Top Gun HD-DVD not correct AR?

[Category 5]

...first clue is the Paramount opener. They have overcropped about 5-10% from the vertical frame compared to the DVD version I have. In some shots it looks too tight, and poorly framed.

Anyone else notice?

I also notice a vertical band (shadowlike) at the far left of the frame throughout most of the flight scenes. Crap. I notice a thin one FAR right too in some scenes.

[Gary Murrell]

Top Gun is supposed to be 2.20:1, that is what it was theatrically and is what the HD-DVD release is

-Gary

[John Ballentine]

Originally Posted by Category 5

...first clue is the Paramount opener. They have overcropped about 5-10% from the vertical frame compared to the DVD version I have. In some shots it looks too tight, and poorly framed.

Anyone else notice?

I also notice a vertical band (shadowlike) at the far left of the frame throughout most of the flight scenes. Crap. I notice a thin one FAR right too in some scenes.

Yes - the 70mm prints were 2:20:1

Anyone else notice the bands?

[Dennis M]

Yup, it's supposed to be 2.20:1 ratio.

First DVD release had incorrect framing.

The special edition that was released 2 years ago had the correct framing of 2.20:1.

[DM2006RI]

It's a Super 35 movie anyway, so your guess is as good as anyone's as to what the preferred aspect ratio (2.35? 1.85? 2.20?) is. IMDB lists 2.20 for 70MM, 2.35 otherwise, etc.

I'd just assume they open up the entire area that was shot when transferring Super 35 movies to video, as once in a while (THE ROOKIE, the first laserdisc release of THE ABYSS) they do.

[spectator]

Hmm... I'm skeptical about this. Are they trying to do a "70mm-style" presentation with this disc? It was originated in 'Scope, right? I'm a little worried they may have gone with the 70 framing simply as an excuse to fill more of the video frame. While I don't have specific info, I'm strongly inclined to believe the movie was shot 2.39:1, with maybe a bit of shoot-and-protect for 70 presentation.

[Josh Z]

Top Gun was shot on Super35. For the letterboxed laserdisc release (the transfer for which was recycled on the original non-anamorphic DVD), Tony Scott instructed that the frame be opened up to 2.0:1. For the later remastered DVD (the master the HD DVD comes from), Scott changed his mind and had it matted back down to where it is now.

[Sam S]

OK this is crap. This movie should have been at 2.0:1 a la the very first non-anamorphic version.



Check out these pics. Disclaimer: I took these really fast with little effort, just so I could get the point across about framing.

The first one is from the HD DVD. The second is on my little LCD with the very first DVD (non anamorphic) version. They are the same frame, the DVD version has less overscan because of the TV it's hooked up to. Just notice the framing for his fist/head. Ignore the color/contrast differences.

[BIG ED]

Originally Posted by Josh Z

Top Gun was shot on Super35. For the letterboxed laserdisc release (the transfer for which was recycled on the original non-anamorphic DVD), Tony Scott instructed that the frame be opened up to 2.0:1. For the later remastered DVD (the master the HD DVD comes from), Scott changed his mind and had it matted back down to where it is now.

What was Scott's choice for the theatrical release?
Thanks.

[Sam S]

Originally Posted by Gary Murrell

Top Gun is supposed to be 2.20:1, that is what it was theatrically and is what the HD-DVD release is

-Gary

Originally Posted by Dennis M

Yup, it's supposed to be 2.20:1 ratio.

First DVD release had incorrect framing.

The special edition that was released 2 years ago had the correct framing of 2.20:1.

Check my screenshots and then get back to me. There's a lot of chopped off heads throughout the presentation. There's no way this should be shown at 2.20/2.35:1.

[Robert George]

What was Scott's choice for the theatrical release?

When S35 is printed for theatrical exhibition, the 2.35:1 image is extracted and printed to anamorphic 35mm. The HD DVD would approximate what was shown theatrically.

[John Ballentine]

Originally Posted by Sam S

Check my screenshots and then get back to me. There's a lot of chopped off heads throughout the presentation. There's no way this should be shown at 2.20/2.35:1.

Then what should it be shown as?

[Sam S]

Originally Posted by John Ballentine

Then what should it be shown as?

The frame at 2.0:1 as presented on the orginal DVD looks framed very well, you could even say "correct" given the elements in the frame.

In my example screenshots above, why would you want to show Cruise pumping his fist at the passing jet if you couldn't even see his fist? The presentation at 2.0:1 corrects that. There are several examples such as this throughout the film.

[MichaelHDDVD]

I watched Top Gun today and I didn't notice cut off heads. I'll examine it closely tomorrow.

[Toeside]

Mine arrived via Netflix today. I'm hoping to watch it tonight I also have the Special Edition DVD, and never thought that was framed incorrectly.

[Dennis M]

Originally Posted by Sam S

Check my screenshots and then get back to me. There's a lot of chopped off heads throughout the presentation. There's no way this should be shown at 2.20/2.35:1.

Hi Sam,

Not going to dispute what your are seeing as my HD DVD copy has not arrived yet. But when the Collectors Edition was released a couple of years ago Tony Scott requested the the frame be done at 2.20:1 as that matches how it was released theatrically. The original DVD, which was a transfer from the LD master, had an incorrect ratio. Now if you got used to this framing and like it that's fine, but this is the ratio Tony Scott wanted for his film.

If you've got a copy of the Collectors Edition throw it in and see if the framing matches the HD DVD. When my HD DVD copy comes in I'll check it out as well.

[Sam S]

Originally Posted by Dennis M

Hi Sam,

Not going to dispute what your are seeing as my HD DVD copy has not arrived yet. But when the Collectors Edition was released a couple of years ago Tony Scott requested the the frame be done at 2.20:1 as that matches how it was released theatrically. The original DVD, which was a transfer from the LD master, had an incorrect ratio. Now if you got used to this framing and like it that's fine, but this is the ratio Tony Scott wanted for his film.

If you've got a copy of the Collectors Edition throw it in and see if the framing matches the HD DVD. When my HD DVD copy comes in I'll check it out as well.

Well, I wouldn't say I "got used to" the framing, so much as it looks too cropped. Just like the original postered noted, it looks too tight, and poorly cropped.

Just check out my admittedly random screen shot. It just looks improperly composed.

I imagine the HD DVD is framed just like the remastered DVD, but I will be interested in your thoughts regardless.

[gorthocar]

I just finished watching Top Gun, and I have to agree that there are a lot of partially chopped heads that look like a very poor framing job throughout the movie. I can't believe that this is desired intent. They may want it to be the 2.20:1 aspect ratio, but they shouldn't have zoomed in so much when originally filming it. IMHO, that is.

Overall the video quality is pretty good for a movie 21 years old. There is some noticable grain, but it is a much different texture than the deliberately over the top grain of 300. The movie is cleaned up pretty well right until the end when they start showing the credits, featuring the stars and brief clips of each. It shows that they obviously did a half hearted job of cleaning that up.

[charles0424]

Did anyone notice a thin black line going down the left side of the screen at some moments during the movie? It wasn't very noticeable and only occurred during certain dark/night scenes.

[Sam S]

Originally Posted by gorthocar

I just finished watching Top Gun, and I have to agree that there are a lot of partially chopped heads that look like a very poor framing job throughout the movie. I can't believe that this is desired intent. They may want it to be the 2.20:1 aspect ratio, but they shouldn't have zoomed in so much when originally filming it. IMHO, that is.

Overall the video quality is pretty good for a movie 21 years old. There is some noticable grain, but it is a much different texture than the deliberately over the top grain of 300. The movie is cleaned up pretty well right until the end when they start showing the credits, featuring the stars and brief clips of each. It shows that they obviously did a half hearted job of cleaning that up.

Thank you for verifying what I was seeing. Since it was orginally filmed in Super35, the 4:3 film frame can be matted at any ratio. It is obvious to me that a mistake, or just a poor composition decision was made by releasing it at 2.39:1.

I didn't think the resolution was all that great. Color saturation and fine detail on close ups was acceptable, but overall it was not much better than DVD, IMO.

Originally Posted by charles0424

Did anyone notice a thin black line going down the left side of the screen at some moments during the movie? It wasn't very noticeable and only occurred during certain dark/night scenes.

Didn't see what you're describing, but I wasn't particularly looking for it.

[MEC2]

I don't know how many different ways this can be explained - it is presented AS intended, the DVD had the matte opened slightly, AS intended, most likely not because of any great desire to change anything except the fact everyone had a 4:3 screen and it made the picture a little more substantial.

This does not in any way appear to be similar to POTC:COTBP, or the old BTTF DVD framing issue. It's in the frame the director wanted and gave in the theater.

MEC2
P.S. Though I never oppose opening the matte a little...
P.S.2. It is KILLING the DVD - though I think I may just have ye olde 4:3 release...

[Category 5]

Maybe this was the director's original intent, but based on the framing and composition of the HD-DVD release it's obvious to me that the DOP had a different intent. In fact, judging by the Paramount into (the stars are almost touching the top of the frame) I am not so sure I beleive that this is how it was seen in theaters.

[mike171979]

After watching the movie without even thinking about framing, I noticed absolutely nothing.

After reading this thread, and then going back and looking for some, I did indeed see a little, nothing major, just the scalps being lopped off compared to the first SD DVD release.

This framing issue also obviously affects the remastered DVD which I verified, since I own all three, the first DVD, the remastered, and now the HD DVD.

HOWEVER, nothing here is obvious and nothing will distract you from the movie.

Unlike POTC on Blu Ray which is absolutely horrid, and nearly prohibits me from ever watching it on Blu Ray again.

[sdurani]

Originally Posted by Sam S

Since it was orginally filmed in Super35, the 4:3 film frame can be matted at any ratio.

The matte can also be moved up or down to make sure that no heads are cut off. This is irrespective of whether they're using a 2.0:1 or 2.35:1 aspect ratio. The supplement section on 'SE7EN' has a short demo of that film being telecined. The colourist moved the frame/matte in one shot to keep from awkward composition. For 'Top Gun' I personally prefer the 2.0:1 aspect ratio that's on my laserdisc.

Sanjay

[Jonny_eh]

Originally Posted by sdurani

The matte can also be moved up or down to make sure that no heads are cut off. This is irrespective of whether they're using a 2.0:1 or 2.35:1 aspect ratio. The supplement section on 'SE7EN' has a short demo of that film being telecined. The colourist moved the frame/matte in one shot to keep from awkward composition. For 'Top Gun' I personally prefer the 2.0:1 aspect ratio that's on my laserdisc.

Sanjay

It's possible that 2.20:1 is the intended AR, but the frame is a bit too low. Would shifting the frame up help at all?

[suffah]

Originally Posted by Jonny_eh

It's possible that 2.20:1 is the intended AR, but the frame is a bit too low. Would shifting the frame up help at all?

Sounds like the problem to me.

[csurfr]

This thread confirms what I originally thought about AVS before I became a member. . .you guys really know what you're talking about. I watched the HD DVD the other day (before reading this thread) and didn't even notice the framing issue. OTOH, I did notice the huge framing issue in Pirates. . . then again, it was pretty obvious

[sdurani]

Originally Posted by Jonny_eh

It's possible that 2.20:1 is the intended AR, but the frame is a bit too low. Would shifting the frame up help at all?

Shifting it a little would help. We're talking a tiny bit here, just so the top edge is not lobbing off scalps. Nothing more than that.

As for the aspect ratio: Tony Scott has at different times signed off on 2.0:1 (saying that the movie was composed for the 70mm release) and 2.35:1 (which apparently is what he wanted for the DVD). So who knows what the intended ratio was. I doubt if Scott can even remember what was going through his mind over 20 years ago when he was making this movie.

I wish they had stuck to the 2:1 ratio, since that's more pleasing to my eye. But I like the movie enough to pick it up anyway. I already have the laserdisc (DD version) and DVD.

Sanjay

[Kikar]

I guess the HD DVD will need a name change to Top(less) Gun.....

On a serious note I never owned this on LD, only on VHS and old DVD. So to me this is the best I have seen and heard of the movie since seeing at the cinema. If this is the way Scott wanted it it to be then I say let it be....and crank up the TrueHD.

Besides, this is an 80s movie all that is being cropped is the top two feet of the ladies hairstyles....

[Cam Man]

I didn't do Top Gun (I was asked to fly on the aerial unit, but was getting married...no regrets )...and I haven't watched the HD version yet. I don't recall who the A-camera operator was, but I knew the B-operator. I think this was his last operator job before moving up.

Anyway, the way super-35 works (having done a bunch of them and anamorphic movies) is that the operator has the hammer on framing. In the camera he has the 2.40 lines and that is what he frames with...period. He protects above and below that frame (no mic or other stuff) just in case there is a 70mm release, etc. It's generally a given that the top line is a "common headroom line," meaning that headroom will be used (or something very close to it) allowing most of the expanded aspect ratio for another release format to be taken from the lower portion of the full aperture (super-35) frame.

Of course, the director and DP are at video village watching during shooting, and they see the very lines the operator is using. Often times the operator(s) are given much autonomy about framing; in fact they are hired for their "eye." But a number of directors are auteurs (or is it autocrats ) and will provide a lot of input on framing. I don't see any reason to believe that these operators were micro-managed. Finally, sometimes an operator will "lose" the lines temporarily. Sometimes there is something about the background that will camo the lines and suddenly you can't precisely define them. This happens mostly on non-closeups on super-35. Occasionally, a shot will be blown for a moment for this reason. I have wondered if this is the case on the shot for the famous "...need for speed" scene; headroom is seriously tight or bad there, as I remember. Sometimes you catch this and say you need to do another take for this reason. The take is done, etc...but sometimes the actors' performances may be superior on your (my) worst take, and actor performance trumps every time. In that case, your mistake is immortalized if that take is chosen. This would be absolutely true for 35 anamorphic, but super-35 is very cool in that you can frame for such a mistake in the printing or transfer process. The "need for speed" scene is shot with a Steadicam. Headroom is not controlled by tilting up; it is done by literally raising the camera a little higher. Also, in that day, the Steadicam monitors which are how the operator sees the shot were not so good. Still, I can't imagine and don't remember there being a big headroom problem in that shot until the last DVD came out. Hair and head cutting in closeups is a norm, but in a medium shot, it is a mistake whether operator or transfer error. No excuse for it on a film shot in super-35.

Dailies (which are spherical) or release prints(which are anamorphic) are not framed by eyeball. They use a SMPTE leader that specifies exactly where the different format lines are located. The same thing can/is done in a transfer, but the DP, the director, or one of the operators better be there for the transfer (including this new one) to protect the original work...unless they wish to create a new work. Either it is faithful to the original or it is something new.

In the case of a 70mm print, the question can come up for home video release about which format to use. I can't imagine a 70mm print would be used for the transfer, although I suppose it is possible. The highest image quality would probably come from the 35mm anamorphic IP used to strike theatrical anamorphic (2.40) release prints. The release prints of that era were two generations from the camera negative. The IP is one generation from the negative.

We saw on POTC BD that framing can go bonkers with Super-35 transfers (the smithy sword fight). Personally, I can't imagine how, but it happens. That is one plus for 35 anamorphic; there are no lines to debate. If you see it in the viewfinder, it's going to be on the screen.