Excellent. I'm in, love the Al Bean episode.

I have the original and I am so buying this new set! This is easily one of the best mini-series I have ever seen.

Since I don't have it but liked what little I saw on HBO, I will probably wait until the HD version is available and I have the equipment. I am already starting to think about the movies/series etc that I will eventually want on HD.

If it had a lower MSRP, I might consider getting the new version. But for the $60-70 that it will cost, I think I will hold on to my current discs.

I've been wanting this for a while now, looks like I'm in on this one.

I hope the first edition will go down in price. I never got it because it was too rich or my blood. Right now you can get it new for around $60. If I can pick up a used copy for $25...that would be sweet.

Wow, I just this morning -eek- thought about getting this set because I've heard nothing but good things about it. The only reason I didn't click and buy this morning was because I was late for work and NOW, thanks to DVDTalk, I can wait a few months and get the new set.

:bow: Thanks DVDTalk, you're the best!!

SMB-IL, why would you be so excited about an inferior, non-OAR set? I suggest you wait for screenshot comparisons, and then pick up the original version.

And you are?

On what basis are you pronouncing it inferior? The DTS audio track? The anamorphically enhanced video taken from new HD masters? The new bonus materials? The packaging on the previous set wasn't much to write home about either.

I think something that everyone is forgetting here is the fact that Tom Hanks is signing this as the 'Signature Collection'. I have SERIOUS doubts that they would claim this to be the (quote-unquote) "be-all-end-all" edition if Widescreen weren't correct.
I mean, we are entering an age of WS with HDTV, and these are from new masters, so it's entirely possible that they recomposed shots, etc.

The first thing that popped into my mind was "Wasn't that a 1:33 presentation?"

Maybe (hopefully) it was conceived for a WS presentation and cropped/ opened for TV viewing.

To me if it is cropped, NO SALE.

Folks... it was broadcast in 4:3. Very likely it was shot that way too. Look closely at the episodes, they don't look pan-n-scanned, nor do they look too open to be open-matte. The shots are just right, 1.33:1 composition. Why do I call it inferior? Because it is. I don't want this great set to be replaced by a non-OAR version, just as I would a 2.35:1 film to be replaced by a pan-n-scan version. It's the same thing. Even if it's open-matte, it's wrong. It's kind of a double standard, isn't it? "Ooh look it has DTS on it and it's anamorphic! I can't wait to blast this on my new 140-inch plasma screen and my billion.1 sound system. Oh wait, it's supposed to be 4:3 - ah who cares, it's look sweet!" :(

Time will tell.

You're kidding yourself. They'll do whatever the hell they think will make them the most money. Period.

It really, for me, depends on the subject and the film and/or set whether I'm going to care or not about OAR or original sound. I'm not THAT much of a purist. To me a big sweeping epic like "From the Earth to the Moon" can take the widescreen and DTS treatment and not come out the worse for wear.

I love how you want me to wait for screenshots and then pick up the original version. :lol:

It's very hip right now to have the attitude about OAR and non-OAR even if it's 4:3!!. Bottom line: my money, my home theatre experience.

Except a guy who worked on it just told you it was composed for widescreen.

The reality is that we've never seen it in it's intended AR. It's been shown open matte every time, now we're finally going to get it done properly.

Fixed.

I love how some people think that a 4:3 OAR is somehow less important than a wider OAR. Ridiculous.

Just be aware that you turn in any rights about bitching over 4:3 only releases of WS films. Such bitching would make you a hypocrite.

Stop putting words in my posts. I never said (or even implied) that 4:3 was less important than 16:9. I said that the attitude about OAR is very hip right now -- meaning that I don't necessarily buy the "discussions" from some people about OAR when it seems their posts exist only to incite disagreements.
Nope -- I left the loophole of "I'm not THAT much of a purist." Sometimes I am. :lol:

Very happy with the first release of this title so I won't be upgrading.

How is it "hip"? I've always been sticking to OAR, be it 1.33:1, or whatever. It doesn't matter to me, as long as what I'm seeing is the original unaltered aspect ratio. I don't have a 16:9 TV yet, but when I do, this won't change. I will not be stretching or zooming any 4:3 material so it will "fill my screen" - it just makes me shudder even thinking about it.

I'm waiting for the screenshots comparison myself. But for far, with the extras revealed and being pretty much the same, I see very little, if any reason to upgrade.

The "reality" is that we don't know.

Some shots might work quite well. Depends of course on what we don't see on both sides of the frame. Also, the Bits report didn't indicate what "widescreen" meant. Is that 2.35, 1.85, 1.78 ...?

http://img283.echo.cx/img283/2059/earth20hr.th.jpg

Other shots appear to be more problematic ...

http://img283.echo.cx/img283/5389/earth13oh.th.jpg

Like others have mentioned ... wait and see.

Those of you who have the set on hand can watch a few episodes and you'll realize it's obviously composed for a 4:3 ratio.

Since it's an HBO production, meant for TV, I would have to think 1.78 would be it.