My thoughts on the VIDEO
luvbug77
that for me. Nothing at all. But the video release of the film is a huge
disappointment to me.
When I was the only one in America that hadn't gotten my tape from reel.com,
I was reading the posts in here commenting on how bright the video was.
When the video came, and I started to watch it, I picked up on the
instantly. The "bon voyage" scene was SO bright it was almost hard to
watch. But, in that case, I still though it made the film look better. So,
for the whole first tape, I think the brightness makes the video look
wonderful.
Popped in the second tape, and woah. Major change. A lot of scenes that I
saw were completely different than when I saw it in the theater. And FYI
real quick, I saw the film at about 5 different theaters, all had the same
quality. Anywho...
The scene when Rose is in the hallway looking for something to get Jack out
of those handcuffs, and the lights go off....in the theaters, you could
HARDLY see her face. I remember you could only hear her breathing. And I
love the effect that had. But, on video, you can see her face. Very
clearly. And it supposed to be dark around her. :)
Then the whole ENTIRE sinking part of the film. Woo. You could tell people
were in front of a blue screen. People's hair....it looked like when
weatherpeople on tv are wearing a color they aren't supposed to, and you can
kinda see through them, you know? I don't remember having that problem in
the theaters. And when the boat was rising out of the water, I remember it
looked VERY dark. Very horrific. On the tape, it's real bright. :(
I'm glad I bought the tape. :) Very glad. And like I said, nothing can
change the film for me. I just don't like the way it looks on video.
:) Kelley
JENNY50
Yeah, it's kinda annoying see those "slightly" off colored people at the stern
of the ship. Kinda hard to get past the "voice overs" because the sound wasn't
great with the actors when they filmed it.
But overall, it's falls into the same category all epic tales do when the get
released onto video, get the widescreen version. Or see it in the theaters
(sadly it isn't playing here anymore.)
I saw the movie in 4 different theaters. The last one, was well, "small." The
picture was hanging off the sides of the screen.
Gone With the Wind is another one I'll pick up on widescreen.
Enough of my rambling.
"J"
Rose: You're crazy.
Jack: That's what everyone says. But with all due respect miss, I'm not the one
hanging off the back of a ship.
>Subject: My thoughts on the VIDEO
>From: "luvbug77" <luvb...@email.msn.com>
>Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 05:08:17 -0400
>Lines: 36
>X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
>Message-ID: <#vIxhW#19GA.51@upnetnews05>
>Newsgroups: alt.movies.titanic
>NNTP-Posting-Host: 1Cust206.tnt1.dca1.da.uu.net [153.34.167.206]
>Path:
>lobby01.news.aol.com!newstf02.news.aol.com!portc01.blue.aol.com!news-peer
.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!207.68.152.12!upnet
news01!upnetnews05
>
>
Richard Hopkins
>Very horrific. On the tape, it's real bright. :(
>
>I'm glad I bought the tape. :) Very glad. And like I said, nothing can
>change the film for me. I just don't like the way it looks on video.
Video transferred from film almost always looks 'too bright', as a result of
the differences between cinematic and TV display, plus the fact that most
people set their TV's too bright anyway.
It also sounds like this video has been duped hotter than it should have
been.
Anyway, there's a pretty simple answer - turn the black level (brightness)
control on your TV down when you watch the video. It's simple enough...
Richard Hopkins,
(replace .nospam with .com in reply address)
Cardiff, Wales, United Kingdom
Send all my spam to: tony...@labore.org.uk
Kcat72
nothing (even the "green screen" effect ) could change my opinion of Titanic.
Unfortunatly the "at home" theatre effect may only be acheived with a big
screen tv and a DVD player. I am lucky enough to have both, therefore I am
"holding my breath" for Titanic on DVD. :)
ShadowStar
The entire brightness problem was solved by adjusting the brightness on my
TV. I felt that at the brightness level to which my TV was set made the
whole film look over-exposed. Problem one solved. Problem number two has to
do with the newer formatting techniques used in making home video these
days. With the advent of DVD and digital satellite, most companies have
gone with a digital format for replicating video. The problem here is that
a computer (not a director) now ultimately decides how the scene is
"supposed" to look, adding a pixel here and a fractal there to generate a
completely clear, crisp picture that is actually more flawless than any
conventional motion picture film. All the flecks and specks are smoothed
out and any discrepancies in color and picture continuity are eliminated.
Here's why this worked against the effects in Titanic: We saw a greater
element of realism in theaters because a) it was bigger than life and b) it
was projected onto a screen from a remote source thereby giving us all the
wonderful "flaws" that life is just chock-full of. Computers don't know
from "life" (at least not yet) and therefore go for the "best" picture
quality they can muster. Usually, this involves giving everything onscreen
its own "space." Everything is, in some way, outlined, whereas on a theater
screen, colors are allowed to blend much more naturally. That's why you got
that "blue screen" effect from the video.
Finally, I'm sad to report that I could see Rose in the scene you describe
all EIGHT times I saw the film in theaters (and in a total of 4 different
theaters). I don't know what was going on there. Any director will tell
you that total darkness and ambiguity within a scene is as bad as dead air
on the radio. It loses your attention quickly. For this reason, I think
Cameron meant for us to be able to see her.
mike
> Problem number two has to do with the newer formatting techniques used in
> making home video these days. With the advent of DVD and digital satellite,
> most companies have gone with a digital format for replicating video.
This is the first VHS tape I've seen (and I've rented plenty of new releases)
where daylight scenes looked completely "burned out" in subject matter such as
bright sky, white coats, etc. I'm really surprised at the poor quality of this
transfer - hell, they spent a fortune on promotion and embossed 2-tape
packaging . . . didn't they think anyone would notice these things? And who
checked the initial transfer - did they just look at it and say "this is okay,
start makin' those 20mil. copies" ?
Mike
SaraSommer
>packaging . . .
Since we're on the subject now, I thought the
packaging was very well done. I was quite
surprised when I opened my video to see
all the beautiful pictures. I just expected the
inside tape jackets to look like the outside.
ShadowStar
releases)
>where daylight scenes looked completely "burned out" in subject matter such
as
>bright sky, white coats, etc. I'm really surprised at the poor quality of
this
>transfer - hell, they spent a fortune on promotion and embossed 2-tape
>packaging . . . didn't they think anyone would notice these things? And
who
>checked the initial transfer - did they just look at it and say "this is
okay,
>start makin' those 20mil. copies" ?
>
>Mike
Well, the only thing I can say about that is that there must be some really
bad copies out there. I don't think I got one of them, thankfully.
Michael J. Marcelletti
>
> Actually, they used a "green screen" but it is the same principle
>
> Yeah, it's kinda annoying see those "slightly" off colored people at the stern
> of the ship. Kinda hard to get past the "voice overs" because the sound wasn't
> great with the actors when they filmed it.
>
> But overall, it's falls into the same category all epic tales do when the get
> released onto video, get the widescreen version. Or see it in the theaters
> (sadly it isn't playing here anymore.)
>
> I saw the movie in 4 different theaters. The last one, was well, "small." The
> picture was hanging off the sides of the screen.
>
> Gone With the Wind is another one I'll pick up on widescreen.
>
> Enough of my rambling.
>
> "J"
>
"Gone With the Wind" predates the widescreen format for movies.
DCord
finding it. Especially since the movie was neither filmed nor released in
widescreen. Widescreen movies didn't start happening until the late 50's.
JENNY50 wrote in message
+ADw-1998090414481600.KAA11596+AEA-ladder03.news.aol.com+AD4-...
+AD4-
+AD4-Gone With the Wind is another one I'll pick up on widescreen.
+AD4-
+AD4-Enough of my rambling.
+AD4-
+AD4-
+AD4AIg-J+ACI-
+AD4-
+AD4-
+AD4-Rose: You're crazy.
+AD4-Jack: That's what everyone says. But with all due respect miss, I'm not the
one
+AD4-hanging off the back of a ship.
+AD4-
+AD4-
+AD4APg-Okay, let me state this first. I love the film. And nothing could change
+AD4APg-that for me. Nothing at all. But the video release of the film is a huge
+AD4APg-disappointment to me.
+AD4APg-
+AD4APg-When I was the only one in America that hadn't gotten my tape from
reel.com,
+AD4APg-I was reading the posts in here commenting on how bright the video was.
+AD4APg-When the video came, and I started to watch it, I picked up on the
+AD4APg-instantly. The +ACI-bon voyage+ACI- scene was SO bright it was almost hard to
+AD4APg-watch. But, in that case, I still though it made the film look better.
So,
+AD4APg-for the whole first tape, I think the brightness makes the video look
+AD4APg-wonderful.
+AD4APg-
+AD4APg-Popped in the second tape, and woah. Major change. A lot of scenes that
I
+AD4APg-saw were completely different than when I saw it in the theater. And FYI
+AD4APg-real quick, I saw the film at about 5 different theaters, all had the same
+AD4APg-quality. Anywho...
+AD4APg-
+AD4APg-The scene when Rose is in the hallway looking for something to get Jack
out
+AD4APg-of those handcuffs, and the lights go off....in the theaters, you could
+AD4APg-HARDLY see her face. I remember you could only hear her breathing. And I
+AD4APg-love the effect that had. But, on video, you can see her face. Very
+AD4APg-clearly. And it supposed to be dark around her. :)
+AD4APg-
+AD4APg-Then the whole ENTIRE sinking part of the film. Woo. You could tell
people
+AD4APg-were in front of a blue screen. People's hair....it looked like when
+AD4APg-weatherpeople on tv are wearing a color they aren't supposed to, and you
can
+AD4APg-kinda see through them, you know? I don't remember having that problem in
+AD4APg-the theaters. And when the boat was rising out of the water, I remember
it
+AD4APg-looked VERY dark. Very horrific. On the tape, it's real bright. :(
+AD4APg-
+AD4APg-I'm glad I bought the tape. :) Very glad. And like I said, nothing can
+AD4APg-change the film for me. I just don't like the way it looks on video.
+AD4APg-
+AD4APg-:) Kelley
+AD4APg-
+AD4APg-
+AD4APg-
+AD4APg-
+AD4APg-
+AD4APg-
+AD4APg-
+AD4APg-
+AD4APg-
+AD4APg-
+AD4APg-Subject: My thoughts on the VIDEO
+AD4APg-From: +ACI-luvbug77+ACI- +ADw-luvbug77+AEA-email.msn.com+AD4-
+AD4APg-Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 05:08:17 -0400
+AD4APg-Lines: 36
+AD4APg-X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
+AD4APg-X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
+AD4APg-Message-ID: +ADwAIw-vIxhW+ACM-19GA.51+AEA-upnetnews05+AD4-
+AD4APg-Newsgroups: alt.movies.titanic
+AD4APg-NNTP-Posting-Host: 1Cust206.tnt1.dca1.da.uu.net +AFs-153.34.167.206+AF0-
+AD4APg-Path:
+AD4APg-lobby01.news.aol.com+ACE-newstf02.news.aol.com+ACE-portc01.blue.aol.com+ACE-news-peer
+AD4-.gip.net+ACE-news.gsl.net+ACE-gip.net+ACE-newsfeed.internetmci.com+ACE-207.68.152.12+ACE-upnet
+AD4-news01+ACE-upnetnews05
+AD4APg-
+AD4APg-
+AD4-
+AD4-
Anita Hook
SaraSommer wrote:
> >- hell, they spent a fortune on promotion and embossed 2-tape
> >packaging . . .
>
> Since we're on the subject now, I thought the
> packaging was very well done. I was quite
> surprised when I opened my video to see
> all the beautiful pictures. I just expected the
> inside tape jackets to look like the outside.
Did you notice that the covers for each cassette reflected the action on
each of the tapes?
Cassette 1 pictures Jack and Rose's romance
Cassette 2 pictures the Jack and Rose's coping with the disaster.
Interesting well thought out covers.
I also appreciate the fact we weren't saddled with 10 minutes of
trailers of other movies at the beginning.
Regards
mike
off some of the paper on the individual tape covers. At least it did on
mine - and I was pretty careful about removing it. It's now flawed,
ruined. ;)
MIke
Snakebert
prove that the cassettes have been used, for whatever reason.
mike wrote in message <35F1725B...@earthlink.net>...
Chosen1
<NOwide_eyed...@vh.net> wrote:
>>This is the first VHS tape I've seen (and I've rented plenty of new
>releases)
>>where daylight scenes looked completely "burned out" in subject matter such
>as
>>bright sky, white coats, etc. I'm really surprised at the poor quality of
>this
>>transfer - hell, they spent a fortune on promotion and embossed 2-tape
>>packaging . . . didn't they think anyone would notice these things? And
>who
>>checked the initial transfer - did they just look at it and say "this is
>okay,
>>start makin' those 20mil. copies" ?
>>
>>Mike
>
I feel lucky to have recieved a GREAT w/s version of the tape. Looks
about the same as in the theater. No bright whites, or greenscreen
flaw etc. I bought it at Rodgers Video (Canada) My only complaint
is....Size. A wide screen TV would be nice.
Chosen1
jeff heath
have a huge impact on the over all viewing of motion picture.
The video version doesn't have all of these to overcome. Try lowering
the contrast and picture on tv set.
Tod
Anita Hook wrote in message <35F1CF36...@tiac.net>...
>>
>Did you notice that the covers for each cassette reflected the action on
>each of the tapes?
>
>Cassette 1 pictures Jack and Rose's romance
>Cassette 2 pictures the Jack and Rose's coping with the disaster.
>
>Interesting well thought out covers.
>
>I also appreciate the fact we weren't saddled with 10 minutes of
>trailers of other movies at the beginning.
>
tape (it reverts for play automatically)flipped the stereo amp on, and had
my hair blown back by the Dolby THX announcement, and the movie began.
Impressive!
Tod
SaraSommer
>off some of the paper on the individual tape covers. At least it did on
>mine - and I was pretty careful about removing it. It's now flawed,
>ruined. ;)
>
>MIke
>
Yes, and i had a hell of a time using a little knife
to carefull cut the tapes apart. Now, the sticker
is still stuck to each side of the tape, but the
tapes aren't stuck together.
Sidenote: My mom almost screamed when my
grandmother accidentally dropped one of
the tapes out of the case when she borrowed
my mom's set to finally see "Titanic." Good
thing I was at work when it happened, or I
may have had a bad reaction to such a
display, too. :)
Chris Ciolfitto
>That little sticker they put on there to hold the two tapes in the box rips
>off some of the paper on the individual tape covers. At least it did on
>mine - and I was pretty careful about removing it. It's now flawed,
>ruined. ;)
>
>MIke
It did it to mine too and I was mightily pissed being the perfectionist
that I am. I think I will now sue Paramount for....faulty packaging :)
--
Chris Ciolfitto
mailto:chr...@intergate.bc.ca
http://www.geocities.com/Colosseum/7700/hitman.html
ICQ: 7001461
"Buy me BoneStorm or go to hell!" - Bart Simpson
Cory
says...
> I found that irritating as well but I guess it's some kind of device to
> prove that the cassettes have been used, for whatever reason.
It's there because you need something to hold the tapes together so they
don't bash into each other and get ruined during transport to the store
from the original distributor, or on the way from the store to your
house.
I know the cellophane is already there covering the entire package,
but I think the tapes could still have been jostled a little bit if
that sticker weren't there. It's not like it's going to be a collector's
item or something someday anyway. There's a billion (slight
exaggeration, but you get the point) tapes out there to begin with.
Those are my two cents worth.
--- Cory
--
"Stick it to" Tommy Thompson!! Vote for Ed Garvey this fall!
Visit Ed Garvey and Barbara Lawton on-line at http://www.garvey98.org/
Cats purr... e-mail doesn't. *Remove 'purr' to reply*