About
All feedback (609)
chipfox (17658)- Feedback left by buyer.
Past year
Verified purchase
Fast Payment and an Easy Transaction. PERFECT! Thank You.
istockmarket (18519)- Feedback left by buyer.
More than a year ago
Verified purchase
Great buyer. Quick payment. Valued eBay customer
paint_masks_plus (13487)- Feedback left by buyer.
More than a year ago
Verified purchase
Good buyer, prompt payment, valued customer, highly recommended.
paint_masks_plus (13487)- Feedback left by buyer.
More than a year ago
Verified purchase
Good buyer, prompt payment, valued customer, highly recommended.
paint_masks_plus (13487)- Feedback left by buyer.
More than a year ago
Verified purchase
Good buyer, prompt payment, valued customer, highly recommended.
paint_masks_plus (13487)- Feedback left by buyer.
More than a year ago
Verified purchase
Good buyer, prompt payment, valued customer, highly recommended.
Reviews (10)
Aug 13, 2008
Love the movie; this 1998 CD is the as-shot width
2 of 2 found this helpful Rather than say why I love the movie Logan's Run, I'll discuss why to buy this 1998 version versus others.
I bought both the 2000 double-sided version and this 1998 version, and have a longer discussion of the pros/cons of different-width versions for viewing, in my review of the 2000 version.
This 1998 version is as close as I have seen on DVD to the unusually wide (TODD-AO) 2.35 aspect ratio this movie was filmed in. Some people debate whether any given DVD version claiming to be 2.35 is actually exactly uncropped, or cropped a little on the sides (ratio under 2.35), or cropped a little top/bottom (ratio over 2.35), or both (just outright cropped/magnified). I haven't taken a yardstick or magnifying glass in search of missing parts of any given frame, but I also haven't offhand noticed anything missing from the frames in this version that appear in other versions. To date, I use this one as my reference for what a scene looked like "as shot".
I'm still gathering up LaserDisc versions and yet more DVD versions, so that someday I will be the expert on Logan's Run version differences and update my reviews with a "final answer" regarding one version vs another.
The big advantage to this 1998 version is that you get to see everything that went onto film, or pretty close to it. Exactly as the film-maker intended it, etc.
The disadvantages are: First, the fixed DVD resolution (a fixed number of pixels across the width of the screen) being spread across the full width, leads to lower resolution of fine details in the film, regardless of your TV's resolution (1080p won't fix this for you, it will just make you beg for a Blu-Ray version to come out soon!). Second, the size (or magnification) of everything you see is smaller, compared to a narrower version's pan/scan which effectively magnifies the things which do make it onto your screen...if you don't mind completely missing the things which got cropped off.
Personally, I recommend seeing any film you really like, both ways: full width letterboxed, and screen-filling pan/scan. There are also versions of this movie available which are inbetween those two extremes, intended as pan/scan for widescreen TV rather than standard TV, or as simulations of less-wide movie formats that are still wider than standard TVs.
So there you have it. Buy this DVD to see the entire scene, then decide if you also want a lower-aspect-ratio version of Logan's Run to see a cropped part of the action filling your screen at higher magnification instead.
Aug 13, 2008
Love the movie; one UPC-based listing detail inaccurate
2 of 2 found this helpful Rather than go into why I love the movie "Logan's Run", famous for being the last old-school sci-fi movie before Star Wars, I will try to shed light on what you actually get on this DVD version.
It is a nicely boxed, double-sided, DVD released in 2000, with a different display-width format of the entire movie on each side. You get no pamphlets or other extra things physically, though there are some good extra features on the DVD.
One side has the pan/scan version to fill a standard 1.33 aspect ratio TV screen. Flip it over to get the wider-screen version, on any normal DVD player.
While the other side is alleged (in the data called up into eBay listings via the UPC, no fault of anyone selling it...) to have the 2.35 aspect ratio "anamorphic widescreen" letterboxed version, it is actually far less wide/letterboxed than that. I didn't measure the blank strips on my TV to get the exact number, but it is pretty surely either the standard 1.66 movie format, or 16:9 (=1.78) intended for HDTV. It is absolutely, positively not 2.35:1, and I did check that the UPC on mine is the right UPC, etc.
So you get both the version which is the perfect screen-filling normal pan/scan for regular TV and the version which is the perfect (or nearly so, maybe very slightly boxed off on the sides) wide pan/scan for widescreen HDTV.
While movie aficionados pooh-pooh pan/scan versus watching the as-filmed widescreen aspect ratio, using screen-filling pan/scan has its benefits.
Namely, watching this movie at 1.33 instead of 2.35 on a standard TV screen, everything you see is physically 2.35/1.33 = 1.77x as big on the screen, covering 3.12x as much area. And 1.66 vs 2.35 is 1.41x as big and 2.00x the area.
Now I don't know about you, but I think this movie is worth watching in the 1.33 pan/scan mode on a big standard-shape TV at least once. Namely, having any given detail (including the beautiful Jenny Agutter's briefly-naked body at age 22-23) take up 3x the area that it would in fully letterboxed 2.35 anamorphic format, is probably more desirable than having extra scenery out in left field and right field.
On a widescreen TV, the 1.33 version has the same magnification as the 1.66 version, and just chops off the sides more than needed, so of course watch the 1.66 side if your TV is 16:9 widescreen, to catch more side scenery.
Last but not least, the sound is unusually good for a movie of this age, with it supposedly being the first movie recorded in Dolby 5.1 Surround.
Dec 13, 2016
Heater fan good as new in 2005 Prius
1 of 1 found this helpful Excellent part. Easy enough DIY fix using my usual car-repair method: Watch a few YouTube videos on how to do the repair on my exact make/model/year; find the right part for cheap; watch the videos again just before doing the repair; and then do it. Took 90 minutes only because I took my time, cleaned everything in sight while the blower was out, and re-did the jiggling of another removed assembly several times until all 5 screws secured it perfectly. Could have had it done in 30 minutes if I'd skipped the extreme cleaning and settled for 3 or 4 screws holding the other assembly 1/4 inch from the perfectly mated position. Slow reassembly was not at all the fault of this blower, that part went quickly. There are just plastic Toyota parts that are a jigsaw-puzzle fit in a tight space, taking some jiggling and re-jiggling in all directions to get all back perfectly in place. The blower itself works perfectly on all speeds and seems fully equal to the original Toyota part. Wish I'd done the replacement sooner instead of nursing the old one by banging on the dash or restarting by hand through the cabin air filter opening. If it's dying, it will soon enough be dead, so just replace it sooner rather than later.