The Truman Show Blu-ray vs HDTV Comparison

[eric.exe]

______HDTV___________Blu-ray______












Paramount intro from The Hunt from Red October, scaling matches the HDTV cap so the Blu-ray is stretched horizontally.

[eric.exe]

[Lee K]

Truly pathetic.

[Mr. Lizardo]

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.

[eric.exe]

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 ), I don't see why they couldn't have cropped and stretched just those shots, not the whole movie

[Phantom Stranger]

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.

[eric.exe]

Originally Posted by Phantom Stranger

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.

[FoxyMulder]

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.

[Kishiro]

Originally Posted by FoxyMulder

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.

[FoxyMulder]

Originally Posted by Kishiro

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.

[eric.exe]

Originally Posted by FoxyMulder

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.

[Kishiro]

Originally Posted by FoxyMulder

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

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

[BrickTop]

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.

[FoxyMulder]

Originally Posted by eric.exe

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.

[Greg Black]

Originally Posted by BrickTop

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).

[eric.exe]

Originally Posted by FoxyMulder

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
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.

[cakefoo]

Ben Williams' Blu-ray.com 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 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10

Additionally, you can also find 1080p shots in the DVD Beaver review.

Originally Posted by Ben Williams

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.

Originally Posted by Ben Williams

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)




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




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

Originally Posted by Ben Williams

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.

Originally Posted by Ben Williams

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

Maybe this will help (click for original 1080p image)



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...

[cakefoo]

Oh, and

Originally Posted by Ben Williams

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...

[cakefoo]

Audiophile/Videophile for 25 years.


And he's 34 currently.

[paku]

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.

[tvted]

cakefoo

What exactly *is* the correct aspect ratio for this film?
Imdb lists two, 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

[jruser]

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.

[Kishiro]

Originally Posted by tvted

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.

[cakefoo]

Originally Posted by tvted

cakefoo

What exactly *is* the correct aspect ratio for this film?
Imdb lists two, 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.

[tvted]

Originally Posted by Kishiro

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.

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) plus the additon of an Aspheron adaptor? I'm not about to argue this but I know which "truth" I would choose.

ted

[tvted]

Originally Posted by jruser

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

[hlwl]

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...

[richiek]

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.

[JaylisJayP]

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.

[SirDrexl]

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.