Licence to Kill: R1 SE vs. R1 UE

Shaken, Not Stirred · Post by **Shaken, Not Stirred** » 26 Nov 2006, 20:08

grim_tales wrote:Have you seen Casino Royale yet, SNS?

Of course...twice!

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 26 Nov 2006, 20:09

As I explained in another thread, the SE of LTK was incorrectly framed at about 2.45, which is why it revealled the edge of the frame on the left. The UE takes of a sliver on the left and is now apparently correct at about 2.35 or some such. I'm not sure about exact ratios.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 26 Nov 2006, 21:39

Shaken, Not Stirred wrote:
grim_tales wrote:Have you seen Casino Royale yet, SNS?
Of course...twice!

I want to see it again

Can't wait for the R1 (or any uncut edition).

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 26 Nov 2006, 23:39

Considering so many get irate over Goldeneye, Police Story and the like being cropped I see no difference here. Like I said I don't really care but disagree it's only a slither.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 27 Nov 2006, 03:27

Brad, do you actually read posts before commenting?

The SE was INCORRECTLY framed.

The UE takes a sliver off the left. but reveals a sliver more on the top/bottom and right.

It now is correctly framed.

Why would anyone complain? Or compare it to Goldeneye, which IS badly cropped.

captainjoe · Post by **captainjoe** » 01 Dec 2006, 23:44

If you look at the capture of Sanchez firing the gun the guy in the background (Heller?)'s eye is blocky and blurred out. But in the UE it's clear and visible.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 01 Dec 2006, 23:51

Markgway wrote:Brad, do you actually read posts before commenting? The SE was INCORRECTLY framed.

I never said it wasn't. I said it's cropped, which technically it is. I also said I don't really care.

Markgway wrote:Why would anyone complain?

I wasn't complaining. Did you actually read what I said?

Killer Meteor · Post by **Killer Meteor** » 02 Dec 2006, 12:04

bradavon wrote:
Markgway wrote:Brad, do you actually read posts before commenting? The SE was INCORRECTLY framed.
I never said it wasn't. I said it's cropped, which technically it is. I also said I don't really care.

Markgway wrote:Why would anyone complain?
I wasn't complaining. Did you actually read what I said?

A more appropiate term is matting, which is masking unecessary portions of the frame to achieve the desired image. NOT the same as cropping - which is unecessarily obscuring portions of the frame. Are you paying attention 007?

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 02 Dec 2006, 14:25

Well said, Ivan.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 02 Dec 2006, 15:19

Of course matting is the proper term but it doesn't stop it technically being cropped. There is more left on the left, right? Yes so it's cropped.

We're disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing, moving on . . .

Killer Meteor · Post by **Killer Meteor** » 02 Dec 2006, 15:38

It seems to me to be a toss-up. One has more on the right, the other more on the left. The more recent one is considered the correct framing. Not the same as cropping. The recent Goldeneye is cropped period.

An example of incorrect matting can be seen on Warner's DVD of Horror Of Dracula. When matting the film, the DVD producers made the mistake of showing too much of the bottom, in the process removing important info from the top of the frame, such as Christopher Lee's head.

Killer Meteor · Post by **Killer Meteor** » 02 Dec 2006, 15:41

And that looks like the extreme edge of the frame on the left hand side of the SE caps, which definetly shouldn't be there - see Transformers Reconstructed for some more examples where they totally exposed the frame and revealed tons of unfinished animation and so on

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 03 Dec 2006, 00:42

Lol, Ivan's right. The SE on LTK shows the edge of the frame, which you're never supposed to see. Sony fixed that and now Brad's screaming "cropped!".

Universal screwed up their Hammer films too, which is a real shame as some are among the better films the studio produced. All of the films in the set should be 1:66, except the one shot in scope, natch, but Universal matted them to either 1.85 or, in some cases, 2.00(!)

Killer Meteor · Post by **Killer Meteor** » 03 Dec 2006, 12:30

I'm told by an projectionist collector friend of mine that those Universal Hammer ratios are true to the US theatrical projections but the 2.00:1 ratios are too much for films desinged to be projected at 1.66:1 to 1.85:1. Columbia had a habit in the 50's of heavily cropping 1.85:1 films in order to sell them off in Europe as "Scope films"

My main beef with the Universal set is it uses DVD-18's, ones that apparently don't work with many players, so I haven't bought it yet, which is a shame because I really want to see Hammer's take on Phantom Of The Opera

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 03 Dec 2006, 18:08

Ivan Drago wrote:I'm told by an projectionist collector friend of mine that those Universal Hammer ratios are true to the US theatrical projections but the 2.00:1 ratios are too much for films desinged to be projected at 1.66:1 to 1.85:1.

I wish they'd used the original British ratios and not what some dummy thought was right for American audiences in the 60's.

My main beef with the Universal set is it uses DVD-18's, ones that apparently don't work with many players, so I haven't bought it yet, which is a shame because I really want to see Hammer's take on Phantom Of The Opera

I never had a problem with any of the discs I must say. Depends on the player I suppose? The Phantom in the box set is uncut.