Anybody Gettin'....

[Busyman]

Originally posted by 3RA1N1AC+2 April 2004 - 03:18--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (3RA1N1AC &#064; 2 April 2004 - 03:18)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Busyman@1 April 2004 - 20:37
I think it&#39;s a rip that any movie company doesn&#39;t put out both versions in the same package.

That was one of the basic points of the DVD media when the consumer was being sold on it.

if you have a widescreen tv and you buy a widescreen dvd, would you prefer that the 16:9 version of the movie have the bitrate maxed out so you see as little digital noise & as much detail as possible... or do you wanna settle for half of that bitrate in order to accomadate a 4:3 version on the same disc? either that, or you get a two-disc set with a 16:9 version & a 4:3 version on separate discs, then it has very few/brief extra features (see artisan&#39;s special editions of "reservoir dogs" and "the running man"). i&#39;d much rather get a 16:9 version and significant extras, rather than two versions and a couple of trailers.

prolly the only thing i can say in favor of fullscreen versions is that in videos of older movies, the fullscreen version often shows more of the film than the widescreen version because they shot the movie on 4:3 film and then matted the top & bottom during projection to create a widescreen image. on vhs, tv and fullscreen dvds, some movies are cropped on all four sides sides (a lot off the top & bottom + a little off the sides), and some of them are actually "open matte" (full frame). usually the extra area in the open matte version doesn&#39;t have much important content in it. but if you&#39;re a nut for details and you wanna see every single thing that exists on the original negative, open matte versions are kinda interesting. stanley kubrick is the only director i know of, who insisted that most of his movies not be matted for home video... so that&#39;s why "the shining," "a clockwork orange," "full metal jacket," etc are only available in open matte versions (not how they were shown in theaters). [/b][/quote]
uh...3RAIN..it simply costs more.

Flip the disc....just flip the disc.

I haven&#39;t seen a 2-disc set of full/widescreen.
It&#39;s on the same the disc...just flip it.

It simply costs "a bit" more to manufacture. That&#39;s all.

[3RA1N1AC]

Originally posted by Busyman@1 April 2004 - 23:30
uh...3RAIN..it simply costs more.

Flip the disc....just flip the disc.

I haven&#39;t seen a 2-disc set of full/widescreen.
It&#39;s on the same the disc...just flip it.

It simply costs "a bit" more to manufacture. That&#39;s all.

on two-sided discs, it&#39;s almost always one layer per side. the disc holds no more data than a two-layer single-sided disc does. either way, the standard capacity is about 9gb total, whether they put two layers on a single side or one layer on each side. there&#39;s no technical reason why most dual-version releases even need to be flip-discs; they could put exactly the same content on a single, two-layered side.

i think it&#39;s possible to make the dvd thicker, put two layers on each side and up the capacity to 18gb, but good luck trying to get any companies to give you that kind of value for your buck.

and like i said-- artisan entertainment&#39;s most recent two-disc editions of "reservoir dogs" and "the running man." 16:9 version on the first disc, 4:3 version on the second disc, and a trifling selection of extras spread across the set. no matter what kind of tv you have, one of the discs in each set is going to be useless. such a ripoff, just to accomadate "fullscreen" fools.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by 3RA1N1AC+2 April 2004 - 03:46--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (3RA1N1AC &#064; 2 April 2004 - 03:46)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Busyman@1 April 2004 - 23:30
uh...3RAIN..it simply costs more.

Flip the disc....just flip the disc.

I haven&#39;t seen a 2-disc set of full/widescreen.
It&#39;s on the same the disc...just flip it.

It simply costs "a bit" more to manufacture. That&#39;s all.

on two-sided discs, it&#39;s almost always one layer per side. the disc holds no more data than a two-layer single-sided disc does. either way, the standard capacity is about 9gb total, whether they put two layers on a single side or one layer on each side.

i think it&#39;s possible to make the dvd thicker, put two layers on each side and up the capacity to 18gb, but good luck trying to get any companies to give you that kind of value for your buck.

and like i said-- artisan entertainment&#39;s most recent two-disc editions of "reservoir dogs" and "the running man." 16:9 version on the first disc, 4:3 version on the second disc, and a trifling selection of extras spread across the set. no matter what kind of tv you have, one of the discs in each set is going to be useless. [/b][/quote]
In almost all cases:

1. Movie companies don&#39;t bother with alot of extras anyway unless it&#39;s on second disc.
2. The actual movie usually doesn&#39;t take up that much space to warrant cutting out either the extras and/or another aspect ratio. The movie company just doesn&#39;t bother alot of times.

The bottom line is that they are saving money.

Reservoir dogs could have been a double-sided disc with BOTH ratios and second disc with the extras. The current Dogs is not the norm though.

[3RA1N1AC]

okay, i think we both made some good points, there. the reality probably is, though: if studios made it a standard habit to include a high-bitrate wide version, a high-bitrate fullscreen version, and a decent selection of extras on every movie release... they would jack up the prices like crazy, which goes against their current strategy (make most releases cheap so each person will buy more movies).

i wonder if "wide vs. full" is still gonna be a problem, when High Definition DVD comes out in several years... or maybe 4:3 TVs will no longer be made, so it wouldn&#39;t be an issue anymore.

[vish_cometrue]

Originally posted by Manny Roscoe@28 March 2004 - 07:51
Unfortunately, there is no commentary.

The specs for the Revolutions DVD are as follows:

# 2.40:1 Anamorphic Widescreen Presentation
# English Dolby Digital 5.1 Track
# English Dolby Digital 2.0 Stereo Track
# French Dolby Digital 5.1 Track
# Matrix Recalibrated (Making Of) Documentary
&nbsp; - Neo Realism: The Evolution of Bullet Time
# CG Revolution (Effects) Documentary
&nbsp; - Super Big Mini-Models Segment
# Super Burly Brawl Featurette
&nbsp; - Double Agent Smith Segment
&nbsp; - Mind Over Matter: The Physicality of The Matrix
# Before the Revolution 3D Timeline
# Future Gamer: The Matrix Online (Game) Feature
# Multidimensional Stills Gallery
# Matrix Revolutions Theatrical Trailer
# DVD-ROM Features: Weblink & Matrix Test
# English, French, Spanish Subtitles

I dont see commentary anywhere.
Alas, Im pretty sure we&#39;ll never hear commentary from the Bros, since they have a contract that says they are not to speak to press or anything such as a commentary for that matter....but...there is another version of the original Matrix film coming to DVD around this October sold seperately and bundled with the boxset, with over 9 hours of behind the scenes stuff on it. For Reloaded, there is a rumored "Follow the White Rabbit feature that appears during the film allowing the viewer to click on a white rabbit on the bottom of the screen that will allow them to view the extra Reloaded footage that was shot for the Enter the Matrix video game. Other than that, those are the only know extra features for the Reloaded DVD thats in the box set. As for Revolutions, nothing has been stated yet.

Well&#33;&#33;&#33; thats good enough for me to spend my money on the box set

I would have spent my money on it anyway

[Manny Roscoe]

Im only getting the re-released Matrix 1 DVD.

I can buy the box seperately.....

[Cygnuz-Y]

Im waiting for a boxset too...