View Full Version : Minority Report DTS/DD
Hi All
Can anyone confirm that our region 2 UK version has
DD 5.1 Surround EX and a DTS 6.1 ES Matrixed
I was looking at some US review of the disc, and what did i discover?
Region 1 version has both of the soundtrack mention above.
Thanx
The UK Region 2 does have both soundtracks.:)
Both
DD 5.1 Surround EX and a DTS 6.1 ES Matrixed
Are you sure???
According to http://www.bytesandbobs.com/dvdcompare/
the regions 1, 2 and 4 are identical with regards to extras, sound etc. You can also get region 1 in fullscreen should you so wish.
Greg
Billy Elliot
30-01-2003, 9:48 PM
Originally posted by GregHook
You can also get region 1 in fullscreen should you so wish.
Greg
Why would anyone want to watch this film in fullscreen - I just don't understand! :god:
bluedoo
30-01-2003, 10:54 PM
5.1 dts not 6.1
Ben Hur
30-01-2003, 11:01 PM
Originally posted by Billy Elliot
Why would anyone want to watch this film in fullscreen - I just don't understand! :god:
Silly boy - we don't all have Widescreen TV's ;).
bowenjones
31-01-2003, 2:03 AM
Originally posted by Ben Hur
Silly boy - we don't all have Widescreen TV's ;).
I think you're missing Billy's point...
why would anyone want to watch a film that has butchered
to fit 4.3:thumbsdowtv's? Are the black bars such an issue
with you?
Ben Hur
31-01-2003, 2:18 AM
Originally posted by bowenjones
why would anyone want to watch a film that has butchered
to fit 4.3:thumbsdowtv's? Are the black bars such an issue
with you?
The Widescreen version is equally butchered - it cuts off about 1/3 of the picture - just at the top and bottom instead of the left and right. Worsth thing is it doesn't even try to hide this, but replaces the lost picture with black bars :rolleyes: - madness. At least with the Fullscreen version, I have the illusion of watching the entire image :).
bowenjones
31-01-2003, 2:28 AM
Originally posted by Ben Hur
The Widescreen version is equally butchered - it cuts off about 1/3 of the picture - just at the top and bottom instead of the left and right. Worsth thing is it doesn't even try to hide this, but replaces the lost picture with black bars :rolleyes: - madness. At least with the Fullscreen version, I have the illusion of watching the entire image :).
I know this happens on rare occasions with some films
( a bug's life comes to mind ) but is this the case with
Minority Report? If so, I didn't know and therefore appologise :blush:
Ben Hur
31-01-2003, 2:32 AM
Originally posted by bowenjones
I know this happens on rare occasions with some films
( a bug's life comes to mind ) but is this the case with
Minority Report?
I've no idea - I was just making all that up.
bowenjones
31-01-2003, 2:36 AM
o.k. then, appology withdrawn!:grin:
DarthChris
19-02-2003, 7:37 PM
whats the point of having on of the world premier directors ( in this case speilberg) in charge of the pic, when, when people buy the thing all his camera movements and holds have been hacked up by some gimp in an editing both
Rambo John J
19-02-2003, 7:58 PM
They may have shot it on super 35 giving the possibility that the fullscreen version opens up the top and bottom and loses minimal info at the sides, thus creating a more friendly 4:3 image.... although even if they have I'd still prefer to watch the theatrical aspect ratio myself. If it wasn't important enough for the director to insist on it being onscreen at the cinema, then I'm not too concerned with any extra info that might be included in the process of creating a 4:3 image.
sweetmate
19-02-2003, 10:24 PM
Originally posted by Ben Hur
The Widescreen version is equally butchered - it cuts off about 1/3 of the picture - just at the top and bottom instead of the left and right. Worsth thing is it doesn't even try to hide this, but replaces the lost picture with black bars :rolleyes: - madness. At least with the Fullscreen version, I have the illusion of watching the entire image :). How can someone with the name of "Ben Hur" come up with crap like this! I hope you're joking mate.
Squirrel God
19-02-2003, 10:34 PM
Originally posted by sweetmate
How can someone with the name of "Ben Hur" come up with crap like this! I hope you're joking mate.
Depends if it was matted from an open negative doesn't it. If it was, then the matting would've cut off part of the picture, although this is as the director intends.
sweetmate
19-02-2003, 10:37 PM
Originally posted by Squirrel God
Depends if it was matted from an open negative doesn't it. No it doesnt. If a film is shot in a 2.35 ratio, is is intended to be viewed in a 2.35 ratio. Whether it is shot on an open negative or not is totally irrelevant. (P.S. Minority Report was shot on Super 35 at a 2.39 ratio)
Squirrel God
19-02-2003, 10:40 PM
Originally posted by sweetmate
No it doesnt. If a film is shot in a 2.35 ratio, is is intended to be viewed in a 2.35 ratio. Whether it is shot on an open negative is totally irrelevant.
It's hardly irrelevant. The point is that the top and bottom of the image have been cut off. So in one sense, part of the image has been lost. Like I said, this is intentional so we shouldn't get grumpy about it like we do with P&S because P&S is NOT how the director intended. However, the fact remains that what we see is not what was filmed. Hence why we sometimes get framing errors (a la BTTF). That's all I'm saying amigo.
sweetmate
19-02-2003, 10:44 PM
Just because its caught on film doesnt mean its supposed to be viewed.
The director hasnt intended the film to be viewed open matte, it is something forced upon him so [Offensive term removed by Mod] can go buy a fullscreen version of his film.
The director has intended 2.35, not P&S or open matte 4:3. If he intended an academy ratio then he would have filmed it in an academy ratio.
sweetmate
19-02-2003, 10:46 PM
Spielberg is a director for whom aspect ratio is always a conscience decision, he changes from 1.85 to 2.35 depending on the subject matter.
For someone to state that "The Widescreen version is equally butchered - it cuts off about 1/3 of the picture" is utter ignorance.
Squirrel God
19-02-2003, 10:47 PM
Originally posted by sweetmate
Just because its caught on film doesnt mean its supposed to be viewed.
Did I say it was supposed to viewed? :rolleyes: In fact, I clearly stated that this was NOT what was intended to be viewed.
sweetmate
19-02-2003, 10:51 PM
You said "The point is that the top and bottom of the image have been cut off. So in one sense, part of the image has been lost."
Part of the image is not lost, as it was not meant to be seen to start with.
Squirrel God
19-02-2003, 10:53 PM
Originally posted by sweetmate
You said "The point is that the top and bottom of the image have been cut off. So in one sense, part of the image has been lost."
Part of the image is not lost, as it was not meant to be seen to start with.
If part of an image is not lost, then what happens to it when they matte it? Does it merge into the remaining image? No, it disappears. That's all I meant.
sweetmate
19-02-2003, 11:01 PM
Then what was your point SG?
I stated that i thought Ben Hur was either talking arse or having a laugh when he said "The Widescreen version is equally butchered". You then stated that this depends if the film was shot open matte.
My point is that a dvd in the correct aspect ratio can never be called butchery (open matte or not) and in fact anything but the OAR IS butchery (open matte or not).
Squirrel God
19-02-2003, 11:06 PM
My point was that I was talking about widescreen in general and not Minority Report per se. Maybe this is where the confusion arose.
Imagine you purchase a movie that is fullscreen where the intended AR is 1.78:1 or 1.85:1 (there are a few like this). It's not butchery because all (almost all) of the intended viewable image is there (together with the unintended viewable image) and you can just matte it yourself by zooming it on your display.
But if it's P&S, then yes, of course it's butchery. Or if it's 1.85:1 when it's supposed to be 2.35:1, then that too is butchery.
sweetmate
19-02-2003, 11:17 PM
Originally posted by Squirrel God
Imagine you purchase a movie that is fullscreen where the intended AR is 1.78:1 or 1.85:1 (there are a few like this). It's not butchery because all (almost all) of the intended viewable image is there (together with the unintended viewable image) and you can just matte it yourself by zooming it on your display.a) you can only zoom in if you have a 16:9 display, and b) if you have a 16:9 display you'd want the film in its OAR and enhanced for 16:9 TVs!
Squirrel God
19-02-2003, 11:24 PM
Originally posted by sweetmate
a) you can only zoom in if you have a 16:9 display, and b) if you have a 16:9 display you'd want the film in its OAR and enhanced for 16:9 TVs!
Yes, ideally, of course! But some are not available in anamorphic widescreen or even widescreen. For example, 'Fearless' R1 and R4 are full frame (there has never been a widescreen DVD release AFAIK). Not ideal, but certainly better than P&S.
Pardon me gentlemen, but this seems like an argument over such a minor detail that it is hardly worth falling out over. Shall we let it lie... ;)
sweetmate
20-02-2003, 3:01 AM
Agreed, but I still don't think you can call the 2.35 widescreen transfers of either Minority Report or A Bug's Life butchery (which was my quibble with bowenjones and benhurs posts).
P.S. Mod, since when is that a term deemed too offensive to print in a forum?!
Originally posted by sweetmate
P.S. Mod, since when is that a term deemed too offensive to print in a forum?!
Since we had complaints about it. ;)
Squirrel God
20-02-2003, 3:36 AM
Originally posted by Lex
Shall we let it lie... ;)
Of course ;)
But look - Sweetmate is still going strong :eek: :rotfl:
sweetmate
20-02-2003, 3:50 AM
Originally posted by Lex
Since we had complaints about it. ;) To my use of it?! Or in general?