PDA

View Full Version : Does the Zooming on the new FRIDAY THE 13TH disc bother you?


rhett
02-03-2009, 08:04 PM
http://www.horrordvds.com/reviews/a-m/f13blu/f13blu_compl.jpg

The new FRIDAY THE 13TH Blu-ray and DVD discs have an image that has been zoomed in and re-framed 10.6% compared to the original theatrical ratio (and the ratio presented on previous discs). How you feel about this? Too small to matter, or too big to ignore?

Workshed
02-03-2009, 08:33 PM
why did they do this?

hellraiser40
02-03-2009, 08:43 PM
i don't really care, since i don't be getting this

already have the R2 release, which is fine enough for me

i'm really more anxious to see F13 2-8 UNCUT!

The Chaostar
02-03-2009, 08:46 PM
Makes it look like A Woman Under The Influence.
Why?????

ekent
02-03-2009, 09:01 PM
Enough to keep my R2 DVD? Yes.

Enough to make the Blu-ray not the go-to version to watch? No.

Myron Breck
02-03-2009, 09:19 PM
I don't care. I'm not buying either new release, as I still have my R1 and R2.

Angelman
02-03-2009, 09:33 PM
Boo.

No money from me.

KamuiX
02-03-2009, 09:40 PM
I don't really care for the film, so it's not an issue with me...I love the second one though, so I hope they rectify this and it doesn't happen again when they get around to releasing part 2 on BR.

Burn
02-03-2009, 10:04 PM
Eh. I won't be buying it anyway. Part 2 and 3 are the ones to uncut.

BrokeNads
02-03-2009, 10:10 PM
I have boxset from before so I hold on from this. Is times like this to see and bring this news to us that is see how is a valuable website is this. Thank you for news like this and to inform horror fans. Is good to see this and to now what you are to buy and not instead to get home and put in dvd and see a big mistake like this and then is to late because the money is spend!
Thanks for keep on top of this infromations for us.

Dave
02-03-2009, 10:12 PM
Fuck yeah it bothers me. So glad I didn't preorder this. Original Friday doesn't get a lot of repeating viewings and I stuck to my 'If I don't watch it more than once a year, I aint buying it!' rule. I break the rule for some movies, but considering I have the Friday box set and the Friday R2 uncut DVD, I definitely aint breaking it for this.

I love seeing the reaction / discussion this is getting around the net. Nice job, Rhett! I'm a bit surprised no other reviewers really caught it, but I have to admit I might have missed it too if I didn't go the mega comparison like you did.

http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=69649&page=7

http://forums.highdefdigest.com/blu-ray-software-general-discussion/77274-friday-13th-high-def-digest-review-3.html

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/ht-software-high-definition/282079-htf-blu-ray-review-friday-13th-uncut.html

http://www.avmaniacs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=40253

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1116266

f.ramses
02-03-2009, 10:20 PM
That sucks, I'm sure you don't miss anything significant but if I was a fan of these movies and had been looking forward to this right about now would be when I stop looking forward to this.

fceurich39
02-03-2009, 11:10 PM
i don't care i have the original dvd release as well as the box set

gore
02-03-2009, 11:11 PM
Rhett,

Yes it does suck and I am not going to buy it because of this. Just curious though, would you have noticed it hadnt you been comparing the different versions of the film? And if you noticed it before that, what scene did it jump out at you?

horrorlover
02-04-2009, 12:01 AM
no way would I buy this. I have the older dvd release and I don't see any reason to upgrade to a defective release.

vampyr789
02-04-2009, 12:06 AM
when i found out, mine had already shipped... i cant cancel it now! :cry:

Mutilated Prey
02-04-2009, 12:14 AM
I would rather they didn't zoom in like that, but it's not going to stop me from buying it. It's a classic flick, it's gone Blu and it's uncut. Sold.

Matt89
02-04-2009, 12:22 AM
when i found out, mine had already shipped... i cant cancel it now! :cry:

Yeah mine shipped yesterday. Fuck. Although I wouldn't have noticed it had it not been for those comparisons. Hell, maybe Paramount will do a recall and for those that have bought the discs (much like Universal did for the Back to the Future trilogy discs of parts 2 and 3) they'll send us new discs in the mail? I certainly hope so. But honestly, if they're mastering the film from the original 35mm interpositive, I don't understand how shit like this happens...

~Matt

rhett
02-04-2009, 12:29 AM
Rhett,

Yes it does suck and I am not going to buy it because of this. Just curious though, would you have noticed it hadnt you been comparing the different versions of the film? And if you noticed it before that, what scene did it jump out at you?

Honestly, I noticed this quite a bit. I noticed it first when all the counsellors were together with the stump, since it seemed weird the way the framing was so tight on the bottom. It just didn't look right. The ending made a big difference to me, too, with the crop. It was too tight when Jason came out of the water. That extra room on the left helped both increase the vulnerability of Alice beforehand, and then during the attack it emphasized movement a lot greater with Jason's swinging arm. There were a bunch of scenes like this that just felt off, or not as effective as before. I've seen the film dozens of times now, so perhaps I'm overly aware of everything, but it honestly made a big difference.

Harry Warden
02-04-2009, 12:32 AM
I really like the original film and I'd like to think that I would have noticed this. I don't like it, and will not be buying this if they are zooming in and cutting out some of the picture. This really sucks!!

dave13
02-04-2009, 12:36 AM
this pisses me off....but i really want the features....fuck. i hope paramount fixes this.

vampyr789
02-04-2009, 12:38 AM
Hell, maybe Paramount will do a recall and for those that have bought the discs (much like Universal did for the Back to the Future trilogy discs of parts 2 and 3) they'll send us new discs in the mail? I certainly hope so.

i dont mean to sound pessimistic here but, i have a feeling that it wont happen...b/c Paramount is evil :(

othervoice1
02-04-2009, 12:44 AM
Unacceptable - I was going to buy this but Ill wait now until they correct it - whether that be in a few weeks or a few years - unless they release 2 and 3 on blu-ray correctly and I find the first one really cheap- then I might give in later so have the set on blu

Mitbox
02-04-2009, 01:10 AM
What the hell!!?? Is there a logical reason to do something like this?? I don't want to exagerate but I think that zooming a movie is as terrible as panning & scanning. I own the uncut DVD and wasn't going to buy this new release, but it's still so disrispectful to the fans that is not even funny.

Matt89
02-04-2009, 01:14 AM
i dont mean to sound pessimistic here but, i have a feeling that it wont happen...b/c Paramount is evil :(

Well if enough people complain about it - we should all send them rhett's review in the email - but if enough people complain, they probably will do a recall. I'm just trying to stay positive. Paramount's not ENTIRELY evil LOL.

~Matt

Mutilated Prey
02-04-2009, 01:28 AM
I'm still interested to find out why it was done. I don't think they did it just for the hell of it.

vampyr789
02-04-2009, 01:53 AM
Well if enough people complain about it - we should all send them rhett's review in the email - but if enough people complain, they probably will do a recall.

im up for it!! looks like its petition time again!

Katatonia
02-04-2009, 01:59 AM
Well if enough people complain about it - we should all send them rhett's review in the email - but if enough people complain, they probably will do a recall. I'm just trying to stay positive. Paramount's not ENTIRELY evil LOL.

~Matt

I've already sent them an email, and I'd advise everyone here to do the same. Hopefully we'll get them to at least acknowledge the problem. :nervous:

Again, here's the email: PHE_CustomerService@Paramount.com (PHE_CustomerService@Paramount.com)

vampyr789
02-04-2009, 02:00 AM
I've already sent them an email, and I'd advise everyone here to do the same. Hopefully we'll get them to at least acknowledge the problem. :nervous:

what's their email?

Katatonia
02-04-2009, 02:01 AM
what's their email?

Look up now. ;)

vampyr789
02-04-2009, 02:03 AM
Look up now. ;)

thanks!! lol :D

Maniac
02-04-2009, 02:11 AM
No way I would buy it. Is the new dvd deluxe edition of part 1 also zoomed the same ? Anyone know ?

vampyr789
02-04-2009, 02:13 AM
i just sent the email! Hopefully we can get this fixed!

cognitive77
02-04-2009, 02:21 AM
I'm new to this site/forum and just wanted to say how glad I am I found it!

Rhett...kudos to you! I'm coming here from now on for all of my horror reviews. My order just shipped from Amazon today, but I'll be sending it back.

Katatonia
02-04-2009, 02:21 AM
No way I would buy it. Is the new dvd deluxe edition of part 1 also zoomed the same ? Anyone know ?

Yes it is, see rhett's review and screenshots.

Maniac
02-04-2009, 02:23 AM
Katatonia, thanks. I skimmed through the review but overlooked that Rhett had multiple comparison screenshots that included the new part 1 deluxe dvd. :)

vampyr789
02-04-2009, 02:29 AM
I'm new to this site/forum and just wanted to say how glad I am I found it!

Rhett...kudos to you! I'm coming here from now on for all of my horror reviews. My order just shipped from Amazon today, but I'll be sending it back.

well welcome to this awesome horror site!!:)

Myron Breck
02-04-2009, 02:46 AM
I would rather they didn't zoom in like that, but it's not going to stop me from buying it. It's a classic flick, it's gone Blu and it's uncut. Sold.

Well, the image is cut, even if the footage isn't missing. ;)

zombi3
02-04-2009, 02:50 AM
It's unfortunate, but I had already pre-ordered the Blu-ray and I've never owned Friday the 13th on DVD (had an old uncut 4:3 VCD, but I don't count that). If Paramount does recall the disc, then I would certainly send it in for a replacement.

Kolpitz
02-04-2009, 02:58 AM
As many have already pointed out, the interesting thing about this whole "debacle" is the zooming itself, as it's not uniform throughout the transfer. It ALMOST seems like an artistic choice. So, the question I now pose is this: if Sean Cunningham (director) and / or Barry Abrams (director of photography) were to come out and say that the new transfer was intentional, that this was the way they wanted to shoot it but couldn't (for whatever reason), would you all stop complaining? Methinks not. I don't think it would matter. It's like when Anchor Bay released the 16x9 version of The Evil Dead and everyone complained because it was matted, even though Sam Raimi himself said this was the way it was meant to be shown. Everyone just called Raimi a sell-out hack and continued to boycott the widescreen version. So, what say you all, would you still be as angry if this were an intentional re-framing by the filmmakers?

Mitbox
02-04-2009, 03:09 AM
... So, what say you all, would you still be as angry if this were an intentional re-framing by the filmmakers?

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.

Mutilated Prey
02-04-2009, 03:51 AM
Well, the image is cut, even if the footage isn't missing. ;)

Touchée ;)

As many have already pointed out, the interesting thing about this whole "debacle" is the zooming itself, as it's not uniform throughout the transfer. It ALMOST seems like an artistic choice. So, the question I now pose is this: if Sean Cunningham (director) and / or Barry Abrams (director of photography) were to come out and say that the new transfer was intentional, that this was the way they wanted to shoot it but couldn't (for whatever reason), would you all stop complaining? Methinks not. I don't think it would matter. It's like when Anchor Bay released the 16x9 version of The Evil Dead and everyone complained because it was matted, even though Sam Raimi himself said this was the way it was meant to be shown. Everyone just called Raimi a sell-out hack and continued to boycott the widescreen version. So, what say you all, would you still be as angry if this were an intentional re-framing by the filmmakers?

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

KR~!
02-04-2009, 04:09 AM
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!

Anaestheus
02-04-2009, 05:14 AM
As many have already pointed out, the interesting thing about this whole "debacle" is the zooming itself, as it's not uniform throughout the transfer. It ALMOST seems like an artistic choice. So, the question I now pose is this: if Sean Cunningham (director) and / or Barry Abrams (director of photography) were to come out and say that the new transfer was intentional, that this was the way they wanted to shoot it but couldn't (for whatever reason), would you all stop complaining? Methinks not. I don't think it would matter. It's like when Anchor Bay released the 16x9 version of The Evil Dead and everyone complained because it was matted, even though Sam Raimi himself said this was the way it was meant to be shown. Everyone just called Raimi a sell-out hack and continued to boycott the widescreen version. So, what say you all, would you still be as angry if this were an intentional re-framing by the filmmakers?

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.

Matt89
02-04-2009, 07:03 AM
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

Erick H.
02-04-2009, 07:04 AM
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.

Matt89
02-04-2009, 07:19 AM
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.

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

eric_angelus
02-04-2009, 08:01 AM
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.

Misanthrope666
02-04-2009, 08:04 AM
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!

Xtro_13
02-04-2009, 08:07 AM
I don't care about this nit-picking shit

Katatonia
02-04-2009, 09:02 AM
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.

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:

bigdaddyhorse
02-04-2009, 09:07 AM
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!

Erick H.
02-04-2009, 11:59 AM
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

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.

DVD-fanatic-9
02-04-2009, 12:43 PM
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.

Buddusky
02-04-2009, 03:10 PM
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.

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.

Grim
02-04-2009, 03:23 PM
As many have already pointed out, the interesting thing about this whole "debacle" is the zooming itself, as it's not uniform throughout the transfer. It ALMOST seems like an artistic choice. So, the question I now pose is this: if Sean Cunningham (director) and / or Barry Abrams (director of photography) were to come out and say that the new transfer was intentional, that this was the way they wanted to shoot it but couldn't (for whatever reason), would you all stop complaining? Methinks not. I don't think it would matter. It's like when Anchor Bay released the 16x9 version of The Evil Dead and everyone complained because it was matted, even though Sam Raimi himself said this was the way it was meant to be shown. Everyone just called Raimi a sell-out hack and continued to boycott the widescreen version. So, what say you all, would you still be as angry if this were an intentional re-framing by the filmmakers?

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.

Matt89
02-04-2009, 04:11 PM
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 sychronize.
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.

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

Mattapooh
02-04-2009, 05:20 PM
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.

gunner
02-04-2009, 05:28 PM
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.

Matt89
02-04-2009, 05:31 PM
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

cognitive77
02-04-2009, 05:32 PM
I had read elsewhere today about framing issues in regards to an international cut and the US boxed set release.

Hover over the screenshots at the link below to see the difference.

http://www.caps-a-holic.com/vergleich.php?vergleichID=287

Seems to echo a statement above by eric.

Stige
02-04-2009, 05:45 PM
interesting never noticed it on the region 2 uncut version ( the cropping), wonder honestly if I would have noticed if I didn't know beforehand

Maybe warner is making a blu version for region B ??+

Matt89
02-04-2009, 06:04 PM
Yeah, I guess it's now quite clear that Paramount used the print that Warner was using for its international release. I'll stick with the blu-ray because the cropping never bothered me before. (Considering I've had the R2 since 2004 and I JUST noticed it now...) Maybe it was the only fully uncut print available to Paramount? I'm starting to think so...

~Matt

Egg_Shen
02-04-2009, 06:24 PM
Fuck yeah it bothers me. So glad I didn't preorder this. Original Friday doesn't get a lot of repeating viewings and I stuck to my 'If I don't watch it more than once a year, I aint buying it!' rule. I break the rule for some movies, but considering I have the Friday box set and the Friday R2 uncut DVD, I definitely aint breaking it for this.

I love seeing the reaction / discussion this is getting around the net. Nice job, Rhett! I'm a bit surprised no other reviewers really caught it, but I have to admit I might have missed it too if I didn't go the mega comparison like you did.

http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=69649&page=7

http://forums.highdefdigest.com/blu-ray-software-general-discussion/77274-friday-13th-high-def-digest-review-3.html

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/ht-software-high-definition/282079-htf-blu-ray-review-friday-13th-uncut.html

http://www.avmaniacs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=40253

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1116266

Ha Ha. It looks like Rhett will be on Paramount's hit list. Many people in those threads say they'll be "holding off" on picking it up 'till Paramount fixes the problem. It seems they just can't get releasing Friday the 13th right. Maybe they just don't really want too.

Katatonia
02-05-2009, 01:40 AM
Yeah, I guess it's now quite clear that Paramount used the print that Warner was using for its international release. I'll stick with the blu-ray because the cropping never bothered me before. (Considering I've had the R2 since 2004 and I JUST noticed it now...) Maybe it was the only fully uncut print available to Paramount? I'm starting to think so...

~Matt

That's what I was thinking from the beginning. It's surprising that it's been 4-5 years since that R2 disc was releases and people are only now noticing the framing issues. :D

As I said in another thread, I'd just rather have the "rated" version in the wider aspect ratio than the few extra seconds put back in the film. :eek2:

Kolpitz
02-05-2009, 01:43 AM
That's what I was thinking from the beginning. It's surprising that it's been 4-5 years since that R2 disc was releases and people are only now noticing the framing issues. :D

As I said in another thread, I'd just rather have the "rated" version in the wider aspect ratio than the few extra seconds put back in the film. :eek2:

For me, it's about the Blu-ray quality, not necessarily the uncut footage (although that is nice). The first one is barely edited and would easily pass with an "R" today.

Katatonia
02-05-2009, 02:05 AM
For me, it's about the Blu-ray quality, not necessarily the uncut footage (although that is nice). The first one is barely edited and would easily pass with an "R" today.

That's what I meant. The uncut footage is nice to have, but a few seconds aren't that big of a deal to me. I've already purchased the Blu-ray, and the quality is indeed nice. However...since it's the "unrated" print being the source of these framing issues; I'd much rather just have a Blu-ray release of the "rated" print in the correct wider aspect ratio.

vampyr789
02-05-2009, 02:17 AM
http://www.caps-a-holic.com/vergleich.php?vergleichID=287


i always noticed the difference btwn R1 & R2 on Pic #3. on the very left where that pole is.

Matt89
02-05-2009, 03:19 AM
I'd be happy with a hybrid cut of the film. Have all the deaths uncut except for Kevin Bacon's. The decision to cut out half of his death scene was a smart choice, IMO. The other extended deaths (aside from the extended take on Mrs. Voorhees', since it is pretty gory) hardly show anything at all.

~Matt

vampyr789
02-05-2009, 03:22 AM
The other extended deaths hardly show anything at all.

yeah really, all they cut out is Annie and Marcie falling down. that is really it isnt it?

NaturesMistake
02-05-2009, 04:46 AM
The way I see it is that if you want to watch the international version, there you go. This new disc is essentially a cleaned up version of the region 2 disk; that's how everybody saw it overseas. If you want the American version, you have the boxed set.

Blu people are stuck with the international version.

old-boo-radley
02-05-2009, 04:53 AM
http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/9171/jasonld1.jpg

(All right, it's not perfect and generalized, but there's why I'd never buy the zoomed version)

NaturesMistake
02-05-2009, 05:12 AM
You guys are missing out on an awesome alternate transfer. There is so much more detail in just the SE dvd release.

It's not enough to get me to re-buy the other two, but damn does it look pretty (all though I sometimes like my Friday's grainy and go back to my tapes :D)

The boxed set ones did look good, and still do, but damn; Friday looks like a new movie.

btw... that's funny boo-radley :D

Matt89
02-05-2009, 05:32 AM
Blu people are stuck with the international version.

Unless you keep the old DVD. ;)

~Matt

Paff
02-05-2009, 05:46 AM
I'm not sure where I stand on this one. A year ago, I wouldn't have cared either way, as I don't have a lot of interest in the series. There are a few good moments here and there, but I don't own a single movie. If I did buy any, it would probably be 2 and 4.

But as mentioned in another thread, I got to see the first film theatrically at a midnight screening, and really developed a new appreciation for it. I kinda want to have a copy in my collection now.

But which one........

Sinister Ash
02-05-2009, 05:47 AM
Won't be seeing any of my money.... maybe paramount will replace these discs :lol:

Katatonia
02-05-2009, 07:59 AM
It's kind of surprising that other forums are saying "10% zoomed is no big deal" or that it's much ado about nothing. :eek2:

NaturesMistake
02-05-2009, 08:15 AM
"Unless you keep the old DVD"

That's what I said "we still have the boxed set"

I meant the minority of people that only want it for blu-ray.:glasses:

Matt89
02-05-2009, 10:06 AM
I'm not sure where I stand on this one. A year ago, I wouldn't have cared either way, as I don't have a lot of interest in the series. There are a few good moments here and there, but I don't own a single movie. If I did buy any, it would probably be 2 and 4.

But as mentioned in another thread, I got to see the first film theatrically at a midnight screening, and really developed a new appreciation for it. I kinda want to have a copy in my collection now.

But which one........

Just indulge Paff (you sure you don't already have a copy on LD? ;)) I mean, it's Friday the Goddamn 13th. Sure it's a shitty movie, but you can't help but love it. :D (But I agree, Parts 2 and 4 are my favs from the series as well - I actually almost hate Part 3 - it's one of my least favorite out of the entire series).

~Matt

old-boo-radley
02-05-2009, 10:42 AM
btw... that's funny boo-radley :D

Yeah, before any real filmmaker jumps on my ass, it was half joke grounded in truth and I know the right still is off.

Anyways, what inspired that image is actually the film Toxic Zombies (to a much lesser extent, what I'm imagining the Blu to look like). I'm not sure if it was shot in scope, 1.85:1 or was terribly directed in full frame, but the movie gave me an absolute headache because of the way the full frame shit DVD from Substance was framed. Since then, I've been much more interested in where things are supposed to go in a shot because it was just so bad in Toxic Zombies. So much of the stuff in the movie is an extreme closeup that it's nauseating. A damn fun drive-in flick if it weren't for that, though.

shithead
02-05-2009, 12:45 PM
Does the uncut UK DVD have the same problems with cropping?:confused:

this one>http://www.dvdverdict.com/images/covers/fridaythe13r2.jpg

old-boo-radley
02-05-2009, 12:50 PM
Hey, shithead. The image you posted isn't popping up, shithead, but if you mean the R2 Warner release, it's culled from the same place, shithead.

3 years I've been reading the name "shithead" and it never ceases to amaze me. It's like he's a character from a Rob Zombie movie.

shithead
02-05-2009, 12:52 PM
It's like he's a character from a Rob Zombie movie.

Now that's harsh...:lol: Yeah the Warner R2, that's it.

Thanks.

geeare
02-05-2009, 02:18 PM
well i watched this last night and I prolly wouldn't have noticed the zooming if i didn't read about it here first. there are a couple scenes that the actors feet are cut off and other scenes where there are items at the bottom of the screen that are half cut off and you know they were fully in the scene in the other version, i.e. the top of a canoe. anyway, the transfer looks great and I'm glad i just went out and bought it anyway.

sgtpeppers
02-05-2009, 02:24 PM
It sucks but doesn't really bother me that much. I wouldnt have noticed it anyway. I have the R2 uncut version so thats the way I've watched for several years.

Mattapooh
02-05-2009, 09:19 PM
Noticed a slight difference, but it's actually far from being a bother. What I noticed was that the compositions of shots was never thrown off by the zooming. If anything, some of the shots looked NICER because of it.

Hopefully someone finds out what's been going on.

Mattapooh
02-05-2009, 09:21 PM
Noticed a slight difference, but it's actually far from being a bother. What I noticed was that the compositions of shots was never thrown off by the zooming. If anything, some of the shots looked NICER because of it.

Hopefully someone finds out what's been going on.

Stige
02-05-2009, 09:32 PM
watched it today and should have answered not at all , picture looks very good nice detail and everything is alright .....and I can baarely wait for the blu's of 2 and 3 to fall into my postbox!

NaturesMistake
02-05-2009, 10:14 PM
Noticed a slight difference, but it's actually far from being a bother. What I noticed was that the compositions of shots was never thrown off by the zooming. If anything, some of the shots looked NICER because of it.

Hopefully someone finds out what's been going on.


I noticed this too. Some of the shots DO look better. I think this may be the OAR and the old DVD may have been zoomed out a bit.

SickNick89
02-06-2009, 12:59 AM
I got the blu ray and watched it before this whole 'zooming' thing came up and honestly I didn't notice it at all. It was too taken with how great the picture was.

bigwes15
02-06-2009, 03:00 AM
I have to happily admit here that I am an unabashed Friday The 13th whore. I bought the original tapes, then the first DVD releases, then the box set (at least I sold off the first dvd's when I got that), and now the Blu-Ray and the new releases for parts 2 and 3, along with the new His Name Was Jason documentary. I didn't know about this framing issue when I picked them all up (Today, actually), but have the feeling that I still would have bit. This is despite the fact that I know I will be picking up the Blus for 2 and 3 when they come out as well, even if they have the same features as the ones I just bought! I'm just an addict for this series, at least up for parts1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7. I hate 8, 9, 10, and am lukewarm on 6. I guess I am Paramount's ideal consumer for these...regardless of the indifference to the consumer, I keep bending over for more. At least I'm honest!

Vortex
02-06-2009, 03:45 AM
Yes it bothers me and I won't buy until there's at least a proper explanation.

zombi3
02-06-2009, 03:54 AM
I don't know if it's any consolation, but I just checked my old 4:3 "full frame" VCD of Friday the 13th from Hong Kong (Warner) against the Blu-ray screen shots here and the Blu-ray does contain a significant amount of additional information on both sides compared to the VCD. I'm not sure what the "correct" framing is, but at least the print used for the Blu-ray isn't simply a 4:3 picture with the top and bottom cropped.

WesReviews
02-06-2009, 05:12 PM
A poster over at F13 claims that the new disc is the properly framed version...

"The new disc has the proper framing. When the MPAA ordered the film cut in 1980, they went back and edited the original negatives, as the film was not framed for theatres yet. And they actually slipped up while doing that and left more picture seen that the director intended. You'll notice the original, uncut version has always been framed like the new DVD. Look at the region 2 DVD. It's the same as this new one. I think the USA R rated version was the "wrong" one all along, and didn't have the picture quite as close in as originally intended."

A possibility?

SaviniFan
02-06-2009, 05:35 PM
I've been seeing this as well. I have been used to watching the R2 uncut version for some time now, and since the matting/composition is the same as the blu-ray, it makes no difference to me how much is different than the first couple of domestic releases. I picked up the blu-ray today and look forward to watching it.

Matt89
02-06-2009, 05:48 PM
I've been seeing this as well. I have been used to watching the R2 uncut version for some time now, and since the matting/composition is the same as the blu-ray, it makes no difference to me how much is different than the first couple of domestic releases. I picked up the blu-ray today and look forward to watching it.

Yeah same here. I've had the R2 for about 5 years now and I never noticed the "cropping" until rhett posted the comparisons.

~Matt

maybrick
02-06-2009, 05:59 PM
Yeah same here. I've had the R2 for about 5 years now and I never noticed the "cropping" until rhett posted the comparisons.

~Matt

Of course you didn't. It takes the trained eye of a fan (of which you're clearly not) in order to notice such things. ;)

Mutilated Prey
02-06-2009, 06:06 PM
A poster over at F13 claims that the new disc is the properly framed version...

"The new disc has the proper framing. When the MPAA ordered the film cut in 1980, they went back and edited the original negatives, as the film was not framed for theatres yet. And they actually slipped up while doing that and left more picture seen that the director intended. You'll notice the original, uncut version has always been framed like the new DVD. Look at the region 2 DVD. It's the same as this new one. I think the USA R rated version was the "wrong" one all along, and didn't have the picture quite as close in as originally intended."

A possibility?

Well there you all go. Quite yer bitchin' and enjoy the movie :D

It's Blu! It's Uncut! It's the way the Sean S. Cunningham intended it to be viewed! WooHoo!

"But I'm used to seeing half a tree on the far left in that one scene, and seeing more of the beach along the bottom in the final fight scene!"

Just stop it! :lol:

I got my Blu in the mail today and intend on lovin' every minute of it late night tonight :glasses:

Matt89
02-06-2009, 06:41 PM
Of course you didn't. It takes the trained eye of a fan (of which you're clearly not) in order to notice such things. ;)

Yeah, I lied. I've never actually seen Friday the 13th... :lol:


But yes, let's ALL just enjoy the movie! It looks fucking GLORIOUS!!! Indulge in its high-definition beauty.

~Matt

WesReviews
02-06-2009, 06:48 PM
I'm just saying that poster's claim is just a possibility. Worth checking into, if all "uncut" versions have this same matting. Who knows.

satans-sadists
02-06-2009, 07:12 PM
So much for quality control. No sale.

Mattapooh
02-06-2009, 07:37 PM
A poster over at F13 claims that the new disc is the properly framed version...

"The new disc has the proper framing. When the MPAA ordered the film cut in 1980, they went back and edited the original negatives, as the film was not framed for theatres yet. And they actually slipped up while doing that and left more picture seen that the director intended. You'll notice the original, uncut version has always been framed like the new DVD. Look at the region 2 DVD. It's the same as this new one. I think the USA R rated version was the "wrong" one all along, and didn't have the picture quite as close in as originally intended."

A possibility?

So pretty much what I said a few pages back. I figured something was going on, especially when I watched my copy of the disc and noticed that the compositions were actually IMPROVED by the zooming rather than compromised.

SaviniFan
02-06-2009, 08:35 PM
Well I just got done watching the blu-ray and I first want to say, it looks absolutely fantastic in 1080p. That said, there was not one scene that felt compromised or cramped in any way. I'm fine with the composition of this release and I feel any of you who have the opportunity to see this in hi-def and skip because of the trivial missing information (which seems to be arguable now that it was the correct framing), you will be cheating yourself out of a real treat for horror/slasher fans. I don't see anything wrong with rhett's review in pointing out the differences, but this isn't even an issue as far as I can tell. Probably was a mistake the first couple of times on DVD seeing that those were actually hybrid cuts of the film anyway and not the true "R" rated theatrical cut.

Friday the 13th fans rejoice, your film has never looked better!

Mutilated Prey
02-06-2009, 08:49 PM
The river is deep and the river is wide, hallelujah
Milk and honey on the other side, hallelujah

Matt89
02-06-2009, 08:51 PM
Probably was a mistake the first couple of times on DVD seeing that those were actually hybrid cuts of the film anyway and not the true "R" rated theatrical cut.

Yeah that's a really good point. I forgot that the original DVD release had extended Annie's death but cut Mrs. Voorhees' death even further. This whole issue is starting to make more and more sense. (It's like where did they even find that print for the first DVD?) And Paramount only owned the R-rated cut anyway, they never had access to the uncut version until this release.

~Matt

indiephantom
02-06-2009, 09:51 PM
This plus the fact that the film is NOT uncut. No sale here.

zombi3
02-06-2009, 10:06 PM
This plus the fact that the film is NOT uncut. No sale here.

Not uncut? Whatchoo talkin' 'bout, Willis? :confused:

Mutilated Prey
02-06-2009, 10:45 PM
This plus the fact that the film is NOT uncut. No sale here.

Yeah, what are you talkin' about?

NaturesMistake
02-06-2009, 11:56 PM
Please don't tell me you believe that crap about Claudette's death scene and that all of the off screen murders were in the REAL director's cut. That's just fan talk... Not even, it's just spread by delusional nut jobs like this sad motherfucker http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aw6GpoMFhfs&feature=related

:evil: This was really annoying to me. Add to the fact nobody corrected him. :mad:

Oh and if it is anybody on this site...

gasp... Bahahahahahaha...

I'm sorry :(
:D

Buddusky
02-07-2009, 12:58 AM
please don't tell me you believe that crap about claudette's death scene and that all of the off screen murders were in the real director's cut. That's just fan talk... Not even, it's just spread by delusional nut jobs like this sad motherfucker http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aw6gpomfhfs&feature=related

:evil: This was really annoying to me. Add to the fact nobody corrected him. :mad:

Oh and if is anybody on this site...

Gasp... Bahahahahahaha...

I'm sorry :(
:d

lmfao!!!!

KR~!
02-07-2009, 03:12 AM
nah, you were right the 1st time, that guy is a nutball. I like how he says that he is very excited, but he looks bored and sleepy. Or perhaps he is very low key, but how would he talk if he wasn't very excited? Would he just slip into a coma? I want answers damn it!

NaturesMistake
02-07-2009, 03:16 AM
Ehhh...
That was mean of me. I'm just frustrated at the misinformation going around.
Why should I care? Ignorance is bliss :D

Mutilated Prey
02-07-2009, 08:17 AM
Just got thru watchin' the uncut Blu, and man does it look sweet. Nice and crisp compared to the previous releases. The darker sceens have a tad bit of grain (kinda like Black Christmas) but that goes with the territory of these older films - not gonna complain. If you blow this off because of all the "zooming" hoopajoop you will truly be missing out.

eric_angelus
02-07-2009, 08:29 AM
I watched mine tonight as well. Best time I have had with this movie in years. It looked and sounded great...and as I many have said before, the composition looked better than ever. First time I have "gotten lost" (just sat and watched the movie and did not let anything else distract me) in Friday the 13th in probably 20 years or so.

jaffa
02-07-2009, 03:41 PM
Its no good saying "it doesnt bother me cos i wasnt gonna buy it anyway" the point is that PARAMOUNT have messed it up big time.Can we presume its going to happen again with other releases?I hope not because it does look awfull and i hope director Sean Cunningham plays up hell about it.I wont be touching this Blu-Ray thats for certain.

What i do want is an explanation from PARAMOUNT as to WHY it was done.

Matt89
02-07-2009, 07:44 PM
Its no good saying "it doesnt bother me cos i wasnt gonna buy it anyway" the point is that PARAMOUNT have messed it up big time.Can we presume its going to happen again with other releases?I hope not because it does look awfull and i hope director Sean Cunningham plays up hell about it.I wont be touching this Blu-Ray thats for certain.

What i do want is an explanation from PARAMOUNT as to WHY it was done.

It actually doesn't look bad and it is a possibility that this is Cunningham's preferred version of the film. The Warner edition on R2 from 2003 has the EXACT same framing. Did you bother to read any of the other posts in this thread?

~Matt

NaturesMistake
02-07-2009, 09:11 PM
It actually doesn't look bad and it is a possibility that this is Cunningham's preferred version of the film. The Warner edition on R2 from 2003 has the EXACT same framing. Did you bother to read any of the other posts in this thread?

~Matt

Yeah, it has to be the director's preferred version because the scene composition is too perfect. The movie has a more professional look now.

jaffa
02-08-2009, 12:44 PM
It actually doesn't look bad and it is a possibility that this is Cunningham's preferred version of the film. The Warner edition on R2 from 2003 has the EXACT same framing. Did you bother to read any of the other posts in this thread?

~Matt

But WHY is it framed like it is :confused: I do not believe for one moment that any director would want his movie reframed like that :eek: I bet Hitchcock and Kubrick would be spinning in there graves if any of there films where reframed like that.

Mattapooh
02-08-2009, 01:51 PM
The fact that you're comparing the framing of FRIDAY THE FRIGGIN' 13TH to a Hitchcock and/or Kubrick film tells me you're taking this WAY too seriously.

Is the framing "off"? Well, it's definitely different than the last DVD. Not necessarily an error, but definitely different. The fact that EVERYBODY who watched it before reading the review on here didn't notice anything should tell you something. The fact that the compositions are IMPROVED means I'm not complaining.

If certain important parts of the film were missing, I could understand, but like that guy posted either here or somewhere else, all we're missing is a bit of beach or a twig. Not a big deal.

jaffa
02-08-2009, 04:08 PM
The fact that you're comparing the framing of FRIDAY THE FRIGGIN' 13TH to a Hitchcock and/or Kubrick film tells me you're taking this WAY too seriously.

Is the framing "off"? Well, it's definitely different than the last DVD. Not necessarily an error, but definitely different. The fact that EVERYBODY who watched it before reading the review on here didn't notice anything should tell you something. The fact that the compositions are IMPROVED means I'm not complaining.

If certain important parts of the film were missing, I could understand, but like that guy posted either here or somewhere else, all we're missing is a bit of beach or a twig. Not a big deal.

Well lets hope that everybody will say its no big deal when Paramount release the INDIANA JONES movies with new IMPROVED compositions ;)And also dont forget the new IMPROVED compositions we got on the last two BACK TO THE FUTURES from Universal a few years ago maybe we can all email and ask them to give us those versions instead ;)

eric_angelus
02-08-2009, 06:26 PM
Well lets hope that everybody will say its no big deal when Paramount release the INDIANA JONES movies with new IMPROVED compositions ;)And also dont forget the new IMPROVED compositions we got on the last two BACK TO THE FUTURES from Universal a few years ago maybe we can all email and ask them to give us those versions instead ;)

The point you are missing is that this in fact is not new, it has been like this everywhere but here in the US for years. It is a very real chance that the old DVD was in fact the error release. It did after all feature the wrong versions of Annie's and Mrs. Voorhees' deaths...so why is it so hard to believe it also had the wrong framing? (I am talking about the original DVD release here, not the box set version BTW)

Matt89
02-08-2009, 08:21 PM
But WHY is it framed like it is :confused: I do not believe for one moment that any director would want his movie reframed like that :eek: I bet Hitchcock and Kubrick would be spinning in there graves if any of there films where reframed like that.

There's a massive difference there. They would never re-frame a Hitchcock film because the way his movies have been released and the way his movies were filmed were THE WAY THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO BE SHOWN. There'd be no extra space in the image (except for his films made post-1954, because those were intentially matted for widescreen, at HITCHCOCK'S request.) Hitchcock was VERY VERY precise as to how he filmed his movies. He actually storyboarded every one of his films entirely. He knew exactly what he was doing. Same with Kubrick, which is why they've been dubbed "auteur filmmakers". You can't even compare Hitchcock's or Kubrick's (who also was very precise as to how he framed his films - remember, Kubrick was a photographer before he became a filmmaker) films to a movie like Friday the 13th.

With a small low-budget film like Friday the 13th made by amateur filmmakers (yes, Cunningham was an amateur filmmaker at the time Friday was made), it's QUITE possible that he just shot scenes without thinking too much about cinematography. And if you look at the transfer, the framing is INTENTIONAL. It's not like it's misframed or panned and scanned. You're not getting heads cut off. The uncut R2 from Warner (which was a full uncut print, btw, no "splicing" in of cut footage) has this framing as well. It is quite possible, like other people said, that the R1 DVD has always shown too much, as we got a "hybrid" version of Friday the 13th when it was first issued on DVD in 1999. It's certainly possible (and I'm beginning to think this for sure now) that Cunningham himself (or him and his cinematographer, etc) framed the film that way themselves back in 1979/1980, and when the MPAA wanted the film cut, Paramount just got its own print and snipped out the footage. Personally, I think the print used for the 1999 release of Friday was probably an edited version that got refused by the MPAA, and Paramount had to make one more final cut to Annie's death before the MPAA approved what we know today as the 'R-rated' version. Trust me, the framing on this release (and the Warner UK DVD) seems QUITE intentional.

~Matt

Mattapooh
02-08-2009, 08:53 PM
I'm with eric and Matt on this one. The evidence seems to be pointing at this being the correct version and the earlier discs wrong.

Improper framing would either result in heads and other important details being cut off (in cases of being matted and/or zoomed) or boom mics being shown along with too much headroom (in unmatted/full frame stuff). Neither one of these is the case with the Friday discs. You lose a little bit of unnecessary information (ie. tree branches) and the resulting compositions look NICER than the old discs. I've got NO problems with the framing after watching the movie and it's something that, like I said, nobody even picked up on until the review was posted here. If you're seriously holding off on buying this disc because you think a replacement's coming, you'll never get it. I was one of those people that reacted negatively on this issue, but after watching the disc and doing a little more reading I'm convinced that this is the preferred version. I certainly can't see any problems.

Anyway, to anyone that's still on the fence, go grab it.

Matt89
02-08-2009, 09:17 PM
I was one of those people that reacted negatively on this issue, but after watching the disc and doing a little more reading I'm convinced that this is the preferred version. I certainly can't see any problems.

Anyway, to anyone that's still on the fence, go grab it.

Exactly. I thought it was all screwed when I first read the review, but the compositions seemed strikingly similar to the R2 from Warner, so I checked it out, did a little investigating, and low and behold, it had the exact same framing. I never noticed it there (and I've had this disc for about 5 years now) and it looks fine. People are making it out to seem that the film was horribly misframed or something. "It looks horrible". Bullshit. Anybody with eyes would be able to tell you that it DOESN'T look horrible, it just looks different (and if anything, it looks slightly better). People are just being stubborn on the issue. Paramount has finally given us the definitive edition of Friday the 13th and yet there's still complaints.

It's just like when Warner finally released The Shining in 1.78:1 widescreen back in 2007, the first time it had ever been shown in widescreen on home video. (Or really the first time it had been shown in widescreen PERIOD since its release in 1980.) Sure Kubrick's preferred ratio was open-matte 1.33:1, but matting it for 1.78 didn't hurt the film at all. It's one of those films that still looks good in both 1.33:1 and 1.78:1. It looked different sure, but it didn't hurt the film. Same thing here. This framing on Friday the 13th was definitely intentional. (And no it wasn't Paramount doing it "just to piss off fans" like someone said. That's the most bullshit thing I've ever heard.)

~Matt

Mattapooh
02-08-2009, 10:53 PM
People are making it out to seem that the film was horribly misframed or something. "It looks horrible". Bullshit. Anybody with eyes would be able to tell you that it DOESN'T look horrible, it just looks different (and if anything, it looks slightly better). People are just being stubborn on the issue.

I agree, that's pretty much the sentiment I was arguing against. Some people made it sound like an utter travesty which I worried about until I actually watched the disc. I think some people are blowing this so out of proportion that it's become ridiculous and I'd like to be one of the people who can state the opposite.

Mutilated Prey
02-08-2009, 11:19 PM
I agree, that's pretty much the sentiment I was arguing against. Some people made it sound like an utter travesty which I worried about until I actually watched the disc. I think some people are blowing this so out of proportion that it's become ridiculous and I'd like to be one of the people who can state the opposite.

Yup. Mountains outta mole hills is an understandment on this so-called "issue". Those waiting for an unwarranted fix, or feel their viewing pleasure will be compromised are sadly screwing themself.

MutleyHyde - close this thread. It's a farce! :)

Rhett - redo your review. It's misleading! Still love ya though ya big lug :)

Matt89
02-08-2009, 11:22 PM
Rhett - redo your review. It's misleading! Still love ya though ya big lug :)

No really. Rhett should add some screengrabs of the R2 (I know he owns it ;)) so that we can compare ALL the versions and people can see that the R2 is exactly the same way.

~Matt

maybrick
02-08-2009, 11:55 PM
It's just like when Warner finally released The Shining in 1.78:1 widescreen back in 2007, the first time it had ever been shown in widescreen on home video. (Or really the first time it had been shown in widescreen PERIOD since its release in 1980.) Sure Kubrick's preferred ratio was open-matte 1.33:1, but matting it for 1.78 didn't hurt the film at all. It's one of those films that still looks good in both 1.33:1 and 1.78:1. It looked different sure, but it didn't hurt the film.

Kubrick's opinion be damned, The Shining is better in widescreen. For example, the helicopter blades and shadow are almost completely matted out in the opening credits, which is a plus in my book because I've always found them distracting.

SaviniFan
02-09-2009, 01:06 AM
Like I stated earlier, this is a fantastic blu-ray release of Friday the 13th. Watching it was a treat. The image clarity was better than I expected it to be and THE FRAMING IS FINE! Buy it now damnit! :)

Matt89
02-09-2009, 01:34 AM
Kubrick's opinion be damned, The Shining is better in widescreen. For example, the helicopter blades and shadow are almost completely matted out in the opening credits, which is a plus in my book because I've always found them distracting.

Yeah I noticed that immediately. It was actually the first thing I looked for when I bought the blu-ray to see if they'd matted out the helicopter blades. That's the only thing that bugged me about the open-matte presentation.

~Matt

Mutilated Prey
02-09-2009, 03:04 AM
Like I stated earlier, this is a fantastic blu-ray release of Friday the 13th. Watching it was a treat. The image clarity was better than I expected it to be and THE FRAMING IS FINE! Buy it now damnit! :)

Yeah, you tell 'em guy!

spawningblue
02-09-2009, 10:43 PM
Kind of weird Paramount hasn't replied to any of this as it seems like it hss traveled across quite a few sites, and the fact that more then half the people on here said they won't buy the Blu Ray because of it... I don't know, just surprised they haven't come out and defended themselves if it was purposely done. They're losing sales so it would be nice if they explained themselves, unless maybe they are in the wrong.

Either way I am going to hold out until the ultimate box set comes out, and whether this is explained or not, I'll still buy it I guess. I can always keep the old DVD if they admit that they f-ed up.

SaviniFan
02-09-2009, 11:39 PM
I seriously doubt this was a fuck up in any way. There isn't any scenes that feel cramped or framed improperly. I realize why rhett pointed the differences out, but it doesn't amount to squat if you actually watch the blu-ray. If you ask me, it's getting way out of hand and I think Paramount owes nobody any apology. The least you doubters should do is rent it. I bet almost all of you will wonder why you were bitching once you do.

spawningblue
02-10-2009, 12:01 AM
I seriously doubt this was a fuck up in any way. There isn't any scenes that feel cramped or framed improperly. I realize why rhett pointed the differences out, but it doesn't amount to squat if you actually watch the blu-ray. If you ask me, it's getting way out of hand and I think Paramount owes nobody any apology. The least you doubters should do is rent it. I bet almost all of you will wonder why you were bitching once you do.

Well to be honest some of the shots look worse, aka. not framed properly. I'm sorry, but having hands and shoulders chopped isn't better framing. No one asked for an apology, but they should explain the situation, whether they are right or wrong, look at this poll, they are loosing sales because of it. Has nothing to do with doubting, like i said, I'm just waiting for the boxset as I don't want to triple dip on it. It just doesn't make sense to me if they are in the right why they haven't commented on all this and explain why it is framed like that. Come out and say this is how the film was originally meant to be seen, and then all these people that are "bitching" about it and not buying the DVD or Blu Ray will change their mind and purchase it. No matter what way you look at it, from a business point of view it's stupid to ignore it and lose sales, unless they are in the wrong, that's all I'm saying.

:lol: "Doubters". Maybe we can just handle waiting a couple months for the ultimate set. Nice of them to mention they are coming out with a set a couple weeks after everyone already ran out and purchased their Blu Ray.

fceurich39
02-10-2009, 12:17 AM
just finished watching it on the new dvd it didn't even bother me i didn't even notice as much as i did on the night of the living dead 40th anniversary dvd by dimension extreme

infinite
02-10-2009, 12:40 AM
i love this film. I think that they zoomed in a bit because this film is terribly dark and many of the shots do seem to have been taken from too far off. I think it was just to make the movie look better, and it def. did. The movie has never looked this good. Who cares if theres a bit of the sides cut off to give it closer image, it looks amazing and it's a good movie. Didn't we still love it when it was full screen? I think the issue isn't really a big deal. I can't wait for 2 and 3 to hit blu ray, DVDs look crappy near blu ray now

gore
02-10-2009, 12:40 AM
:lol: "Doubters". Maybe we can just handle waiting a couple months for the ultimate set. Nice of them to mention they are coming out with a set a couple weeks after everyone already ran out and purchased their Blu Ray.


Bleh, I went against saying I wouldnt get it and did. And now the mention of the box set in br?!!. The transfer definitely makes the gore more fake looking, but a beautiful transfer. I had never seen the film uncut so I couldnt resist, even though it really does hurt the Kevin Bacon death. All I had was the TCM br, so I needed more!

Dave
02-10-2009, 12:45 AM
It's funny but it seems like everyone is trying to convince themselves that the zooming is okay. Didn't Rhett say it cuts off portions of peoples' bodies in a few scenes?

UNACCEPTABLE.

Only way I'm buying in is if someone from the crew pipes up and gives it an okay.

Matt89
02-10-2009, 01:00 AM
Well to be honest some of the shots look worse, aka. not framed properly.

No they don't. It doesn't look worse, people are blowing this way out of proportion. The movie's framing is a little "tighter". Nothing looks "framed improperly" when you actually sit down and watch the movie in full. (It doesn't look misframed either way.) It is clear that this was done intentionally, because "misframed" movies wouldn't have such perfect framing as Friday the 13th does here.

I'm sorry, but having hands and shoulders chopped isn't better framing.

Well actually, yeah it is. That shot of all of the counselors when they're talking to the police actually looks better because you DON'T see their hands. It's dead space and their hands twiddling actually distracts from the main focus of the shot. What's the big deal about her hands being cropped out? And the shoulder shot in the hospital with Alice. The main focus is HER, I don't know why there's a shot of the policeman's hand on her shoulder. Cropping his hand out makes Alice look alienated, which makes sense, as she was the LONE survivor of part 1.

No one asked for an apology, but they should explain the situation, whether they are right or wrong, look at this poll, they are loosing sales because of it. Has nothing to do with doubting, like i said, I'm just waiting for the boxset as I don't want to triple dip on it. It just doesn't make sense to me if they are in the right why they haven't commented on all this and explain why it is framed like that. Come out and say this is how the film was originally meant to be seen, and then all these people that are "bitching" about it and not buying the DVD or Blu Ray will change their mind and purchase it. No matter what way you look at it, from a business point of view it's stupid to ignore it and lose sales, unless they are in the wrong, that's all I'm saying.

Well does Paramount really need to say anything? If people would do some research before they quickly pass this off as "Paramount fucked up", they'd stop complaining. (I thought this too until I double-checked with my R2 and saw it had the exact same framing.) Paramount's not the one at fault here, they licensed the print from Warner, who had the uncut print all along. Paramount only ever owned rights to the cut version of the film. This makes sense because Warner has ALWAYS owned the uncut version of the film, as it was accidentally released uncut on VHS in the UK back in the early '80s before being recalled and replaced with the edited version. (There's also a Japanese VHS from Warner that is uncut as well). The more you look at it, the more it makes sense that it was probably the filmmakers themselves who went back and cropped the film.

But really, if people haven't seen this version of the film, they're in absolutely no position to complain. You can't judge an entire transfer based off a few screencaps. People think it looks worse BY COMPARISON, but when you watch the film in its entirety, the framing looks spot on. It's like arguing about a movie you've never seen before. Watch the film, THEN comment on how it looks. And it doesn't look BAD, nothing vital was cut off and like Mattapooh and other people have said, it actually DOES look better. Comparing them, you can see there actually was a bit too much "dead space" in the frame. The framing on this release looks more "professional".

~Matt

SaviniFan
02-10-2009, 01:08 AM
Well said Matt89. I'm betting if anyone here want's Paramount to "fix" this so called situation, then all they will get is the cut version. Not that it is necessarily a bad thing, but does anyone honestly think you can seamlessly branch the uncut footage when the matting is different?

I myself have not seen the box set so I don't know if the framing of the uncut footage was different in the extras, but you can most likely bet you will never see Paramount go out of their way to correct what is essentially a non issue.

old-boo-radley
02-10-2009, 01:37 AM
It's funny but it seems like everyone is trying to convince themselves that the zooming is okay. Didn't Rhett say it cuts off portions of peoples' bodies in a few scenes?

UNACCEPTABLE.

Only way I'm buying in is if someone from the crew pipes up and gives it an okay.

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.

eric_angelus
02-10-2009, 04:27 AM
No they don't. It doesn't look worse, people are blowing this way out of proportion. The movie's framing is a little "tighter". Nothing looks "framed improperly" when you actually sit down and watch the movie in full. (It doesn't look misframed either way.) It is clear that this was done intentionally, because "misframed" movies wouldn't have such perfect framing as Friday the 13th does here.



Well actually, yeah it is. That shot of all of the counselors when they're talking to the police actually looks better because you DON'T see their hands. It's dead space and their hands twiddling actually distracts from the main focus of the shot. What's the big deal about her hands being cropped out? And the shoulder shot in the hospital with Alice. The main focus is HER, I don't know why there's a shot of the policeman's hand on her shoulder. Cropping his hand out makes Alice look alienated, which makes sense, as she was the LONE survivor of part 1.



Well does Paramount really need to say anything? If people would do some research before they quickly pass this off as "Paramount fucked up", they'd stop complaining. (I thought this too until I double-checked with my R2 and saw it had the exact same framing.) Paramount's not the one at fault here, they licensed the print from Warner, who had the uncut print all along. Paramount only ever owned rights to the cut version of the film. This makes sense because Warner has ALWAYS owned the uncut version of the film, as it was accidentally released uncut on VHS in the UK back in the early '80s before being recalled and replaced with the edited version. (There's also a Japanese VHS from Warner that is uncut as well). The more you look at it, the more it makes sense that it was probably the filmmakers themselves who went back and cropped the film.

But really, if people haven't seen this version of the film, they're in absolutely no position to complain. You can't judge an entire transfer based off a few screencaps. People think it looks worse BY COMPARISON, but when you watch the film in its entirety, the framing looks spot on. It's like arguing about a movie you've never seen before. Watch the film, THEN comment on how it looks. And it doesn't look BAD, nothing vital was cut off and like Mattapooh and other people have said, it actually DOES look better. Comparing them, you can see there actually was a bit too much "dead space" in the frame. The framing on this release looks more "professional".

~Matt

Well put.

Grim
02-10-2009, 04:46 AM
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.

Matt89
02-10-2009, 05:22 AM
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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

spawningblue
02-10-2009, 05:33 AM
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.

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.

spawningblue
02-10-2009, 05:37 AM
Maybe the old Paramount transfers were the ones that were not framed properly, and this is the correct framing.
~Matt

Maybe... but maybe not. Wouldn't it be nice to know for sure. :D

Matt89
02-10-2009, 05:38 AM
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.

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.

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

spawningblue
02-10-2009, 05:53 AM
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

Let me rephrase that, the theatrical version with its framing and the uncut version with its framing and the extra gore. :D

old-boo-radley
02-10-2009, 06:17 AM
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

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.

Matt89
02-10-2009, 06:33 AM
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

old-boo-radley
02-10-2009, 06:47 AM
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.

Paff
02-10-2009, 07:49 AM
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.

Kolpitz
02-10-2009, 08:01 AM
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.

bigdaddyhorse
02-10-2009, 07:00 PM
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

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.

Wez4555
02-10-2009, 11:07 PM
its always something with paramount. they finally release it uncut, but fuck up with the zooming. unbelievable!

Anaestheus
02-11-2009, 12:11 AM
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.

Matt89
02-11-2009, 12:58 AM
its always something with paramount. they finally release it uncut, but fuck up with the zooming. unbelievable!

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

CrazyFatEthel
02-11-2009, 03:14 AM
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

Look Matt, I know you have been defending Paramount, but you have to admit...they're a bunch of whores.:)

Wez4555
02-11-2009, 08:40 PM
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

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:

Shinya
02-11-2009, 10:00 PM
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.

Matt89
02-11-2009, 11:38 PM
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.

That's a brilliant idea actually, so I just tried it. I compared three screengrabs (one from the old 2004 release of Friday the 13th, the 2003 R2 of Friday the 13th (which has the same framing as the new DVD/blu-ray) and the original release of Friday the 13th, Part 2, in that order.

http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/9718/0001yw4.png
Friday the 13th (2004 boxset release)
http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/671/121kk7.png
Friday the 13th (2003 R2 release)
http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/6739/0000kk4.png
Friday the 13th, Part 2 (1999 release)

Well...I think we have our answer here. The screengrabs from Friday the 13th, Part 2 and the R2 of Friday the 13th show just about the same amount of image on the sides of the frame (the R2 actually shows a bit more) and the matting done on the R2 is set a bit higher than the Friday the 13th, Part 2 DVD, but more or less, the same "cropping". And the Paramount transfer from 2004 has completely different framing. Yeah, clearly the Paramount transfer is wrong.

Shinya, good idea! :D

~Matt

Kolpitz
02-11-2009, 11:40 PM
That's a brilliant idea actually, so I just tried it. I compared three screengrabs (one from the old 2004 release of Friday the 13th, the 2003 R2 of Friday the 13th (which has the same framing as the new DVD/blu-ray) and the original release of Friday the 13th, Part 2, in that order.

http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/3181/cap002yx2.png
Friday the 13th (2004 boxset release)
http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/671/121kk7.png
Friday the 13th (2003 R2 release)
http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/8127/cap001fh7.png
Friday the 13th, Part 2 (1999 release)

Well...I think we have our answer here. The screengrabs from Friday the 13th, Part 2 and the R2 of Friday the 13th show just about the same amount of image on the sides of the frame (the R2 actually shows a bit more) and it's clear that the matting done on the R2 is set a bit higher than the Friday the 13th, Part 2 DVD. And the Paramount transfer from 2004 has completely different framing. Yeah, clearly the Paramount transfer is wrong.

Shinya, good idea! :D

~Matt

This won't change a thing, Matt, and you know it. Maybe if you worked for Paramount ... :D

But, even still, all I have to say is ... OWNED!!

Matt89
02-12-2009, 12:39 AM
This won't change a thing, Matt, and you know it.

Yeah, probably not.

~Matt

WesReviews
02-12-2009, 01:41 AM
Definitely owned.

Maybe even p0wned.

Kolpitz
02-12-2009, 02:28 AM
Definitely owned.

Maybe even p0wned.

Totally p0wned

SaviniFan
02-12-2009, 02:34 AM
http://bevan.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/42525711pwned.jpg

Mattapooh
02-12-2009, 02:47 AM
God love teh internetz!

No seriously, REALLY good idea for a comparison and I think we have our near-definitive answer.

Anyone still on the fence? GO BUY IT!

Also, anyone from Paramount? GIVE US TEH MONEYZ!!

bigdaddyhorse
02-12-2009, 09:33 PM
The matching framing does not explain the extra picture on the sides. This would be the first case ever of a widescreen movie being filmed too wide, so it had to be cropped for theater and home video. I know about Apocalypse Now being trimmed to 2.00 from 2.35, but it was still 2.35 it theaters, and then we heard from the director saying there was wasted dead space and the home video was how he wanted it. I don't see dead space on this, where the fuck is that extra picture coming from?

Use your heads, does this make any sense, really? Without Cunningham saying this is right, it's wrong to me.

spawningblue
02-12-2009, 10:16 PM
To be completely honest, considering those scenes from part 2, the uncut version may be the right way to see it. That being said, those screen shots don;t really 100% prove anything, as the Director for part 2 could have took any scenes from part 1 and edited then in anyway he saw fit, including the ratio.

It would still be nice to hear from Cunningham or Paramount on the issue.

Katatonia
02-12-2009, 11:22 PM
That being said, those screen shots don;t really 100% prove anything, as the Director for part 2 could have took any scenes from part 1 and edited then in anyway he saw fit, including the ratio.

That was my first thought as well. I've seen quite a few films that source scenes from early films and then re-frame them in slightly different ratios for that film.

Otherwise the Blu-ray transfer looks very nice, but I still personally prefer the framing used on the old DVD's. Until Cunningham, or someone who honestly knows speaks up, we're just speculating here as to what the correct "framing" truly was. Then again, this is the unrated version of the film and not the theatrical version, so...

Paramount could at least answer their emails and offer some type of official explanation here. :eek2:

And this whole "YOU'RE STUPID!" shit (in not so many words) going on from both sides of the issue isn't helping anything here. We're only debating a simple framing issue here, and the answer is far from clear yet.

spawningblue
02-12-2009, 11:33 PM
Yeah the way I see it, it's not the end of the world either way. It still would be nice for an official explanation though, but whether that happens or not... But yeah, this will not stop me from buying the ultimate box set that is apparently in the works. I'm more worried about them including the 3-D version of part 3 on Blu Ray, as well as all the previous and new extras. The theatrical version of part 1 would be nice as well, maybe with the ratio that we all remember...

MrKateB
02-12-2009, 11:37 PM
not wanting to come across like I'm insulting anyone here--either their preferences, their opinions or otherwise, because I think everyone here has a valid reason to be feeling the way they do...but:

The guy that has the YouTube rant-n-rave, referenced a few pages ago? I was going to post something snarky about him taking up the cause because he looks just like Jason from Pt. 1 until I read a user comment on the YouTube site from someone who told him that he sounded like Piglet from Disney's Winnie-the-Pooh, and was trying very hard to assure him it was a good thing....("Oh Dear! Oh Dear!").....

To those who are comparing a re-framing of Friday the 13th to a re-framing of anything by Hitchcock or Kubrick, or many of the true cinema classics mentioned by Mattapooh and a couple of others...Friday the 13th is one of my favorites, and will always have a special place in my memory as it was the first R rated film I ever saw in theaters, having tricked my parents into taking me to see it...But, you know, it's really not quite the same sort of thing...It's not in the same league, never will be, and I mean that more in terms of cinematography merit as opposed to a budgetary one...True enough, I prefer versions of movies that are true to the original release etc., and don't care for the trend of updated effects & tinkering going on, but based on the quality of the screenshots I see here and at the other sites it looks like Paramount has really improved the film quality immensely with the transfer they've produced, they've given it a real depth I've not seen before, and it does sparkle like a brand new film. The only thing that did kind of bug me was the shot in which the canoe Alice is sleeping in--it looks like it's been wiped out of frame, and that's a very iconic shot...Still and all, prior to now it's all been about the bastards at Paramount holding back on an R1 uncut version, and how rotten it all was, this evil thing they're doing to piss off F13 fans...Well, as it turns out, they weren't able to do anything about it until recently due to rights with Warner...They've now produced an R1 uncut transfer, and one that really does truly look amazing to me at least, and now suddenly it's all about the bastards at Paramount again because now they've eliminated an inch of water or a few weeds on the sidelines....The movie will never be the same again if I can't gaze upon Pine Tree #1034...for that is the one that I always used to look at during that one scene with the truck going around the corner....Dammit it all to hell---Those Paramount Bastards...Pine Tree, I will never forget you.

A major upgrade in visual quality and delivering more gore (which always seemed to be primarily what it was ever really all about) totally overrides the loss of a bit of flora and fauna, water, Harry Crosby's feet or whatever (TRULY--I remember a forum post once where the whole issue was that Harry Crosby's feet were cut out of the beach scene, "and that meant there could be OTHER things wrong too"...never did figure out why that had made all the difference for these people, but I guess it just further proves that we all have our own preferences and perceptions about what should & shouldn't be in a shot, and that's what makes some people directors and others auteurs perhaps)

Anyway, I'll shut up, really am not wanting to go off, I get the points made about "a cut is a cut" and all, and I guess wanting some sort of formal statement made could in some way bring about closure to those who mourn the "lost footage" (literally, in the case of the Harry Crosby fan)...

Essentially though, if I understand correctly, we are dealing with two "original" versions of the same film, the one seen back in 1980 in the U.S., and the one that was released overseas by Warner Bros. I am not sure, but I don't think anyone has stopped to realize that we could, in some way, consider ourselves fortunate that we now have access to digitally remastered versions of both, one has been given a serious makeover that makes it look like it was filmed yesterday, and the other not looking too shabby either, with some decent extras. AND, to boot, for those who picked it up initially, a third version that could have possibly been prepared for Home Box Office or Showtime back when they were both much bigger deals than they are now, or simply as someone put it, a weird hybrid that gives you more at first than taketh away at the end (Annie/Voorhees alternates).....

Damn those Paramount bastards, always sticking it to the F13 people...

With all the crap happening around the globe these days though, I really just can't give a shit, and I'm actually surprised and thankful that they bothered to pursue the uncut #1 30 years later, as WELL as a decent remaster of #2, and even deliver a special treat for those who never saw it theatrically, a 3-D version of #3.

Katatonia
02-13-2009, 12:07 AM
Essentially though, if I understand correctly, we are dealing with two "original" versions of the same film, the one seen back in 1980 in the U.S., and the one that was released overseas by Warner Bros.

Exactly, and it appears that Paramount simply used the source from the R2 release. I think what people are wondering is, how much does the framing differ from the original "rated" version of the film as theatrically shown here in North America.

If the "rated" version had the same theatrical framing originally as the "unrated" version, then problem solved. Otherwise, why the difference in zooming...with a minor 10 second difference between the versions? Who decided on that decision: the filmmakers, the studio(s): Paramount or Warner, or a telecine operator somewhere down the line? It's enough of a noticeable difference to question how and why it happened, and as to what framing the filmmakers originally intended. Sure, we can sit here and say "the framing looks better" or "it appears that Paramount got it right this time" on this or that version...which ultimately proves nothing and boils down to personal opinion.

I consider myself neutral and unsure of which version (if either) is the correctly framed version. I simply want to obtain the facts on the matter, whatever they may be, and thus far Paramount and the filmmakers remain silent on the issue. :eek2:

SaviniFan
02-13-2009, 04:10 AM
At this point I really don't care about the facts of the framing. All I know is the blu-ray looks great, and I'm going to enjoy it. I seriously doubt I'll double dip on the title on blu just to see Pine Tree #1034 as MrKateB so eloquently put it.

Mutilated Prey
02-13-2009, 04:26 AM
I can't believe we're still talking about this :lol:

Matt89
02-13-2009, 04:29 AM
I can't believe we're still talking about this :lol:

I guess the reason is because we really haven't received a definitive answer from either the filmmakers, Paramount or Warner. Personally, I'm leaning more towards Paramount's original transfer being wrong and the new transfer/Warner release being the right one. I'm perfectly content with the new blu-ray. The movie looks astounding, and the framing is perfectly fine, it's not like it was misframed or anything.

~Matt

Mutilated Prey
02-13-2009, 04:35 AM
I guess the reason is because we really haven't received a definitive answer from either the filmmakers, Paramount or Warner. Personally, I'm leaning more towards Paramount's original transfer being wrong and the new transfer/Warner release being the right one. I'm perfectly content with the new blu-ray. The movie looks astounding, and the framing is perfectly fine, it's not like it was misframed or anything.

~Matt

Exactly my point. Mainly, the Blu looks great and until I hear from filmmakers, Paramount, Warner or whomever I'm gonna move on. Whatever they have to say will indeed be interesting, but it's not going to really change anything about how I feel about the current situation.

Matt89
02-13-2009, 04:43 AM
Exactly my point. Mainly, the Blu looks great and until I hear from filmmakers, Paramount, Warner or whomever I'm gonna move on. Whatever they have to say will indeed be interesting, but it's not going to really change anything about how I feel about the current situation.

Precisely. People are making such a huge deal of this, and comparing them to "what if they did it to a Hitchcock film?" There's no comparison there. Hitchcock was an auteur filmmaker, Sean S. Cunningham is FAR from one. I doubt he had much cinematography in mind when they made the film, they only made the movie to make money. (Victor Miller even said in an interview that Cunningham came up to him and said, "Halloween's doing very well...let's rip it off.") Cinematography was at the back of their minds when they were making this movie, this is why the whole framing issue doesn't really matter to me. The movie's so amateurish anyway that this hardly seems like it should even be up for debate.

~Matt

Rocker10
02-13-2009, 08:01 AM
I had to say unacceptable although I had already made my purchase via Amazon. My hatred for Paramount is climbing to new levels. 'Lets make it uncut, but fuck it up with a zoom'. Paramount is hands down one of the worst studios doing home video. This also applies to their splitting TV on DVD into half seasons, etc. *shakes fist*

Erick H.
02-13-2009, 08:39 AM
My guess is that the film was framed in 1:85 for U.S. theatrical release(the most common ratio in the States) and 1:78 for overseas issues (this often happens,1:78 is a more common theatrical ratio abroad than it is here).There are numerous examples of domestic DVDs framed at 1:85 while the PAL releases in the U.K. are 1:78,it is likely that these films simply WERE framed at 1:78 when they ran in England and some other countries.Go to sites like DVD Compare and check some ratio differences sometime,it happens a lot.

Since this disc was seemingly made from a European source (the Warner Bros. print),they may simply have kept the framing that was most common over there.It's gonna look a little tighter than the 1:85.Unless Paramount or Cunningham steps up and says that this was intentional or accidental,it might well just be a case of ''either/or",we can see it in HD uncut in a European ratio(slightly tighter) or see the versions we have had access to for years ,trimmed for content but slightly wider.I doubt that Paramount had no choice in the matter (if the original negative still exists).Even if the unrated material only existed in a 1:78 print (with no original negative material in existance) they could still likely have reinserted the cut scenes like the new MY BLOODY VALENTINE did,the inserts would just have been tighter framed.They probably just didn't think anybody would care about the tighter framing.

I mentioned this earlier but I'll say it again,lots of 1:85 (theatrical screening) films end up as 1:78 on BLU RAY.Perhaps they are just ''filling the frame" for viewers with high def TV's.Nobody has ever given me a definitive answer as to whether this is just a common practice.

Matt89
02-13-2009, 08:58 AM
Again, it WASN'T PARAMOUNT who did this. And no I'm not "giving Paramount a bj" here, it's just that it's wrong to accuse Paramount of doing this when they clearly got the print from Warner (the original "uncut" R2 has the EXACT same framing as the new DVD/blu-ray from Paramount). The framing changes throughout the film, so this was CLEARLY intentional and not a "fuck up". The movie still looks perfectly framed, just a little tighter. You can't judge the whole transfer by those few screengrabs in rhett's review. If it were an issue or a "fuck up" (like the Back to the Future trilogy), the original DVD from Warner would've most likely been recalled and replaced with Paramount's original framing.

And Erick is right, a lot of 1.85 titles in the US are 1.78 in Europe/UK. And more and more companies are matting films to 1.78 so yes, they fill the entire frame of a 16x9 television. When done right (the way most studios like Warner do it) 1.78 is actually slightly more opened up than 1.85. They don't take a 1.85 framed film and zoom it so it fits 1.78, they simply remove some of the matting so it fits the entire 16x9 frame of the TV. So in essence you're getting an image that actually has a slight bit more image on the top and bottom of the frame. It makes no difference really, it's just so that the movies fill the entire frame of a 16x9 TV.

~Matt

Regurgitate
02-14-2009, 07:46 PM
Is it blasphemy to say that the Friday films series aren't high art and that if I happen to miss a couple of leaves or a patch of leg hair then so be it?

I don't want to second guess the DOP but I really wonder what the criterion was that he used to frame all the shots.

old-boo-radley
02-14-2009, 10:56 PM
Of note, I watched The Final Chapter last night and when kid Jason popped out of the water in a flashback, half his arm was missing in that too, so I'm pretty sure Matt is right and the old Paramount discs were the wrong ones, as much as I think they're probably superior.