Gladiator (2000)

[Damage Inc.]

Originally Posted by BStecke

Therein lies the debate. Gangs of New York is the same way. A higher resolution version of the DVD, which, to many, isn't acceptable, as you said.

Yeah, but it's just pretty clear that, even though it's a better version,
it's just not what people are expecting from this format.
Now we have like a "Superbit DVD-BD" or something. :P
Maybe that's what "Sapphire Series" means, they fooled us.
Too bad for 'Forrest Gump' then...

[BStecke]

I've never purchased Forrest Gump on DVD for some reason, so I'm hoping the BD is worth picking up. Hopefully it's more Braveheart than Gladiator.

[Blu-Malibu2009]

Originally Posted by BStecke

I've never purchased Forrest Gump on DVD for some reason, so I'm hoping the BD is worth picking up. Hopefully it's more Braveheart than Gladiator.

Given that Paramount actually produced the film in the first place, one would think it will turn out closer to Braveheart than Gladiator.

[Damage Inc.]

Originally Posted by TTUBatfan2008

Given that Paramount actually produced the film in the first place, one would think it will turn out closer to Braveheart than Gladiator.

Yeah, for some reason I think 'Forrest Gump' will be a great one.

[zahinn]

Gladiator is an improvement over the DVD...Not that big of an improvement but yeah..its still an improvement.

[Damage Inc.]

By the way, I'd like to see some clear comparison screenshots.
Mainly between DVD and BD, but other ones are fine too.

I found a thread here, which is messy, but you can find some comparisons if you want:
http://forums.highdefdigest.com/blu-...x-reviews.html

There is one comparison, I'll link two images and you'll have to switch between them.
But one is from TV or whatever, but the other one is from the BD.
The weird thing is, the BD shows big black bars.
And no, I'm not one that doesn't know what widescreen is.
The other screenshot is just as wide, but doesn't cut Crowe's head off with a bar.
So the BD, for some reason, seems to show about (slightly more) just as much horizontally, but less vertically.
What's up with that?...

The DVDs show the same bars though, so I guess it should be correct.
At least it does seem like the extra wide "epic-film-widescreen" you know.
But it does cut off the image, which I do not like...

Ah heck, I'll post images.
Let me know if it's bothering, I'll change them to links:






Some more comparisons:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1173155

I wish I could find one with the mouse-over-thing, did someone already post or see that?
Please let me know.

[42041]

Originally Posted by Damage Inc.

What's up with that?...

The blu-ray aspect ratio is faithful to how the film was shown theatrically. In many movies, when they shoot it, a larger area of film is exposed than what will end up on the final prints. You are seeing more, but not necessarily what the filmmakers wanted you to see.

[Damage Inc.]

Originally Posted by 42041

The blu-ray aspect ratio is faithful to how the film was shown theatrically. In many movies, when they shoot it, a larger area of film is exposed than what will end up on the final prints. You are seeing more, but not necessarily what the filmmakers wanted you to see.

OK, so basically they crop it to an aspect-ratio that is more "theatrical" or "cinematic"?

Hm, I really like to see more though.
I kind of don't like the "21:9"-ratio... at least not if it's "cut".
I guess IMAX is my thing then? As it seems to be less wide, or just as wide but taller.
Like I also really like my PC-games in 16:10, except that's a little different.
I just like more open images, guess that's how I feel about it.

Sorry to put it a little off-topic there, but it was actually for the 'Gladiator'-screenshots.

[42041]

Originally Posted by Damage Inc.

OK, so basically they crop it to an aspect-ratio that is more "theatrical" or "cinematic"?

You could say that entire art of photography is cropping a compelling image out of one's view of the world. No idea why you think it's a bad thing. I find it odd when people place more value on filling up the screen than seeing the film properly

[Blu-Malibu2009]

Originally Posted by 42041

You could say that entire art of photography is cropping a compelling image out of one's view of the world. No idea why you think it's a bad thing. I find it odd when people place more value on filling up the screen than seeing the film properly

The thing is that when it's shown in a scope theater, it takes up the entire screen. Director's intent is for the film to be viewed on a scope screen. That's why he chose that aspect ratio in the first place.

[Damage Inc.]

Originally Posted by 42041

You could say that entire art of photography is cropping a compelling image out of one's view of the world. No idea why you think it's a bad thing. I find it odd when people place more value on filling up the screen than seeing the film properly

I don't, it's not about "filling the screen" to me.
But indeed why not make use of the screen as much as possible?
I just find the extra-wide to look/feel so confined compared to more the more open image.
Besides, what wrong with being able to see more in shots like these?:




Sky is gone, horse has no legs...




Crowe's gut is gone, people in the background too.


Sorry for being different, but it's just weird to me.
Maybe I just don't like the way they made the final cut then.
I like the way they shot it, they don't need to cut anything in my opinion.

Also, it's really weird how the broadcasts of the non-cropped versions exist.
How did they get hold of those versions? I guess Ridley Scott didn't mind thát then?

Too bad I probably won't be around when they create footage
for ceiling and side-wall projections at the cinema. XD

[Blu-Malibu2009]

Originally Posted by Damage Inc.

But indeed why not make use of the screen as much as possible?

Because the theatrical screens are not shaped like that. Director intended for the film to be shown on a scope screen. The HDTV versions that you are talking about would not fill a scope screen.

[Blu-Malibu2009]

The HDTV version would have black bars on the left and right side of the screen when shown in a scope theater.

[Damage Inc.]

I understand that, but you still see more in the original shot.
Guess I just like it as-is, really really as-is.
No 4:3-cropping, but also no "wide-cropping".
Oh well...

[42041]

Originally Posted by Damage Inc.

I just find the extra-wide to look/feel so confined compared to more the more open image.

Well imagine it as wider rather than shorter, because that's how you'll see it in the theater. The dynamics of the composition change in the re-framed shots. In particular there was a comparison of this wide shot of the roman army, in the proper composition the soldiers go off screen. In the open-matte version, you see that that's where they stopped placing extras, since there's nothing past that point but empty grass.

[Blu-Malibu2009]

Originally Posted by Damage Inc.

I understand that, but you still see more in the original shot.
Guess I just like it as-is, really really as-is.
No 4:3-cropping, but also no "wide-cropping".
Oh well...

Director didn't intend for you to see what was shown on HDTV.

[42041]

Originally Posted by Damage Inc.

I understand that, but you still see more in the original shot.
Guess I just like it as-is, really really as-is.

Do you want to see boom mics and crew as well?

[Blu-Malibu2009]

Originally Posted by 42041

Do you want to see boom mics and crew as well?

You can see it anyway in the final version of the film. Quite a bit of laziness with this film. And Scott dared to ask why he didn't win Best Director. Hey Ridley, how about you make sure you don't have a guy in jeans during MULTIPLE shots of a historical epic?

[Damage Inc.]

Originally Posted by 42041

Well imagine it as wider rather than shorter, because that's how you'll see it in the theater. The dynamics of the composition change in the re-framed shots. In particular there was a comparison of this wide shot of the roman army, in the proper composition the soldiers go off screen. In the open-matte version, you see that that's where they stopped placing extras, since there's nothing past that point but empty grass.

Yeah, I understand it would be like a wall-to-wall image then.
But I figure, they could do the same with the original, but make the screens higher.
I guess that's IMAX though...

Not meaning to alter the composition.
It's just, I don't really like the standard of cutting the image so "flat".
If I'd shoot a film to cut it to that later,
I'd have many wide shots to make sure many things wouldn't like get "cut in half".
Or like heads chopped off at the top in close-ups and such things.
Because I just don't like that personally, that wouldn't be my style of a composition.

But yeah, just a thing I kind of noticed for the first time.
I thought the film was shot as it was shot and not cropped afterward, even if left wide.

[Damage Inc.]

Originally Posted by TTUBatfan2008

You can see it anyway in the final version of the film. Quite a bit of laziness with this film. And Scott dared to ask why he didn't win Best Director. Hey Ridley, how about you make sure you don't have a guy in jeans during MULTIPLE shots of a historical epic?

LOLWUT?
Yeah, that would definitely not be my way of making a film. :P