Johnny Ryall wrote:BAKA wrote:NickSCFC wrote:All the best Blu-ray transfers have the huge borders, it's the same aspect ratio as the original cinema version. Anything fullscreen is cutting the sides off the picture.
Fullscreen Blu-rays (barring Pixar) are actually the same transfers as the old DVD's, hence why they look soft.
I think I
finally get it. NickSCFC is a parody account, right? Genuinely in stitches.
O.A.R. black borders and all is how the director wanted the film to be framed. So Nick is right about that.
I bet you stretch 4:3 DVDs to widescreen you monster.
Dear god. So depressing. I genuinely despair for humanity. Have neither of you seen a movie made prior to the 60s? He's completely wrong. 'Anything fullscreen is cutting the sides off the picture.' is monumentally wrong. It's a sweeping blanket statement of nonsense. Many films (mainly older films) were filmed in 1.33.1, or the Academy aspect ratio 1.37.1 which was a universal standard during the 30s to the 50s and the Blu-rays that faithfully show such films in fullscreen (or what will appear fullscreen to the untrained eye) aren't the 'same transfers as the old DVDs'. It's not just older films though, the aspect ratio is an artistic choice, films such as Gus Van Sant's Elephant, or recent BAFTA winning Fish Tank aren't widescreen. Nor is there any kind of correlation between something being shown in fullscreen, and a Blu-ray being an upscale. Complete utter nonsense.
Lots of the titles he mentioned aren't upscales, because they show more detail than the DVDs, however, may well be taken from HD masters prepared with DVD in mind (older masters). Predator has an interesting history for example, first released with an excess of scanner noise, likely sourced from an older master, and then later released riddled with DNR (digital noise reduction), a process which can result in loss of detail, and a waxy looking image. Some of the titles mentioned aren't issues with the transfers however, merely the encode. Of course none of this has anything to do with aspect ratio, because one isn't indicative of the other.
Not to mention, DVD is as far from the archaic mess he seems to believe. The vast majority of UK DVD releases were released in ratios as intended by the director, or if the directors’ intention was not known, as originally released theatrically, according to DVDAF. Of course many weren't, but that was a more pressing problem at the start of the DVD generation, with some releases even having two releases, one fullscreen and one widescreen.
So this really wasn’t a parody of modern consumerism and a growing trend of consumers who know very little about what they consume, passing nonsense off as fact, in online circles? What about the GGC stuff? Is that serious too?