when he is looking into the mirror and being filmed but thats a totally different thing to stretching the image as the still shots on this page show.

I don't want to buy films on a high definition format which are baked with DNR or EE or now stretching of the image.....They should have just released it as 1.66:1....Here's a radical idea....Make a new master and spend some money on these catalogue titles.

I am dismayed that you would say there isn't major issues with this transfer and instead seem to be taking a stance against everyone who says there is.

It costs me money to buy these things so don't be surprised if i get a little annoyed when they try and fob us off with such rubbish....If it wasn't for AVS i would have spent countless sums of money on transfers which were real bad.

Would you add EE to your HD video productions or stretch the image hoping no one would notice ? I think not.

If you are a film fan then things like this matter to you....Quality control matters....The thought of a studio treating it's customers with contempt like this makes me question what else they will do to save a few bucks. Indeed isn't this the type of thing which demands a recall...For Event Horizon if it too has been stretched and any others which might have this issue.

I don't want to buy films on a high definition format which are baked with DNR or EE or now stretching of the image.....They should have just released it as 1.66:1....Here's a radical idea....Make a new master and spend some money on these catalogue titles. Either that or use the open matte version if they want it in 1:78:1 and crop the few scenes were the production equipment/team sneaks in. It was 1:85:1 in theaters so it's not like it's the wrong AR for it.

Man.. I cannot stand the horizontal stretching. What were they thinking? I don't find the DNR to be excessive on this, but it seems completely unnecessary to add DNR to any recently filmed movie. Thanks OP. I liked this movie, but I will think twice before buying.

except..
except..
escept..


Did you forget spell check on one of the lines? Cute.

The transfer on the Blu-ray disc is botched. Plain and simple. Not only is it full of EE and DNR artifacts but it is overcropped and isn't even geometrically correct. What kind of sick joke is that? The unmolested HDTV capture shows that a correct transfer is out there. Why the need to process it to death?

So far all my favorite late 90s films look like crap on BD. Dark City :eek:, Gattaca, Run Lola Run, now The Truman Show. I'm dreading to see what New Line is doing with Blade and Pleasantville.

The transfer on the Blu-ray disc is botched. Plain and simple. Not only is it full of EE and DNR artifacts but it is overcropped and isn't even geometrically correct. What kind of sick joke is that? The unmolested HDTV capture shows that a correct transfer is out there. Why the need to process it to death?

So far all my favorite late 90s films look like crap on BD. Dark City :eek:, Gattaca, Run Lola Run, now The Truman Show. I'm dreading to see what New Line is doing with Blade and Pleasantville.

Don't worry they have their top man Mr Stevland Hardaway Judkins working on both those transfers so rest assured they will look great.

Well, at least we can expect a good soundtrack. :D

The new year started as bad as it ended.

I am watching this one tonite. I have never seen it so I am keeping my fingers crossed... :)

So far all my favorite late 90s films look like crap on BD. Dark City :eek:, Gattaca, Run Lola Run, now The Truman Show. I'm dreading to see what New Line is doing with Blade and Pleasantville.

I'm shocked over those Truman Show screenshots... What's the point of releasing a movie on Blu-ray if we have to watch a stretched image??:mad::mad::eek::eek:
At least Dark City and Gattaca don't have AR issues!!

Wow, those blu-ray shots look like poop with the EE and stretched image.

If people want to say it looks fine then cool but that doesn't change reality. I'm a Colts fan and people are trying to imply the D played well last night despite giving up 167 yards rushing and a few 3rd and long conversions and trying to blame Manning despite the fact he is the only reason they got to the playoffs and the only reason they were even leading late in that game...so clearly, what some say means jack all to what reality says.

I trust my eyes, my logic and a handful of people.

Enough is enough for Truman Show and Jim Carey.After dramatic serious movies then he turn back to funny movie again,I said about YES MAN,the plot why it resemble to LIAR LIAR in opposite way.

Just watched the Truman Show BD tonight. It seems like some shots look more stretched than others. The fish eye stuff looked better to me.

I still had the SE DVD around and I popped that in to compare. Looks like it might have had the same issue but I'd have to do some more A-B testing to confirm. This would be a great comparison for Xylon or someone else to do with the DVD.

I would hardly call Run Lola Run and Gattaca "crap". The halos on Gattaca are minor in comparison and the color timing on Lola was shown to be the director's intent.

Gattaca also has DNR issues which look very similar to what Dark City has. It's not consistently bad but it's annoying. Run Lola Run... I just don't remember it looking that yellow in the theater. No blown highlights or contrast boosting either.

re: Truman Show

A comparison thread with the SE dvd would make the BD look good. The dvd is that screwed up. Way too warm/yellow and it's even more overmatted.

Enough is enough for Truman Show and Jim Carey.After dramatic serious movies then he turn back to funny movie again,I said about YES MAN,the plot why it resemble to LIAR LIAR in opposite way.
He made good movies after The Truman Show. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is a fantastic movie.

+1

he was so much better there as in all those funny roles

What a shame that Paramount screwed up The Truman Show Blu-ray. One of my favorite movies.

Is this title available in another region at correct aspect ratio?

this is why 90% of disc reviews are a joke...

the truth always comes out on AVS...shame on that guy for banning people who provide an alternate viewpoint...

Well what do you expect from a site that's basically an infomercial?

this is why 90% of disc reviews are a joke...

the truth always comes out on AVS...shame on that guy for banning people who provide an alternate viewpoint...

I agree. This release is a disgrace in many ways. I can see how the stretching can go unnoticed without a frame of reference, but defending it after the fact is inexcusable.

So far all my favorite late 90s films look like crap on BD. Dark City :eek:, Gattaca, Run Lola Run, now The Truman Show.
Gattaca looks like crap to you??
Wow, I think it looks beautiful. Just watched it last week.

Woweee, looks horrid. Why is it that so many 90s releases look really, really bad?

Gattaca looks like crap to you??
Wow, I think it looks beautiful. Just watched it last week.

Gattaca has EE, but I wouldn't call it crappy.

All I have to say is that if Gattaca is considered a "crappy" transfer, then you all should take an ironic hint from a line in that very same movie:

"They've got you looking for any flaw, that after a while that's all you see."

re: Gattaca

The whole movie isn't DNRed to the extent of Dark City but sometimes it gets ugly with a processed look. Examples:

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDReviews39/gattaca%20brd/large/lg%20%20%20large%20gattaca%20%20snapshot20080708103109.jpg

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDReviews39/gattaca%20brd/large/lg%20%20%20large%20gattaca%20%20snapshot20080708104732.jpg

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDReviews39/gattaca%20brd/large/lg%20%20%20large%20gattaca%20%20snapshot20080708105243.jpg

The Truman Show appears to be consistently garbage and the stretched aspect ratio is inexcusable. Peter Weir should sue.

In other news, DVD Beaver has caps for Election now, and I think they look good. It's way better than The Truman Show: http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDReviews43/election_blu-ray.htm. I'll definitely be buying that one.

I just thought I'd post that here in case anyone was about to give up on Paramount and/or late 90s movies. :)

What's amazing is that Paramount did a stellar job with The Warriors and that was a low budget film from the 70's...

Hah, I was just going to post that review of Election. :) It does look pretty good. And it's precisely the type of film I'd expect to look like the Truman Show, so I guess there's hope. Sadly that hope currently means having to wait out the cycle of crappy transfers from 5+ years back. :(

I came in to laugh at the HDTV version but I have to say it holds up admirably well, I almost hate to say that. Althoough it could just be that the Blu Ray just isn't that spectacular.

Sitting at a nomal distance from the TV watching the movie "live" I doubt many folks could even tell the two apart...they'd have to walk right up to the TV or sit a foot or two away to keep up with the subtle differences.

"Pathetic" qality as stated above...? hardly imo.

an opened frame version then stretched out is not pathetic and not easy to spot??

Me two obviously.:rolleyes:
except..
except..
escept..

I view film content on a 127' 2.35 screen *with* this (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=763022 and)and *work* in HD video production on a daily basis with this (http://bssc.sel.sony.com/Professional/docs/brochures/mvs8000.pdf).

Now this doesn't necessarily mean that you are wrong in your assumption but it sure does give me the right to say you presume too much.

ted

so if a crappy driver hits the lottery or is rich and buys and Enzo suddenly he is a world class driver?

who cares what equipment you have and why did you even pay for it if you can't even notice major mistakes on even stuff that large, waht's the point?

The transfer on the Blu-ray disc is botched. Plain and simple. Not only is it full of EE and DNR artifacts but it is overcropped and isn't even geometrically correct. What kind of sick joke is that? The unmolested HDTV capture shows that a correct transfer is out there. Why the need to process it to death?

So far all my favorite late 90s films look like crap on BD. Dark City :eek:, Gattaca, Run Lola Run, now The Truman Show. I'm dreading to see what New Line is doing with Blade and Pleasantville.

the

Seriously? You almost feel the need to cry over THIS?

The images presented here look absolutely fine...and to the naked eye when the movie is actually PLAYING I bet next to NOBODY will be able to pick out the supposed "flaws" during playback.

You folks are REALLY getting worked up over the most minute things.

Both versions shown in this thread look perfectly fine.

Now if the Blu version came out looking like a copy of a copy of a VHS version I'd be crying foul to the studio...but cry over THIS...that's absurd imo.

This isn't flaws like EE or compression artifacts. This is people/scenes actually being STRETCHED sideways!! The movie "playing" isn't going to fix that.

ROFL....

Is this title available in other countries from a different studio yet?

I think it's a Paramount title worldwide.

I think it's a Paramount title worldwide.

Well that sucks :(

I'd honestly rather have low-resolution DVD upconvert than squash-o-vision. Pissed I sold my DVD edition. :mad:

Wow, calling this geometrically incorrect is an understatement. That is shockingly terrible.

This needs to be recalled and now.

Wow, calling this geometrically incorrect is an understatement. That is shockingly terrible.

This needs to be recalled and now.

Do we have any Paramount contacts on this board? Maybe R.A.H. can help?

Wow, calling this geometrically incorrect is an understatement. That is shockingly terrible.

This needs to be recalled and now.

The 2005 "Special Edition" DVD uses the same stretched+EE+DNR'd transfer. Did anyone care/notice back then? The 1999 DVD had the correct 1.66 AR so I guess no one compared the two.

I would be happy with a correctly proportioned 1.78:1 transfer with no EE or DNR like the broadcast version.

When I look out my window there's no speckles of grain in the sky. DNR for life!

:rolleyes:

I would be happy with a correctly proportioned 1.78:1 transfer with no EE or DNR like the broadcast version.

Same. Lets get this fixed Paramount!

I'm surprised there isn't more uproar about this. This is far worse than the Patton DNR incident IMO. :mad:

I'm surprised there isn't more uproar about this. This is far worse than the Patton DNR incident IMO. :mad:


Probably because the movie pretty much sucked and people aren't all that interested in it, let alone BUYING it.

Well, there's one in every thread. :D

Probably because the movie pretty much sucked and people aren't all that interested in it, let alone BUYING it.

ummm..... no.


http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/truman_show/?name_order=asc


nice threadcrap too

I found a copy of the original OOP US DVD in a local FYE for $5 new. I bought it, I'd rather watch an upscale than the EE'd/DNR'd/geometrically distorted Blu-ray. Oh well... :(

Does anyone have Ghost ?

It's also Paramount and released late December and i'm wary of picking it up without first knowing if this issue that is on The Truman Show also affects it. My thinking being that maybe quality control missed something on the latest catalogue releases from this studio as Event Horizon seems to have the same issue.

So does anyone have the movie Ghost and can give an opinion on whether this horizontal squeeze issue affects it ?

Ah dammit why did I have to see this thread. I was eagerly waiting to buy this movie in a big BD buy. I know I would not have noticed this problem if I hadn't seen this thread but now I can't get the movie without this buzzing at my mind.

Ah dammit why did I have to see this thread. I was eagerly waiting to buy this movie in a big BD buy. I know I would not have noticed this problem if I hadn't seen this thread but now I can't get the movie without this buzzing at my mind.

I had already ordered Truman when I found this thread and I dreaded watching it while looking for everything that's been talked about here. Thankfully, I watched the movie all the way through and enjoyed it very much, forgetting to think about DNR, EE, oval moons, etc. I have never owned the film in any format and I am not unhappy I bought it. If there is a good anamorphic version on DVD double dipping up from that may be a waste.

All that said it's still a shame that BR versions are being so heavily altered.

Ah dammit why did I have to see this thread. I was eagerly waiting to buy this movie in a big BD buy. I know I would not have noticed this problem if I hadn't seen this thread but now I can't get the movie without this buzzing at my mind.

I don't know that it would have mattered. I think the EE and DNR are more of a problem with this title than the stretching, and this is coming from someone who HATES stretching (such as to fill a 16x9 TV). When I first saw the screenshots, I didn't even notice the stretching, but I sure saw the EE/DNR.

I've shown the stills round a few people.

When I show the 'stretched' stills, no one has noticed.

When I show the comparisons, hardly anyone noticed (and the person who did notice didn't think it was really noticeable unless you were looking for it).

When I pointed out that one was the right shape and the other had been made either too fat or too thin, very few could say which was which (whether the BD was stretched or the other copy made thin).

Before anyone jumps on my back, I believe every BD should be perfect, without any DNR or EE, and certainly in OAR with the correct proportions.

I just think we need to keep the level of the problem in a little perspective.

Steve W

A lot of casual HDTV owners don't mind stretching SD to fill their 16:9 screen. Many of them prefer distorting the picture because they can't stand black bars/want the biggest picture possible. Knowing this doesn't change my feelings. ;)

More:

http://hdimage.org/images/ppk3ymg73xwb3txwqxe_tru10bd_thumb.png (http://hdimage.org/images/ppk3ymg73xwb3txwqxe_tru10bd.png)http://hdimage.org/images/mr2klpyhsyfy0avedypn_tru10hd_thumb.png (http://hdimage.org/images/mr2klpyhsyfy0avedypn_tru10hd.png)

http://hdimage.org/images/5ehe9814k7plaz8ik2_tru11bd_thumb.png (http://hdimage.org/images/5ehe9814k7plaz8ik2_tru11bd.png)http://hdimage.org/images/tl1iqxkw3q1r0cpjx9w_tru11hd_thumb.png (http://hdimage.org/images/tl1iqxkw3q1r0cpjx9w_tru11hd.png)

http://hdimage.org/images/us07tga28g79jd9o38d_tru12hd_thumb.png (http://hdimage.org/images/us07tga28g79jd9o38d_tru12hd.png)http://hdimage.org/images/imx535rrklkkct0a76mk_tru12bd_thumb.png (http://hdimage.org/images/imx535rrklkkct0a76mk_tru12bd.png)

Maybe this can be considered the very first anamorphically enhanced HD title. We just need a 1.66:1 button on our remotes to get it into the correct AR.

I am impressed with eric.exe and the way the first post was presented in this thread. I can go to the first post and see thumbs of the screens and their all there. Open in new tab on the thumbs and can stare and compare. I find it it truly annoying to scan 20 first posts in a single thread just to view a single screenshot at full rez while its stretching off my screen to who knows where. thank you eric.exe, excellent job.

As far as the film, I am saddened as I enjoyed this movie alot and was looking forward to it, but still can not get over the way it turned out.

I wish more screenshot threads had an organized first post like this one.


A couple things I'd do to improve the user-friendliness even further:

1. Instead of just saying that post #1 has been updated, include the thumbnails in the latest post also, so that people can effortlessly quote reply the new shots, and so latecomers can know exactly what shots had been added.


2. In the OP, along with the new shots, include a link to the post where they were added so latecomers can know where those particular shots were first being discussed.


Example of what the first post in the thread would look like:
Update for 1/27/09, 11:37PM - Added these screenshots (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=15671095#post15671095)

http://hdimage.org/images/ppk3ymg73xwb3txwqxe_tru10bd_thumb.png (http://hdimage.org/images/ppk3ymg73xwb3txwqxe_tru10bd.png)http://hdimage.org/images/mr2klpyhsyfy0avedypn_tru10hd_thumb.png (http://hdimage.org/images/mr2klpyhsyfy0avedypn_tru10hd.png)

http://hdimage.org/images/5ehe9814k7plaz8ik2_tru11bd_thumb.png (http://hdimage.org/images/5ehe9814k7plaz8ik2_tru11bd.png)http://hdimage.org/images/tl1iqxkw3q1r0cpjx9w_tru11hd_thumb.png (http://hdimage.org/images/tl1iqxkw3q1r0cpjx9w_tru11hd.png)

http://hdimage.org/images/us07tga28g79jd9o38d_tru12hd_thumb.png (http://hdimage.org/images/us07tga28g79jd9o38d_tru12hd.png)http://hdimage.org/images/imx535rrklkkct0a76mk_tru12bd_thumb.png (http://hdimage.org/images/imx535rrklkkct0a76mk_tru12bd.png)

updated with cakefoo's suggestions :D

http://i43.tinypic.com/aonsx5.jpg

I pre-visioned it!

updated with cakefoo's suggestions :D
I've gotta say... it looks really nice. I like the format - thanks for the effort!

The vertical stretch is probably intentional to simulate that the camera ads 10 pounds...

Does anyone know why a new release of the BD is coming out? Is this going to fix the stretching? And if so will there be an exchange program? http://www.amazon.com/Truman-Show-Blu-ray-Jim-Carrey/dp/B002EEY8L2/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1247905711&sr=1-2

I believe Paramount is re-releasing a number of titles with lower SRP and Movie Cash. Most likely they will be the exact same discs.

Has anyone bought the new version of this or any of the other re-released Paramount titles? Did they fix it? I know its extremely unlikely, but I'm still hopeful. BTW, its on sale at Bestbuy.

There's nothing 'new' about them.

There's nothing 'new' about them.

so they wont release a fixed version??

was waiting for this for a long time guess i will be stuck with the DVD....

i still dont undestand how any major studio could release something was such insanely major errors, blows the mind....

i still dont undestand how any major studio could release something was such insanely major errors, blows the mind....

Because for the most part the majority of customers don't care.

It's simple math - do more people care (lost sales) than the cost of remastering the title?

If so, they do it.

If not, it's not worth it at they may as well leave the title on the market.

Hey, I fell in love with this film on letterbox LD (a very nice quality release), guess that's where I'm staying :(! (Was very interested in the BD :(.)