Gladiator (2000)

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Grubert

In my experience, grain and noise look....

Sorry, but generic phrases like that mean very, very little to me.

Now, if you could prove that you have some practical knowledge of the subject such as describing to me where in the stack (top or bottom) a digital colorist would apply dnr to avoid potential color shifts and/or

exactly how and where a compressionist would best apply grain reduction if needed in order to work within the bitrate budget allocated by the content provider, using which software and which encoder, that would be much more meaningful to me that you have direct and accurate experience in viewing/analyzing imagery pre/post grain reduction.

[Blu-Benny]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Sorry, but generic phrases like that mean very, very little to me.

Now, if you could prove that you have some practical knowledge of the subject such as describing to me where in the stack (top or bottom) a digital colorist would apply dnr to avoid potential color shifts and/or

exactly how and where a compressionist would best apply grain reduction if needed in order to work within the bitrate budget allocated by the content provider, using which software and which encoder, that would be much more meaningful to me that you have direct and accurate experience in viewing/analyzing imagery pre/post grain reduction.

holy crap!!!

[Kittenz]

I don't get what the big panic is about. I checked the DVD beaver screenshot and I did not see what other people see. I think it looks great and I am not cancelling my pre-order. I paid 17$ for it so its not so bad.

I remember when there was almost a revolution because of the PQ in Gangs of New York. People complained that they could not see the difference with the DVD. I tested both versions and there was a huge difference in clarity. Of course the Blu-Ray was flawed but it was nowhere near as bad as I thought it would be.

I sure hope this is the same here. I will see when I get the movie in a week or so.

[Blurayfan88]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

I remember exactly what I posted in the past concerning the Star Trek series and I stand by the comment which you bolded at the end.

Apparently, you don’t remember what I posted yesterday on the previous page………

“I’ve already received several P.M.’s complaining that you’re carrying this anti-Braveheart campaign to other forums besides Blu-ray.com which strikes me as an agenda, rather than stating your observation and moving on. Also, if you think you can strong-arm Paramount into recalling Braveheart or reissuing a more visually pleasing disc at least to your eyes, or have them implement a change in their technological or business practices, I’ll tell you right now that it won’t work and you’re becoming a nuisance by trying so here. If you think you can shame people here that are fans of the movie into not purchasing it because it doesn’t meet your standards……..that is nothing to be proud of either.”

Grubert, what I dislike about this matter is the hyperbole and persistent physiological campaigning by some *non-purchasers* to try to convince fans of the film to avoid purchasing the title because it doesn’t meet their personal expectations.

Oh snap...

Penton-man IS the BEST! I would'nt bother arguing with him, you're just going to make yourself look even more like an idiot.

[benricci]

Originally Posted by Elandyll

At this point I'm going to wait for the HDD & Blu-Ray.com review for my buy of Gladiator, but I heard about another thing that sort of worries me (slightly).

There is word of a 1.85 version that present more screen than the officially approved 2.35 version, and I have seen screen grabs of this (the 1.85 would have been shown as the HDTV version).

Is it true, and if so, why not proposing either both versions, or the one with the maximum amoung of screen (and would fit 16:9 screen better anyway?).

Director's wish? If so, why the 1.85 filming, and the 1.85 HDTV version?

As mentioned many times already, Gladiator was shot Super 35. This results in a larger exposed negative area to work with. This is a super-simplified explanation, you should do a Google search if you're really interested in learning more.

Ridley Scott chose to frame this movie at 2.40:1 from that negative. Yes, broadcast TV versions "open the mattes" a bit to expose more of the picture, but this is not the intended image the filmmakers created.

Just because you may see more image, does not mean you should. Open matte transfers are typically framed inaccurately and alter the composition that the director and DP worked on.

[Hep]

Originally Posted by robertc88

There isn't even any professional reviews to go by, so strike two but I don't think they will see things differently.

I'm not sure if you would consider them professional but here is a review of the German release that gives PQ an 84% and DVD Beaver has some comments on the video quality:

Paramount's MPEG4 AVC transfer seems to have improved in every single facet of the visuals although it's not without it's digital manipulations...While the video quality can make some swoon the audio doesn't take a backseat.

So far, those are credible sources that seem to suggest that although there are issuses, this is not the disaster that some are making it out to be.

[Elandyll]

Originally Posted by benricci

As mentioned many times already, Gladiator was shot Super 35. This results in a larger exposed negative area to work with. This is a super-simplified explanation, you should do a Google search if you're really interested in learning more.

Ridley Scott chose to frame this movie at 2.40:1 from that negative. Yes, broadcast TV versions "open the mattes" a bit to expose more of the picture, but this is not the intended image the filmmakers created.

Just because you may see more image, does not mean you should. Open matte transfers are typically framed inaccurately and alter the composition that the director and DP worked on.

I'm all about the Director's and DoP's choices, and it will always be the reference version. I simply wish that, for a maximum experience, -I- as a viewer and consumer would be also given the choice of which version I would rather see in this case, specially when they have (with the studio, if not the Director and DoP's agreement) released a 1.85 unmatted version, obviously. If the 1.85 version was not supposed to exist ... well ... then it wouldn't (is my take on the subject).

[benricci]

Originally Posted by Elandyll

I'm all about the Director's and DoP's choices, and it will always be the reference version. I simply wish that, for a maximum experience, -I- as a viewer and consumer would be also given the choice of which version I would rather see in this case, specially when they have (with the studio, if not the Director and DoP's agreement) released a 1.85 unmatted version, obviously.

Well it's a good thing you're not in charge of anything, then. There is absolutely no reason to release an altered version of the film in the wrong aspect ratio.

Period.

[Blurayfan88]

Originally Posted by Elandyll

I'm all about the Director's and DoP's choices, and it will always be the reference version. I simply wish that, for a maximum experience, -I- as a viewer and consumer would be also given the choice of which version I would rather see in this case, specially when they have (with the studio, if not the Director and DoP's agreement) released a 1.85 unmatted version, obviously.

I understand where he's coming from, you have to understand there are many people who prefer an image that fills the whole screen. I personally prefer the 2:40:1 ratio that provides the viewer with the entire image. This was an issue raised several times during the infancy stages of DVD, that is why almost all releases had a full screen option. I think realistically it costs the studios more money to produce a 16:9 cropped image, have the director certify it before its released and to have both version's on one disc, as it cut's out space from adding perhaps extra audio codecs and some extra's on the disc. I think nowaday's people have gotten used to the idea of having black bars on their tv, plus wide screen tv's (which is the standard now) utilizes more space effectively to provide the viewer with more image and less of the black bars. I dont think the studios will ever adopt the idea of having both the cropped version and regular version on the same disc as a result.

[Elandyll]

Originally Posted by benricci

Well it's a good thing you're not in charge of anything, then. There is absolutely no reason to release an altered version of the film in the wrong aspect ratio.

Period.

Again, I do consider the 2.39 version as reference , and it's the one I want.
I simply do not see how you can pretend that the 1.85 is "altered" (when it's the actual print, and apparently shows no sign of "goofs" to be taken out such as booms and co), and that it's "wrong" when it has already been shown publicly on TV (I have not seen any interview of an outraged Mr Scott about it. Have you? Certainly the studio must have been aware of that as well, no?)

I am also glad you are not in charge of anything, the complete Blade Runner edition would have never seen the light of day with your way of thinking.

[benricci]

Originally Posted by Elandyll

Again, I do consider the 2.39 version as reference , and it's the one I want.
I simply do not see how you can pretend that the 1.85 is "altered" (when it's the actual print, and apparently shows no sign of "goofs" to be taken out such as booms and co), and that it's "wrong" when it has already bee shown publicly on TV (I have not seen any interview of an outraged Mr Scott about it. Have you? Certainly the studio must have been aware of that as well, no?)

I am also glad you are not in charge of anything, the complete Blade Runner edition would have never seen the light of day with your way of thinking.

WTF does Blade Runner have to do with anything? Lol...

Again, just because the 1.85 version exists, does not mean it's right. I'm not "pretending" anything. The original aspect ratio is 2.40:1. The broadcast HD version is not, therefore it's inaccurate and has been altered from its original format.

Altered doesn't have to mean less picture area, it just means changed. And the open matte transfer is changed from the theatrical (and correct) aspect ratio. Simple as that, I don't see how you can argue it's not.

HBO and other HD broadcasters frequently show movies in the wrong aspect ratio (AMC, I'm looking in your direction) Typically broadcast TV is beyond the director's control. Of course the studio is aware of it, who do you think gives HBO the broadcast master? HBO most likely asks for a full frame version because they don't want to deal with whiners like you who complain about black bars.

By your argument, any pan and scan transfer or open matte must not be "wrong" because it's been shown on TV. Is that what I'm to understand? Because it's been "shown publicly" on TV, therefor it must be right? What a load of garbage.

Since when are we using TV broadcasts as the basis for proper film framing and composition?

[Elandyll]

Originally Posted by benricci

What does Blade Runner have to do with anything?Lol

Again, just because the 1.85 version exists, does not mean it's right. HBO and other HD broadcasters frequently show movies in the aspect ratio. Typically broadcast TV is beyond the director's control.

By your argument, any pan and scan transfer or open matte must not be "wrong" because it's been shown on TV. Is that what I'm to understand?

Since when are we using TV broadcasts as the basis for film framing and composition?

The big difference with Pan & Scan (which is an abomination, and was commonly done by editors in the TV stations back in the days), is that -obviously- the full frame 1.85 version had to be delivered as such by the studio!
Just like I have not seen any reaction from Mr Scott disavowing the format of the HDTV broadcast, the studio delivering the full frame 1.85 makes it de facto an official version (the TV broadcast one), wherehas the pan & Scan was -removing- content and was able to be done, to my knowledge, at the TV station level, with a dumb zoom.

As far as I know, it's way easier to remove content (zoom&crop) than to -ADD- some, right?

As for Blade Runner (aside from being from the same director), it was provided in all the versions we could ever want to watch in the Ultimate Package.
The original Theatrical, International, the Director's cut, and even the (almost) never seen Workprint version which didn't have Mr Scott's approval at the time, on top of the one version that is -THE- version: The Final Cut.

According to you, only the "Final Cut" should exist at this moment then (with possibly the original Theatrical), and the Workprint version should have been disintegrated...

[Celticbhoy]

What i would like to see are comparison pics with the blu ray and dvd versions. Not just the hdtv and blu ray. Just like they have done with Braveheart. I would love to see the jump in quality from dvd to blu ray. That alone would be enough to warrant a purchase. For me anyway !

[space-monkey]

Umm...open matte transfers often reveal things we're not supposed to see. Like in PeeWee Herman's Big Adventure, where he pulls that chain out of nowhere, you can see it being fed to him from below.

So, yeah....the intended ratio is the proper one. Period.

[degas]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

“I’ve already received several P.M.’s complaining that you’re carrying this anti-Braveheart campaign to other forums besides Blu-ray.com which strikes me as an agenda, rather than stating your observation and moving on. Also, if you think you can strong-arm Paramount into recalling Braveheart or reissuing a more visually pleasing disc at least to your eyes, or have them implement a change in their technological or business practices, I’ll tell you right now that it won’t work and you’re becoming a nuisance by trying so here. If you think you can shame people here that are fans of the movie into not purchasing it because it doesn’t meet your standards……..that is nothing to be proud of either.”

Grubert, what I dislike about this matter is the hyperbole and persistent physiological campaigning by some *non-purchasers* to try to convince fans of the film to avoid purchasing the title because it doesn’t meet their personal expectations.

We're talking about Gladiator here, which looks far from optimal.
Braveheart looks great.

[benricci]

Originally Posted by Elandyll

The big difference with Pan & Scan (which is an abomination, and was commonly done by editors in the TV stations back in the days), is that -obviously- the full frame 1.85 version had to be delivered as such by the studio!
Just like I have not seen any reaction from Mr Scott disavowing the format of the HDTV broadcast, the studio delivering the full frame 1.85 makes it de facto an official version (the TV broadcast one), wherehas the pan & Scan was -removing- content and was able to be done, to my knowledge, at the TV station level, with a dumb zoom.

As far as I know, it's way easier to remove content (zoom&crop) than to -ADD- some, right?

As for Blade Runner (aside from being from the same director), it was provided in all the versions we could ever want to watch in the Ultimate Package.
The original Theatrical, International, the Director's cut, and even the (almost) never seen Workprint version which didn't have Mr Scott's approval at the time, on top of the one version that is -THE- version: The Final Cut.

According to you, only the "Final Cut" should exist at this moment then (with possibly the original Theatrical), and the Workprint version should have been disintegrated...

Pan and scan was not done by TV editors, those P&S broadcast masters were delivered by the studios as well. Why do you keep insisting that just because a full-frame broadcast TV master is created, that it's the "de-facto official" version of the film. Are you effin serious?!?!? It's not!

I still don't understand why you are saying I would be against the Blade Runner box set? I'm sorry, I just don't follow your line of reasoning. I have never mentioned Blade Runner in this thread, and it has little to do with aspect ratios. So I'm at a loss as to what point you are reaching for there....

You may want to read the thoughts of another high profile director, Steven Soderbergh, and his distaste for HBO's practice of turning 2.40 films into 16:9 transfers for the sake of television broadcasts.

http://www.mcnblogs.com/mcindie/arch...ergh_on_s.html

Many directors are NOT in support of this practice.

An excerpt from Soderbergh:

As a test, flip around and find a movie in 2.40 on one of the HD movie channels that actually airs movies in their correct format. You’ll see that it feels very different than a full-frame 16:9 image. In fact, you might agree with my assessment that, ironically, the letterboxed 2.40 ratio actually makes the world of the movie look bigger.

Shape matters. Spread the word.

[space-monkey]

Soderbergh is right. In many cases, 1.85 films tend to look more like television and less like cinema. There is a reason why most epics are filmed at 2.35 or higher, and it's not necessarily to "see more," but rather, to feel more, to have the impression of a sweeping tapestry.

Just because can see more with open matte doesn't mean it isn't damaging to the intent of the filmmaker.

[Elandyll]

Wherehas I still think we would lose nothing in having both versions available on BR, I stand corrected on the Director's choice, as he has publicly voiced his choice for the 2.39 format, the filming choice of Super 35 having been done solely for economical and time constraints reasons.

http://books.google.com/books?id=kpF...age&q=&f=false

In "Ridley Scott: Interviews"

AC: you shot Gladiator in Super 35 with Spherical Lenses. How did you exploit that format to enhance the film's "epic" look?
Scott: If I think about the very epic directors, the one that spring to mind first would be David Lean and Lawrence of Arabia. We couldn't really [shoot in the standard 1.85:1 aspect ratio] because we were attempting to tell an epic story. I don't know why, but psychologically, an epic tends to feel as if it ought to be widescreen with landscapes as opposed to portrait photography. That probably means anamorphic, which can be hard to do with time constraints. We knew that if we got spherical lenses, it might save on lights, because you've got a difference of two and sometimes three stops. Lights mean time, and time means money. Therefore we ultimately elected to go spherical, which would give me what I needed and give John [Mathieson] what he needed, which was speed in working.
Of course, we still went for what I call the "epic quality" - it's that combination of how you see the landscape and which lenses you put on the camera. I don't use a lot of wide angle lenses, you see more , but it's less powerful. It's a funny effect. If I want a wide view of a scene, I'll move back, which was also quite good because the actor doesn't have a lump of glass stuck in his face. The camera and crew are further away from him, so in a sense, he's on his own.

Case closed as far as I'm concerned

[PeterTHX]

It's just peculiar how Clint Eastwood can shoot quickly and cheaply anamorphic every time and Ridley can't.

[Rizor]

But Eastwood doesn't typically do the types of movies Scott does. Granted, that's not much of an argument, but watching the extras of Kingdom of Heaven just made the man's job seem incredibly complicated and overwhelming. Making a movie of that enormity did not look like fun.