I guess anyone still buying LD in '98 was only interested in OAR? Can't find the darn thing anywhere, including eBay.

Why do you want it fullscreen?

Titanic (1997) [LV 334813]


Maybe its not as popular as the widescreen letterbox scope edition? I wouldn't even know what the cover looks like as there is no picture on LDDB site?

Well, since you asked, I want it because of these images posted on VideoHelp. They're supposed to represent the absolute peak of VHS performance (due to the high-end VCR), and I would like to compare my VHS and LD captures to those screengrabs.

I imagine the cover is the same as the LBX but with a different-colored banner instead of "Widescreen Edition" at the top.

Those captures look great. I'll see what I can do later in the day.
As for one of the comments on the thread about the VHS pro decks which look rather nice with pull out cards if someone goes wrong with it to be replaced easily and most pro VHS decks often sale so cheaply on eBay.

I own the full screen Titanic and bought it since it was a Super35 film and you get to see a bit more here and there - it works well in full screen and I'm glad I bought the disc when first released because it became rare pretty quickly.

Played disc 2 side 3 of TITANIC THX LD this morning did a quick 5min DVD-RW. The Full Screen super35, I have posted pictures URL to here and credited the other member.

Interesting comparison. The VHS version is much more detailed and because it is full screen you also see a good deal more picture.
So we have been conned?

Never conned. James Cameron composes his films for both Cinema and home screens. Both Widescreen and Fullscreen formats have his seal of approval

There is a pretty good comparison on the T2 SE 3 disc laserdisc set about widescreen and fullscreen comparisons

but usually widescreen is the correct choice as this video shows

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDJIhyINWzE

Wow, how is it that a VHS has better picture quality then a Laserdisc?

Not at all, it's called "Super 35", a little explanation here:

http://www.lddb.com/help_ratio.php#others

Julien

That VHS capture looks incredible !

It explains the framing of the image but it doesn't appear to explain why the VHS version is so much better in terms of actual picture quality when compared with the laserdisc version. Can anyone care to elaborate?

Video capture quality is enormously variable. Until we see captures from quality players done on the same gear by the same guy, I don't think we can categorically say that the VHS is better. I seriously seriously doubt that it is. Just look at the variety of screen captures on this forum.

I just purchased a copy of this FS LD on eBay.

I'll post more information when it arrives.

I rarely want a pan and scan anything, but I will say that the increase in clarity on an SD source is HUGE. I have the P&S AC-3 Abyss and it is very very nice. The Abyss works perfectly well at 4:3 though, I wouldn't want something like Laurence if Arabia or Manhatten P&S though. That would just be stupid.

On a really wide movie, going P&S/open matte will nearly double the resolution.

That's wonderful.
Where's the link to the eBay sale and pictures of the LD when it arrives.

Yes! In the non-anamorphic world, like LD, there's a lot to be said for the extra lines of non-black picture that you get from P&S.

It really is a case of swings and roundabouts. Do you want the fantastic sweep of the desert in Lawrence and Omar Sharif appearing from the far distance, or do you want the twinkle in Peter O'Toole's eyes?

(Quite why one would want Titanic at all is another matter.)

Pretty much all the CGI effects and matte effects are panned and scanned in full frame transfers of Super35 or 1.85 films since, due to cost, they don't render effects out to the full 4x3 frame - the render is typically 1.85 or so, meaning any scene with FX is panned and scanned. As Cameron's T2 P/S example shows, a lot of zooming takes place too, to make the composition work better in p/s, so they in no way represent the theatrical image. Although Cameron uses the Common Top-line method of composing the Super 35 (aka SuperScope 235) image, he didin't really stick to it when recon posing the film for p/s. All the actual shots of the Titanic wreck had to be panned and scanned heavily since, to save film and allow longer shooting at Titanic's depths, they were shot in the 2-perf Techniscope process, which, like anamorphic 2.35, has no additional top or bottom information to use in the p/s transfer.

At one time Cameron preferred the p/s version of his films for home video but he changed his mind on that in the 90's and has stated his p/s preference was simply due to his unfamiliarity with, and ignorance about, the letterbox process. His not fully appreciating letterbox is why he transferred the first (theatrical edition) LaserDisc of The Abyss at 1.90:1, which totally screwed up the image compositions. The film looks ghastly in that ratio.

Open matte is one thing, but pan & scan is another. There is a reason that Laserdisc went letterbox/widescreen even with the ramifications of losing some resolution on the black bars for the widescreen process to take effect. Pan & scan is normally not how the director intended you to see it, so in that case, especially with a format like LD, where the extra resolution isn't exactly going to be the difference of matching DVD or anything like that, I'd rather see the film how it was suppose to be seen with all the picture information on the left and right sides in tact.