Seven Blu-ray

[edubb5]

Does anybody got this and is it a good copy toget?

[banned user105]

It's 1080i

Save your money, there'll be another version eventually

[deangrazy]

Originally Posted by doctorthodt

It's 1080i

Save your money, there'll be another version eventually

I am definitely saving my money on this and waiting for the next release.

[retablo]

It is also cropped from 2.39:1 to 1.78:1. Obviously without the consent of the director.

[FrankV]

Buy the Dutch release which is 1080p and 2.35:1. No extras or English subtitles.

[Semp1]

Or you could just be patient and wait for the inevitable superior US release.

[CRMA]

they have talked about this release for a while now. I hope they give it a good treatment. New Line is usually pretty good. No imports for me.

[championple]

Originally Posted by CRMA

they have talked about this release for a while now. I hope they give it a good treatment.

What are you talking about? There is no new release planned, just the crappy one that's already out.

[Bruce Morrison]

Originally Posted by retablo

It is also cropped from 2.39:1 to 1.78:1. Obviously without the consent of the director.

It hasn't been cropped. It was actually shot in a 1.78 ratio, so it's just been opened out to show the whole of the image captured by the camera. You're seeing more than was intended, not less.

[retablo]

Originally Posted by Bruce Morrison

It hasn't been cropped. It was actually shot in a 1.78 ratio, so it's just been opened out to show the whole of the image captured by the camera. You're seeing more than was intended, not less.

Wrong. The film was shot Super 35 (which is essentially 1.33:1 full frame), but was always intended (and shown theatrically) to be cropped to 2.39:1. That's what the compositions were framed for. Even the director-approved dvd has the proper aspect ratio of 2.35:1.

Please don't spew incorrect facts if you don't really know.

[Bruce Morrison]

Originally Posted by retablo

Wrong. The film was shot Super 35 (which is essentially 1.33:1 full frame), but was always intended (and shown theatrically) to be cropped to 2.39:1. That's what the compositions were framed for. Even the director-approved dvd has the proper aspect ratio of 2.35:1.

Please don't spew incorrect facts if you don't really know.

I wasn't disputing that the director intended the film to be shown at the 2.39 ratio.

I simply pointed out that, on the current Blu-ray release, the film hadn't been cropped from its correct presentation, which is true. A cropped image has information removed from it, not extra information added.

[retablo]

Originally Posted by Bruce Morrison

I wasn't disputing that the director intended the film to be shown at the 2.39 ratio.

I simply pointed out that, on the current Blu-ray release, the film hadn't been cropped from its correct presentation, which is true. A cropped image has information removed from it, not extra information added.

Semantics. It's an alteration to the intended image. The "added" information isn't information you are supposed to be seeing anyway, if indeed they opened up the gate a little. Or they could've cropped the 2.39:1 master down to 1.78.1 and shaved off the sides. If the gate was opened up, then it is cropped form its 1.33:1 image to 1.78.1. So either way it's cropped to fit a screen it was never intended to fit.

[Bruce Morrison]

Originally Posted by retablo

Semantics. It's an alteration to the intended image. The "added" information isn't information you are supposed to be seeing anyway, if indeed they opened up the gate a little. Or they could've cropped the 2.39:1 master down to 1.78.1 and shaved off the sides. If the gate was opened up, then it is cropped form its 1.33:1 image to 1.78.1. So either way it's cropped to fit a screen it was never intended to fit.

I've watched the Canadian Blu-ray release (although I no longer own it). The 1.78 image is not missing anything from the sides - it has the extra information at the top and bottom. So my point is that it's misleading to use the term "cropped", which implies that information is missing from the intended image.

I don't approve of altering the intended image in any way, which is why I got rid of the disc. However, while most people would object if information were missing, fewer people would have such strong objections to the presence of extra information that was shot in the camera but wasn't intended to be seen. For the benefit of potential purchasers, I was just seeking to clarify exactly how the image had been altered, that's all.

[RyRyMcNizzy13]

i got it for 5bucks and i think it was worth it. the P/Q was pretty good and it's a grtitty movie anyway so the grain really helps it. i'll buy the us release when it's available but this will do for now

[thecardman23]

i was actually quite impressed with the transfer. i got it on sale and was worth the price i paid imo

[Rhylliam]

This is in my top 3 favorite films, & was truly pissed when it was revealed to be a 1.78:1 transfer. I will wait for the US disc on this flick.

[jetthead]

DVDBeaver reviewed the disc here:

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDRe...en_blu-ray.htm

[Snyder-man]

i got its for 10 bucks aswell and its good, the 1080i doesnt really bother me, kinda dumb but for 10 bucks, whatever. it has DTS HDMA and it isnt cropped so Id say go for it if no US release is set to come out any time soon

[Lt. Aldo Raine]

save your money for another release(thats the case with most alliance movies)

[JBL4645]

Well I’m watching the extra on the telecine process that was part of the two disc DVD special edition. Some parts I just don’t agree with in manipulating the original look as it was projected seen in cinema.

The colour of the sky is not grey its blue! Or different tonal light shades of blue. The film was super35 and the manipulating of framing is just beyond disbelief!

Its just some geeks in basement studio show-off what they can do with these video tools! So what you get is not a mirror image of the film but a pardon me, f$&)_ked up version of the film on optical disc! Sigh

I don’t like it when geeks screw up films its lazy and its not art form its just rubbish! I really dislike super35 never did like format! 35mm with anamorphic lenses rules!


Quote from (Stephen Nakamura)
This shot was very red to start with. So get…the blue out of the sky.

The telecine used for Seven was Spirit datacine 2K
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecine




This idiot has gone and turned the blue to crap greenish hue! Never in all my years have I ever seen real blue coloured sky turn like that, unless its cloudy and I see tint of greenish cloud with possible thunder storm brewing overhead.

I forget which in water colour painting that two colours can make one colour its been 30 years since I painted with water colours but its the same thing here one or the other can change the original and we all prefer original because the sky is just not that colour!