›

James Bond on Blu-ray/4K

1…6061636566…108

Comments

  • tanaka123tanaka123
    Posts: 4,325
    Yes, DN, FRWL and GF were shot in 1.66:1 which at the time was the standard European 'flat' aspect ratio. They were cropped and shown in 1.85:1 in the US. LALD and TMWTGG were shot at 1.85:1 because of expensive film stock at the time.
  • tanaka123tanaka123
    Posts: 4,325
    Thunderpussy wrote: »
    Watch Thunderball today ( Bluray on my new 50" TV ) I noticed a tiny, really
    Tiny white dot in the upper right of the film. It would disappear for a while
    and return.
    I first noticed it in the Bond v Moneypenny scene, the next underwater scene
    and a few other places. It's not on the DVD ( which I also played to check) .
    So I'm wondering, with a bigger screen have I never noticed before ? And
    Is it on anyone else's copy ?
    The Bluray is from the Anniversary boxset.

    Can't say I noticed that, but there are some streaks down the image on some of the underwater scenes. Last time I saw it was on my 32" TV, I now have a 104" screen, so will look out for the white dot next time I see it.
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    :)) I see you've gone quite a bit bigger.
  • tanaka123tanaka123
    Posts: 4,325
    Yes just a little :) I was bored during my lunchbreak at work and browsed projectors on Richer Sounds' website. I was surprised by how inexpensive they are now to a few years ago, so I decided to buy one :) It's like having my own private cinema, and goes well with my 5.1 setup.
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    Funnily, I too was thinking of a protector ( as you say) the prices have come down
    Quite a bit, but instead decided on a 50" smart TV. As many of the movies I get now
    By digital download etc.
  • Problem_EliminatorProblem_Eliminator Ojai, CA
    Posts: 613
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    Yes, DN, FRWL and GF were shot in 1.66:1 wohich at the time was the standard European 'flat' aspect ratio. They were cropped and shown in 1.85:1 in the US. LALD and TMWTGG were shot at 1.85:1 because of expensive film stock at the time.

    I see they are being shown in what aspect ratio they were filmed in.That's cool it was just weird seeing it change from one movie to the next I thought they were all going to be the same.
  • boldfingerboldfinger
    Posts: 5,767
    Problem_Eliminator wrote: »
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    Yes, DN, FRWL and GF were shot in 1.66:1 wohich at the time was the standard European 'flat' aspect ratio. They were cropped and shown in 1.85:1 in the US. LALD and TMWTGG were shot at 1.85:1 because of expensive film stock at the time.

    I see they are being shown in what aspect ratio they were filmed in.That's cool it was just weird seeing it change from one movie to the next I thought they were all going to be the same.
    It´s discussed somewhere in some thread, I think there´s a connection with the producers not being sure how big a hit the first few films were going to be, and ditto after DAF.

  • Lancaster007Lancaster007 Shrublands Health Clinic, England
    Posts: 1,874
    sometimes it's down to the director's preference. Some don't like shooting in anamorphic widescreen. Of all the Hamilton films only DAF is shot 'widescreen'. There are many different aspect ratios, and it can get quite confusing! All I ask is that the film is presented in the aspect ratio that the director used. Always hated (with a passion) pan and scan, or full-frame* (?!) versions.
    * a misleading term as it usually means it fits a 3:4 tv screen, cropping of the edges.
  • DamnCoffeeDamnCoffee
    Posts: 51
    So I left Christmas till late again, and I desperately need to scramble together some cash so I've decided to sell my Bond 50 set. £53.50 on Ebay!

    http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/181963094490?ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1555.l2649

    Interested?
  • tanaka123tanaka123
    Posts: 4,325
    Lancaster007 wrote: »
    sometimes it's down to the director's preference. Some don't like shooting in anamorphic widescreen. Of all the Hamilton films only DAF is shot 'widescreen'. There are many different aspect ratios, and it can get quite confusing! All I ask is that the film is presented in the aspect ratio that the director used. Always hated (with a passion) pan and scan, or full-frame* (?!) versions.
    * a misleading term as it usually means it fits a 3:4 tv screen, cropping of the edges.

    LALD and TMWTGG were shot on 1.85:1 because of expensive film stock.
  • sunsanvilsunsanvil Somewhere in Canada....somewhere.
    Posts: 260
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    LALD and TMWTGG were shot on 1.85:1 because of expensive film stock.

    Where are you getting that notion? Its not categorically true as Flat and Scope use the EXACT same film stock and quantity. Only difference is the lens you stick on the front of the camera.
  • tanaka123tanaka123
    Posts: 4,325
    sunsanvil wrote: »
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    LALD and TMWTGG were shot on 1.85:1 because of expensive film stock.

    Where are you getting that notion? Its not categorically true as Flat and Scope use the EXACT same film stock and quantity. Only difference is the lens you stick on the front of the camera.

    Because it's what Ted Moore, the DoP on both films said.

  • sunsanvilsunsanvil Somewhere in Canada....somewhere.
    edited December 2015 Posts: 260
    In an interview, or in print? Doesnt make any sense why he would say that, unless there are other reasons he didn't want to get into and said that thinking the layperson wouldn't think any more of it. Maybe Panavision wanted more to lease the scope lenses, maybe he didnt want to deal with the additional challenges, maybe Guy simply wanted a narrower frame, but in any event the same 35mm stock rolls through the camera.
  • tanaka123tanaka123
    edited December 2015 Posts: 4,325
    In an interview. Panavision requires faster film stock due to less depth of field, because it uses an anamorphic lens.
  • Lancaster007Lancaster007 Shrublands Health Clinic, England
    Posts: 1,874
    Fasters film? then the DP just 'lights' the scene properly. And less depth of field is due to the aperture that's selected on the lens. i.e. f2 or f5.6 - f2 would give a faster shutter speed than f5.6 and less depth of field, and that would go for whatever lens used, normal or widescreen, the film speed in relation to aperture and shutter speed would remain constant.
    Obviously anamorphic lenses are more expensive to produce and thus more expensive to hire and maybe THAT was a contributing factor.
  • tanaka123tanaka123
    edited December 2015 Posts: 4,325
    Lancaster007 wrote: »
    Fasters film? then the DP just 'lights' the scene properly. And less depth of field is due to the aperture that's selected on the lens. i.e. f2 or f5.6 - f2 would give a faster shutter speed than f5.6 and less depth of field, and that would go for whatever lens used, normal or widescreen, the film speed in relation to aperture and shutter speed would remain constant.
    Obviously anamorphic lenses are more expensive to produce and thus more expensive to hire and maybe THAT was a contributing factor.

    You have to use an anamorphic lens for Panavision 2.35:1. Panavision gives you less depth of field, that why some filmmakers stick with flat aspect ratios, because it's easier to shoot without an anamorphic lens. But in this instance they shot 1.85:1 because of more expensive film stock, because you need faster film stock when filming in Panavision.
  • sunsanvilsunsanvil Somewhere in Canada....somewhere.
    edited December 2015 Posts: 260
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    (...) because it's easier to shoot without an anamorphic lens.

    I'm willing to bet that was the REAL reason. :) I don't buy (pardon the pun) for a second that Broccoli, Saltsman, Hamilton, et all, quibbled over a few bucks for film stock when they are flying people all over the world, wrecking cars, buses, buildings etc.

    Was Goldfinger made on the cheap? No, yet it was shot flat.

    But we are digressing and should probably prune this little segue if we want to discuss further.
  • tanaka123tanaka123
    Posts: 4,325
    1.66:1 was traditionally used in Europe at that time. Ted Moore was an accomplished cinematographer & shot many films in Panavision, including some Bond films.
  • RogueAgentRogueAgent
    Posts: 12,526
    DamnCoffee wrote: »
    So I left Christmas till late again, and I desperately need to scramble together some cash so I've decided to sell my Bond 50 set. £53.50 on Ebay!

    http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/181963094490?ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1555.l2649

    Interested?

    Hopefully you will be able to get it again soon and at a cheaper price?
  • StamperStamper
    Posts: 387
    1.66:1 doesn't exist as a projection format it is a "protection" format. Those films were shown in 1.75:1 in the UK and 1.85:1 in the US. There's a whole thread documenting this on HTF forum
  • tanaka123tanaka123
    edited December 2015 Posts: 4,325
    Stamper wrote: »
    1.66:1 doesn't exist as a projection format it is a "protection" format. Those films were shown in 1.75:1 in the UK and 1.85:1 in the US. There's a whole thread documenting this on HTF forum

    This is not true, they were exhibited in Europe at 1.66:1 and the US in 1.85:1. I think you mean 'open matte' which means that there is more image on the negative. Hence Kubrick films for instance have the mattes removed (or did) for TV showings. 1.78:1 didn't exist until widescreen TVs were they sought a compromise between 1.33:1 and 1.85:1.
  • IGUANNAIGUANNA
    Posts: 1,296
    I would like every Bond film remastered in widescreen 2.40 please because they look better.
  • tanaka123tanaka123
    Posts: 4,325
    IGUANNA wrote: »
    I would like every Bond film remastered in widescreen 2.40 please because they look better.

    Even those not filmed for that aspect ratio? I'd rather keep to the original aspect ratio (OAR), which is why the Blu Rays are so good - the first time that DN, FRWL and GF have been available on home video in 1.66:1; and LALD and TMWTGG in 1.85:1.

  • OHMSS69OHMSS69
    Posts: 2,341
    I really hate that SF was not a part of the Bond 50 boxed set. Since it had not been released when the box set came out, I just wish they had made it like the other ones. With the cool intro and all the extra features like all the films in the boxed set.
    SP will be out in Feb... I hope they take time and do it to match the others in the set.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    OHMSS69 wrote: »
    I really hate that SF was not a part of the Bond 50 boxed set. Since it had not been released when the box set came out, I just wish they had made it like the other ones. With the cool intro and all the extra features like all the films in the boxed set.
    SP will be out in Feb... I hope they take time and do it to match the others in the set.

    That's why those boxed sets are worthless as a proper collection. I don't see an end to James Bond anywhere in sight, so they'll never match up properly and fully until the (totally unlikely) day that James Bond ends for good and a massive, full, complete set is released.
  • Aziz_FekkeshAziz_Fekkesh Royale-les-Eaux
    Posts: 403
    The ultimate editions from 2006 also exhibited the first three in the correct 1.66 but cropped GE and AVTAK, for some reason. Then on blu ray GE gets massive DNR. "You can't win" with GE it seems.
  • tanaka123tanaka123
    Posts: 4,325
    Aziz_Fekkesh wrote: »
    The ultimate editions from 2006 also exhibited the first three in the correct 1.66 but cropped GE and AVTAK, for some reason. Then on blu ray GE gets massive DNR. "You can't win" with GE it seems.

    Yes that's right. And some of the blu-rays, maybe true too of the ultimate editions (I waited for Blu Ray), the titles sequences are window-boxed.
  • Aziz_FekkeshAziz_Fekkesh Royale-les-Eaux
    Posts: 403
    Yeah, I think TB, DAF, and TSWLM. Maybe a couple more, too
  • TR007TR007
    Posts: 1,165
    Finally!
    After searching high and low for the last two years and after pestering you guys on the boards, I finally got a Skyfall Blu-Ray that matches the rest of the 50th Blu Ray Collection!

    I'm thrilled with this. My girlfriend got it for me today. It was just a single disc edition of Skyfall on BR (dated 2015) and the disc art is perfect!

    25u6rg1.jpg
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    In the br editions-is it very obvious that it is Bob Simmons in the earliest gunbarrels? Compared to the other formats.
Sign In or Register to comment.