Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Back to the Future Trilogy buyers beware.

This is topic Back to the Future Trilogy buyers beware. in forum The Afterlife at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=12;t=000020

Posted by Michael Gonzalez (Member # 593) on 12-24-2002, 09:42 AM:

It seems that the second and third movies were misframed during the transfer process to DVD and the picture is skewed too much to the top of the frame. Universal is offering a trade in for the defective disks in February.

"Thank you for your email. Universal Studios will exchange Back to the Future parts 2 and 3 for copies with the updated framing in late February 2003. You may send the DVDs back now or wait until February. Please send Back to the Future disks 2 and 3, without the case, and a letter with the following information: Name, Full Mailing Address, Daytime Phone Number, Reason for Return and Return Address. Send to:

Back to the Future DVD Returns
PO Box 224468
Dallas, Texas 75260”

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 12-24-2002, 12:10 PM:

See example frames below.

LaserDisc version:

DVD Trilogy version:

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-24-2002, 12:39 PM:

Wow, that's TERRIBLE! What kind of moron transferred that to video and did not notice such huge composition errors? Notice that even a chunk off of the left side has been cropped off. Mine as well just buy the pan and scan and mask the top and bottom of the image off.

Of course even the LaserDisc doesn't look like a proper 1.85 letterbox. Looks to me like it is showing too much at the top and bottom, although at least it appears to be properly centered (assuming just a bit more was cropped off.)

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-24-2002, 12:45 PM:

I seem to recall back in the various Laserdisc rags that the BTTF series in full-screen was not pan and scan but actually just full frame. That on inspection of the two versions, all that was different was the additional height offered.

Steve

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 12-24-2002, 12:50 PM:

There's a very lengthy thread over on Home Theatre Forum about this. Looks like the framing error affects most of II and III, but not I.

A German web site here has numerous comparisons of images from the full-screen, letterboxed laserdisc, and "widescreen" DVD versions.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-24-2002, 01:49 PM:

The misframing error is pretty ridiculous considering how the "Back to the Future" series is such a large "tentpole" in the Universal Studios movie library. It is also ridiculous considering that people have been wanting this title on DVD since the format's commercial rollout in 1997. They've had five years to get the job done right.

One thing I suspect is the video transferring system defaults to having the matte locked up at the top of the frame. Someone thinking on auto-pilot just hit a button without checking any settings and fobbed off the whole thing.

Sure, "Back to the Future" has been held up in litigation and other nonsense (from Steven Spielberg's initial boycott of DVD to Universal mulling the thought of doing everything on pay-per-view DiVX discs). Still, one would think after all this time the studio would be able to deliver the product in proper condition.

I'm just thankful the original "Back to the Future" installment was not screwed up by misframing like the two sequel discs. Really, I would have far preferred to be able to just buy the first movie and leave the other two on the shelves. I'll send my 2nd and 3rd discs in for the exchange. But I can't say I'll miss them a whole lot while they're gone.

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 12-24-2002, 07:04 PM:

The really pathetic thing is that Universal Home video put out the same version in different regions of the world much earlier, and KNEW about the screw-up well before the R1 discs were released. At least they are willing to exchange them, but, GEEZ!

Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 12-26-2002, 01:53 AM:

quote:

A German web site here has numerous comparisons of images from the full-screen, letterboxed laserdisc, and "widescreen" DVD versions.

The English translation page from the link on that page is excellent!

'The R1-DVDs of "bake tons of The Future" in the USA are already in both formats available. '

Posted by Barry Martin (Member # 1376) on 12-26-2002, 04:21 AM:

Well, this really sucks. I just bought my in-laws a DVD player and seeing as how they love the trilogy I bought them this collection. [Mad]

Not to mention when my wife and I announced our marriage her father wasn't too thrilled so any mistake I make is huge from my point of view. Although they seemed thrilled just to have the player so I guess I'm lucky.

Posted by Daniel Boisson (Member # 1027) on 12-27-2002, 12:13 AM:

wow, thank you very much, I was planning on buying it tomorrow. I had gone today to purchase american beauty, american psycho, and falling down, and decided to wait til tomorow to buy thr trilogy.......

Posted by Ron Lacheur (Member # 1126) on 12-27-2002, 03:44 AM:

which version of American Psycho did you get unrated or the R version?

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 12-27-2002, 01:21 PM:

Standard SMPTE 96M specifies the "Scanned Image Area, 35- and 16-mm Motion Picture Film", including all the common aspect ratios, including full screen, letterbox, and sidebar transfers.

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 12-27-2002, 01:47 PM:

I purchased the triology on the day it was released and thought nothing of it until I read reports on some DVD forums that Part 2 and 3 was not correctly presented. I have not watched any of the movies yet but did check scenes from the two movies and yes, the framing is rather tight and I did not like it. Universal has offered to exchange the bad discs with the corrected versions in late February and I do intend to take advantage of their offer.

-Claude

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 12-27-2002, 05:48 PM:

quote:
I seem to recall back in the various Laserdisc rags that the BTTF series in full-screen was not pan and scan but actually just full frame. That on inspection of the two versions, all that was different was the additional height offered.

In most shots, that was the case. The visual effects shots, however, were filmed and composited in "widescreen" and cut into the negative as a hard-matted image. Those shots by necessity would be reframed (panned-and-scanned) for any fullscreen video versions.

quote:
Of course even the LaserDisc doesn't look like a proper 1.85 letterbox.

The laserdisc versions were transferred at about a 1.75:1 ratio, revealing a slight bit of "extraneous" imagery above and below what would be seen in a proper 1.85:1 presentation.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-27-2002, 06:15 PM:

There were a lot of shots in BTTF Part II which used the VistaGlide motion control camera system. Pretty much any shot in the film featuring two of the same actor in the same shot was filmed on VistaVision stock. And ILM used VistaVision 8/35 cameras for the visual effects plates.

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 12-27-2002, 07:25 PM:

quote:
There were a lot of shots in BTTF Part II which used the VistaGlide motion control camera system.

And in Part III... scenes at the McFly Ranch, as an example.

quote:
Pretty much any shot in the film featuring two of the same actor in the same shot was filmed on VistaVision stock.

"...filmed on VistaVision stock"??? Perhaps I'm interpreting your comment incorrectly... or maybe this is simply a semantics thing... VistaVision doesn't require a special film stock; it uses the same ol' 35mm film stocks that can be used on conventional 4-perf cameras.

quote:
And ILM used VistaVision 8/35 cameras for the visual effects plates.

How were these "visual effects plates" portions of the productions different from a "VistaGlide" sequence? Wasn't the "VistaGlide" system a combination of VistaVision and motion control?

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-28-2002, 12:57 AM:

The term "VistaVision stock" is a little more descriptive than just saying 35mm film stock. I suppose I could have said "8-perf 35mm" or "lazy 8" --at any rate, you got the idea and I'm sure most others did as well.

About the VistaGlide camera. Yes, it is a VistaVision-based 8-perf 35mm motion control camera system on a very sophisticated dolly rig. However, it is not the same camera that was used for the visual effects plates (such as all those flying cars in the future when the DeLorean pops into the year 2015). A different VistaVision camera and motion control setup was used for that --basically the same 8/35 designs ILM had been using for years.

The VistaGlide camera was a new kind of development for live action shooting and getting high-res live action plates for visual effects shots. Overall, though, the VistaGlide is really an improvement over earlier examples used on other movies in the late 1980's. IMHO, "Dead Ringers" was really the big breakthrough for that kind of two-of-the-same-actor-in-the-same-frame kind of trick.

Posted by Daniel Boisson (Member # 1027) on 12-28-2002, 01:02 PM:

I was telling the other projectionist about it and he got rather pissed.....We're both big BTTF fans and he got it for christmas...

(american psycho, unrated version)

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-28-2002, 04:09 PM:

What's the difference between the R and Unrated versions of American Psycho?

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-28-2002, 06:21 PM:

Difference? I dunno. Patrick Bateman talking more about Phil Collins' music career before whipping hookers with a wire coathanger?

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 12-28-2002, 09:22 PM:

Only difference was a longer cut of Bateman with the two women. MPAA apparently didn't have any problem with the violent scenes.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 12-31-2002, 11:35 AM:

For VistaVision, Kodak perforates the film horizontally. [Wink]

Same for IMAX films. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 03-07-2003, 08:51 PM:

=BUMP=

quote:
"Thank you for your email. Universal Studios will exchange Back to the Future parts 2 and 3 for copies with the updated framing in late February 2003. You may send the DVDs back now or wait until February.

Well, it's March. Anyone get any replacement discs or hear anything about this? I'm thinking of buying the trilogy. Are the ones on the shelves supposedly the "corrected" ones?

=TMP=

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 03-07-2003, 09:20 PM:

The corrected versions will supposedly include a "V2" near the barcode and on the inner ring of the discs themselves (much like the corrected discs of Jurassic Park). I don't believe they've shipped yet.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 03-07-2003, 11:22 PM:

What's all this about "Jurassic Park" discs being corrected? What happened?

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 03-07-2003, 11:24 PM:

I did buy the set but I am not too crazy about sending the two discs in question back to be replaced. What if something were to happen and Universal never got the discs or someone there screwed up the order and the discs are never sent. When there was a pressing error with the "CLEOPATRA" DVD when the exit music was not included, Fox was good enough to replace it without having us part with the defective disc. I how have an extra 2nd half of "CLEOPATRA" DVD minus the exit music and do not know what to do with it.

-Claude

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 03-08-2003, 12:01 AM:

quote:
What's all this about "Jurassic Park" discs being corrected? What happened?

Apparently, the bass levels were different on the DTS version of JURASSIC PARK than on all other video versions and on the master transfer itself. So Universal made corrections and a new DTS disc was produced. Only those with the original DTS version DVD's got to exchange them.

Posted by Joe Morris (Member # 1553) on 03-08-2003, 12:07 AM:

I'm going to hold onto my copy of the trilogy...and buy an updated version so that I can sell one on E-bay in 20 years when it might be worth money [Wink]

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 03-08-2003, 12:15 AM:

Claude, ship it back UPS or some method that requires Universal to sign for it when it is received. You will be covered that way.