Member Yang Wu Liang Posted December 8, 2008 Member Share Posted December 8, 2008 I did it with Hitman In the Hand Of Buddha I used the Korean print and spliced scenes back in the letterbox (Raw) VCD print and damn! it looked OK.. You're doing yourself a dis-service there mate, it was awesome to see it uncut at last! Ditto Ming Patriots and Four Real Friends (I'm ashamed to say I've only scanned Tormentor so far). I'm eager to get me hands on the new print of Take The Rap and Abbot White 2 - with subs!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member bobo Posted December 8, 2008 Member Share Posted December 8, 2008 yo--flashlegs-- you do alright by me. i've been satisfied with all the movies i've ordered so far. your job on the dubbed version of HAVE SWORD WILL TRAVEL was great. IRON BODYGUARD and DISCIPLES OF THE 36 CHAMBER dubbed versions are on their way. how about tracking down a few more of the lost dub shaws--there are still a lot of them unaccounted for--RENDEZVOUS WITH DEATH-KING EAGLE--TRILOGY OF SWORDSMANSHIP--THE SENTIMENTAL SWORDSMAN series etc. and yes i know there are a lot of important kung fu movies besides dubbed shaws but i am a bit of a dubbed shaw fanatic. keep up the good work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Markgway Posted December 8, 2008 Share Posted December 8, 2008 Your remark Mmmm!! “looks distorted like fake letterbox” baffles me Really? I wasn't trying to be controversial. I thought I was stating the obvious. In fact I almost didn't say it for that reason. I will admit I do make adjustments to aspect ratio’s with many kung fu movies. However to determine “Fake” one has to define the original aspect ratios and in tern determine its fake alterations. My question is how is this done? You can tell by looking at it. I've seen other FLK releases which are almost unwatchable due to them being fake wide. I was surprised you guys were still doing it that's all. You seem to know a lot about aspect ratios which makes your decision to turn cropped full frame ratios into fake widescreen all the more baffling. Here is a diagram above of the various Aspect Ratios in existence, a total of 5 as depicted by a colour coded diagrams. The ultimate question is which one of them is fake or is it just down to country standards and viewers choice…Frankly I prefer to see a movie in widescreen and as you can see below here is a full screen version of The Good The Bad The Looser……From your expertise in aspect ratio Markway which one is FAKE the fullscreen or the FLK coversion??? The fullscreen version is correct in each case. You can clearly see it just at a glance. I'd rather have a film in widescreen too. But genuine widescreen. You can't take a cropped source and fake it. The film becomes distorted and horrible (as seen in the FLK caps). Maybe some fans like it that way. I'm just speaking for myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member Flashlegs Pete Jr Posted December 9, 2008 Author Member Share Posted December 9, 2008 Really? I wasn't trying to be controversial. I thought I was stating the obvious. In fact I almost didn't say it for that reason. I can appreciate that Mark….Its just that I don’t visit here often because I feel its always better to debate in a constructive manner such as making a point to debate what you see as a mistake on my part and I would probably respond in a manner seeing it as constructive criticism as oppose to some comments that seem sarcastic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member luckystars Posted December 9, 2008 Member Share Posted December 9, 2008 The last caps are a different case. You can see the framing is correct by the composition of each shot, but they are too vertically squished. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Markgway Posted December 9, 2008 Share Posted December 9, 2008 I can appreciate that Mark….Its just that I don’t visit here often because I feel its always better to debate in a constructive manner such as making a point to debate what you see as a mistake on my part and I would probably respond in a manner seeing it as constructive criticism as oppose to some comments that seem sarcastic. You can take my comments as constructive. I didn't intend them to be insulting or sneering. I was just getting straight to the point. Seemed like such an obvious thing to state that the images were distorted that I didn't feel it necessary to elaborate. You've taken a 1.33 cropped image and forced it via squeezing into a 1.85 frame. That's wrong. Any professional will tell you such. I prefer these scope films to be genuine 2.35 but if all you have is a 1.33 source than that's what we have to live with until a proper scope print becomes available. Squeezing makes a bad situation worse. I hope that's a better explanation for you. Firstly I must point out to you that nearly all kung fu movies are made in cinemascope namely letterbox, hence FULLSCREEN is not the actual format they were released in the cinemas from inception. Fullscreen was adopted strictly for TV format…and they had to laterally pull the picture out loosing image from both sides and top to bottom…Its easy to say that its natural because many of us are use to this format from watching TV…. I understand all about widescreen. The majority of martial arts movies were shot in 2.35 scope. Often video distributors took these prints and ill-advisedly cropped them to 1.33 as that was the original TV shape. I have a widescreen TV which has an approx ratio of 1.78. This makes the 1.33 ratio irrelevant for me. However once a print has been cropped to 1.33 you can't uncrop it. You're stuck with it until a wider print is sourced. Taking a 1.33 image and letterboxing it either via squashing (which is what you've done) or masking off the top and bottom to create a faux letterboxed image is a bad thing. You can clearly see in those early caps that the actors are squashed - compare them to the geuine widescreen images you've posted and you can see the difference immediately. You don't need to be an expert. A basic knowledge of aspect ratios will tell you. Due to ever-changing technology we usually describe widescreen as being anamorphic and letterboxed as being non-anamorphic. The Celestials releases are in an original format letterbox however they are stretched outwards into a box TV format. Celestial prints are genuine scope, mostly widescreen. Early IVL releases were letterboxed, but still scope. Except of course the 1.85 films made in the 1980s/1990s. By and large there's nothing wrong with their framing. My explanation for pulling in some prints is simply this…..the copies usually not that good at times I’m forced to clean up the prints and after the clean up I start to English subtitle the movie and find it a bit off-putting placing the subs into the picture frame work due the subs being unreadable with white background scenery such a scene in a snow covered area “You just cant read the subs in these scenes” So I found that if I pulled the pic out slightly I can place the subs below the bar and its easily readable this way. Damn I’ve watched remastered prints where I cant read the subs in a white background scene due the subs being in a white format. I always prefer to do re-mastered subs in the black bar and its just a choice I make, but not to cause viewing problems as you say… I never said you made adjustments expressly to screw up the picture for its own sake. I realise you did it because you thought it was the better viewing option. All I'm saying is that it isn't. Best idea if you want to add remastered subs to a 1.33 image is to place a grey bar under the white subs. That will prevent melding. At any rate they have to be on the picture because to create a false black bar at the bottom will result in distortion. There's no escaping the fact. Blame it on the ignorant distributors who cropped the movies from scope in the first place. I don’t think this my explanation is going to be satisfactory to all, however I felt some fans deserved one considering we have many fans who buy our Projects… I hope you've taken on board some of things I've said as it will only serve to improve you product. I'm not being negative for the sake of it as I care about these movies too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Markgway Posted December 9, 2008 Share Posted December 9, 2008 Framing-wise the first 1.33 clip of Thunderclap looks better than the squashed 1.85 second. The 2.35 frame of The Big Family looks accurate and is clearly from a scope source. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member Kwok Choi Posted December 9, 2008 Member Share Posted December 9, 2008 With all due respect to Pete's (FLR's) efforts,dedication and passion,here's my 2 cents and I'll try to make it as short and as simple as possible because this is part of my profession. 90% of Hongkong/Taiwan/China/The Philippines etc kung fu movies were filmed with an aspect ratio of 2.35.1 CinemaScope not 2.39.1 or 2.40.1. Ratios as far as cinemas are concerned are not true values but rather decimal or mathematical representations of the shape and size of a filmed and projected image. 2.35.1 means that for every 2.35 inches of image width,you get the equivalent of 1 inch in height;therefore the shape of the image will be a little more than twice its length in relation to it's height.For example if you draw a straight horizontal line of 2.35 inches on a piece of paper and then add 2 straight vertical lines of 1 inch to both ends (the .1 value) you get an idea of the shape of the resulting picture.If you then draw another 2.35 inches horizontal line at the top of the vertical ones,you get a rectangle.This rectangle then represents the shape of the screen and the composition of the image during filming,either in the viewfinder of the film camera or via a monitor.(Note we are strictly speaking 35mm film stock not video or digital images).This is why the majority of conventional cinemas today have wide rectangular screens (not Imax/Iwerks or such novelty) to accomodate the widest ratio. Now the most common standardized cinema ratios after the demise of the silent era and the crazy WIDESCREEN BOOM OF THE 50s are 1.33,1.37,1.66,1.85 and CinemaScope 2.35.1 Interestingly these ratios translate a little differently for the TV medium due to the imperfection of earlier tv sets. 1.33 for cinema means the smallest image that is almost square in shape;for tv it is 4:3 fullscreen. 1.37 is slightly wider than 1.33 in cinemas.This will crop the top and sides off a little on a 4:3 tv 1.66 is twice as wide as 1.33 images but not as high (widescreen starts from here).There will be little black bars at the top and bottom of 4:3 tvs. 1.85 is the most common ratio (the standard for widescreen in cinemas) which gives you approx 30% more width than 1.66 but with less height;and almost 3 times wider than 1.33.This has bigger bars at the top and bottom of a 4:3 tv than the 1.66 image.It is also refered to as standard letterbox.The tv image can be cropped at the sides but it all depends on the telecine (film to video transfer) 2.35.1 of course has been explained above.This has the biggest bars at the top and bottom of the 4:3 tv - the truest sense of letterbox - a long rectangular strip of image at the center of the screen.The sides of the picture can get cropped at lot but cinematographers are now smart enough not to put any significant information in the composition of the image at the extreme ends of the frame that would mar the visuals if cropped (unless it is a ShawScope production) so if the telecine is done right,the defect will be hardly noticeable. Pause: I decided to use the conventional 4:3 tv and conventional cinema for an easy/simple? explanation but with the advent of widescreen tvs,home projectors,HD etc the game transforms to a completely different arena that becomes a bit messy.Should we go there? You decide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member Flashlegs Pete Jr Posted December 11, 2008 Author Member Share Posted December 11, 2008 This movie is by far better in letterbox format and makes a difference IMO!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member spannick Posted December 11, 2008 Member Share Posted December 11, 2008 you should crop off the right Side with the SECAM Side-Effects Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member oldeschool17 Posted December 11, 2008 Member Share Posted December 11, 2008 Hi Pete, Can you go into more detail by what you mean by cleaning up these prints? What is the source material you are working with? Masters, reels, vhs copies, etc? Thanks:) My explanation for pulling in some prints is simply this…..the copies usually not that good at times I’m forced to clean up the prints and after the clean up I start to English subtitle the movie and find it a bit off-putting placing the subs into the picture frame work due the subs being unreadable with white background scenery such a scene in a snow covered area “You just cant read the subs in these scenes” So I found that if I pulled the pic out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member Chinatown Kid Posted December 11, 2008 Member Share Posted December 11, 2008 I'd like to ask you a question too Pete since you seem to be a big fan of Tan Tao Liang like me. Do you know if there is a authentic widescreen or letterbox print of The Tattoo Connection and do you have it by chance? I've been trying to find it for years to get rid of my fullscreen version. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member LittleDragon Posted December 11, 2008 Member Share Posted December 11, 2008 i have a few FRENCH W/S prints of tan's movies..! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member Chinatown Kid Posted December 11, 2008 Member Share Posted December 11, 2008 i have a few FRENCH W/S prints of tan's movies..! That sounds great Little Dragon, which titles? Any Tan film I don't have in w/s I would love to have! Sent you a pm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member Flashlegs Pete Jr Posted December 12, 2008 Author Member Share Posted December 12, 2008 Originally Posted by oldeschool17 Can you go into more detail by what you mean by cleaning up these prints? What is the source material you are working with? Masters, reels, vhs copies, etc? Thanks In this game my friend one has to utilise whatever source you can your hands on and we specialise in RARE KUNG FU titles not the regular stuff. In saying this they mostly originate from VHS tapes sometimes Umatic tapes and very rarely reels...Reels have to be cleaned up directly from the reels and the equipment used it very expensive. reels are usually a problem in terms of damaged frames etc...From VHS its easy to get rid of some marks and blemishes at times...One can always get rid of pixelation and colour correct a tapes source easily...Its also possible to get rid of colour saturation quite easily from tape source...I could go one but I may be opening a can of worms here for some skeptics who might say leave it as it is...:l The example is clearly shown here in a previous post these 2 source prints are the same, however the bottom version I cleaned it up a bit. THIS WAS NOT THE ORIGINAL FORMAT OF THIS MOVIE (same Print as below) uqUHfld2t4A THIS WAS THE ORIGINAL FORMAT OF THIS MOVIE AFTER I ADJUSTED IT (both Prints same source however FLK clean up in place) udw3zgRvDFU Originally Posted by Chinatown Kid I'd like to ask you a question too Pete since you seem to be a big fan of Tan Tao Liang like me. Do you know if there is a authentic widescreen or letterbox print of The Tattoo Connection and do you have it by chance? I've been trying to find it for years to get rid of my fullscreen version. We have the English dubbed to this see screen shots!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member zakato Posted December 12, 2008 Member Share Posted December 12, 2008 Hi Pete, Can you go into more detail by what you mean by cleaning up these prints? What is the source material you are working with? Masters, reels, vhs copies, etc? Thanks:) Deadly Kick and Challenge of The Dragon here is the Source old france Secam Videos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member Mike Leeder Posted December 12, 2008 Member Share Posted December 12, 2008 Damn that is a crisp copy of "Tattoo Connection"...and thats my mate Bill standing behind Bolo as he throttles Jim Kelly....nice work Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member oldeschool17 Posted December 12, 2008 Member Share Posted December 12, 2008 Thanks Pete for the reply In this game my friend one has to utilise whatever source you can your hands on and we specialise in RARE KUNG FU titles not the regular stuff. In saying this they mostly originate from VHS tapes sometimes Umatic tapes and very rarely reels...Reels have to be cleaned up directly from the reels and the equipment used it very expensive. reels are usually a problem in terms of damaged frames etc...From VHS its easy to get rid of some marks and blemishes at times...One can always get rid of pixelation and colour correct a tapes source easily...Its also possible to get rid of colour saturation quite easily from tape source...I could go one but I may be opening a can of worms here for some skeptics who might say leave it as it is...:l The example is clearly shown here in a previous post these 2 source prints are the same, however the bottom version I cleaned it up a bit. THIS WAS NOT THE ORIGINAL FORMAT OF THIS MOVIE (same Print as below) uqUHfld2t4A THIS WAS THE ORIGINAL FORMAT OF THIS MOVIE AFTER I ADJUSTED IT (both Prints same source however FLK clean up in place) udw3zgRvDFU We have the English dubbed to this see screen shots!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member spannick Posted December 12, 2008 Member Share Posted December 12, 2008 TATTOO CONNECTION was always quite easily available in 2.35 on Dutch VHS, and isn't there a US DVD from Pathfinder in Widescreen? with that commentary Track? or am i mixing this up with BLACK DRAGON's Aspect Ratio? avoid all German Versions though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member Chinatown Kid Posted December 12, 2008 Member Share Posted December 12, 2008 Awesome Pete, I'll be ordering the w/s version from FLR soon then! I wasn't aware of the Dutch tape Spannick but I can say for sure the Pathfinder version is full screen because I own it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member Flashlegs Pete Jr Posted December 13, 2008 Author Member Share Posted December 13, 2008 Always happy to help guys!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member Flashlegs Pete Jr Posted December 23, 2008 Author Member Share Posted December 23, 2008 Bruce And The Shaolin Bronzemen (1982) letterbox English Dubbed!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member dragonherb Posted December 30, 2008 Member Share Posted December 30, 2008 Damn, Carter Wong really looks like a toad on this image :l Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member Flashlegs Pete Jr Posted January 13, 2009 Author Member Share Posted January 13, 2009 My Life On The Line aka 60 Second Assassin Letterbox Dubbed!!! Here is an all time great wide for a change and really good quality!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member Flashlegs Pete Jr Posted February 16, 2009 Author Member Share Posted February 16, 2009 Korean Connection-This title version was CUT real bad!!! Missing Dialogue and fights scenes... Korean Connection aka One Way Bridge-Italian version UNCUT!!! I spliced the cut scenes back in and its NOW!!! well worth the watch. Also I believe the follow up to Korean Connection was this!!! The main star plays the same character. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.