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. old-boo-radley

    old-boo-radley They stay the same age...

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2004
    Messages:
    1,869
    Likes Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Saskatchewan
    This is why I'm becoming increasingly frustrated with the high def audience. When I first got DVD, I had a 13 inch TV (I was only 14 or so). I'd never buy a fullscreen version of a movie, but I would watch the open matte stuff on discs like Freddy Vs. Jason to which I was made fun of by everyone because I didn't watch it "as the director intended". Then no one on this planet would stop saying FOOLSCREEN in regards to full screen releases and people shat upon those who bought full frame DVDs to fill up their TV. The DVD audience wanted the films as close as to theatrical as possible. Now, hardcore HD fans are stretching shot in 4:3 to 16 x 9 ("you just gotta get used to it" they tell me) to fill up their screens, they don't mind F13 being zoomed in because it looks clear, and suddenly everything the hardcore DVD crowd fought for goes moot because so many people simply want to jack off to improved clarity, even if the DNR is off the fucking charts (not that it's an issue here). As far as I recall from my experience, people sided with Kubrick's open matte policy until screen size became 16 x 9, and now it's bring on the theatrical format because it's filling up their TVs. Funny how things change.

    But, like others have said, the 1.85:1 isn't always presented properly on the 1.78:1 screen either. But, I just can't buy that a transfer zoomed in, more focused on the people (center?) is going to look better than it ever has, from a photography standpoint.
     
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2009
  2. eric_angelus

    eric_angelus Testacular

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2004
    Messages:
    1,944
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Framingham, MA
    Well put.
     
  3. Grim

    Grim Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2002
    Messages:
    7,668
    Likes Received:
    108
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Baltimore, MD
    From the start I have been one of the ones who wasn't off-put by this release, so I'm not hopping on the bandwagon or anything. I do think someone from the film should make a simple statement or something so we can put to rest all of the debating on this. Is it that hard? All Cunningham or the DP would have to do is like email a paragraph to BloodyDisgusting or Shocktillyoudrop, etc. and that's it, mystery solved.
     
  4. Matt89

    Matt89 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2004
    Messages:
    5,676
    Likes Received:
    949
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Toronto
    Woah, woah...who does that? No you shouldn't get used to something like that. That's twisting and distorting the image. You watch fullscreen movies "pillar-boxed", with bars on the sides. Open-matte is slightly different. I sometimes zoom an open-matte film to fit a 1.78:1 frame, only because it was an open-matte transfer that was initally shown in theatres with a 1.85:1 ratio (like the DVD of Never Love a Stranger. It was released open-matte, but it was originally displayed as 1.85:1 in theatres back in '58.) I would never take an "academy ratio" film (like Casablanca or The Big Sleep or something) and stretch or zoom it to fit the frame. I'd say your own judgment is based on your knowledge of aspect ratios.

    I don't think zooming Friday the 13th made it more clear. Zooming usually takes away from image clarity. (Although this was clearly zoomed from a 35mm master, so you're not losing out on anything). I'm a supporter of HD, but I don't stretch fullscreen movies, and I'm totally against DNR. And about Kubrick...yes he did always prefer 1.33:1, but it got to a point where theatres were no longer equipped to display "academy ratio films" so he had to shoot them with the intention of them being cropped. And really, the only film he insisted upon being shown open-matte was The Shining. All his other films - with the exception of The Killing, Paths of Glory and Killer's Kiss - which were made at a time when 1.33:1 films could still be displayed in theatres (however, The Killing and Paths of Glory were shown in theatres matted at 1.66:1). But his other films Lolita, A Clockwork Orange, Barry Lyndon, Dr. Strangelove - all 1.66:1, and 2001 and Spartacus - both 'scope' films at 2.20:1, and Full Metal Jacket, The Shining and Eyes Wide Shut were all matted to 1.85:1 for their theatrical runs.)

    It comes down to two things with "flat" widescreen. It's always been iffy, because "intended ratio" can be interpreted in two different ways. It could be the intended "theatrical ratio" or the "director's intended ratio". Some of his films like The Killing and Paths of Glory were shown 1.66:1 in theatres, but then were released on DVD as 1.33:1 open-matte. The Shining was exactly the same thing. I don't know why Kubrick ever preferred the open-matte presentation of The Shining, since there was a lot of dead space at the top and bottom of the frame because again, he shot it with the 1.85:1 ratio in mind. 1.85:1 is the proper ratio for The Shining because it was projected in theatres with the INTENDED ratio of 1.85:1. (Kubrick shot it this way with the INTENTION of it being cropped. You're not losing vital picture information, just like ANY flat widescreen film.) And it's not like the 16x9 frame HURTS the film, it just makes it look slightly different.

    And it's the same thing with Friday the 13th here. Nobody complained about the old Warner DVD (because this blu-ray was taken from the EXACT same print) but now all of a sudden it's an issue? Believe me (and all the other people who have mentioned it), this "re-framing" was definitely intentional.

    It looks better because looking at the other transfers, there's a lot of "dead space", and cropping the film to make the framing a little tighter makes the film look more professional. (Remember, nothing IMPORTANT has been cut off! Just like when directors shoot their films at 1.33:1 - or 1.37:1 - with the intention of them being matted for widescreen - nothing IMPORTANT is cropped out!) Maybe the old Paramount transfers were the ones that were not framed properly, and this is the correct framing.

    And it's not about HD enthusiasts preferring cropped transfers to fit their screens, it's moreso the fact that over the past several years, film enthusiasts have become more knowledegeable of aspect ratios. I remember people used to say "every movie should be shown in widescreen" (which didn't make sense with films made pre-1953), and then it changed to the whole "intended ratio" thing, but even THAT has two meanings. You can leave it up to yourself. Some films like The Misfits and The Miracle Worker were shown 1.66:1 in theatres, but both can be comfortably matted to 1.78:1 on a widescreen TV. The Misfits was even released on R2 as 1.78:1 anamorphic (the R1 was 1.66:1 non-anamorphic), and it looks fine. There's still a perfect amount of headroom.

    ~Matt
     
  5. spawningblue

    spawningblue Deadite

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2004
    Messages:
    5,069
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
    Exactly, that's all I'm asking for. And for like the hundredth time it doesn't bother me that much, I'm just holding out on the ultimate box set, but it seems like it does bother a lot of people, and just judging by this poll they are losing lots of sales, so it would be smart on their part to just send out an explanation. As much as we trust some of your opinions on here, it would be nice to hear it from the horses mouth that this was the way the movie was meant to be seen.

    And just because a few on here think it looks good, many say it looks worse, including Rhett, who said in many shots it looks misframed and inferior. No, I haven't seen it, but I'm not going to run out and buy it either when many on here are saying it doesn't look as good. If this is the only version available for the uncut print, then so be it, but they should still come out and explain that. Either that, or what they should have done from the beginning, released this as a 2 disc set and included the theatrical version with the proper framing, and the uncut version with the alternate framing and the extra gore as an extra. Seeing as how some say some gore shots don't look as good, would have been nice to have had the theatrical version in Blu as well.
     
  6. spawningblue

    spawningblue Deadite

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2004
    Messages:
    5,069
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
    Maybe... but maybe not. Wouldn't it be nice to know for sure. :D
     
  7. Matt89

    Matt89 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2004
    Messages:
    5,676
    Likes Received:
    949
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Toronto
    Well if an explanation is in order, it should come from Warner, who has had this print all along. All Paramount can really say is, "Well...we got the print from Warner brothers"...so I think it's more up to Warner to explain what happened here.

    As much as I agree with this (I prefer the theatrical version, actually), but we can't be so sure that the Paramount version is the "properly framed" version. Remember, we got an odd hybrid version when it was initially released on DVD, so can we really trust Paramount's original framing?

    *But yes, it would be nice to know for sure. :)

    ~Matt
     
  8. spawningblue

    spawningblue Deadite

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2004
    Messages:
    5,069
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
    Let me rephrase that, the theatrical version with its framing and the uncut version with its framing and the extra gore. :D
     
  9. old-boo-radley

    old-boo-radley They stay the same age...

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2004
    Messages:
    1,869
    Likes Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Saskatchewan
    No, no, what I mean is the Blu-ray itself is just (obviously) better than DVD, so people don't worry about it. I think the reason no one bitched about the R2 release is because so many fewer had it than the American release.

    Per The Shining, it came on A&E HD when I first got my HDTV and I wanted to give the transfer a look and I didn't like it, I will only go full screen on that one. Could be a personal preference, but I think it looks weird in widescreen.

    Personally I don't think the parts cut out was merely wasted space because the beauty of the backgrounds make the foregrounds work. From some images, it looks like depth is a bit off and we're too close to the action. It's hard to make an accurate judgment because Rhett's are a lot of closeups of faces and in those cases, it doesn't really matter. But, when you look at the comparison piece he made with the Blu vs. DVD text in it, it's significant.

    At the end of the day, it's only Friday the 13th, but it's wrong and Paramount is full of dicks. People have had enough and having people get excited and let down time after time... fuck it. This is a huge franchise and these are individual releases, put adequate features people want to see on the discs. Box sets often are a good cop out to not give every film features, but these are triple/quadruple dips in addition to a box set where they're leading people on with a nibble of bread with each release.
     
  10. Matt89

    Matt89 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2004
    Messages:
    5,676
    Likes Received:
    949
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Toronto
    Yeah I see what you mean. I judge some aspect ratios by personal preference as well (like I said how The Miracle Worker was shown in theatres at 1.66:1 but matted at 1.78:1 it still looks fine).

    But with Friday the 13th, you still get the beautiful scenery in the backgrounds with the added sharpness and lush beautiful colours. Personally, I think Paramount has finally got it right. They did a HELL OF A JOB with the transfer. I was fucking taken aback at how beautiful the movie looks. Maybe this too is a case of personal preference, but it certainly doesn't look "bad" the way people are saying it is. It hardly even looks different. The only way you'd know is by directly comparing the two transfers (and it's not like you're gonna have 2 TVs hooked up side-by-side either). I still wouldn't say the framing is "wrong", though. Like I said before, how do we know the original DVD from Paramount was the right framing?

    ~Matt
     
  11. old-boo-radley

    old-boo-radley They stay the same age...

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2004
    Messages:
    1,869
    Likes Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Saskatchewan
    The Shining, I have no explanation for it, thought. I've not watched the original in years, well before I knew what framing or worried about ratios. It just struck me that I couldn't watch it, and that's what I fear about the new F13.

    In regards to which aspect was truest, I'd say the fact that there are numerous errors with filmmaking techniques (according to others - I've never seen it) that aren't obvious in the other version would prove the old one would most likely be right.

    I don't really hate on people for buying the Blu, I understand to some it doesn't matter. But, fuck up after fuck up and letdown after letdown... the madness is over for me. Now I'm just gonna play the role of the guy who sits on the internet and bitches.
     
  12. Paff

    Paff Super Moderator

    Joined:
    May 14, 2000
    Messages:
    8,064
    Likes Received:
    398
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    SoCal
    I have now decided to make my vote "noticeable but not significant"

    The presence of an R2 version with the same framing now indicates that there is some reasoning behind this particular framing. It does not look like a screw-up, nor does it look like a screw-over. It does not look like laziness on the authoring.

    Like others have mentioned, I'd like to hear a clarification from the filmmakers. I don't have an immediate need to pick up the title, but I won't hesitate to buy this version when that time eventually comes. And I don't need a box set, that's for damn sure, as I'd be surprised if I ever have more than 3 film from the series in my library.
     
  13. Kolpitz

    Kolpitz Purely and Simply Evil

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2004
    Messages:
    1,503
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Boxborough, MA
    I'd be surprised if Sean S. Cunningham or Barry Abrams ever came out and made a statement about this framing "issue." First off, you have to remember that Friday the 13th was made for one reason only: to make money. Cunningham has admited on more than one occasion that they didn't really know that they were doing. I doubt he even remembers what the film was supposed to look like at this point. Secondly, he'd probably think we were all crazy for even caring. He's only recently come to terms with the film (he used to consider it a burden) and, even now, he still admits that's it not a very good film. Thirdly, this is probably the only version of the movie he's seen recently. This is the version he watched when they recorded the commentary. As has been pointed out numerous times, outside of the US, this is the way it's always been seen in widescreen on home video. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this film was never available in widescreen before Paramount's 1999 release, right? And, I'm sure no one on here can really remember what it looked like in theatres back in 1980. It'll be interesting to see what it looks like on Friday when I catch it on the "big" screen.
     
  14. bigdaddyhorse

    bigdaddyhorse Detroit Hi-on

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    12,508
    Likes Received:
    56
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Under a rock
    I'd say we know something is amiss due to the extra picture on the sides.
    Extra on the top/bottom is a matting thing, extra from the sides is cropping. It's not like they shot it in 2.35 with intention of showing it 1.85, the width of a film is determined before the shooting starts by what film stock is used (super 35 is the exception, but not the case here).

    This does make me happy I haven't gone Blu yet, cuz I'd be so torn in wanting to see this so clear, yet knowing I'm missing picture would drive me nuts. Guess I'll just sit back and wait to see what comes out of this, I just can't believe that the version not cropped could be wrong.
     
  15. Wez4555

    Wez4555 Happy Trees Motherfucker!

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2002
    Messages:
    2,955
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Dirty South, Louisiana
    its always something with paramount. they finally release it uncut, but fuck up with the zooming. unbelievable!
     
  16. Anaestheus

    Anaestheus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2005
    Messages:
    1,605
    Likes Received:
    143
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Shining - I read an article that said that Kubrick shot the film in 1:33 because he knew it would be viewed on TV and he hated Pan & Scan. While I agree with the comments that the opening shots look better in wide screen. I think the close-ups of the faces are better framed in the full screen. So, full screen gets full support.

    F13 - I really am stunned that none of the companies involved have addressed this. It's not that big of a deal for me either way, as all I really want is the theatrical version, as stated in my previous post.
     
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2009
  17. Matt89

    Matt89 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2004
    Messages:
    5,676
    Likes Received:
    949
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Toronto
    Again, it wasn't Paramount. It was the print they were given from Warner. It's the EXACT same print used on the R2 DVD. Paramount just cleaned it up. Maybe this is the only fully uncut print available???

    ~Matt
     
  18. CrazyFatEthel

    CrazyFatEthel New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2008
    Messages:
    1,248
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Rowlett, Texas
    Look Matt, I know you have been defending Paramount, but you have to admit...they're a bunch of whores.:)
     
  19. Wez4555

    Wez4555 Happy Trees Motherfucker!

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2002
    Messages:
    2,955
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Dirty South, Louisiana
    if thats the case than so be it. they really need to come out and address all of this bullshit. then maybe everyone like me will finally stfu. wouldn't that be nice. :cool:
     
  20. Shinya

    Shinya New Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2007
    Messages:
    11
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You know what'd be interesting? If someone were to compare the framing in the part 1 footage found in Part 2 to the new uncut Blu-ray/DVD.

    I really don't care too much, because for me the new Blu-ray is the only way to watch the movie now.
     

Share This Page