Comments on: Friday Blu-Ray Framing Issue?

By: Jay

Jay — Sun, 14 Feb 2010 11:45:43 +0000

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.

By: Darkness BDJM

Darkness BDJM — Sun, 14 Feb 2010 05:23:55 +0000

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).

By: pit-n-shit

pit-n-shit — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 23:44:46 +0000

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!

By: DNick

DNick — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 03:41:25 +0000

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.

By: tommyblah

tommyblah — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 22:56:58 +0000

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.

By: tommyblah

tommyblah — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 22:53:20 +0000

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!

By: Scott S

Scott S — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 17:22:55 +0000

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

By: John

John — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 21:35:06 +0000

“Jason”, do you work for Paramount?

By: Jason

Jason — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 02:11:59 +0000

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

By: terry

terry — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 01:53:48 +0000

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.

By: terry

terry — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 01:49:09 +0000

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.

By: tommyblah

tommyblah — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 22:34:10 +0000

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.

By: Darren

Darren — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 15:03:32 +0000

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.

By: Joe K

Joe K — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 22:09:09 +0000

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’.

By: James Smith

James Smith — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 21:23:33 +0000

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

By: Gabe

Gabe — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 03:00:26 +0000

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!

By: tommyblah

tommyblah — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 11:53:25 +0000

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.

By: tommyblah

tommyblah — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 19:47:36 +0000

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!!!

By: DNick

DNick — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 07:02:10 +0000

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.

By: masterofthemoon

masterofthemoon — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 03:04:56 +0000

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