Friday Blu-Ray Framing Issue?

Interesting thread by Rhett over at Horror DVDs.com…

The new FRIDAY THE 13TH Blu-ray and DVD discs have an image that has been zoomed in and re-framed 10.6% compared to the original theatrical ratio (and the ratio presented on previous discs). How you feel about this? Too small to matter, or too big to ignore?

Now where do YOU stand, Friday Followers?

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

About the Author

Dusk

72 Responses to “ Friday Blu-Ray Framing Issue? ”

  1. I don’t think it really makes a whole big difference

  2. how sure are we that this is accurate? on my LCD TV, the 16:9 setting crops them like that, but “Just Scan” zooms out as far as it can go. i’ll have to compare when mine arrives.

    as for where i stand, YEAH IT MATTERS!!! i want to see the whole picture!! i feel like i’m being cheated. they’re giving us the cut footage but making up for it by taking away alot more footage?!

    the worst part is, the DVDs from 2004 are ALREADY cropped. in part 5, when the naked chick is laying out in the woods, on the fullscreen VHS you can see her buttcheeks, on the DVD they are entirely cropped out of the picture. they’re good buttcheeks dammit and i want to see them!! when i noticed that, i compared and found the whole movie to be that way…i checked a few other sequels and they’re the same way. there’s a part in pt1 where you briefly see Marcy’s buttcrack…i hope this doesn’t affect that.

    man, now i’m just pissed. somehow i knew this would be too good to be true for some reason. excuse me, i have to go smoke some pot to cool down…..

  3. The VHS may be Open Matte or use Open Matte elements, and therefore it may not be correct to see the buttcheeks. So the DVD could be how it was viewed in theatres.

  4. Yeah…the framing issue is ridiculous. Paramount needs to issue a replacement copy of the discs with the issue corrected.

  5. I’m sick and tired of cropping! :-) You ARE being cheated out of the picture! I’m going to return my Friday the 13th uncut DVD! The uncut gore in that movie is only 9 or 10 seconds long anyway! Plus there’s a new movie coming out on the 13th of this month and I’m pretty sure that the gore in this new one will look a whole lot better! :-)

  6. Paramount will never do anything about this… I really wish they would but we all know they won’t. I won’t be buying it on Blu-Ray at all now.

    What about the UK releases with the different covers? Are those zoomed in as well? I’m talking about the Blu-Ray versions of course. I’m not looking for DVDs anymore, especially when these movies have already hit DVD before and we’ve all purchased them.

  7. from that piture shown it really dont matter to me if its cropped who want’s to see steve cristy’s crotch anyways… lol

  8. Has anyone else noticed on the cover that knife (or the entire image perhaps) is BACKWARDS? You can tell because the knife is inscribed with the words “COLD STEEL”. So the idiots at Paramount decide to give the DVD art a facelift, and STILL manage to fuck that up, too. Great attention to detail. Ugh.

  9. Who was actually that anal that they noticed? I demand more twigs in my movie!

  10. No!! On a serious note it is a big deal! Honestly I probably wouldnt have noticed, but now that I know it pisses me off.

    The whole point to a widescreen dvd is that it is zoomed out all the way so u can see the movie the way it was inteneded/ the way it was originally shown in theatres.

    This is almost like a full screen edition then… cuz we all know fullscreen is zoomed in to format the screen thus chopping off some aspect ratio

    and to think that buy getting the bluray u ASSUME ur getting the best copy to date!?!?

  11. Well, I put my trusty ruler up to the screen and figured out the aspect ratios to each (why do I feel like I am the first one to have done this?). This might surprise some people-the 2004 DVD is already cropped! No one realized that, I guess, or cared, back then. The aspect ratio on the 2004 version is 1.80:1; it was most likely 1.85:1 to begin with (but theaters usually don’t show this exact ratio, it all depends on some real-world factors). The little bit of shaving they did for the Blu-Ray crops it to 1.78:1. It’s less of a disservice to the theatrical presentation than the 2004 DVD! I want it 1.85:1, but I’ve watched lots of movies cropped to 1.78:1 from 1.85:1 and can tell little difference most of the time. It still sucks, though. I have a feeling they were afraid the dirty masses would see tiny black bars on the tops and bottoms of their 16:9 TVs and would have caused their own hissy fit about it. The one thing I really want is for Paramount to specify the correct aspect ratio on the box and ads and not just “enhanced for 16×9 TVs”, especially when it comes to blu-rays (they assume most people with blu-ray have a 16×9 TV, so they feel like they are helping them out, so-to-speak, by filling up their screen with picture). I’m afraid we should get used to this from the major studios… everything 1.85:1 is going to be 1.78:1 when they can get away with it.

  12. When I used to rent Jason Goes to Hell from our local mom and pop movie store, I noticed at the end after Jessica stabs Jason with the knife, when he throws her off, you can see the BIG blue mat she falls on, on all other copies (unrated vhs, dvd) you can’t see it. It’s always bugged me.

  13. This comment is somewhat related to the topic: I picked up the Part 3 3D copy last night and the picture, which supposedly was remastered, sucks! I have a 42″ LCD and it looked horrible. What’s Paramount’s problem? Will they ever issue proper copies of these movies?

  14. This is a major disappointment to me, but the way I look at it is we either buy these and accept the errors or don’t and possibly never receive the others in “Special Edition”s. Basically, the more we gobble up, the more likely Paramount will release different versions every few years (perhaps even in correct aspect ratios down the line). They’ll quit all together if we don’t buy these ones.

    And I did notice how bad Part 3 looks, Jason, but it’s still the best it’s looked at home. The theatrical print I saw over ten years ago looked a lot worse. I was pretty shocked how good they got the first two to look, though. I just don’t understand how they can miss the point of blu-ray and even DVD — to accurately replicate the theatrical experience at home. How can that be done when you’re chopping off some of the image?

  15. This is actually about part 3 re-release DVD but wasn’t sure how to post something about it. I am a new-b here. On my re-release DVD the 3D effect actually worked out fine. I have been hearing having issues with it, but I have a theater like setup in my basement where my TV is on one end and you sit at the other. Turned out all the lights and it worked. All I can guess is that you must be in total darkness as well as be as far back as possible. One other thing I noticed if you rewatch the DVD from the box set compared to this one, look very carefully and you’ll notice some different angles as well as some differences here and there. Anyone else notice this?

  16. Hello

  17. Man do I miss the 80s when things were simpler and people didn’t care about stupid things like ratio of 1:78 instead of 1:85. You had a VCR, and only one copy of the movie and no one complained. Peple were happy and grateful they could see the movie at home. Period. Society has become so much complicated and people have become so much demanding it’s ridiculous.

  18. Yoots!, it’s only because we’re in an age of technology and there is no reason for Paramount NOT to give us the theatrical reproduction when the technology is readily available. In the ’80′s, there was no way to do what a blu-ray disc and HDTV can do today. The reason Paramount is doing this is likely because they are holding out for yet ANOTHER disc in a few years that touts “Accurate Theatrical Ratio” or some BS.

  19. Amen!

  20. I just want to watch the movie. I dont care if its cropped. I dont care if its blue ray. I dont care if its dvd. I dont care if its vhs. I just want to watch the movie.

  21. Yeah!!!

  22. Odd, I dont have this problem, I see the whole picture. I would suggest adjusting the video settings on your blu-ray player, ie the aspect ratio. Try 4:3 or switching it to 16:9.

  23. It seems that the uncut print used by Warner has the frame cropped in more. This was also the same as the overseas R2 DVD.
    One other point. It seems F13 3d used the “right eye” lens for the print when the previous DVD used the left side. I guessing it used two lens to help the 3d effect. Also it seems that the credits are no longer 3D like the previous 3D Japanese VHD had.

  24. Paramount doesn’t give a shit about Friday the 13th and is fucking with the fans again.

  25. Uninformed folks jumping to negative conclusions.

    The new disc has the proper framing. When the MPAA ordered the film cut in 1980, they went back and edited the original negatives, as the film was not framed for theatres yet. And they actually slipped up while doing that and left more picture seen that the director intended. You’ll notice the original, uncut version has always been framed like the new DVD. Look at the region 2 DVD. It’s the same as this new one. I think the USA R rated version was the “wrong” one all along, and didn’t have the picture quite as close in as originally intended.

  26. I also will quote Lammert Brouwer on something.

    “Whats with this framing issue? I already posted this on the internet when F13 was released uncut on R2/3 dvd’s. I could have told people this before hand, since it’s the same transfer as the Warner, since the warner transfer is the only full uncut print out there.

    Nobody seemed to care back then, but now these blue ray fans are making a big deal out of it… funny…”

  27. I’m sure it looks just fine. For proof, check out the screenshots at bluray.com:
    http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/movies.php?id=2577&show=screenshots

  28. Damn people. Get a life. QUit bitching over little shit. I love the blu ray. Very clean picture.

  29. I don’t have this problem whatsoever. Must be a setting that’s off or something. But to be honest…it’s a little nit picky to begin with.

  30. I’m one of those Wide Screen kinda guys. I think that if it was important enough to film, it should be seen. Especially in musicals or anything with great choreography (Martial Arts, Dance sequences, etc).

    This isn’t an issue that I would demand a replacement/refund on though. Just would be somewhat disappointed.

    Not too great of an issue with me.

  31. A bit off-topic, but front-page worthy: Check out 15 clips from the new movie!

    http://www.movieweb.com/news/NEerljemKijfhe

  32. I’ve been enjoying the Warner uncut version for years so I couldn’t care less if the corners are cut off, all the gore was in the centre of the screen anyway

  33. If they had access to full quality, they better use it! All of the sudden, I\’m beginning to think the Special Editions aren\’t so special. That guy who play Roy Burns even stated that a key aspect of the movie was cut-off because of this.

  34. I think the framing isn’t an issue. Only the issue is an issue. Talk is all over, steamed fans not wanting to waste their $20.00 on a flawed p.o.s. that lazy Paramount did a half-assed job on.
    All I can say is it must be pointed out that another forum member over at horrordvds.com made the discovery that the blu-ray uncut transfer is framed & zoomed identically to the 3 to 5 (?) year old WB uncut dvd. That dvd got praised the world around, the framing “issues” unnoticed by anyone (including me) all this time. Suddenly via taking screenshots for a review framing/zooming issues are caught and it’s the biggest shame in digital horror history.
    The blu-ray is simply breathtaking, a must have!! A total 3-dimensional, nearly true-to-life experience unlike anything possible on the dvd format. Exciting!! Now I want to see Sleepaway Camp, The Burning, MadMan, Mother’s Day, Just Before Dawn, The Prowler, Pieces…and all my other favorite 80′s slasher flicks like this!!!

  35. hi,

    this has nothing to do with this post, but since it’s the newest one i know someone might answer my question. The new jason look, i was trying to make the same costume for horrofind but i can’t find out where to look to get a similar jacket. Any idea’s on what kid it is like dickies, wal-mart brand etc…

    thanx for your help

  36. GUYS COME ON! this is not a new thing of paramount screwing people. and as for the people complaining the movie is not that great quality IT WAS SHOT IN NINETEEN EIGHTY WHATEVER! i dont care how remastered it is its still not gonna get better then the original cut and lets face it. it wasnt that pretty back then.

  37. I noticed that some of the 1.85:1 Dvds were cropped at the bottom when I first switched from Vhs to Dvd. I can’t help but wonder if some of the people going on about “open mattes” and saying that “uninformed folks are jumping to negative conclusions” either - work for Paramount, are just naive, or if they’re the know-it-all types that think they’re experts on film making… From what I can tell, Pan and scan is the most common wide to fullscreen technique used. Here’s a link to Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_and_scan -. My guess is that Paramount probably just used the fullscreen print they already had for Vhs to master the Dvds off of. So the cropping was probably done to make the fit to widescreen. Paramount was either too lazy, or just didn’t care enough to remaster from the original negatives. Which could explain why Part 1 got an uncut release while the others didn’t. They probably used the region 2 print of Part 1 uncut.

  38. sigh :(

  39. To all of the people who think the framing issue isn’t a big deal - that’s cool, you guys have a copy that you’re happy with. But for people like my self that care, we feel that by the third release of these movies Paramount could’ve got it right if they tried… People care about different thinks, some care more about uncut releases while others care more about special features. I don’t think it’s nit picking to complain about the things you care about.

  40. I meant “people care about different things”, sorry about the typo.

  41. The same thing was done on the widescreen Dvd of A Nightmare on Elm st. In the scene where Heather’s changing her shirt, on the fullscreen version you can see her ass. On the widescreen version you can’t, the picture has been cropped at the bottom. Personally, I think it matters. I want to see as much as the original picture as possible. If I wanted to zoom in I’d press the zoom button on the dvd player remote.

  42. If PARAMOUNT would crop that much more off of the Blu-ray version than the 2004 Dvd. Then there’s no telling how the versions we’ve been getting so far are butchered from the original negatives.

  43. i agree with tom that the people arguing in favor of cropping probably work for paramount. if you don’t care, i’m happy for you.

    i don’t really care THAT much, about the principle, but in the case of NOES as Chad mentioned above & F13th pt 5 where 1 ass-shot and the chick’s nipples showing through her wet shirt toward the end are cut off, i feel i’m being robbed of the goods!! most slasher fans like these movies for their sleeziness, and little details like that make them better for us. when i was a preteen i used to jerk off to these shots, dammit! now they’re gone!! …i know, TMI.

    …taking a fullscreen print and cropping it to make it widescreen is garbage. the whole point of all of these movies being re-released in widescreen is not just to fit new tvs, but to give us the extra footage that was cut off. if we’re not even gaining that, and we’re in fact getting less, these releases are a ripoff. anyone can take a fullscreen movie and crop it to widescreen on their computer…there’s free software that does that.

  44. Chad was keepin’ it totally real there! When it comes to seeing nakedness, especially on the female body, then it absolutely matters! I mean, I’ll take widesceen until that point, we see some booty, flip to full screen, then go back lol.

    Although, the good thing about F13 films is that the boobs are always in the middle of the screen. You can’t really mess up the frame work to make them go away. Butts are different…

  45. So…We all complain, but will anyone start a petition? I will if someone shows me how and where to send it to.

  46. “i agree with tom that the people arguing in favor of cropping probably work for paramount.”

    Or maybe they just don’t blindly complain about everything without knowing the facts. This is how the uncut version is. It’s all that was available to them. Would you prefer some kind of spliced, quality jumping transfer?

  47. And I can’t believe people’s reading is so bad that I have to repeat something that’s already on this very page, but…

    “Whats with this framing issue? I already posted this on the internet when F13 was released uncut on R2/3 dvd’s. I could have told people this before hand, since it’s the same transfer as the Warner, since the warner transfer is the only full uncut print out there.” - Lammert

  48. We’re not talking about the uncut first film anymore. That may very well be the only uncut print out there. I don’t know why it was altered, but I’ll accept it since there’s an explanation. What there isn’t an explanation for is the cropping of the other films. The original DVDs for the other Paramount films cut out some of the picture once seen on VHS. Were these films shot in 4:3? If not, the original VHS transfers were side-cropped and there is a whole lot of picture missing from the original theatrical releases on the DVDs. We may even be getting less image than those VHS copies if they are doing what I think they’re doing: putting black bars over the VHS master. That would be devastating if true. Can anyone do a screenshot comparison of the VHS and the DVDs? I’m guessing there is a bit more footage on the DVD copy’s sides but not enough to justify the amount of cropping done.

  49. James, we can read just fine. Your comments are just your opinion, not a fact. Tom’s opinion is more logical and he provided a link to Wikipedia that makes sense. The only thing insulting people who disagree with you is gonna do, is make you look like an asshole. There’s no reason why we can’t respectfully disagree. This whole thing is not about who’s right and who’s wrong. We just want to know the truth. When you show a blind trust to Paramount or an unwillingness to be wrong, then it makes your point of view seem irrational. If you have any helpful info, provide a link, but make sure it’s some what reliable. Websites like Blu-Ray.com could have a bias, a reason to want to protect the product being sold. And don’t provide a link to something that you’ve taken out of context just to try to prove your point. That’s the samething another person did on the “Friday Part 2 Deluxe DVD Review” page. It was a link to Wikipedia about open mattes and everything that person quoted from the article was taken out of context. When read in full the article actually proved what Tom was saying.

  50. I don’t know what the “correct” framing is for Friday the 13th, but I compared the Blu-ray screen shots with my uncut Warner VCD from Hong Kong, which is 4:3. The VCD definitely has LESS information on BOTH sides than the Blu-ray. So it doesn’t appear as though Paramount simply cropped the top and bottom of a 4:3 print for this Blu-ray release.

  51. I guess Tom theory about Pan & Scan makes sense, but falls apart when you watch the new DVD and there is no panning or scanning. (Oops! Does that make me a Paramount employee?)

  52. Many of the uncut scenes do exist in the wider framing. For starters Annies death in the original 1999 DVD is not from the theatrical cut. Is in fact the longer cut with the wider framing. When it came out again in 2004 it had the original R rated cut of Annie’s death but the longer cut of Pamela Voorhees’s death. So I’m not sure what exactly happened. I don’t know about Marcie and Jack’s footage, but in the Japanese laserdisc there is more image on the top and bottom. Jacks death wouldn’t be an issue anyway because the shot is a separate cut. I’m led to believe that the current blue-ray is incorrect. In the current Warner print, various shots have strange framing problems. You can see chins cut off while people are talking or people on the side of the frame cut in half. If you watch the scene where Alice says, “There’re dead, there’re all dead” and Voorhees says “I’m not afraid.” You can see the bottoms of the chins are cut off. Or the police officer in the final hospital scene cut in half on the edge of the frame. There are many awkward framing moments that led me to believe that someone down the line screwed up. Although I can’t say for sure what happened.

  53. No big deal to me, the movie looks awesome on Blu-Ray!

  54. I know we’re not talking about Bergman or Kubrick here, but yes, it’s a very big deal to me. I choose the widescreen format because I want to see the entire image as it was meant to be seen by the filmmaker. After paying full price for the Blu-Ray release, I feel more than a little cheated. I really wonder why this decision was made? It seems an entirely thoughtless one, to release a cropped widescreen!

    Does anyone know if the widescreen version from the Crystal Lake to Manhattan box set is cropped?

    After this news, coupled with the ridiculously awful “3-D” DVD release of Part III, I’m truly beginning to agree with some of the four letter words being slung at Paramount’s home video braintrust.

  55. uh yeah…all of you saying this is the same cropping that was done to the uncut import…YOU’RE LYING!!! i don’t what the hell you have to gain from lying about this, but you’re lying, plain and simple.

    i just received my blu-ray in the mail today and i already have the uncut import DVD version. i noticed right off the bat the blu-ray looked more cropped, and when i saw the “Friday the 13th” in the beginning credits so close to the top of the screen that it’s actually touching, i knew it wasn’t right. i popped in my import DVD and confirmed there is a significant margin above the title that is not on the blu-ray. i also noticed you can actually see the couple flattening out the blanket and when it zooms in on the girl’s face before she gets killed, you see more of her eyes and forehead.

    CONFIRMED, this cut is VERY cropped. frankly i could care less but this just makes it look bad. it looks like a bad fit with the aspect ratio. this is BULLSHIT! i fucking hate you paramount!!!

  56. man, just finished watching…marcy’s exposed buttcrack when she’s sitting on the bed with kevin bacon is completely cropped out. i used to LOVE that shot! BASTARDS!! you only get like that half-second of it when she’s standing up.

    overall it just makes the movie look weird. it’s like the camera is up in everybody’s faces, when you know damn well the shots are supposed to show down past their shoulders. this is very noticeable if you’ve ever seen the movie before.

    furthermore, being zoomed in so extreme makes the movie look more grainy. for a HI-DEF version of movie this old, i would think you would want it zoomed OUT as much as possible so the grains are closer together.

  57. This is beat city! How hard is it to put a fucking movie on blu-ray/dvd without screwing it up! They need tp stop “Paramount-ly” dicking up movies!

  58. I’ve reconsidered, I’m not going to return my copy of F13 uncut. The cover is awesome! :-)

  59. Regarding the new box art: I like it, and I just PRAY that Paramount doesn’t pull the same bullshit they did when the very first DVD releases of the series came out. I know I’m a geek, but it REALLY bothered me to have the first 4 films sitting on my shelf with the original art, and then parts 5-8 sitting next to them with that drastically different brownish box art. It looked like two completely separate series’.

  60. I picked up all 3 films yesterday and compared the first two to my 1999 DVDs. The first film is, indeed, cropped as indicated above. But check out part 2. It’s the exact opposite. The 1999 DVD release is zoomed in and the 2009 DVD release is the one that’s got more info on the sides of the picture.

    Can’t win for losing, I guess.

  61. so i guess in 6 months they’ll be re-releasing these - pt.1 uncropped but r-rated, pt.2 unrated but cropped!!! they’ll just keep fucking up something until they’ve emptied out all of our bank accounts.

  62. Has anyone else compared the picture of the 1999 dvd of Part 2 with the 2009 version. If so, please let us know if your copy had more of the picture as well. I haven’t bought Part 2 yet but, if it has more of the pic than the 1999 version, I will.

  63. tommyblah, I agree. It does look like Paramount’s trying to milk every penny out of us they can. They really could’ve done it right the first time, if they wanted to.

  64. Hey Campers - let’s clear the air here about something that has been stinking up my beloved Camp Crytal Lake.

    It is very gratifying to know that there are devoted and knowledgeable campers out there that pay close attention to the work that I oversee for DVD and Blu-ray. In order to answer the question that was raised, I sent the film that was used for the latest transfer, along with the videotape masters from 1999 and 2008 back to the facility that did the film-to-tape transfer work. Below is the response from the chief engineer of the post production facility:

    “­Using the SMPTE Academy (1.85:1) sizing chart we put up the previous transfer and our transfer master to compare and verify sizing. We found that the 1999 transfer was sized overscan and done incorrectly to the SMPTE chart, and your 2009 transfer was sized according to the SMPTE sizing chart. Thus in fact making the 2009 scan the proper version

    The chart (unfortunately I am unbable to post the SMPTE charts - as this site won’t let me post .jpgs - but believe me they are correct I have seen them thru my mask with my own eyes), representing the original 1999 transfer is sized to include areas well outside the Academy Scanned Area, as well as not being vertically centered on the frame. The Academy Area is the portion of the frame that would have been projected in the theater, and which the DP would have composed for in the camera. By showing this extra area the composition no longer represents the director’s intent, and items not intended to be seen may now be visible. The other chart shows a correct Academy 1.85 setup as it only slightly goes beyond the Academy area and has the correct vertical orientation. This will recreate what was shown in the theaters.”

    See campers fear not as you have nothting to worry about Jason is looking out for each and everyone of you in my own special way and yet you question me about it, maybe some of you deserve a little special attention in the woodshed for not appreciating all my hard work. It does feel good to be back at the box office slashing all the way to #1 and couldn’t have done it without all my campers who have not seen the last of me this year or in the coming years, nothing can stop men now and there is still a lot more work to be done at the lake.

    Jason - March 2009
    Camp Crystal Lake

  65. “Jason”, do you work for Paramount?

  66. Thanks for the reply. Although I still highly question that the current transfer is correct. It seems that it is zoomed in even closer than the previous uncut version done by Warner.

    http://www.caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergleiche/index.php?image=6&vergleich=friday_the_13th

    The framing is also not consistent with the framing use at the beginning of Part 2. There also seems to be many other awkward framing composition issues throughout.

    If you have scans of the original full frame master and can compare them with the chart I would LOVE to see them, and I would be VERY happy to post your reply at AVS forums, horrordvds.com
    or anywhere else.
    If you want you can e-mail me at grodd@pacbell.net

  67. this is the typical kind of lies we get from paramount to keep the sales going. yeah freaking right, the director’s intention was for the title of the movie to be too big for the screen. give me a break!

  68. furthermore, you’re also lying about the ratio. i have a TV with a ‘Just Scan’ setting, and this version is 1.78:1 or 1.79:1…it is definitely not 1.85:1.

  69. Jason,

    Back in 1980, when I saw Friday the 13th in the theater, I saw Marcie’s nipple at the bottom of the screen during the seen where she and Jack make the beast with two backs. I vividly remember this, because despite axes in faces and arrows through throats, my parents were telling me to cover my eight year old eyes at the sight of a nipple. Ain’t that America?

    Anyway, was the version that was originally released to theaters incorrectly framed? I ask because guess what? On my uncut widescreen Blu-Ray there’s no nipple!

    Please help me understand.

  70. I love this site! i really like it to kick back at my sofa at saturday evening and read through every blog here, and this here is still very interresting subject and it leaves a question mark in my head, what is the correct version of the friday the 13th? we got all those editions, laserdisc,vhs,dvd,dvd re-release,dvd re-re-release,blu-ray,warners edition. i would like to get this straight i hate buying a new edition every year till i die just to get another release of the film but still not the best one, this shit is wack!

  71. The original (and 2-6) just came on Epix HD today and it reminded me of this issue. Ok now the Epix version has the same framing as the Blu-Rsy release (though weaker blues in the lighting, but it seems all the Epix versions have weaker blues as I compared 4-6 to my HDNet Movies recordings and they all had blues in various areas that the Epix versions didn’t).
    I checked both versions for some complained about issues and when Alice tells Mrs. Voorhees that “they’re all dead” and Mrs/ Voorhees replies “I’m not afraid” you can see Mrs. Voorhees’ chin every step of the way in the frame during her reply and no heads were cut off when Alice made her comment. I also checked to see if the sheriff was cut in half during the hospital scene and he wasn’t. I also checked out the sex scene and saw Alice’s nipple during several different points, not sure which part Dnick is referring to. The image that heads this article was correct as to the framing around Steve Christie though. I checked all of this on my HTPC using Arcsoft Total Media Theater 3 with the window not expanded to the full screen on my HDTV. Perhaps some commenters have overscan problems on their tv’, as some HDTV’s do natively (perhaps they can be fixed in the tv’s service menu, but be careful with that and write down every native setting before hand).

  72. Paramount will continue to bleed all of you dry, as long as you let them…keep giving them your hard-earned money, go ahead, movie studios are really hurting in this terrible economy.

Leave a Reply

You can use these XHTML tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <strong>