1. Join Now

    AVForums.com uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

AbyssR2 Non-Anamorphic!

Discussion in 'Movie Forum' started by calibos, Mar 2, 2001.

  1. calibos

    calibos
    Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2000
    Messages:
    930
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    31
    Location:
    Ireland
    Ratings:
    +33
    Three things really **** me off:

    1. Why any film is released these days that is not anamporphic.
    2. Why the powers that be think that the word 'anamorphic' on a dvd box will confuse customers but having no other standard term to denote the anamorphic format wont! I can maybe understand 'Enhanced for Widescreen TV's', but 16:9? Beginners have a hard enough time as it is understanding ratio's without the possibility of a disc that says "ratio 2.35:1" and then "16:9" right beside it!!
    3. What ****es me of the most is magazine reviews stating that the disc in question (The Abyss) is Anamorphic when it quite obviously is not. Did they even put the disc in a dvd player and have a look at it or did they just review the film from memory and take the features and extra's list straight from the box without checking if they were correct. They haven't even the excuse of saying that they didn't have the disc in time for review and used the region 1. That wasn't anamorphic either!

    I've read two or three separate reviews from different magazines all with the same mistake. Is HCC one of them?

    All we want is all anamorphic transfers,DD 5.1 or DTS 5.1 soundtracks (remastered if necessary), decent extra's, reasonable prices, no rental windows, factually correct and understandable feature lists on the box, and accurate reviews in the magazines. Is that to much to ask for? Obviously it is!!

    Rant Over! [​IMG]



    ------------------
    Don't be a don't be.......Be a do be!
    HomePage - http://gofree.indigo.ie/~deveney
     
  2. Confucius

    Confucius
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2001
    Messages:
    2,103
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    51
    Location:
    Oxford
    Ratings:
    +90
    It's strange; R2 'Abyss' was never going to be anamorphic. Which magazines stated it was, I wonder....

    Out of interest, is the R2 distributed by Fox like the R1 version.
     
  3. Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    Yes
     
  4. LV426

    LV426
    Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2000
    Messages:
    12,752
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    Somewhere in South Yorkshire
    Ratings:
    +4,906
    Let me get this right: You were *surprised* that

    a) Fox can't be a*sed to make a good job of transferring this film. Most people (who don't visit forums like this one) will buy it based on the packaging (that's all they have to go on) - not the disc itself.

    b) Reviewers rave over mediochre products - they do this all the time - hardware and software alike. Perhaps the reviewer in question has a 4:3 TV not larger than about 28" and so didn't notice.

    Based on my own experience with the R2+4 edition of this film (obtained from Australia) using a Pioneer 737 connected via Component to a Sony VPL-WV10HT and a 108" screen - the image quality is absolute pants. It is soft, lacking in any fine detail, and has a "processed" look reminiscent of the PAL laserdisc of Aliens. It is barely better than VHS. It is easily the WORST transfer in my 170+ disc collection. Maybe, just maybe, the UK-specific version is better. Somehow I doubt it.

    I wonder exactly WHAT equipment the reviewer who gave the disc **** and commented that the image was well detailed - but who didn't say anything about the video signal ratio - used to watch it. Maybe he just read the box and guessed at the rest.......
     
  5. Jay2000

    Jay2000
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    I have the Aus R4/R2 version and IMO I dont think the transfer is that bad, ok, its not gonna win any awards but I have seen much worse picture quality. Boogie Nights R2 is one that springs to mind - I took THAT back in disgust and got a refund!

    Also, the biggest issue I think with the R2 specific disc is that its gonna be edited to remove the 'Beenie Dip' sequence.

    Jay
     
  6. bradavon

    bradavon
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
  7. Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    Yes, the only Camoron approved prints are non-anamorphic.

    One anamorphic print exists (not approved) but it is of very poor quality as it was sourced from one of the non-anamorphic prints. (looks worse than the non-anamorphic versions)

    The reason why Camoron was a big supporter of non-anamorphic was because a majority of US tvs are 4:3 and anamorphic material does not downconvert to letterbox very well on some of the cheaper players.

    Camoron has now seen an anamorphic HDTV print of titanic and was said to be so impressed with the picture that he is reconsidering his view on anamorphic material, to late for Abyss though as that print, cleanup etc was finished ages ago (when the US disc was released)

     
  8. calibos

    calibos
    Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2000
    Messages:
    930
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    31
    Location:
    Ireland
    Ratings:
    +33
    Jay,
    They have the 'Beanie Cut' Special Edition and theatrical versions on the R2 disc because the BBFC told them to, but then they include the unedited beanie scene in the extra's! It can't even be that extra's don't have to be approved by the BBFC because they do. At least thats the excuse we get for missing easter eggs anyway. Another thing wrong with the disc then!

    I really have to buy a modded player. I'm just sick of this R2 Sh*t!!



    ------------------
    Don't be a don't be.......Be a do be!
    HomePage - http://gofree.indigo.ie/~deveney
     
  9. Mr.D

    Mr.D
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2000
    Messages:
    11,040
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Ratings:
    +1,111
    Master not print. If you do mean print instead of master you are wrong.

    This is drivel Cameron is more concerned with his projects than wondering about this sort of stuff.

    The region1 Abyss master is taken from a fairly old master originally created for the special edition NTSC laserdisc. A lot of the additional wave sequence had to be dusted off and completed by DD specifically for the special edition. Although the original material consisted of 35mm film elements the shots were finished at normal 4:3 video resolutions. Not 16x9.

    I would suspect this is one reason why the region2 version appears to be a transcoded version of the 525/60 . The full version of the film doesn't exist at 16x9 resolutions.

     
  10. Confucius

    Confucius
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2001
    Messages:
    2,103
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    51
    Location:
    Oxford
    Ratings:
    +90
    Q: Why is/was 'The Abyss' a non-anamorphic transfer?

    A: (From Van Ling, previously head of the production department for 'Lightstorm Entertainment', producer of LD supplements for T2:SE, ID4 and Abyss:SE, creator of the supplements for the DVD versions of Abyss, T2:UE, T1:SE)

    "Fox's policy at the time we started working on the disc (mid-1999) was to use the existing approved transfer if it was viable. There was a non-Cameron approved anamorphic transfer of the film done by Fox at one point, but Lightstorm reviewed it in detail and deemed it unusable. I can understand why, as I was involved in the two approved (and extremely different!) transfers of the film from 1989 and 1992 and I know what kind of care and attention had to go into it (color dissolves all over the place, specific framing of every shot). Jim is focused on his future projects, and Fox asked if the current D1 transfer was approved and viable, which it was - so they went with it. And in fact, I did have to re-transfer a few shots of The Abyss from film in order to make the seamless branching work, but I couldn't do the whole film. Fox, at the time, also did not see The Abyss as a "major" title in the sense that it was not a moneymaker on the level of Aliens or ID4. The new team at Fox, people like Peter Staddon, are much more in tune with what home theatre enthusiasts care about, so since The Abyss, I think they've aquitted themselves quite admirably on the anamorphic issue. Would Jim and Lightstorm have done a new anamorphic transfer if Fox had been willing to put up the time and money, as they are now doing on all their titles? I can't speak for them, but I think so. I do know they are not opposed to anamorphic, as some have suggested. Aliens was anamorphic, for instance."

    with thanks to 'Widescreen Review'

    [This message has been edited by Confucius (edited 03-03-2001).]
     

Share This Page

Loading...