That's how I feel. It should totally put the old version to shame. Keeping my 1998 release and buying something else.

same here, I essentially gave up and returned the disc back to Best Buy - since the next three months are going to get very expensive in the number of 'must own' DVD's

I can't believe you're prefering the new framing of #4. That one just looks so bad in the 2005 version when compared to 1998.

But really all this is moot, anyway. The original and intended AR is 1.33:1, so that's the end of that.

If that were true, formatting the image for 1.78:1 exhibition would NOT reveal previously unseen footage on the left/right margins of the frame; hey, like what you like, but I find this insolent insistence on spreading misinformation to be out of line.

I really wish we could get a definitive answer on the subject from an official source.

I will again state that I think the fact that this set literally has Tom Hanks' name all over it suggests that the producers have OK'd the presentation of this boxset. The mini-series had more than one director if I recall correctly. In that case, is it the director's intent that should be headed, or the executive producers, or whoever else was in control of the creative direction of the miniseries? Because if the driving forces behind this series like Tom Hanks and Imagine are behind this presentation, I think that's enough.

And please note I am a staunch advocate of OAR. Unlike others, I do not feel there is enough evidence present to suggest one AR was intended over the other. If someone showed me screenshot #4 from the 2005 set and I never saw the 1998 version, I would say that it was perfectly framed. That's not to say there aren't other shots that look wrong due to the different AR, because there may be, but in the case of #4, I think it looks OK.

But, again, for all those who can't believe the apparent idiocy of their fellow posters, I say that if it is definitively proven by either word from an official source or document that 4:3 is the proper AR, no question, I will happily go with the 4:3 set. Not really concerned about the surround tracks as I enjoyed the series without it, and I have multiples monitors of both 16:9 and 4:3. so I don't really care if it's 4:3 or 16:9. For now I'll check out the new set and see how it looks.

I wouldn't go too far with that. The driving forces behind this presentation seem to be 1) the search for more cash, 2) capitalizing on Bush's request to return to the moon back in early 2004, 3) cross-promotion of Hanks' IMAX film, <b>Magnificent Desolation: Walking on the Moon 3D</b>. I don't want to be that jaded about it, and it's obvious I love this series beyond reason, but it's pretty clear that no one pain-stakingly combed through this set trying to make it a definitive edition.

das

Good point Das. But if this was primarily a cash grab, why not just re-release the 4:3 transfer with 5.1 and leave it at that?

It seems like some effort was put into the set-whether it was the right effort remains to be seen. :)

Who would buy it? Slap DTS on it (the DTS isn't that special) and give it an anamorphic widescreen transfer (regardless of whether it's better or not), and you get all of us considering a double-dip and lazy reviewers proclaiming it to be vastly superior to its "pan-and-scan" predecessor.

I don't claim to know what's going on here, and I don't want to be overly jaded and negative, but while it's likely not <i>only</i> a cash-grab, it's not a particularly fan-friendly re-release either. Renaming the special features so people wouldn't recognize that they're the same ones is pretty low, and calling it the "Signature Edition" to imply it has a bunch of cool stuff on it is quite misleading.

das

Well, I never picked up the original realease, so i'm quite pleased with this set.

I have no idea what process this series was shot in, but it obviously wasn't shot in 1.78:1 and protected for 1.33:1, since there wouldn't be such excessive cropping of the bottom of the frame. This looks like Super35 or something, where the original 1.33:1 images was extracted from, with director's and DP's supervision and input for the original broadcast and DVD release. HBO seemingly went back to it later and simply hired some monkey to extract a 1.78:1 frame from this source, and we can see how that's turned out. It's too bad that the 2005 set will probably replace the original, and the inferior and altered transfer will become the norm. It is obvious to me that the 1.78:1 is NOT what was intended by the original creators of the film.

By the way, somebody on HTF posted that the opening credit sequence was redone and modified as well.

Hmmm...now that is not good news at all. FWIW, one of my biggest fears in buying the original set was that it rumored to be prone to rot. I would have been happy to have this set retain the 4:3 image, regardless of what was shot and protected for, just to have a newly authored and manufactured version. I have to wonder how old some of the sets are of the old release that are still in circulation.

And I must have missed it before, but I didn't catch the part about the renaming of the extras. That's troublesome as well to say the least.

My biggest question that nobody has answered so far is regarding the source material used in the new version. The source of the original version was interlaced video. When viewed on a progressive display such as when using a PC, the interlacing artifacts were very evident during scenes with fast movement (such as the opening credits). I am wondering if the new version used a film source for mastering the DVD. If so, this reason alone would be a major reason to get the new version in my opinion. This is a major picture quality difference that does not show up often in screenshots.

Mike

Could that be a matter of changing the deinterlacing mode of your software player? Try setting Bob and then Weave and see which looks better.

Thanks for the suggestion. That could help the problem, but not fix the underlying problem - the source material. Think of it this way... A movie could be filmed using a video camera (480i) or using actual film. If it was filmed using a video camera, the recorded material will be interlaced due to the 480i. If it was filmed using film, the recorded material will not be interlaced as film is inherantly progressive in nature. When viewing 480i based material on a progressive display, you have to deal with deinterlacing that material since it is interlaced to begin with. With film sourced material, there is no deinterlacing of the actual picture to perform, just 3:2 pull down.

This is my question. Is the new version film based or video based?

Thanks,
Mike

You can't pick and choose. You can't just say, "Well, I used a video source for the last transfer so I'll use a film source for the new one". The program was made the way it was made. It's not like they can go back and re-shoot on film an old show that was originally produced on video.

Your understanding of progressive scan is a little off the mark. All DVD video is interlaced. There is no such thing as a "progressive" DVD. Progressive scan is achieved by either the DVD player or the display deinterlacing the interlaced signal. Here is an article that explains how deinterlacing works:

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volum...e-10-2000.html

From the Earth to the Moon was shot on film but has a number of video-based effects. The problem is that the old DVD was not flagged correctly to distinguish between the film cadences and the video cadences, which confuses simple flag-reading deinterlacers into applying the wrong algorithm when assembling the frames. This is a common problem with flag-reading deinterlacers, given that approximately 95% of all DVDs have at least some bad flagging. A decent motion-adaptive deinterlacer will disregard the flags on the disc and read the actual cadence rhythms when assembling the frames.

This isn't so much a problem with the DVD as it is with the player you're watching it on. Although bad flags on the disc are a nuisance, the entire system of flag-reading is so profoundly unreliable that any deinterlacing chip that isn't motion-adaptive is basically useless.

If this material was shot in 1.33: 1 and the previous DVD set was shown in OAR
this is is goint to be TERRIBLE if cropped to 1.78:1 because the shots in OAR
dont have a lot of extra open space at the top and bottom of frame. Its very
carefully composed for 1.33:1 not 1.78:1. Since the production dates from 1997
and was made for TV and HD and DVD were just babies, I do not think they
would be produced for 1.78:1 anyway. AVOID THIS if the displayed image is 1.78:1

Josh, thank you for your answer. In general, I can agree with your assessment. The only problem I have is the fact that they are planning on re-releasing From the Earth to the Moon on HD-DVD. If the source has video-based effects, these will look like junk compared to the film parts. I think HBO showed this series in HD at one point also, although I don't subscribe to HBO so I didn't get to see it and formulate an opinion.

I will play with my original set this weekend and force my player to film mode, video mode, and auto mode and see what happens with the interlacing.

If what you are saying is correct, the new version probably has no advantage over the original set. As far as I could tell, the original set was all video, so it will be interesting to try to find the film portions of it.

Thanks,
Mike

:rolleyes:

It looks a lot like the show was filmed for both 1.33:1 and 1.78:1, in order to "future proof" the miniseries.

The cropping looks a little tight in a few screenshots, but it's pretty clear that they composed everything to be safe for 1.78:1. Perhaps it would have been a little better if they opened up the top and bottom just a little bit more for 1.66:1, but it doesn't look like a 16x9 crop of a source only meant for 1.33:1

Well, that's the way it's going to go with the vast majority of TV productions made without the move to HDTV in mind.

I don't have the new discs, but it's possible that they may have more accurate flagging.

Which is exactly what we were told way back in the beginning of the thread by the special fx guy who worked on the film (that many here tried to discredit).

Alas, compromise often leads to mediocrity, and that's what's happened here. If they'd had the foresight to just do 1:78 totally from the beginning instead of hedging their bets, this disk would be great.

It's pretty obvious that there's little reason to double dip here, but then I feel that way with pretty much everything anyway. :)

There's also no need to stay away from this. It's not a hatchet "not OAR!" job .

It is.

I saw the DVD at BB. The outer box design looks very cool but how're DVDs packaged inside? In thinpaks or digipak?

Moderators--any way one of you can tell jmj713 to put a sock in it? He's said nothing new for several posts now, and his argument has been proved false (from an objective, if not subjective, point of view), so he's not only irritating, but a spreader of misinformation, as well.

How is it misinformation that this new version contains the miniseries in an altered, non-OAR aspect ratio?