Hi All,

So I've seen that these have had blu ray releases in Germany and Spain, but I was under the impression they were DVD upscales. I've recently seen someone in a facebook group selling bootleg blu rays and they claim to have both of these and they are sourced from HD scans not SD upscales. 

Does anyone know if there is any truth to this? Is there a blu ray somewhere in the world featuring a HD scan or is this guy telling lies? The same guy is also claiming to have a HD scan sourced blu ray of Fade to Black 1980, which again as far as I am aware does not have a blu ray release anywhere in the world that uses a HD scan. 

Thanks

hi there! love all the amazing work going on here and i'm happy to join. also have a few things in the works that i hope to share soon!

hi Booshman

I read your thread
is there a way to watch it? myspleen does not take new registrations

would really appreciate any help

thank you!

Hey everyone it's Watt from France.

On a long quest for info on proper versions of various films *, I visit many places, and today I saw material here that grabbed my attention and so I've decided to register to learn more from this community.


* this must be a quite common motive, I mean you must come across many ppl like that, but in general I seek proper colors and contents, like I remember the films looking and feeling when I was young. looking for proper blade runner for instance was especially tiring, getting all the cuts and then looking into fan edits lol.
audio-wise the extra (harder) quest for me is sometimes to find the desired version with french dub track, or (superharder) original french dubs. yeah because ruined colors isn't sadistic-enough, we get awful re-dubs. like imagine jaws with not-the-roy-scheider you know speaking. ugh.
anyway the quest is far from over.


Thanks for having me

Spread this news everywhere to show WB there is indeed support to release the original cut of Batman Forever.

Now there's finally talk about officially releasing the longer version:
https://variety.com/2020/film/news/b...er-1234697441/
This has made it to a number of sites and there's a twitter movement starting but of course without any of the Snyder cut fanfare. According to the sources the cut actually exists in the vaults at 170 min and WB doesn't know if there's demand to release it.
There has been since they teased it back in 2005 darn it.

My petition is now a year old and has almost 400 signatures.
https://www.change.org/p/warner-brot...batman-forever

Personally I would think that it would have been released as intended at 2 hr 15 up to 2 hr 30 depending on the shooting script and final cut before Warner had their way with it cutting down to 122 min and restructuring the opening. But at least there's something to work with and it could easily be a Warner Archive release if they don't do a Donner Cut style standalone. All it needs is a new scan, color timing, sound polish and you could even integrate the footage into the 4K theatrical master since that's already done.


Me babbling tech talk about the audio mix of the theatrical cut and how weirdly the 2.0 mix is better than the 5.1:
When I first started digging into the tech aspects of the film and realized that the old 2.0 matrix mix was better done than the 5.1 this is one of the many things that suddenly jumped out at me. (Widescreen Review said the same in their old LD and DVD reviews) I think if some old reports I've read are to be believed that many of the actors had to re-record dialogue elsewhere during post due to busy schedules which might account to the slightly canned sound to the dialogue-but yes it's ADR everywhere so much so that the discrete 5.1 mix accentuates the hiss and artifice of the rerecorded audio so one you notice it you can't quite unnotice it.

The 2.0 mix like a lot of mid 90's WB tracks weirdly has better mixed presence in the surround despite it being mono and a better low end. While the clarity takes a hit this does negate a lot of the audible noise in the ADR and makes it much less obvious.

Although NVenc is still no match for x264, it's improved to the point at which it's become useful to me under certain circumstances, especially making a quick "Just wanna watch it" encoding.  Here's a starting point that produces output that works with my BD player.  (Some of the settings spell out the defaults to demonstrate the encoder's options and are strictly speaking redundant.)

hello guys,
does anyone know if there is a filesize output calculator which can tell me in advance how big my output file will be ?
In HCencoder it was possible. You just had to import your .avs script and there was a field which was called "file length in kbytes" which told you exactly how big your file will be in the end.

Is there something similar for avs script based x264 encodes ? It would be even more awesome if it had a field where you could insert how many audio tracks you use and how big each audio track is and automatically telling you if your x264 video file is too big.

Thanks in advance for you suggestions
regards

I’ve never seen this before and recently picked up the R1 2 disc DVD set given its not available on Blu Ray.

Which cut is should I watch first? Which is considered the best of the two?

Hi,i am WATCHMEN-NEO and i am from China so forgive my bad english.

Well,to talk a little about myself,i like watching movies,i've had my days of collecting dvds mostly for the pretty&creative cover design and bonus discs,since most blurays are cheap-looking blue boxes i quit this hobby many years ago. I am not a hard core cinephile since i only found out the concept of “Open Matte”some days ago wicth made me very excited,it was like finding a new treatureland.

I found this forum in the process of finding more info about OM films and i feel this is a wonderful place to learn and communicate,and i am very glad to stay and become a mumber of this community. I dont know much about technical detail but if anyone need my help for a project i will be happy to provide.

Anyway nice meeting you all.

You'd think when a studio or producer or director makes a movie they'll want it done right the first time. This is the way we made it, this is how we are releasing it, and this is the way it should be seen. As everyone on this website knows: that's not the case. I'm wondering: why?

Of course, I understand how directors and producers can clash, (Brazil, Blade Runner, the Alien franchise, Apocalypse Now), or just the director wants the extended cut to be released (any James Cameron film), but that's not what I'm talking about here. I'm talking about why are there so many versions of movies with different croppings and colors?

I'm fairly new to this site, I must say, but I got into all this when Endgame wasn't released in its full IMAX open matte glory. The film was shot entirely on IMAX, so why not release it that way? (Answer: pretty sure it has to do with how IMAX distributes their films, and they said No to Disney). But the Harry Potter films and True Lies and Top Gun... Those are Super 35. These films can be viewed in 2.35 or 1.78 (not 1.85, right?).

SO WHY NOT just release them in 1.78? Why not release your film with MORE of the image? Is it because 2.35 looks more "cinematic"? OR is it just because these films are eventually going to be shown on TV and instead of doing a pan and scan (as would be done with an anamorphic print) they release it open matte... Which brings me back to my original question. WHY NOT just release it open matte, utilizing more of the screen?


AND WHAT ABOUT COLOR?
(Sorry, all caps there to just distinguish the subject change)
Look at Minority Report - there's differences in the color between the DVD and Blu-Ray. I didn't get to see the film in theaters (ahem, was a child) but I'm going to guess that the DVD is the same as the theatrical version. So why change it?

Terminator 2's 4K HDR release.... why would you do that to a film? What if we were to go back and make all those old film-noirs HDR (whatever the equivalent in black and white is), getting rid of all the contrast between the lights and shadows? That wouldn't go over well. So why do the same thing to movies today? If it wasn't shot for HDR, then why remaster and release it on HDR? Just for the namesake? Couldn't distributors just add a little checkbox in Special Feature which activates or deactivates all of the LUTs and color done to the new version of the film? Would be nice...

And then there's DISNEY... editing their classics so much to even switching the order of two shots (Little Mermaid, I'm looking at you). And all the while, practically remaking whole films in the computer. Dumbo didn't look like that. Those aren't the colors they chose. Fantasia didn't look that way. I could understand adding more colors and upping the resolution (albeit it looks weird), but why CHANGE the colors?


SOUND is a whole other topic I don't know all too much about. I do know that it seems there's a new remastered soundtrack just about every new release of a movie. I can understand making a variety of mixes based on user's home setup, but I don't know how many changes are made to soundtracks and would love to hear more in this thread.

What are you thoughts on these changes? Why are there so many versions of films (aspect ratios, not just cuts!)? Does releasing a film in 2.35 really make it more "cinematic" and if not, then why not release it as open matte? I look forward to this discussion.