|
|
Posted by Gunther Gloop on 01/16/07 16:09
the dog from that film you saw wrote:
> "Gunther Gloop" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:512m41F1i08kaU1@mid.individual.net...
>> POD {ҿ} wrote:
>>> What film release on HD media may make you make the jump, or at
>>> least get the juices flowing?
>>>
>>
>> The Stanley Kubrick boxset -fully redone in Hi-Def.
>>
>> I don't think it's likely in the near-future, since they were
>> remastered and re-re-released relatively recently on dvd, but there
>> are a lot of (visual) improvements still possible with all of those
>> discs.
>
>
> there's a hi def version of the shining in existence
I didn't know that. Any idea of the quality -in relation to the dvd quality
that is?
> - and bizarrely
> (given the director's preferences) it's 16:9 - they could have left
> the 4:3 frame within the 16:9 image if they wanted to.
Despite his preferences for "home viewing", they were filmed (as you no
doubt know) in 16:9, keeping the 4:3 section as "optimal".
They were still originally screened in cinemas in 16:9 (well, 2001 is
wider).
His worry for home viewing was that they'd be "killed" by showing in
pan&scan if the ratio was too wide.
I do prefer a wider image in movies and I'd like to see these in
'widescreen' -if it didn't mess up how they should be seen (which it
shouldn't). ...Or both ratios as POD says.
Apart from that though, I'd love if they used the extra space on HD to get a
more filmic quality. A lot of it might need to be a digital recreation of
celluloid-on-canvas and chances are they'd make a mess of it, but if someone
somewhere was able to do it right it'd make those films look beautiful -and
not all "clean & clear & perfect and plastic".
They would have to include a non-digitally-interfered-with version as well
of course though -just in case.
-Kevin.
--
Email replies to: news1@SPAMBEGONEkevinforde.com
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|