Clueless 4K UHD (1995) (30th Anniversary Edition)

[MifuneFan]

I would prefer original cover art myself, but I do like how shiny/sparkly the 25th Anniversary slip was, so if that gets repeated for the 4K, I think it would be more appealing/attractive to the mainstream Walmart crowd out there over the original poster art.

(pro tip: mute video to bypass the mega yapper)

Clueless blu ray unboxing - YouTube

[sojrner]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

He just means the part with the banner at the top that connects to the back cover (referred to as a J-card), which is removed to show a slip free of any text on the front and back.

[Show spoiler]Dragonslayer 4K Ultra HD Steelbook - YouTube

So he means a cutout ON the J-card? He said "cutout at the top for the J-card," (emphasis mine), implying there's a cutout on the slip. That is where my confusion came in.

However, if he's talking about the rounded corners and notched top on the J-card, I mean, ok... that still doesn't mean anything on whether the slip is square or not. (obviously)

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by sojrner

So he means a cutout ON the J-card? He said "cutout at the top for the J-card," (emphasis mine), implying there's a cutout on the slip. That is where my confusion came in.

However, if he's talking about the rounded corners and notched top on the J-card, I mean, ok... that still doesn't mean anything on whether the slip is square or not. (obviously)

No, his point wasn't to dispute whether the slipcover was rounded or not, but rather if one could tell it was going to be a Slipcover with a Steelbook inside or one without one. He's using the detachable J-Card on the Dragonslayer release as evidence of that one being a Steelbook release, and pointing out that Clueless does not have one.

By cutout he just means you can see the outline of the J-card in the stock image, showing it's something removable, and to him, obviously implying this would be a SB. As mentioned, there are are other examples like The Running Man that don't have such removable J-cards for their slips, so it doesn't really mean anything.

[UnionJackMix]

Originally Posted by sojrner

So he means a cutout ON the J-card? He said "cutout at the top for the J-card," (emphasis mine), implying there's a cutout on the slip. That is where my confusion came in.

However, if he's talking about the rounded corners and notched top on the J-card, I mean, ok... that still doesn't mean anything on whether the slip is square or not. (obviously)

[sojrner]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

No, his point wasn't to dispute whether the slipcover was rounded or not, but rather if one could tell it was going to be a Slipcover with a Steelbook inside or one without one. He's using the detachable J-Card on the Dragonslayer release as evidence of that one being a Steelbook release, and pointing out that Clueless does not have one.

By cutout he just means you can see the outline of the J-card in the stock image, showing it's something removable, and to him, obviously implying this would be a SB. As mentioned, there are are other examples like The Running Man that don't have such removable J-cards for their slips, so it doesn't really mean anything.

[Show spoiler]

That moment when the light comes on...


Wow, "cutout" had me so off on another tangent and I just could not see the connection at all. Thanks for clearing it up. I do agree it still doesn't mean anything, but dang, it's apparently a no-sharp-objects day for me. Oof.

You may now return to your regularly scheduled programming.

[bell_packet]

While I prefer my shiny BD version cover, I also like that this is different because then I can justify buying this movie for the third time on physical media.

[sartana]

So will the regular BD included be Remastered or identical to the original release ??

Also I sure hope this will have the Accurate 1.85 ratio and not the open matte 1.78 we usually get from Paramount.

[GloveSlap]

That glitter cover is just weird to me. It looks like it's for a movie made in 2015 or something.

[emailking]

Probably going to stick with the blu unless this ends up being reference, but glad to see this is getting a UHD.

[bebbsie23]

Originally Posted by sartana

So will the regular BD included be Remastered or identical to the original release ??

Also I sure hope this will have the Accurate 1.85 ratio and not the open matte 1.78 we usually get from Paramount.

The itunes 4k is the correct 1.85:1 ratio, so I'd say it is a safe bet the physical release will be the same.

[Scoot79]

Movies Unlimited has the 4K UHD for $22.09. Got my preorder in!

[Scoot79]

Originally Posted by sartana

So will the regular BD included be Remastered or identical to the original release ??

Also I sure hope this will have the Accurate 1.85 ratio and not the open matte 1.78 we usually get from Paramount.

The difference between 1.78:1 and 1.85:1 must be minimal. I don’t know if I would even notice if I wasn’t specifically looking for it. Obviously, 1.78:1 fills the entire 16:9 screen while you would have very thin/narrow black bars on top and bottom with 1.85:1. I agree with your assessment that if a film’s OAR is 1.85:1, then it should be presented at 1.85:1, but honestly, if it’s presented at 1.78:1, it’s not going to bother me too much. Now, if a 1.85:1 film is presented at 1.66:1 or a 2.35:1 film is presented at 1.85:1, that’s a problem.

[sartana]

Originally Posted by Scoot79

The difference between 1.78:1 and 1.85:1 must be minimal. I don’t know if I would even notice if I wasn’t specifically looking for it. Obviously, 1.78:1 fills the entire 16:9 screen while you would have very thin/narrow black bars on top and bottom with 1.85:1. I agree with your assessment that if a film’s OAR is 1.85:1, then it should be presented at 1.85:1, but honestly, if it’s presented at 1.78:1, it’s not going to bother me too much. Now, if a 1.85:1 film is presented at 1.66:1 or a 2.35:1 film is presented at 1.85:1, that’s a problem.

Thanks for your feedback. My stance is, now that we live in an era where TVs and Projectors have ZERO Overscan, Movies should be presented in Its PRECISE Original Aspect Ratio.

[slasherdisc]

The 4K cover art is horrible, I’ll be placing the 4K disc in the 25th Anniversary Steelbook.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by sartana

Thanks for your feedback. My stance is, now that we live in an era where TVs and Projectors have ZERO Overscan, Movies should be presented in Its PRECISE Original Aspect Ratio.

[sherlockjr]

Originally Posted by sartana

Thanks for your feedback. My stance is, now that we live in an era where TVs and Projectors have ZERO Overscan, Movies should be presented in Its PRECISE Original Aspect Ratio.

A film shot open matte uses the full 1.37:1 Academy aperture frame, not the 1.78 HDTV frame. .

However, the image you actually saw on a theater screen was up to the projectionist. Whether it was framed high, low, or properly centered, that was determined manually in the booth. Almost no films were ever released with a 1.85 hard matte or anything close.

Further, what you saw in a theater was never precisely 1.85. Projector aperture plates came undercut and were filed for each projector and screen to remove keystone. And black masking on all four sides of the screen cut into the image slightly to hide fuzziness at around the edges of that aperture plate, to make the edges look sharply dilineated, and to provide contrast to the outside of the frame so there'd be less of a visible light fall off compared to the center of the frame. Nobody in a theater was precisely measuring aperture plates or masking to make sure the aspect ratio was exactly 1.85:1 and not 1.83:1 or 1.88:1.

And cinematographers and camera operators knew this and took it into account. While they would compose for 1.85:1, they never put important image elements at the very edge of the intended image and they protected outside the center frame to make sure extraneous set/production elements didn't intrude.

Cinematographers and directors who wanted to have precise control over the frame aspect ratio image shot in 2.35/39/40:1 Scope, which used the entire Academy ratio film frame and thus had to be precisely framed on the screen to avoid frame lines.

While I also appreciate a film being seen on my 4K TV with the narrow black windowbox bars that indicate I'm seeing it in 1.85, the reality is that the difference in the viewer's image between 1.85 and 1.78 is really pretty minimal

[MifuneFan]

Hm, looks like pre-orders were taken down at most places for this now. I wonder if it's just because they messed up and listed it as Steelbook, and they'll put it back up everywhere without that.

[sartana]

Originally Posted by sherlockjr

A film shot open matte uses the full 1.37:1 Academy aperture frame, not the 1.78 HDTV frame. .

However, the image you actually saw on a theater screen was up to the projectionist. Whether it was framed high, low, or properly centered, that was determined manually in the booth. Almost no films were ever released with a 1.85 hard matte or anything close.

Further, what you saw in a theater was never precisely 1.85. Projector aperture plates came undercut and were filed for each projector and screen to remove keystone. And black masking on all four sides of the screen cut into the image slightly to hide fuzziness at around the edges of that aperture plate, to make the edges look sharply dilineated, and to provide contrast to the outside of the frame so there'd be less of a visible light fall off compared to the center of the frame. Nobody in a theater was precisely measuring aperture plates or masking to make sure the aspect ratio was exactly 1.85:1 and not 1.83:1 or 1.88:1.

And cinematographers and camera operators knew this and took it into account. While they would compose for 1.85:1, they never put important image elements at the very edge of the intended image and they protected outside the center frame to make sure extraneous set/production elements didn't intrude.

Cinematographers and directors who wanted to have precise control over the frame aspect ratio image shot in 2.35/39/40:1 Scope, which used the entire Academy ratio film frame and thus had to be precisely framed on the screen to avoid frame lines.

While I also appreciate a film being seen on my 4K TV with the narrow black windowbox bars that indicate I'm seeing it in 1.85, the reality is that the difference in the viewer's image between 1.85 and 1.78 is really pretty minimal

If your intention was to educate me, I am sorry to say there is nothing you said that I already did not know. I worked my way up to a full time Projectionist at a first run Cinema in the 80s and 90s.

My philosophy back then is exactly what it is now. Accuracy. When I projected the films, they were all near if not completely Accurate Aspect Ratio. Of course it helped that the plates and lenses we had were all custom made for us.

So, at the end of the day, although It may not bother you too to much to have a 1.85 film presented in 1.78, it sure bothers me plenty, especially since with today's technology and TVs that no longer needs to be the case.

[Scoot79]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

Hm, looks like pre-orders were taken down at most places for this now. I wonder if it's just because they messed up and listed it as Steelbook, and they'll put it back up everywhere without that.

I hope it doesn't affect those of us who already placed a pre-order.

[Law212]

THis is a movie I have never seen but have wanted to since it came out in the 90s. I cant believe I went all this time not seeing it.