|
|
Posted by Alex on 11/16/05 10:25
"DH" <nowhere@nohow.com> wrote in message
news:%vsef.8959$Lw5.5198@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Turbohat wrote:
> > Was planning to but the R1 but the R2 2 disc version was so, so cheap in
> > Tesco (only 12.77)
> >
> > Checked out the disc today briefly and 2 questions leap to mind after
seeing
> > it at the cinema (and not paying much attention at the time).
> >
> > 1stly, was it originally shown in 1.85:1 (as the DVD is) at the cinema.
With
> > a BIG!!!! film I was expecting the usual ultra-wide 2.35 or 2.40:1
> >
> > Secondly, the picture seems very over-exposed (to use a photography
> > description), under saturated in terms of colour, and verym, very,
VERY!!!!
> > grainy. I remember it being underaturated at the cinema, but don't
recall
> > the grain. Again, is this as per the original?
> >
> > Thanks
>
> IIRC, yes to all.
>
> Not totally sure re aspect, and I dont think it would be strictly defined
as over
> exposed, but mine has quite low saturation and high grain, a bit like some
parts of
> Band of Brothers. Gives a feel of oversaturation, but more so : immediacy
and a lot
> of the action feels like its hand held stuff.
Like the OP said, some of this looks quite bleached on the R2 stills I've
seen on review sites, the grain (which I don't mind) is intentional and
makes it look film-like - but the stills the studio has put out are more
colourful, I suspect the R1 will not be as over-exposed, so I'm holding back
from buying this one until I read some comparisons. Sharpness generally
concerns me more, that may be identical on both regions.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|