Posts: 1,246
Threads: 12
Joined: 2015 Oct
Thanks: 267
Given 393 thank(s) in 257 post(s)
Country:
At least this movie has not as many different bad releases, as some other movies. So I just have 5 releases in my collection of that so far.
2 different German DVDs, 2 different German BDs and the US BD... could be worse...
(I am looking at you, Terminator 2!)
"Never cut a deal with a dragon..."
- Old Shadowrun wisdom
Posts: 2,523
Threads: 40
Joined: 2015 Apr
Thanks: 2020
Given 434 thank(s) in 358 post(s)
Country:
Shout are the worst, knew I was right to not order it
Posts: 2,050
Threads: 56
Joined: 2016 Dec
Thanks: 161
Given 1009 thank(s) in 613 post(s)
Is there a reason why a new scan is not possible, is the film tied up in some rights limbo or have the o-neg/intermediates been lost/destroyed?
Posts: 2,706
Threads: 47
Joined: 2015 Jan
Thanks: 1640
Given 957 thank(s) in 610 post(s)
Couldn't it be possible to just fix any existing aspect ratio? And be done with it?
Posts: 895
Threads: 162
Joined: 2015 Apr
Thanks: 224
Given 489 thank(s) in 257 post(s)
Country:
Didn't Shout say they used a new scan from the negative? It's probably the same BS like it happened with Apocalypse Now and the DP is at fault. At least I've read something like this happened to TGATD too.
As alleycat said: OAR only with a 35mm print. Unless there are HDTV version floating around in OAR.
Posts: 488
Threads: 22
Joined: 2017 Dec
Thanks: 51
Given 244 thank(s) in 167 post(s)
Country:
2022-05-24, 01:22 AM
(This post was last modified: 2022-05-24, 01:24 AM by SpaceBlackKnight.)
From what I see in that mushy YT video, the Shout Factory BD is definitely a new scan. That old HD master reeks of scanner noise and EE, hence why it looks sharper at first glance.
As for the framing, the old HD master showed way too much with things like wobbling mattes and splice marks frequently popping up. I imagine the full negative ratio is 2:20 so Paramount could make 2.35 prints and Zsigmond could adjust the frame to avoid exposing framing gaffes that show up in wider versions. He probably choose 2:10 to hide goofs while maintaining all the action and important elements in the frame.
Posts: 2,050
Threads: 56
Joined: 2016 Dec
Thanks: 161
Given 1009 thank(s) in 613 post(s)
Just looked at a couple of photos of the back of the LD and it does clearly state the aspect ratio of 2.1 preserves the original theatrical presentation, which is strange. Was it some kind of masked scope print?
Posts: 2,050
Threads: 56
Joined: 2016 Dec
Thanks: 161
Given 1009 thank(s) in 613 post(s)
Perhaps, but I've not read anything to confirm this and he has long since passed unfortunately. I don't recall any of his other films having this aspect ratio
