House: Two Stories (1986-1987) (Limited Edition)

[BrandonJF]

Originally Posted by Ruined

The argument that Arrow framing on these multiple releases (note I am not counting Crimes of Passion) could possibly be right requires all of the following to be true:
* The Theatrical Trailer framing was wrong, and Arrow's framing is right
* All prior media framing (including both BDs and DVDs) which match the theatrical trailer - are also wrong
* The directors intended the crew to be visible in the frame
* The directors intended light stands and camera filters to be visible in the frame
* The directors intended unfinished animation to be visible in the frame
* The directors intended all symmetrical scenes to be off-center in all movies affected
* The directors intended excessive headroom throughout the movies

Honestly, I think the case for Arrow's framing being correct is well beyond far-fetched for these releases, and is instead treading in damage control territory.

That fact there is even a debate going on in this thread is unbelievable to me. I've seen it happen in other threads where people become strong apologists for a company/release for no discernible reason. Maybe because they need to feel good about their purchase? How much more evidence is needed that this is a screw-up? The only thing up for debate is how much it can impact one's enjoyment of these movies. If the mis-framing doesn't bother someone, great! But, for some reason, it seems like some need to convince themselves it's correct.

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by Talyn

I'm a stickler for detail but at some point you either have had enough and either accept the issues or move on and not ruin it for everyone. It's not Hellraiser 3 bad and to newer people and fans of the series, it's miles better than the dvd's. To the untrained eye and casual movie watchers it's not noticeable.

I agree despite the issues HOUSE is still better than the DVD, yes. But that is the type of performance bar $5 budget labels like ECHO BRIDGE set, and labels like Arrow that are striving to be "premium" should strive to be just "better than the DVD". In this case the DVD is a very old encode so that is not a particularly hard performance bar to clear.

Technically - in terms of percentage - the misframing of HOUSE, THE STUFF, and DILLINGER, etc is just as bad as HELLRAISER 3. The lot of them are misframed by an almost identical amount percentage-wise compared to the theatrical trailer and past media releases. Hellraiser 3 just happens to make more use of symmetry and the frame boundaries so it is more noticeable in that title that it is misframed. But the lot of them all are misframed about the same amount.

I agree that to a casual viewer they would not notice. Again though, all of us here are cinephiles hence that is sort of irrelevant. We should not be defending poor workmanship just because it's better looking than previous releases.

What's next? Will we accept a 1.78:1 open matte version of Terminator 2 just because it is a 4k restoration? Or a 1.78 pan & scan 4k restoration of Star Wars? Composition is important, and we shouldn't just discard aspect ratio and composition in exchange for a pretty restoration and fancy case, IMO.

In the case of House, though, I agree the DVD is so bad looking that this flawed Arrow release is the lesser of two evils. Too bad its far from the definitive version it could have been.

[GasmaskAvenger]

Originally Posted by Donl1282

I don't have the UK set yet, how long is the House 4 brand new documentary?

About a half hour long.

[Mr Kite]

Originally Posted by Ruined

A bit of loss of definition is a lot better than the entire movie being framed and composed wrong. And it is the entire movie.



Actually it is based on tangible elements.

Theatrical Trailer link: House (1986) - Theatrical Trailer - YouTube

TIME INDEXES - MOVIE vs THEATRICAL TRAILER: Trailer/Anchor Bay DVD vs ARROW BLU-RAY
19:55 Movie / 0:45 Trailer - Trailer matches Anchor Bay DVD framing. Arrow is misframed.
21:23 Movie / 0:18 Trailer - Trailer matches Anchor Bay DVD framing. Arrow is misframed.
28:48 Movie / 0:44 Trailer - Trailer matches Anchor Bay DVD framing. Arrow is misframed.
43:44 Movie - Crew visible on left hand side of frame, unlike Anchor Bay DVD. Arrow is misframed: http://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?go=1&a...=97703&i=6&l=0
59:15 Movie / 0:58 Trailer - Trailer matches Anchor Bay DVD framing. Arrow is misframed.
1:15:22 Movie / 1:06 Trailer - Trailer matches Anchor Bay DVD framing. Arrow is misframed.
1:15:59 Movie / 1:07 Trailer - Trailer matches Anchor Bay DVD framing. Arrow is misframed.
1:16:37 Movie / 1:03 Trailer - Trailer matches Anchor Bay DVD framing. Arrow is misframed.

LOGICAL CONCLUSION: HOUSE, in its entirety, is misframed on the Arrow Blu-ray; to correct the Arrow misframing, the picture needs to be zoomed in about 130% and shifted hard right. Likewise, HELLRAISER 3, THE STUFF, CREEPSHOW 2, and DILLINGER are all misframed as well in the Arrow Blu-ray editions. There are easily provable arguments for the lot of them, including framing not matching the trailer, pieces of the crew/set showing up, unfinished animation, etc. No doubt about it, Arrow goofed up on the framing for many releases.



The argument that Arrow framing on these multiple releases (note I am not counting Crimes of Passion) could possibly be right requires all of the following to be true:
* The Theatrical Trailers framing was wrong, and Arrow's framing is right.
* All prior media framing (including both BDs and DVDs) which match the theatrical trailer - are also wrong.
* It is a cosmic coincidence that all of the multiple Arrow movies affected have almost exactly the same percentage of too much information on the left/top/bottom, which is not the case for the theatrical trailer or past media releases of the same movies.
* The directors intended the crew to be visible in the frame
* The directors intended light stands and camera filters to be visible in the frame
* The directors intended unfinished animation to be visible in the frame
* The directors intended all symmetrical scenes to be skewed off-center to the right in all movies affected
* The directors intended excessive headroom throughout the movies

Honestly, I think the case for Arrow's framing being correct is well beyond far-fetched for these releases, and is instead squarely treading in damage control territory.

I will stick with the experts at Arrow on this one and most of the others, makes sense to do so as you are using an old trailer of unknown history and an ancient DVD for comparison of a film restored from new elements? You already have a statement from one of the very knowledgeable guys who i think worked on it for clarification on the issue.

PS
I am pretty sure those doing the restoration were not just casual viewers on a forum like you and I.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by tele1962

I will stick with the experts at Arrow on this one and most of the others, makes sense to do so as you are using an old trailer of unknown history and an ancient DVD for comparison of a film restored from new elements? You already have a statement from one of the very knowledgeable guys who i think worked on it for clarification on the issue.

PS
I am pretty sure those doing the restoration were not just casual viewers on a forum like you and I.

The experts at Arrow who defended a clearly misframed Creepshow 2? Have at it.

Barring the framing problems, these are the best releases for all of these flicks, but let's call a spade a friggin' spade.

[Mr Kite]

Originally Posted by dissention

The experts at Arrow who defended a clearly misframed Creepshow 2? Have at it.

Barring the framing problems, these are the best releases for all of these flicks, but let's call a spade a friggin' spade.

They have defended nothing just stated facts as they are.

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film5/blu-r..._2_blu-ray.htm

[DetroitSportsFan]

Originally Posted by tele1962

I will stick with the experts at Arrow on this one

No conflict of interest there....

[tenia]

Originally Posted by DetroitSportsFan

No conflict of interest there....

That's an issue, but in the other end, they are the persons with all the factual elements in their end. Then, it's up to us to trust what they say or not but yeah, they're unlikely to say "hey, it's wrong and we won't replace it anyway". So unlike they correct the discs, I don't think any Arrow rep will admit to an issue and its intensity.

[JohnCarpenterFan]

Why is Creepshow 2 still being debated? We already have confirmation from someone who worked on the disc that the framing for the whole film was based on the framing for the titles and that there were no adjustments made for the rest of the footage.

It's inevitable that there will be errors as IPs don't have the final intended framing and contain a lot more information which would be matted for theatrical exhibition. If Arrow used a theatrical print (which are usually matted and framed properly) and then based the framing on the titles then it would be fine, but they used an IP which requires re-adjusting.

[Mr Kite]

Originally Posted by JohnCarpenterFan

Why is Creepshow 2 still being debated? We already have confirmation from someone who worked on the disc that the framing for the whole film was based on the framing for the titles and that there were no adjustments made for the rest of the footage.

It's inevitable that there will be errors as IPs don't have the final intended framing and contain a lot more information which would be matted for theatrical exhibition. If Arrow used a theatrical print (which are usually matted and framed properly) and then based the framing on the titles then it would be fine, but they used an IP which requires re-adjusting.

Which i would think they would have known about?

[Wernski]

Originally Posted by tele1962

I will stick with the experts at Arrow on this one and most of the others, makes sense to do so as you are using an old trailer of unknown history and an ancient DVD for comparison of a film restored from new elements? You already have a statement from one of the very knowledgeable guys who i think worked on it for clarification on the issue.

Originally Posted by tele1962

They have defended nothing just stated facts as they are.

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film5/blu-r..._2_blu-ray.htm

Speaking of facts as they are, here's a fun fact: that DVDBeaver article shows two additional misframed Arrow shots (the ones with the hitcher) we haven't seen posted yet, where the picture doesn't extend all the way to the right-hand side of the frame. Of course, they're not as egregious as other examples.

Anyway, from the Arrow response in that review:

As for the two older releases, while I obviously have to speculate about their provenance, we know beyond doubt that they're not presented at the theatrical aspect ratio of 1.85:1

Well, the Anchor Bay DVD is presented in the theatrical aspect ratio of 1.85:1. And here's how they measure up:


^The "ancient" Anchor Bay DVD from 2010, though I'm not sure what the age of the disc has to do with anything at all.


^Arrow

I'm not saying there's nothing to debate here, but surely we can all agree that something must be off with Arrow's framing there?

[Mr Kite]

Originally Posted by Wernski

Speaking of facts as they are, here's a fun fact: that DVDBeaver article shows two additional misframed Arrow shots (the ones with the hitcher) we haven't seen posted yet, where the picture doesn't extend all the way to the right-hand side of the frame. Of course, they're not as egregious as other examples.

Anyway, from the Arrow response in that review:



Well, the Anchor Bay DVD is presented in the theatrical aspect ratio of 1.85:1. And here's how they measure up:


^The "ancient" Anchor Bay DVD from 2010, though I'm not sure what the age of the disc has to do with anything at all.


^Arrow

I'm not saying there's nothing to debate here, but surely we can all agree that something must be off with Arrow's framing there?

But again you are using the old (2010) DVD for reference, can you say this was correct and if you can please provide your evidence to back that up?

[Wernski]

Originally Posted by tele1962

But again you are using the old (2010) DVD for reference

What does the age of the disc have to do with anything?

Originally Posted by tele1962

can you say this was correct and if you can please provide your evidence to back that up?

Yes, my evidence is that it doesn't have a giant black abyss on the left-hand side of the frame like the Arrow does.

[Wernski]

Also, my point was that the quote in that review was dismissing the comparisons to the US and 88 discs because they weren't in 1.85 like the Arrow was. But the Anchor Bay DVD that I just posted is in 1.85, so his grounds for dismissal don't apply to it.

[Shingster]

Originally Posted by JohnCarpenterFan

Why is Creepshow 2 still being debated? We already have confirmation from someone who worked on the disc that the framing for the whole film was based on the framing for the titles and that there were no adjustments made for the rest of the footage.

Can you at least explain why this is a problem JCfan? Surely the credits should be centred, and if they're part of the original 35mm elements like Arrow say, there's no getting round that I've already asked earlier in the thread for elucidation on this issue but for some reason people are completely ignoring the contradiction.

Do we know what 35mm elements arrow worked from? Negative or IP? I can understand the issue if folk are saying arrow was working from the OCN which should have been matted before a theatre ever got hold of a print to project.

[Mr Kite]

Originally Posted by Wernski

What does the age of the disc have to do with anything?





Yes, my evidence is that it doesn't have a giant black abyss on the left-hand side of the frame like the Arrow does.

It has everything to do with who did the mastering and the master used and what hard evidence do you have that the DVD framing is correct, or might the DVD have been adjusted to compensate for the original composition which they felt was off or was intended for viewing on differing broadcast images..

How long does that giant abyss go on for?

[JohnCarpenterFan]

Originally Posted by Shingster

Can you at least explain why this is a problem JCfan? Surely the credits should be centred, and if they're part of the original 35mm elements like Arrow say, there's no getting round that I've already asked earlier in the thread for elucidation on this issue but for some reason people are completely ignoring the contradiction.

Do we know what 35mm elements arrow worked from? Negative or IP? I can understand the issue if folk are saying arrow was working from the OCN which should have been matted before a theatre ever got hold of a print to project.

I did explain a while back and I recall another user doing so to. Yes, the credits are supposed to be centered and Arrow got that right, but they are composite elements and will not fit with the rest of the presentation unless the framing is correctly adjusted on the rest of the elements (live action, animation, etc).

To make it simpler: the framing on an IP is all over the place and can only be "fixed" when all components are matted/adjusted accordingly for a new master. This requires more than just using one framing setting for the whole film because it works for the titles.

It was from an interpositive which is a color counterpart to the negative and isn't matted.

[Mr Kite]

Originally Posted by JohnCarpenterFan

I did explain a while back and I recall another user doing so to. Yes, the credits are supposed to be centered and Arrow got that right, but they are composite elements and will not fit with the rest of the presentation unless the framing is correctly adjusted on the rest of the elements (live action, animation, etc).

It was from an interpositive which is a color counterpart to the negative and isn't matted.

And as Michael B said was done correctly.

[Wernski]

Originally Posted by tele1962

It has everything to do with who did the mastering

Are you suggesting people in 2016 are inherently better at mastering than people in 2010?

Originally Posted by tele1962

what hard evidence do you have that the DVD framing is correct

I just answered that. Although I'll add a bit more circumstantial evidence below...

or might the DVD have been adjusted to compensate for the original composition which they felt was off or was intended for viewing on differing broadcast images.

What hard evidence do you have of that? Yeah okay, I know. You're taking it from this quote by Brooke:

we know beyond doubt that they're not presented at the theatrical aspect ratio of 1.85:1, so I suggest that the most likely explanation is that they were sourced from TV masters that were contractually required to be reframed to 16:9.

But as I just got through pointing out, the 2010 DVD I was posting has not been reframed to 16x9. So his theory does not/ cannot apply to the screenshots I'm posting. It can't be a master reframed to 16:9 for TV because it's not reframed to 16:9 at all. It's in 1.85:1, just like the Arrow blu.

Originally Posted by tele1962

How long does that giant abyss go on for?

That particular abyss? Just for the length of that one shot. But other abysses (including the two I just pointed out in the DVDBeaver review, plus plenty more) pop up throughout the film. And are you suggesting that if giant, black abysses only appear in the film for a brief period of time that they're supposed to be there?

[Wernski]

Originally Posted by tele1962

And as Michael B said was done correctly.

So just to be clear, no comparisons, only looking at the Arrow blu now, you're saying this is correct?



The kid's face and bicycle are supposed to be seen disappearing on the left side of the frame? I just want to make sure I'm not misunderstanding your argument. You're saying that's "done correctly" in your opinion?