Does the Zooming on the new FRIDAY THE 13TH disc bother you?

Discussion in 'Site Polls' started by rhett, Feb 3, 2009.

?

How do you feel about the zoomed in image on the new FRIDAY THE 13TH discs?

Poll closed Mar 5, 2009.
  1. Unacceptable. I will not be buying until it is fixed.

    67 vote(s)
    51.5%
  2. Unfortunate, but I can't hold off buying any longer.

    28 vote(s)
    21.5%
  3. I don't really care either way.

    11 vote(s)
    8.5%
  4. It's noticable, but not that significant.

    18 vote(s)
    13.8%
  5. I can't even tell the difference.

    6 vote(s)
    4.6%
  1. Mitbox

    Mitbox Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2008
    Messages:
    294
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Chile
    I wouldn't be as angry as I am now, but I would find it pretty odd and probably think they where at gun point (from some Paramount exec.) when they stated that.
     
  2. Mutilated Prey

    Mutilated Prey Soul Stealer

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2007
    Messages:
    6,484
    Likes Received:
    150
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Texarkana
    Touchée ;)

    Good point dood. I'm already not THAT angry, but that knida news would be acceptable to me.
     
  3. KR~!

    KR~! The Apocalyptic Kid

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2001
    Messages:
    5,466
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    In Hel's Womb
    I have to say I am pissed off at this. I was really looking forward to getting this on Blu-Ray and now I will not. There is no way I will buy a pan and scan widescreen disc, that is not widescreen, that's fake widescreen! That's bullshit!
     
  4. Anaestheus

    Anaestheus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2005
    Messages:
    1,605
    Likes Received:
    143
    Trophy Points:
    63
    While I am not against film makers tampering or altering their films once technology or financing resources become available, I am against the removal of the historical document of a copy of a film as it was originally released to the public. Every film maker has to make compromises to their vision in some way. The alterations to F13 may be minor by comparison to other films, but any modification and this is no longer the same film that defined the genre. I will always prefer to have the option of a theatrical cut, regardless of whether or not a subsequent cut is better. I truly think this is important.

    I'm not a fan of F13 and would most likely not want the film either way. But, this is an historical film and the version that is currently being touted by the distributor as the best it can be, does not adequately portray the film that was a lynch pin in a cultural phenomenon. In all honesty, I am even a bit upset that the film is only available "uncut" While I appreciate that the few seconds of extra gore may make a better film, the original theatrical cut is the one that started the craze and did it with out the extra carnage. If I want to own this film, I want to own it as a significant piece of film history. This version does not represent that.
     
  5. Matt89

    Matt89 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2004
    Messages:
    5,690
    Likes Received:
    959
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Toronto
    The only "modification" I wish they would've done was properly color time the neck appliance on Jack's and Annie's necks so it was the same color as their fleshtones. It just looks way too fake the way it is.

    ~Matt
     
  6. Erick H.

    Erick H. Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2004
    Messages:
    9,403
    Likes Received:
    135
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I have noticed many Blu Ray transfers reformat 1:85 movies to 1:78 (the TV standard widecreen ratio) but I have always wondered why.Movies in wider ratios are letterboxed on Blu,but 1:85 gets zoomed.Can anyone explain this to me,I'm curious why 1:85 can't be slightly letterboxed for HD ?

    I know that 1:85 is considered the American ''standard" theatrical ratio (supplanting 1:66 which had replaced 1:37) and that many other countries (Canada I believe) tend to use 1:78 (or 1:77),yet I have never heard why 1:85 is generally shrunk to the TV standard on high def discs.Is it really just so it will fill the screen of a widescreen TV ? If that's true then it seems absurd.
     
  7. Matt89

    Matt89 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2004
    Messages:
    5,690
    Likes Received:
    959
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Toronto
    1.85:1 film do not get zoomed when a studio decides to release them as 1.78:1. They open up the matte a little bit. 1.78:1 is OPENED UP, not ZOOMED. They just remove a bit of the matte at the top and bottom of the frame so yes, it completely fits the 16x9 screen. I haven't heard of Canada preferring 1.78:1 over 1.85, as far as I know the "American" ratio (1.85:1) includes Canada & the US, and 1.66:1 is "European" widescreen.

    I don't think there's much of an issue between 1.85 and 1.78. They're so close that if you were to watch a 1.85 film and a 1.78 film on a 1.33:1 ("tube") TV, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the two. The only reason studios do it is so the image will fully fill a 16x9 television screen.

    The only area where aspect ratios get "iffy" are with films from the advent of widescreen in the early '50s-mid '60s. '50s aspect ratios are like the eighth wonder of the world. Some movies were intended to be shown 1.33:1 (like George Stevens' Shane) but were shown in theatres at 1.66:1 (the DVD restores its 1.33 ratio). Then again, a film like John Huston's The Misfits was shown as 1.66:1, but also comfortably mattes to 1.78:1. The same thing goes for Stevens' Giant. Then you have three of Douglas Sirk's films, All That Heaven Allows, Written on the Wind and Magnificent Obsession. There's an ongoing debate whether these films should be shown in 2.00:1 or 1.77:1. Criterion decided to release All That Heaven Allows and Written on the Wind at 1.77, but decided to go with the 2.00:1 ratio for Magnificent Obsession. The former two that were matted to 1.77 could easily and comfortably be matted to 2.00:1 as well. Either way the framing still looks fine. Another example would be The Shining. 1.33:1 was indeed Kubrick's preferred ratio, but having it matted to 1.78, it still looks perfectly fine.

    I guess what I'm trying to say is it's not all up to the director (as many directors like Kubrick, Stevens and Sirk are now dead) and their intended ratios. For me, as long as the movie's framing still looks good I'm happy (and I don't mean a pan-and-scanned version of a scope film or something - scope widescreen is a totally different matter. The ratio of a scope film is completely set in stone). However, for "matted" widescreen here, the notion of "indended ratio" is so vague. Was it the filmmaker's intended ratio? Is its "theatrical ratio" its "intended ratio"? Many times we'll never know. From those screengrabs, though it looks like Paramount seriously botched the transfer BY COMPARISON. I'll wait for my blu-ray to arrive and judge for myself. And now that I think of it, I don't think I would've noticed the cropping had it not been for the comparison on here. It probably still looks fine, but THROUGH COMPARISON the other transfer looks a bit better.

    ~Matt
     
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2009
  8. eric_angelus

    eric_angelus Testacular

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2004
    Messages:
    1,944
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Framingham, MA
    Don't know how much this info helps anyone, but I just popped in my Region 3 Uncut Warner Bros. DVD, and the image of Steve Christy is very close to the image of the blu-ray that Rhett posted...in other words zoomed exactly the same. This is not the exact same frame...but close enough that you get the idea. But at least this seems to suggest this incarnation of the film is not new.
    I have the blu on the way from amazon, and it has not arrived yet. I cannot speak to whether or not the R3 and the blu are exactly the same...I can say that when I watched this DVD, I was struck by how good the movie actually looked, and have never gone back to my old R1 disc. Assuming that the blu ray is the same in terms of zooming or cropping or whatever...I will probably be perfectly happy with it.
    Friday has always has had a history of weird cropping...I used to have the CED disc and the bottom of the image was cropped...the text "The Present" as Annie walks into crystal lake was cropped off.
     

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: Feb 4, 2009
  9. It does bother me, but I will still buy it. I plan on buying both the DVD and BD (I don't have a BD player yet), since it is the only chance to see Friday the 13th in HD, 5.1 AND uncut. i think we all know that Paramount are the absolute worst major studio when it comes to DVD releases of their old horror movies, so it should come as no surprise that they did not get it 100% right yet again. They NEVER will!
     
  10. Xtro_13

    Xtro_13 Guest

    I don't care about this nit-picking shit
     
  11. Katatonia

    Katatonia Hellbound Heart

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2003
    Messages:
    20,632
    Likes Received:
    1,379
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Missouri
    Hmm, very strange. The framing does look much like the Blu-ray and new DVD screen captures that rhett posted. Granted...that's only one frame, but it looks similar.

    If this was what it took to get it "uncut" for simply a few extra seconds of screen time, I'd rather just have the "cut" rated version in the wider aspect ratio. :eek2:
     
  12. bigdaddyhorse

    bigdaddyhorse Detroit Hi-on

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    12,508
    Likes Received:
    56
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Under a rock
    If this was just a few seconds here and there I could probably deal, but through the whole movie? Can't do it, fix it!
     
  13. Erick H.

    Erick H. Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2004
    Messages:
    9,403
    Likes Received:
    135
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Thanks for the info.

    There are variable formats like Super 35 that can be presented in different ratios.As I recall the classic form of Cinemascope was considered to be 2 to one(some early titles varied it).Vistavision wasn't as wide as Cinemascope but was considered a very stable format,old Vistavision lenses were even used in some effects heavy pictures in the 80's for special effects shots.70 mm formats,ultra widescreen stuff like Ultra Panavision could be as wide as 2.75 to 1.Cinerama has three standard screens used in a complex projection system that had a sort of wrapparound effect,impressive but hard to synchronize.
    When I mentioned Canada as being more inclined to use 1:78 than 1:85,well it often seems to be the case when presenting films that were shot open matte.A lot of British films (like Hammer pictures from the 60's) were run in 1:78 in the U.K. and 1:85 in the U.S. I think this was just a case of what was the more common ratio in the country the film was presented in.

    These screen shots do make it look as though information is lost in the conversion to 1:78 .If that hurts the film in terms of it's various set ups,well,I'll just have to see.I know it's not the drastic difference of somebody cropping 2:35 to 1:85 but it still makes me wonder why these films are not offered with slight letterboxing .Some fans will obviously be disturbed by it (as this thread would seem to indicate),even if it turns out to be worrying for nothing.
     
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2009
  14. DVD-fanatic-9

    DVD-fanatic-9 And the Next Morning, When the Campers Woke Up...

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2007
    Messages:
    5,079
    Likes Received:
    411
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Horror
    I voted for Unacceptable. And I'm pretty sure I can hold off buying. Especially since now, part 2 looks like a much better disc.
     
  15. Buddusky

    Buddusky New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2005
    Messages:
    192
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Outpost 31
    Thanks for the info on that, I was just about to check mine to see if there was a difference with that and the new release.
     
  16. Grim

    Grim Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2002
    Messages:
    7,669
    Likes Received:
    109
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Baltimore, MD
    This is what I'm wondering too. The simple fact that the framing is different from shot to shot says that this was more than a simple foul-up. This was a conscious effort made by somebody. I doubt it was a decision made by the studio heads at Paramount, as changing the framing would take up more time and, well, time is money. I'm not saying people shouldn't be pissed, but there's definitely something bigger going on here than a simple fuck up. Regardless, an explanation is indeed in order.
     
  17. Matt89

    Matt89 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2004
    Messages:
    5,690
    Likes Received:
    959
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Toronto
    Yeah, pretty much. CinemaScope (in the '50s - it was pioneered by Fox) was usually actually around 2.55:1 (Rebel Without a Cause, The Seven Year Itch, etc) and even 2.35:1 (which is how they were often shown. Most 2.55 films were croppped so they could fit the audio tracks onto the side of the filmstrip). VistaVision I believe was 1.85:1 (movies like The Searchers, Psycho - Paramount commonly used VistaVision) and then Cinerama was like 2.89:1. But yeah without cropping these films for theatrical exhibition (because at the time they had to be) it's easy to recognize what ratio these movies are. There's no debate, really. It's with flat widescreen (1.66:1, 1.85:1, 1.77:1, 1.78:1, 2.00:1) where it's more debatable as to WHERE to matte the film. (Do you matte off more at the top? At the bottom? You kindof have to judge for yourself, which is why when some flat widescreen films get released and re-released on DVD we always seem to get varying amounts of mattin and/or cropping).

    I really don't know what happened with Friday the 13th, but they did something. But since the matting varies throughout the movie you wonder whether it was an aesthetic choice. It certainly doesn't sound like it was an accident. Because with "flat" widescreen you should be losing image at the top and bottom, not on all 4 sides of the frame. Strange...

    ~Matt
     
  18. Mattapooh

    Mattapooh Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    946
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    St. John's, NL, Canada
    I'm really interested to hear what happened with this one. I'm actually starting to wonder if maybe the original DVDs were incorrectly framed to begin with, perhaps zoomed OUT of what the original theatrical exhibitions were. Most of us only experienced these flicks on VHS tapes, so it's not like we'd really know the difference.

    I'm not saying this is the case or even a strong possibility, but at least it makes more sense than zooming in on each shot (in different spots) for no real discernible reason.
     
  19. gunner

    gunner Cropsy Maniac

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2000
    Messages:
    911
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Bar Harbor, Maine
    This framing issue was covered in a review several days before Rhett's was posted (it's linked on the Friday blu-ray thread). I knew this was an issue, but really a few headdress feather tips and a tree branch here and there really didn't bother me the slightest. You lose 10-11% of frame and gain 70% exciting detail. If a Back to the Future style re-issue happens, I'm all for it. But as it stands now, I will watch the blu-ray every time I want to watch the film in the future. Looking back to the previous dvds is inky dark, flat and fuzzy experience.
     
  20. Matt89

    Matt89 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2004
    Messages:
    5,690
    Likes Received:
    959
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Toronto
    And checking my R2 from Warner, the framing looks identical (and I never noticed it on there). I'm pretty sure they used the same print. The original DVD didn't have much in the way of grain, but the R2 did. The color scheme looks very VERY similar to the R2 as well. Maybe Paramount had nothing to do with it. It was probably the print they were given (because remember, Friday the 13th was not a Paramount production. Paramount just decided to distribute it).

    ~Matt
     

Share This Page