Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Lord of the Rings DVD

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Community » The Afterlife » Lord of the Rings DVD (Page 1)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Author

Topic: Lord of the Rings DVD

Jim Leko
Film Handler

Posts: 90
From: Redondo Beach, CA, USA
Registered: May 2002

posted 07-21-2002 05:26 AM

I hope this is the right section to ask this in.

As Lord of the Rings was shot in Super35, which version of the DVD are you going to buy (if any). Full screen, or widescreen (don't get offended that I even asked :-)

Normally, I like the widescreen versions of movies, but I have never really bought a full screen DVD for a Super35 movie.

On a side note, as these are the only LoTR movies ever made, and I doubt anybody will try to make a new version for a LONG time, wouldn't it have been great if they could have shot it in 65mm scope instead of Super35? Not even using a full 35mm frame of film is dumb IMHO.

| IP: Logged

Christopher Duvall
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 500
From: Denver, CO
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 07-21-2002 06:19 AM

Every DVD I buy, I try to make sure it is in the orginal theatrical aspect ratio (or the closest the studio tries to do) and the discs must be anamorphic if it is not Academy Frame or Full Frame. I have a Hi Def TV that is 16x9 aspect ratio. Those anamorphic disc look awesome on it. Non-anamorphic "widescreen" movies are just matted to their aspect ratios and must be zoomed in on to fill the screen and those look like

. Call me spoiled. Now if the Blue Laser DVD players would hurry up...

Oh yeah, what is this thread again? I will buy the Super Deluxe Ultimate Collectors Edition of the Director's Cut of LOTR when that comes out in November, not the watered down version in August. The Novemeber box set will be in Anamorphic widescreen only.

| IP: Logged

Brad Haven
Master Film Handler

Posts: 300
From: fremantle, West Australia
Registered: Aug 2001

posted 07-21-2002 11:02 AM

I'll be buying the collectors edition also, i dont buy alot of DVD'S , only all time fave's and very special editions!.
When choosing DVD's i try to purchase widescreen anamorphic (i have a widescreen tv), i hate it when they release 4:3 dvd's when in the cinema it was projected as 1:85:1, i understand that they shoot full frame(most of the time) but they should release them as widescreen, which might encourage people to upgrade to widescreen tv's!.
Jim , have you not seen the animated versions?, i believe that ralph bakshi did LOTR and i'm not sure who did "the hobbit", we used to screen these at the lumiere cinema in perth, it always attracted a good crowd!

| IP: Logged

Thomas Procyk
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1842
From: Royal Palm Beach, FL, USA
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 07-21-2002 11:27 AM

quote:
i understand that they shoot full frame(most of the time) but they should release them as widescreen, which might encourage people to upgrade to widescreen tv's!.

Exactly! I was appalled to be walking through a Wal-Mart (I am always appalled when in Wal-Mart, heh) and saw an entire rack of Harry Potter DVDs... in FULL FRAME!! They had maybe 3 widescreen copies, behind that locked glass thingy. Since most people either don't care or "hate those black bars that cut off the picture" I think we can look forward to stepping backwards to pan-and-scan and having to dig for widescreen DVDs. At least in your typical corporate discount department stores.
Reminds me of when I heard my economics professor say, "...but I won't buy a DVD player until they do something to fix those annoying black lines! " I just had to interrupt and point out her stupidity...

=TMP=

| IP: Logged

Mike Schindler
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1039
From: Oak Park, IL, USA
Registered: Jun 2002

posted 07-21-2002 11:27 AM

Over at www.moviepoopshoot.com , Robert Meyer Burnett, who worked on the LOTR DVDs, said that none of the content, including the cut of the film is the same on either set. So if you buy the 2-disc set now and the 4-disc set later, it'll be like having one big 6-disc set. Not that this movie deserves 6 discs, but still...

| IP: Logged

Dave Williams
Wet nipple scene

Posts: 1836
From: Salt Lake City, UT, USA
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 07-21-2002 02:55 PM

I enjoyed LOTR, but I really don't see a need to see it again, until the directors version comes out, and then I will just rent it. It was good, but not good enough to really own, AFAIAC.

I agree that the Blue Laser DVD's need to hurry up already. I own a 70 dollar dvd player, and no dvd's. No need to buy technology that is just going to be outdated in a year.

Dave

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 07-21-2002 03:36 PM

If one buys the "full frame" version of LOTR just because it was shot in Super35, they will be disappointed. Even though some of the live action shots may show more image on top and bottom (with the sides still trimmed a bit) all of the CGI work and other effects shots are made in 2.35:1. So all of those shots will be as heavily panned and scanned as any anamorphic shot film.

You also have the additional problem in that "full frame" versions are made only for use with standard NTSC televisions. It would be pretty aggravating to watch a 1.33:1 framed show on a widescreen television with grey bars at the sides, especially when you know there is an anamorphic enhanced widescreen version available and well suited to widescreen televisions.

Buy the OAR widescreen version and let the "full frame" one rot on the shelf.

| IP: Logged

Jesse Skeen
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1517
From: Sacramento, CA
Registered: Aug 2000

posted 07-21-2002 03:49 PM

When DVD was announced, one of the big selling points was that it could include BOTH widescreen and pan-and-scan versions on the SAME disc. Releasing two separate versions just confuses people who don't know better, and even worse is the labeling of "Fullscreen" or "Standard" formats.
BTW why don't they make "Fullscreen" versions of movies for theatres with top masking?

| IP: Logged

Manny Knowles
"What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???"

Posts: 4247
From: Bloomington, IN, USA
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 07-21-2002 04:02 PM

Don't get me started...

...I'm willing to bet that the LOTR series becomes more infamous than STAR WARS or EVIL DEAD for having multiple versions...

...Just wait until the trilogy is complete and the various box-set manifestations are released.

BTW, I read that you can now purchase a box-set of RESERVOIR DOGS where it's just copies of the same disc in different cases, each with a single character from the movie on the cover.

| IP: Logged

Jim Leko
Film Handler

Posts: 90
From: Redondo Beach, CA, USA
Registered: May 2002

posted 07-21-2002 05:10 PM

Brad, I have heard of animated version of The Hobbit, but I have never heard of an animated version of the LoTR trilogy.

Unfortunately for me, I only have a 35 inch 4:3 standard def tube TV (bought in 1994). Great picture for what it is, but the picture is really small when showing anamorphic movies. I just started working up in the booth about 3 months ago, but I am still making $6.75/hr (min wage in CA). I am working Usher on the weekends and Projection on the weekdays (they want the more exp guys working the booth on the weekends). And no, I never work a Usher/Booth shift. It's either one or the other. Anyway, at $6.75/hr, I can't afford to pay my parents room and board, AND save for a HD 16:9 TV (life isn't fair). I think when I get into the USAF after I am done with school (my goal), I will make enough money to buy some decent equipment. By the time I retire, I will have my own screening room :-)

Oh yeah, from what you guys are saying, I think I will just forget the fact that LoTR was shot in Super35, and buy the Widescreen version (just wish I had a bigger TV everytime I buy a Widescreen version of anything).

| IP: Logged

Mike Schindler
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1039
From: Oak Park, IL, USA
Registered: Jun 2002

posted 07-21-2002 08:42 PM

Putting both WS and P&S versions on the same disc is a bad idea because of the compression involved. Sometimes it doesn't matter, but if a movie starts to get long, you're in trouble.

As for the whole "It 's Super 35 so full frame's OK" thing, you may be gaining information, but you're losing composition. Widescreen's always better (unless you're James Cameron) I have a 32" 4:3 TV, and that's good enough for someone with no money. When I was in high school, I used to watch widescreen laserdiscs on a 13" monitor. I would still prefer that to watching something in full frame on a 32" TV.

| IP: Logged

Ron Lacheur
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 650
From: British Columbia, Canada
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 07-22-2002 03:47 AM

having both a p/s and widescreen versions of the film on a single disc doesn't involve compression. Just use both sides.

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 07-22-2002 10:19 AM

IMHO, the original theatrical release format "defines" the preferred aspect ratio, as that was the primary composition used by the director and cinematographer when the movie was made.

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: +1 585 477 5325 Cell: +1 585 781 4036 Fax: +1 585 722 7243
e-mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

| IP: Logged

Mike Schindler
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1039
From: Oak Park, IL, USA
Registered: Jun 2002

posted 07-22-2002 11:11 AM

Putting one version on each side of a disc does involve more compression because, in a practical situation, each side can only be single layered. Because of this, you can only fit about half of the information on one side of a double-sided disc as opposed to one side of a single-sided disc. Of course, it is possible to make dual-layer/dual-sided discs, but this is costly. That's why the initial release of the T2 special edition was one disc, but later versions were 2 discs (there's also that whole perceived added value thing).

| IP: Logged

Jesse Skeen
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1517
From: Sacramento, CA
Registered: Aug 2000

posted 07-22-2002 01:14 PM

I'll just say that I HATE it when I get a 2-disc set where both discs are 1-sided. It's a 2-sided medium so use BOTH sides!!

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Printer-friendly view of this topic

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.