![]() |
re: The Olive Films Blu-ray Thread
Pursued has been delayed until 9/4.
|
re: The Olive Films Blu-ray Thread
|
re: The Olive Films Blu-ray Thread
Any word on Body Parts?
|
re: The Olive Films Blu-ray Thread
Why are their 2 versions of Bound on one bd25? Unacceptable IMHO.
|
re: The Olive Films Blu-ray Thread
Originally Posted by nitin77
(Post 11307349)
Why are their 2 versions of Bound on one bd25? Unacceptable IMHO.
Of course I don't have the disc yet; I'm just suggesting that would be the easiest way to encode two versions with fairly minor differences. |
re: The Olive Films Blu-ray Thread
According to this
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/dvdre...nd_blu-ray.htm Olive used two separate transfers instead of streaming, and just 2.0 sound too. Rather disappointing. |
re: The Olive Films Blu-ray Thread
Lossy audio too? Really?
Olive, you are not Warner circa 2006-2008, I think. Get with the program! |
re: The Olive Films Blu-ray Thread
And we're finally getting some Ophuls...
October 16th Letter from an Unknown Woman (Max Ophüls, 1948) (!!!) Three Secrets (Robert Wise, 1950) The Slender Thread (Sydney Pollack, 1965) The Sterile Cuckoo (Alan J. Pakula, 1969) Up Tight! (Jules Dassin, 1968) http://i688.photobucket.com/albums/v...imec/olive.jpg |
re: The Olive Films Blu-ray Thread
Originally Posted by nitin77
(Post 11307349)
Why are their 2 versions of Bound on one bd25? Unacceptable IMHO.
Originally Posted by Ringmaster
(Post 11307439)
According to this
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/dvdre...nd_blu-ray.htm Olive used two separate transfers instead of streaming, and just 2.0 sound too. Rather disappointing.
Originally Posted by Sondheim
(Post 11314174)
And we're finally getting some Ophuls...
October 16th Letter from an Unknown Woman (Max Ophüls, 1948) (!!!) Three Secrets (Robert Wise, 1950) The Slender Thread (Sydney Pollack, 1965) The Sterile Cuckoo (Alan J. Pakula, 1969) Up Tight! (Jules Dassin, 1968) |
re: The Olive Films Blu-ray Thread
holy shit Up Tight!
Dassin's remake of John Ford's The Informer. Just made my day. |
re: The Olive Films Blu-ray Thread
I wish they were releasing all three Ophuls titles in October, but I can't wait for Letter. I'll have to investigate the others.
|
re: The Olive Films Blu-ray Thread
|
re: The Olive Films Blu-ray Thread
Blu-ray.com review of The Boogens, which has already shipped from Import CDs.
|
re: The Olive Films Blu-ray Thread
Nice reviews!
|
re: The Olive Films Blu-ray Thread
10/30:
http://i226.photobucket.com/albums/d...esh1/XwW7V.jpg It will include a 69-minute making-of documentary, 'Aldrich Over Munich'. |
re: The Olive Films Blu-ray Thread
|
re: The Olive Films Blu-ray Thread
Olive is starting to cost me a lot of money! 2 more to get.
|
re: The Olive Films Blu-ray Thread
|
re: The Olive Films Blu-ray Thread
|
re: The Olive Films Blu-ray Thread
|
re: The Olive Films Blu-ray Thread
Originally Posted by NoirFan
(Post 11338263)
DVDBeaver is being extraordinarily hyperbolic by whining, "The original 1.85:1 has been bastardized to 1.78." "Bastardized"? Seriously? The difference between 1.85:1 and 1.78:1 is literally a few scan lines and does not affect the compositional intent. The difference is less than the overscan on most TVs, and less than the typical projection variance in most commercial theaters. http://www.mindspring.com/~lizap/Manchurian_185-1.jpg http://www.mindspring.com/~lizap/Manchurian_16-9.jpg This is well within the tolerances that any director or cinematographer would find acceptable. Anyone who would call this a "bastardization" knows nothing about filmmaking. I also find it extremely hypocritical that the site would moan about this but not complain about 2.39:1 movies that are mildly cropped to 2.35:1, which happens all the time as well. |
re: The Olive Films Blu-ray Thread
'Bastardization' is definitely too strong a word for it, but that seems to be the boilerplate vocabularly he always uses. It's not like we're talking about pan-and-scan here. The difference is, as you note, extremely minimal, I just didn't understand why the practice seemed to be a regular occurrence.
|
re: The Olive Films Blu-ray Thread
Josh, I agree with you that the opening up the mattes to change 1.85:1 to 1.78:1 isn't a big issue (I'm sure the studios do it to fully fill the 1.78 screen), but I don't think it should be dismissed completely.
Going from 1.66:1 to 1.78:1 on a 1920x1080 screen results in a pixel gain of 6.7%. Spoiler:
Spoiler:
And yes, if it's supposed to be 2.39:1, then it should be 2.39:1, dammit, even if I can't see the difference :)
Originally Posted by Josh Z
(Post 11338918)
Both Paramount and Warner, as a matter of corporate policy, open the mattes on 1.85:1 movies to 1.78:1. This happens 100% of the time with all Paramount and Warner 1.85:1 movies.
Review #1 Review #2 |
re: The Olive Films Blu-ray Thread
Seems the Beaver is really choosing its battles. A 4.0% pixel gain is nothing compared to the fact the Olive routinely leaves 8 to 10 GB of a single layer disc unused by the feature. That is a huge concern for me, and one the could easily be remediated. Beaver says only that Olive "modestly" encodes its releases...
|
re: The Olive Films Blu-ray Thread
Originally Posted by obscurelabel
(Post 11339367)
Is a change of 6.7% not OK, but a change of 4.0% OK? I would much rather that the change be 0%. Holy hell was raised about Barry Lyndon being changed from 1.66:1 to 1.78:1 (yes I know Kubrick deemed 1.75:1 acceptable), but what is the cutoff?
Screencaps on these sites confirm the 1.78:1: http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDRe...de_blu-ray.htm http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Reds-Blu-ray/169/ |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:54 PM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.