Back to the Future Trilogy 4K UHD (1985-1990)

[eledoremassis02]

I don't think people really cared (especially since Pan and scan was the biggest offender and even then it wasn't an issue for most people). I actually saw a theatrical print a few years ago and it actually reminded me a bit of the VHS.

Now, I wonder how the laserdisc was because those were arguably more for the collector market.

[weberrygt]

I have been watching these on Netflix. 2015, the future? That was surreal to say the least. (I haven't watched any of these since at least 2015, so it was always the 'future' for me.)

Great movies, and watching them as an adult (i.e., somebody who actually watches the movie and pays attention to details and all that) versus a kid that just watched these on repeat... I finally see how great they truly are!

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by nick4Knight

The VHS days? Hell that was about the movies themselves only where my joy came. In that light it's easy to be nostalgic. I wasn't ever thinking about how good is this transfer. Am I missing the image... etc. Having rented most what I watched I'm sure it was pan and scan for a lot of blockbuster copies. I recall many of my own VHS with the widescreen banner up top. But I didn't ever specifically seek it out or know it's importance at the time. I never got Laserdisc so that could explain why DVD was the first time being bit with the enthusiast bug but I knew the quality wasn't quite there to invest in it and better would come along.

Even when I was a kid I hated pan and scan. Hated it. Widescreen video first started to become a thing when I was in my teens and I replaced as many of my P&S tapes as I could. So even then, even on crappy old VHS I was already starting to discern what set X version apart from Y. "Start as you mean to carry on", as the saying goes.

[stvn1974]

I remember the widescreen VHS section at Best Buy. Just me and the crickets in the aisle.

[Markgway]

I was an early supporter of widescreen tapes.

Popped my cherry circa April 1993 with Die Hard and from then on always went for the black bars option.

[Noremac Mij]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Even when I was a kid I hated pan and scan. Hated it. Widescreen video first started to become a thing when I was in my teens and I replaced as many of my P&S tapes as I could. So even then, even on crappy old VHS I was already starting to discern what set X version apart from Y. "Start as you mean to carry on", as the saying goes.

It all depends on what one’s priorities are. For me it’s colour. But if two releases got the colour right back in the day, then I would choose P&S or open matte over widescreen any day. The picture fidelity of widescreen is horrible compared to full screen.

[michaelclarke]

Originally Posted by MEB

Well, if these 4K discs are coming in October, then probably on October 20. Back To The Future Day is Oct 21 but that’s a Wednesday.

Mark

Not to mention that October is inventory time, so right now, Statler Toyota is making the best deals of the year on all 2020-model Toyotas.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Markgway

I was an early supporter of widescreen tapes.

Popped my cherry circa April 1993 with Die Hard and from then on always went for the black bars option.

That was literally my first widescreen tape, it being my favourite film, and I bought mine in the same year.

[captainjoe]

I remember seeing Die Hard in widescreen the first time and being blown away. There's that moment when Al Powel is walking through the lobby and says "Ah, the hell with this." On the side of the frame in the foreground behind the corner hes about to turn around is a terrorist holding a gun waiting for him but you could never see that on the Pan and Scan VHS. I was like wooooooah letterbox for life!

[WBMakeVMarsMovieNOW]

Originally Posted by Noremac Mij

It all depends on what one’s priorities are. For me it’s colour. But if two releases got the colour right back in the day, then I would choose P&S or open matte over widescreen any day. The picture fidelity of widescreen is horrible compared to full screen.

P&S over widescreen? lose like half of the image completely?

[Lionel Horsepackage]

I still vividly remember getting into a heated argument with my roommate and his girlfriend back in mid-to-late 2003 about what, exactly, "widescreen" versus "pan-and-scanning" even meant -- they didn't have a freaking clue, insisting that P&S DVDs were superior to widescreen discs ("Your TV is getting completely filled with picture!!")...until I finally showed them the following stills from Widescreen.org (retrieved via the magical Internet Wayback Machine):







"A picture's worth a thousand words," and all that.

Upon beholding these pics, my roommate INSTANTLY turned around, and became a fervent widescreen disciple (frequently watching my 4-disc Fellowship of the Rings Extended Edition set after basically disowning his pan-and-scan theatrical edition).


EDIT: ETA, I suddenly remembered why this dispute even broke out in the first place -- my roommate and his GF were about to head for the local Wal-Mart to pick up The Matrix Reloaded on DVD, and I was begging and pleading with him to buy the widescreen version instead of the pan-and-scanned version.

He bought the widescreen version.

[KMFDMvsEnya]

VHS widescreen vs P&S. Haven't had to think about that scenario in a long time, a long time.

1.85:1 vs a P&S version is a bit of a wash but I would definitely get the WS version for a movie I loved back then and with less important titles it did not matter. The loss of image from the full correct frame really was not a major loss. So get the greatest benefit from those interlace scan lines.

2.35:1+ vs the P&S version now that was a serious debate with 4:3 CRT days. Important movies again I would get the WS version when it became available, in spite of the loss in horizontal detail due to the nature of the beast back then.

When WS anamophic DVDs hit the market at prices I could afford then all bets were off, it was always the WS version, forever more.

For older video technology I sure love quality DVD transfers and hold no serious nostalgia for VHS, especially 2.35:1 WS on VHS.

Thank goodness for 1080P and 2160P today.

[sapiendut]

I can’t believe that people still prefer “filling up screen” over watching things as intended.

[Noremac Mij]

A lot of these examples and explanations you guys are posting are half truths, if that. To be fair, any picture example should have the widescreen shot at half resolution.

Back in those days, anything full screen was lumped in with P&S. A significant portion of full screen movies were open matte, or hybrid open matte. Where full resolution is retained and there’s actually more picture information present over widescreen. The widescreen movement back in the analog days was mostly a marketing gimmick to sell all of these movies again at half the resolution.

Serious collectors were always hunting for open matte transfers and there were tons of them available throughout multiple analog formats. For those who know, Carrie and Titanic are especially nice in open matte. RoboCop. T2. The Abyss. True Lies. And hundreds more. All open matte, all as intended by the directors. There’s even a great hybrid open matte version of Back to the Future.

[shane01]

Originally Posted by Lionel Horsepackage

I still vividly remember getting into a heated argument with my roommate and his girlfriend back in mid-to-late 2003 about what, exactly "widescreen" versus "pan-and-scanning" even meant -- they didn't have a freaking clue, insisting that P&S DVDs were superior to widescreen discs ("Your TV is getting completely filled with picture!!")...until I finally showed them the following stills from Widescreen.org (retrieved via the magical Internet Wayback Machine):







"A picture's worth a thousand words," and all that.

Upon beholding these pics, my roommate INSTANTLY turned around, and became a fervent widescreen disciple (frequently watching my 4-disc Fellowship of the Rings Extended Edition set after basically disowning his pan-and-scan theatrical edition).

widescreen.org!! I spent so much time as a teen comparing the stills. I completely forgot about that site. Did this site host the problematic BTTF II widescreen DVD screenshots?

[Geoff D]

LOTR was shot Super 35, I thought they'd have opened that up for the 4:3 version rather than doing an actual pan and scan like it was anamorphic? Still, I suppose some directors don't give a shit about opening it up vertically even if they're able to, although aren't there opened up HDTV versions?

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by sapiendut

I can’t believe that people still prefer “filling up screen” over watching things as intended.

And then it turns into an argument with some FP owners (especially at AVS) who insist 4:3 content should be taller than scope. lol

[BNex99]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

LOTR was shot Super 35, I thought they'd have opened that up for the 4:3 version rather than doing an actual pan and scan like it was anamorphic? Still, I suppose some directors don't give a shit about opening it up vertically even if they're able to, although aren't there opened up HDTV versions?

I think the LOTR 4:3 transfers varied from shot to shot (like most Super 35 films). Some showed a lot of extra top-and-bottom info, some didn't.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by BNex99

I think the LOTR 4:3 transfers varied from shot to shot (like most Super 35 films). Some showed a lot of extra top-and-bottom info, some didn't.

You're right, there's definitely a bit more headroom in those 4:3 shots now I've looked at them again. Still seems very extreme though.

[Rizor]

I saw "Multiplicity" in theaters in '96. I then saw it was showing on TV a while later and was bothered because I was pretty sure there were more shots where you saw multiple Michael Keatons at the same time, and what was with this weird panning camera? That's how I learned about widescreen. Lol.