I appreciate the screen shots. I'd like the new version for the superior picture quality, but in no way do those new screenshots look right. I didn't see one that didn't look butchered.

I'm not sure why they didn't just stick with the 4:3 then. They released OZ, Curb Your Enthusiasm and Mind Of The Married Man all in 4:3. Maybe they figured it was the only way to get people to upgrade. But with Tom Hanks name prominantly on the cover, I'd have to think he has some knowledge of this decision. Also, I wonder if the old version is going OOP now.

Another weird thing, this is the second time they've released FTETTM with NO text on the spine! WTF? I guess they want this series to be the inconspicuous title on your shelf.

Weird..in das' copious review, the first two comparison shots make the 1998 release seem the most favorable, but the second two skew the favor over to the new release...weird. The fact that there is so much new visual info on the left- and right-hand sides of the frame seems to finally confirm once and for all that FTETTM was, in fact, composed for both 1.33:1 and 1.78:1 broadcasts...

Das,

Are those screenshots representative of the worst of the cropping? Or do you think that there were moments when it got even more noticable.

For reference, I never picked up the original release but it has been on my list for awhile. Which one should I pick up? I'm leaning more towards the newer version as it seems to have a better transfer just as long as the "cropping" isn't too noticable.

I chose those screenshots specifically because of the confusion they represent (compare #1 to #4, note the corners in 2005 #3 and #4), and I tried to get a good sampling of the different cropping variations. The two most obvious offenders, #1 and #3, are rarities, and I think it's unlikely you'd find the cropping too distracting if you weren't specifically looking for it.

That said, I really have no idea what to recommend for you. This is a disappointing situation to be sure, and I'm really torn on what to tell people. If you want DTS audio or have a widescreen monitor, the new version is probably the way to go. It's also cheaper as I understand. I cannot believe that the 2005 #1 screenshot is what the director intended, but as I said, these moments are rare.

das

Actually, the old version should technically be cheaper, as list is $89.98, whereas list on the new set is $99.98. But I think in many cases stores have never adjusted the old set for the new list. I think the old list on the old set was something like $119.98, which had the set seeling for $90 in most places originally.

Actually, from these four comparative shots, the 1998 is the hands-down better version. The framing of 2005 #4 is absolutely horrid, not to mention the missing information in 2005 #1 and #3. The 2005 #2 looks not as bad because it's a simpler shot. Anyone who thinks this mini-series was shot with both ratios in mind is kidding themselves.

Das,

I truly enjoyed the review. I have the original set but picked up the new set strictly for the Anamorphic enhancement. ($75 @ BB). I can't see where I'll be disappointed.

yah...i'll just keep my money....shame they didn't release OAR...or at least give you an option here

I disagree--#4 looks far better balanced to my eye on the new version; less cramped on the sides, not as much wasted head- and footspace on the top and bottom. Now shot #1 on the other hand...

I'm quite literally very confused on what to do with this new version - keep it (for the DTS) or just return it (I haven't opened it yet) - since it's OAR was altered, what to do, what to do?

How can you say #4 is better in 2005? Look at the composition of the 1998 version. It's obvious what was intended.

I already defended my reasons once--shot #4 in the new version looks perfectly and meaningfully framed for widescreen, and is much less claustrophobic than the 1998 version...

Perhaps we're looking at different screenshots.

http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/image...1127209088.jpg http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/image...1127209084.jpg

The 1.33:1 shot definitely has better framing than the 1.78:1 shot. The 2005 version is cropped way too low, while the 1998 is perfect.

but if you look really carefully, you'd notice there is a little bit more visual information on the extreme left and right hand sides of the picture.

More information isn't better. You have to look at the framing of the shot, and if you know anything about cinematography, it becomes apparent that the director's and the DP's intentions are portrayed in the 1998 version. The 2005 version is compromised. And I'm not even talking about the different (and worse) color-timing of the 2005 version - notice the grey-blue sky, as opposed to normal blue of 1998. Also the trees in the backgroud as perfectly green, while in the 2005 version the green is duller.

I'm not arguing with you and while I "appreciate cinematography" - the image is most definately been altered. My point is that even with all the glossing and cutting of the image, that also somehow extracted side visual info that wasn't in the original 1.33 composition - go figure on that one.

I also like the new version of #4. Now is it what the director intended? I'm going to have to answer no to that.

also, if i am not mistaken, the first season of the sopranos aired in full screen, while the dvd is wide. the main difference is there is is way too much head room top and bottom, and every shot is compossed for 4x3 not 16x9. But then again, there is no cropping on the 16x9 version.

Looking over the four shots of both versions yet again, I've come to the conclusion that the 2005 transfer is inferior to the 1998 in every way: altered aspect-ratio, loss of sharpness, weaker color. The new set has no new extras. It does have a DTS soundrtack, but I don't think the mini-series even aired in 5.1, I think it was mixed in stereo and remixed for the original DVD. Oh, and the old set has better packaging, in my humble opinion.

It's hard to tell from 4 jpg compressed images, but in most cases, the level of detail is superior in the new version. For the title card with the moon, you can barely make out the craters in the original, and the compression is so heavy on the "We Have Cleared the Tower" picture, that I cannot even give you a valid screenshot to compare. Even the color-whacked triple Corvette picture (the hood on the right is all washed out) has more detail to it, but you can't tell sized down. The trees are blurry in the background as are the grooves in the road. The reality is that this thing is all over the map and comparing the two to find which is "better" is enough to make you go crazy.

Or you could take this guy's word for it and decry the original "pan & scan version":

I mean, there's no doubt, so there you have it.

das

Yeah "this guy" is definitely smoking something. While I concede that it's hard to judge the two versions on sharpness from small compressed JPGs, the 1998 still appear sharper to me. And better colors are exhibited in 1998 as well.

I don't doubt the transfer itself, technically, is better in 2005. But you do have to figure that the addition of DTS diminishes the impact spreading the episodes by 3 per disc would have otherwise. I would actually probably upgrade my original set, if it wasn't for the non-OAR presentation.

Das, I read that guys review too. So how is 1.33:1 to pan and scan if everything was framed at 1.33:1 to begin with? I get the impression there wasn't a whole heck of a lot of panning required if 1:33 was the OAR.

So I'm still on the fence with the new version. I'd like DTS and I only have widescreen TVs for DVD watching but the cropping looks pretty bad in the 4 pictures shown. No matter how awesome the miniseries was, it is tough to justify $70 for a DVD that is an improvement in some areas but takes steps back in others.

Well, Mr. Cinematography, I'm going to have to thumbs down your reasoning for preferring the 1998 version of shot #4 again. I won't get into issues of color timing since, as has been noted, that could be an issue with jpg compression. In terms of framing, however, anyone who knows the "rules" of photography knows that the most inherently eye-pleasing compositions are the ones based on the rule of thirds. Inspecting the two shots shows (laterally speaking) that the 1998 shot is based on a rule fourths (there are approximately equal parts of screen image devoted to sky, trees, cars/people, and ground), whereas the revised shot properly dismisses that unnecessary fourth field (the ground) and expands upon the left and right portions of the frame, making for (as I've repeatedly said) a much less hemmed-in, claustrophobic framing. If you don't agree, pass on the new one and we'll see ya somewhere down the road, pal...

I'm going to reserve final judgment until actually watching the whole series, but I have to say #4 looks better in the '05 version. I realize it is cropped at the bottom, but the framing in general eems more balanced.