The Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring HDTV vs Blu-ray Comparison - Page 30 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #871 of 882 Old 03-16-2011, 05:27 AM
Member
 
Spiritual_Chaos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 92
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
the director shoots the film in 1.78

Theese films were shot on 35mm film, so no.He did not shoot in in 1.78.
Spiritual_Chaos is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #872 of 882 Old 03-16-2011, 07:02 AM
Senior Member
 
csamos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 320
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

Looking at screenshots of the DirecTV 16x9 and the BD 2.35, it is difficult to imagine why PJ would feel excluding the Elf cape-clasp would be a good thing visually.

I dunno...maybe it's just me.

I agree. That was the first thing I noticed, too.

-Carl Samos
------------
My Movie Theater
csamos is offline  
post #873 of 882 Old 03-16-2011, 08:02 AM
AVS Special Member
 
42041's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 3,289
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 54
surely that's not the only frame in the movie where he's wearing that costume...

sometimes less distracting visual elements in a shot means a better shot.
42041 is offline  
post #874 of 882 Old 03-16-2011, 08:06 AM
Senior Member
 
csamos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 320
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by 42041 View Post

surely that's not the only frame in the movie where he's wearing that costume...

sometimes less distracting visual elements in a shot means a better shot.

Good point. I guess I was just focused on that since this was the one frame I was evaluating, not the entire film or even that scene in general.

-Carl Samos
------------
My Movie Theater
csamos is offline  
post #875 of 882 Old 03-17-2011, 12:13 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
oink's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Shuloch
Posts: 26,553
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 67 Post(s)
Liked: 818
Tonite on DirecTV HD FOTR was shown at 1.78.
I compared it to the 2.35 BD....

The BD has better resolution and color (no surprise there).
The framing is somewhat more problematic.
I am of 2 minds here....

Perhaps screen size may be a factor.
On one hand, for those with small 16x9 TVs, the 1.78 AR may be preferable.
OTOH, those with FPs would probably prefer 2.35.

Ultimately, whatever AR PJ prefers is what should be on the EE BDs.
LOTR is too much of a classic not to be so.

A.P.S. deserve our protection....join the cause today!
oink is offline  
post #876 of 882 Old 08-17-2011, 01:19 PM
Senior Member
 
Fang Zei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: DC
Posts: 377
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Even if a movie is shot in Super 35, the effects shots are not necessarily composed/rendered/whathaveyou at anything "taller" than 2.35:1. So while you would see more of the Super 35 stuff, you would be seeing less of the effects stuff.

Anyway, someone want to take a crack at updating the screenshots for the extended blu-ray???!!!
Fang Zei is offline  
post #877 of 882 Old 08-17-2011, 01:34 PM
Member
 
Ickibod's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 34
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

Looking at screenshots of the DirecTV 16x9 and the BD 2.35, it is difficult to imagine why PJ would feel excluding the Elf cape-clasp would be a good thing visually.

I dunno...maybe it's just me.

It busies up the frame and draws attention away from Boromir's face. And including the clasp would mean that you would either have to frame down or zoom out, which would further de-emphasize his face.

Remember, more is not always better

Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

Tonite on DirecTV HD FOTR was shown at 1.78.
I compared it to the 2.35 BD....

The BD has better resolution and color (no surprise there).
The framing is somewhat more problematic.
I am of 2 minds here....

Perhaps screen size may be a factor.
On one hand, for those with small 16x9 TVs, the 1.78 AR may be preferable.
OTOH, those with FPs would probably prefer 2.35.

Ultimately, whatever AR PJ prefers is what should be on the EE BDs.
LOTR is too much of a classic not to be so.

In what way is the framing problematic? The film was framed on-set for 2.35:1 (though Peter Jackson allegedly made sure that Lesnie made the film "broadcast-safe" when it was shot, meaning that it could be safely reframed for 1.33:1 or 1.78:1 when shown on television), it was shown in theatres at 2.35:1, and all previous home video releases have been 2.35:1. The 1.78:1 is no no way preferable, just as 1.33:1 presentations weren't preferable.
Ickibod is offline  
post #878 of 882 Old 08-17-2011, 01:42 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Morpheo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Montreal by day, Paris by night...
Posts: 6,619
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 148 Post(s)
Liked: 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

Perhaps screen size may be a factor.
On one hand, for those with small 16x9 TVs, the 1.78 AR may be preferable.
OTOH, those with FPs would probably prefer 2.35.

The only thing preferable is the OAR, period.

It was never a factor to me. Even my on my old 27" trinitron I would watch Ben-Hur OAR.
Morpheo is online now  
post #879 of 882 Old 08-18-2011, 09:25 AM
AVS Special Member
 
spectator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 2,036
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morpheo View Post

Even my on my old 27" trinitron I would watch Ben-Hur OAR.

In the LD days, I would watch it (and everything else) in OAR on a 19"!

I don't feel special...
spectator is offline  
post #880 of 882 Old 08-19-2011, 06:09 AM
Member
 
Steen DK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 134
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Oh, is this "who had the smallest CRT" bragging group? I watched Last of the Mohicans 2.35:1 on a 14" TV. Ha!
Steen DK is offline  
post #881 of 882 Old 08-19-2011, 06:26 AM
AVS Special Member
 
nick_danger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,405
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I used to stream media from my home server to my Samsung A900. OAR on 2" display! Beat that!
nick_danger is offline  
post #882 of 882 Old 08-19-2011, 06:28 AM
Advanced Member
 
XxDeadlyxX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: NSW, Australia
Posts: 737
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
lol but at what viewing distance?

When I'm at my pop's farm - which is the equivalent of timbuktu remote-ness for Australia, I watch his 34cm CRT tv which only receives old analog TV signals (which are soon to be shut off here in a year or two) - I sometimes watch late-night foreign movies on SBS which are 2.35:1, at a viewing distance of about 6-7 metres as that's how far away the couch is, and with subtitles.

Now that's a challenge
XxDeadlyxX is offline  
Reply Blu-ray Software

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off