World of Blue - Archived Forum 2007-2022

faroutsonoflung wrote:Just remembered reading somewhere that the full frame editions of TP (ie Aus DVD sets and possibly others too), caused continuity problems due to them not looking at anything outside the 4:3 while filming (and understandably so).

Not that it caused many problems, I think the main one people reference is the "Andy with Glove" scene. The DVD, because it's full frame, shows the glove dropping to the ground after Andy flicks it and in the next shot it's suddenly on Lucy's window. The glove falling to floor part isn't visible on the blu ray, obviously because that portion of the screen ain't there...

Anyway, I've really hijacked this thread. Sorry. Please keep reporting any further issues everyone!

But it's still a mystery to me why they would take a (4:3?) VHS and not keep the OAR when making the DVD. I guess, like anything, you lose or gain something in the process and compromises have to be made while still adhering to the best standards available at the time.

Hmmm... I'm pretty sure the aspect ratio of the DVDs and the blu rays are all the same- the OAR. They actually digitally removed the glove in the scene mentioned above on the blu ray, but not the DVD. But the framing is the same. At least on the US versions.

If any Twin Peaks DVDs were converted from 4:3 to 16:9 (which I find hard to imagine!) I have to assume they would be cropped rather than expanded, so you'd actually be losing picture.

Reasons being a) a DVD producer that is willing to alter the aspect ratio in the first place probably isn't the type of DVD producer that's going to shell out to access the original camera negative with the additional info on the sides (and wouldn't any other masters already be framed for 4:3?) - although maybe I'm wrong about that - and b) if the frame was expanded to include offscreen area you'd probably be seeing a lot more than just a glove, I imagine there would be lights, sandbags, c-stands, etc, as there was never any intention of screening these in a wider ratio.

Also a technical question for anybody who knows, because I'm not certain...wouldn't the default aspect ratio for a 35mm camera in 1990 actually be 1.33:1 (i.e. 4:3)? Isn't the width only achieved by an anamorphic lens, which would expand the frame for 2.35:1 (and which would obviously never be used unless that was the destination aspect ratio instead)? Maybe I'm wrong and the aperture would be set for 1.85:1 or 1.66:1; I'm not really a camera person so I'm not sure, though I'm curious.

LostInTheMovies wrote:If any Twin Peaks DVDs were converted from 4:3 to 16:9 (which I find hard to imagine!) I have to assume they would be cropped rather than expanded, so you'd actually be losing picture.

Reasons being a) a DVD producer that is willing to alter the aspect ratio in the first place probably isn't the type of DVD producer that's going to shell out to access the original camera negative with the additional info on the sides (and wouldn't any other masters already be framed for 4:3?) - although maybe I'm wrong about that - and b) if the frame was expanded to include offscreen area you'd probably be seeing a lot more than just a glove, I imagine there would be lights, sandbags, c-stands, etc, as there was never any intention of screening these in a wider ratio.

Also a technical question for anybody who knows, because I'm not certain...wouldn't the default aspect ratio for a 35mm camera in 1990 actually be 1.33:1 (i.e. 4:3)? Isn't the width only achieved by an anamorphic lens, which would expand the frame for 2.35:1 (and which would obviously never be used unless that was the destination aspect ratio instead)? Maybe I'm wrong and the aperture would be set for 1.85:1 or 1.66:1; I'm not really a camera person so I'm not sure, though I'm curious.

That's a good point. On film, the standard "flat" frame of 1.85:1 is achieved by matting a 1.33:1 frame to remove the top and bottom -- generally done in the projector. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/35_mm_film). So there wouldn't be any extra info on the sides. (The opposite did happen occasionally in the days of VHS -- a 1.85:1 film could be transferred to 1.33:1 by removing the mattes, rather than by cropping, resulting in unintended stuff appearing at the top and bottom of the screen.)

i just checked my copy of the Australian Season 1 DVD set and it's full frame 4:3 same as the Blu Ray

keatonshat wrote:i just checked my copy of the Australian Season 1 DVD set and it's full frame 4:3 same as the Blu Ray

Thanks for checking your copy, still confused though, how can something be "full frame [and] 4:3"?
Aren't these two terms contradictory to each other?

Your Aus S1 DVD set doesn't have the pillarboxes on each side of the image does it (unlike the blu)?
And does this mean they messed up Lynch's intended aspect ratios for the Aus DVD release then...?
Or do the ratios remain intact despite this set being full frame?

faroutsonoflung wrote:Thanks for checking your copy, still confused though, how can something be "full frame [and] 4:3"?
Aren't these two terms contradictory to each other?

Full frame IS 4:3. The term "full frame" derives from the time when most TVs were not widescreen. It has become a pretty misleading term now, though!

faroutsonoflung wrote: Thanks for checking your copy, still confused though, how can something be "full frame [and] 4:3"?
Aren't these two terms contradictory to each other?

Sorry for the confusion, yes my dvd has the pillarbox black bars on the sides
my understanding is that Full Frame is from when tvs were square as opposed to widescreen.
i can understand how the terms can be confusing now.

lindseylee wrote:

Diane wrote:I returned the box, but I encountered the error on several discs. I have an analog receiver with a digital to analog converter.

My father had issues using a D to A converter with several titles until he upgraded to a new 5.1 receiver.

I realize you no longer have it but I would highly suggest that you try plugging the Blu-ray player directly into your TV via HDMI cable.

It is probably the only way to isolate the problem and rule out the receiver.

Based on years of fiddling with mine, my boyfriends, and my fathers Blu players, each component (player, receiver, and even TV) plus the use of HDMI versus analog cables can produce different results.

Similar problems with my Six Feet Under box set and going from analog to HDMI direct fixed all audio issues. Could be why I'm no5 having issues with my set.

I had the problem with several discs in the TP set. Every other BluRay I own works fine with my receiver. It's obviously the box set being defective. I'll just wait until after the 18 new episodes and buy the new "complete mystery" set.

OK, I finally figured out what was happening re: full frame/aspect ratio on the Aus DVD sets. Turns out I'm totally idiotic, the answer is so very, very simple.

I hadn't realised that BD/DVD players often have the option of "Full" or "Original" screen format, when watching 4:3 content.
Mine was just set to Full, that's why I thought the DVDs were created that way but as soon as I changed it to Original, the image shrunk to back to normal OAR.

At least that's good to know then, thought I was going insane for a while there.

So apart from the occasionally maddening sync issues, the Entire Mystery set definitely has the edge over the DVDs in terms of almost everything.
The DVDs also had that weird fault in S02/Ep 12 where the audio from the center speaker was flip flopped with the right speaker for pretty much the whole episode IIRC, annoying.

Also, tried disabling 1080p/24Hz output in the BD output settings and the audio is spot on perfect, at least in the Barbershop Breakfast scene in Ep 9. No issues there anymore.
Hopefully this will also carry on to the Missing Pieces disc but haven't had a chance to test yet.

Just wanted to say that I got a 50 dollar gift card and found the Bluray box set for 40% off so I decided to try again. At only 34 dollars you can't go wrong...so I disabled 24p and it appears to have totally fixed the sync issue on my Sony player.

There is still a slight issue in the worst scenes, but for the most part their mouths go almost exactly with their words, except in a few minor instances. It's much better than before. I'd say it fixed the problem about 98%.

Diane wrote:There is still a slight issue in the worst scenes, but for the most part their mouths go almost exactly with their words, except in a few minor instances. It's much better than before. I'd say it fixed the problem about 98%.

Whatever the cause of the sync issue is, it's an utter disgrace that it 1 was allowed to get through tech review and 2 hasn't been adequately dealt with afterwards. I work in the TV business and I love technology so I can figure a workaround. How's someone in their 60s or older who just expects to put a disc in their machine and have it work expected to deal with it? I doubt a lot of people know their 1080p from their 720p or 1080i.

I keep meaning to put a memory stick in the back of my Blu-ray player to expand the memory and see if that has any effect. Turning off 1080p certainly helped so it looks like it was an incompetent encode. Someone/someones need to be fired.

A couple of the reviews on Amazon indicate that there was a second pressing that corrected the audio sync issues. Is this hearsay? Is it just people that don't have the problem on their player assuming it was fixed? Or is there any truth to this?

After waiting along time to finally get a Blu Ray player (an XboxOne) I bought a boxset at the weekend (from Amazon), it arrived yesterday and the sync issues are still exactly as described. I'm no techy or an audio/visual geek but the issues are bad in places and totally unwatchable in others so I don't think this has been fixed despite what some say. I've let Amazon know (and returned it despite really not wanting to) but I'm still totally gutted, it looked and sounded amazing just a shame that those gorgeous visuals and audio don't actually line up !