Moronika
The community forum of ThreeStooges.net

3 Stooges Collection Vol. 7 - 1952-1954, November 10

BeAStooge · 308 · 74312

Linked Events

  • 3 Stooges Vol. 7 1952-1954: November 10, 2009 - November 16, 2009

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline tvradio

Wow! We always manage to have people that obsess over seeing the stooges on Blu-ray. Does the Blu-ray spammer have friends or relatives that join here or something? Anyway, enough Blu-ray talk. I'm not going to prolong this discussion. Let's continue discussing Volume 7.

You refuse to discuss it because your logic to support was soundly defeated.

Blu-Ray is simply superior video it is that simple.


xraffle

  • Guest
You refuse to discuss it because your logic to support was soundly defeated.

Blu-Ray is simply superior video it is that simple.

I will gladly continue discussing if the moderators give me the ok to do so. Until then, I'm not going to get myself banned over a silly little debate. Case closed!


Offline Porcupine73

What I'd like to have is the option to watch them in either full screen or wide screen.  We should be able to choose.  If Sony puts both versions on the DVD, we can watch whichever one we want.  Wouldn't that make sense?

The 4:3 fullscreen aspect ratio is going away now that HDTV with a 16:9 screen size is the "norm". Yes they still release fullscreen DVDs but I think these will be phased out

I don't mind the black bars on the top and bottom watching on my 4:3 TV, IF that's how it was originally intended to be shown, like the 1953-and-later Stooges pictures were.

So my answer is: I wouldn't want those Stooges DVDs to have a fullscreen option

If any of the aspect-ratio experts on here know more about fullscreen DVDs and why studios still make them, and how long they intend to support 4:3, I'd love to hear from you


Offline Smaug

Who are we tryin' to kid here... when they release the Stooges in 'Smell-o-vision' or 'holo-view' or whatever, most of us will find a reason to buy the "new" release again.
Cuz it's the Stooges.
Pixar does (or did) the only decent full frame releases, because they pretty much redo the whole thing in a different aspect ratio.



Offline moglia

cropping is never right


There are no absolutes with film, other than using DNR on DVD's always sucks :(

Sure, when it's not the director's intention.  But I've not seen anything here to indicate it was anything *but* the director's intention to crop these shorts.

Correct. I want these shorts on DVD they way they original appeared in theaters not what may or may not be present on the "master" rolls.



What I'd like to have is the option to watch them in either full screen or wide screen.  We should be able to choose.  If Sony puts both versions on the DVD, we can watch whichever one we want.  Wouldn't that make sense?


Sense has little to do with it :) Financially it is not sound. It would mean extra DVD's (or even worse ultra low bitrate) so higher cost and possible lower sales on these later Stooge efforts. Also from Sony's standpoint why cater to a dwindling number of folks with "ancient" 4:3 TV sets. Those with those sets need to deal with the black bars because for better or worse, wrong or right, that's how it will be for everything in the near future.



Offline Larry Larry

The 4:3 fullscreen aspect ratio is going away now that HDTV with a 16:9 screen size is the "norm". Yes they still release fullscreen DVDs but I think these will be phased out

I don't mind the black bars on the top and bottom watching on my 4:3 TV, IF that's how it was originally intended to be shown, like the 1953-and-later Stooges pictures were.

So my answer is: I wouldn't want those Stooges DVDs to have a fullscreen option

If any of the aspect-ratio experts on here know more about fullscreen DVDs and why studios still make them, and how long they intend to support 4:3, I'd love to hear from you

There is a lot of confusion about aspect ratios, HD video & Blu-ray.  It is understandable.  I work for a major, professional post-production company.  One of our services is DVD and Blu-ray authoring of major titles (not the Three Stooges titles sadly), so perhaps I can offer an answer or two.

Regarding why studios still release 4:3 DVDs:   When a film's original aspect ratio is 4:3 then that is what needs to be released.  Not all, but most modern television series are produced in HD and therefore have a widescreen aspect ratio.   In that sense, yes, the 4:3 aspect ratio is being phased out.  

But many home theater enthusiasts & movie lovers are adamant about films being released in their original aspect ratio whether it be 4:3, 16:9, 1.85:1 or whatever.  

There is no need for a "fullscreen" option with widescreen source material.  There aren't many DVD releases being released anymore with both fullscreen & widescreen aspects anymore.  There are a few, but not many.  You might still see some leftover "fullscreen" releases on store shelves, but the majority of new releases only get a widescreen version now.  Thank goodness.  

The reason "why studios still make them" is because a studio feels they can still sell them.  There are still people out there who will never understand aspect ratios.  They hate an image not filling their screen.   I hate stretching 4:3 material to 16:9 but that is what some people do.   A properly authored anamorphic DVD satisfies both 4x3 and 16x9 televisions.  That is the best solution, and it has become almost universal.  

Regarding whether or not the Stooge films will look better in Blu-ray.  The answer is yes.  

I'm not hear to argue for or against the Blu-ray format.  Some people may say DVD is good enough for them.   That's ok.  

However, the "Three Stooges Collection" shorts were re-mastered from the original films to High Definition.  Then they were down converted from HD to Standard Definition.  Then they were compressed & authored onto the DVDs we are watching.   If the Stooge films are ever released in HD (either on an HD channel or on Blu-ray), they will feature 1080 lines of resolution & will look stunning.   They may be old, but that doesn't mean they won't look better on Blu-ray.  They will.  
These pretzels are making me thirsty!


Offline Porcupine73

There is a lot of confusion about aspect ratios, HD video & Blu-ray.  It is understandable.  I work for a major, professional post-production company.  One of our services is DVD and Blu-ray authoring of major titles (not the Three Stooges titles sadly), so perhaps I can offer an answer or two.

Thank you! Great post


Offline falsealarms

From the sales department: Vol 7 is currently the #1 pre-order at dvdempire.com


Offline tvradio

There is a lot of confusion about aspect ratios, HD video & Blu-ray.  It is understandable.  I work for a major, professional post-production company.  One of our services is DVD and Blu-ray authoring of major titles (not the Three Stooges titles sadly), so perhaps I can offer an answer or two.

Regarding why studios still release 4:3 DVDs:   When a film's original aspect ratio is 4:3 then that is what needs to be released.  Not all, but most modern television series are produced in HD and therefore have a widescreen aspect ratio.   In that sense, yes, the 4:3 aspect ratio is being phased out.  

But many home theater enthusiasts & movie lovers are adamant about films being released in their original aspect ratio whether it be 4:3, 16:9, 1.85:1 or whatever.  

There is no need for a "fullscreen" option with widescreen source material.  There aren't many DVD releases being released anymore with both fullscreen & widescreen aspects anymore.  There are a few, but not many.  You might still see some leftover "fullscreen" releases on store shelves, but the majority of new releases only get a widescreen version now.  Thank goodness.  

The reason "why studios still make them" is because a studio feels they can still sell them.  There are still people out there who will never understand aspect ratios.  They hate an image not filling their screen.   I hate stretching 4:3 material to 16:9 but that is what some people do.   A properly authored anamorphic DVD satisfies both 4x3 and 16x9 televisions.  That is the best solution, and it has become almost universal.  

Regarding whether or not the Stooge films will look better in Blu-ray.  The answer is yes.  

I'm not hear to argue for or against the Blu-ray format.  Some people may say DVD is good enough for them.   That's ok.  

However, the "Three Stooges Collection" shorts were re-mastered from the original films to High Definition.  Then they were down converted from HD to Standard Definition.  Then they were compressed & authored onto the DVDs we are watching.   If the Stooge films are ever released in HD (either on an HD channel or on Blu-ray), they will feature 1080 lines of resolution & will look stunning.   They may be old, but that doesn't mean they won't look better on Blu-ray.  They will.  

you have some facts correct there - thank you for chiming in

remember too that anything filmed on video its maximum resolution is 480i - unless it is modern video that is hd

and anything shot on film can be displayed (if mastered right) up to 4k resolution - 8k is possible for  HD - and in future they will be going higher


Offline tvradio




Sense has little to do with it :) Financially it is not sound. It would mean extra DVD's (or even worse ultra low bitrate) so higher cost and possible lower sales on these later Stooge efforts. Also from Sony's standpoint why cater to a dwindling number of folks with "ancient" 4:3 TV sets. Those with those sets need to deal with the black bars because for better or worse, wrong or right, that's how it will be for everything in the near future.



at only 4mb bit rates sony has compressed these enough as it is - considering the maximum bit rate for DVD's is about 9mb or so


Offline tvradio

Your eyes are analog, clearly inferior technology

No that is not true (not the eyes being analog) analog (if done correctly and fully uncompressed and the entire line from production to final viewer is high quality) is actually superior to digital


Offline tvradio

I will gladly continue discussing if the moderators give me the ok to do so. Until then, I'm not going to get myself banned over a silly little debate. Case closed!

A few posts below yours a person who works in authoring backed me up - therefore you have no leg to stand on when it comes to the picture quality


Offline thephotoplayer

Not wanting to add fuel to the fire in any way, but Stooges in HD would look incredible.  I've seen original 35mm prints of some of the shorts, and they're extremely sharp-- you can practically count every thread in Moe's hair.  Those old high-silver black and white stocks were capable of getting some really sharp, good contrast images.

Hopefully one of the HD networks will pick up the Stooges packages (if they're available).  I'm sure they'd look great and you'd see what I mean.


xraffle

  • Guest
Ok, apparently this Blu-ray discussion isn't going to end. Sigh!!

TVRadio- You act as if I've never seen a Blu-ray movie before. As a matter of fact, I'm probably one of the very few people here that actually own a Blu-ray player. I have a total of 21 Blu-ray discs right now. The picture quality ranges from simply astounding to poor. Why do some movies look so stunning while a few of them look poor? The answer: SOURCE MATERIAL!!!

A movie like "The Wizard of Oz" is coming out soon on Blu-ray. I've seen that on TBS-HD and based on what I saw, I'm sure that movie will look great on Blu-ray despite its old age. Why? Again, the answer is source material.

If the source material is good, you'll benefit from the added resolution.
If the source material is bad, you gain little to nothing from the added resolution.

By the way, as much as I would like the format to succeed since I invested in a Blu-ray player, I think the format is doomed. Just my opinion. Not many people are interested in adopting to the format. About 95% of people are satisfied with DVDs.

With that said, it doesn't look like I'm going to be here much longer.


Offline Dunrobin

  • (Rob)
  • Administrator
  • Spongehead
  • ******
  • Webmaster
    • The Three Stooges Online Filmography
Ok, apparently this Blu-ray discussion isn't going to end. Sigh!!

Just in time to make your day, I've added a poll about it on the General Discussion board.   >:D


xraffle

  • Guest
Cool! I just voted.

I'm glad the admins aren't mad about this discussion. I thought I was going to get into big trouble for prolonging this SD vs. HD debate. I guess I'm so used to other forums where moderators have a very strict rule about sticking to the topic of the thread. At one of the home theater forums I post in, someone mentioned about some classic movie coming out on Blu-ray and people were having a big debate over how much better it will look over the DVD version. So, the moderators closed the thread and issued warnings to everyone because the thread went way off-topic.


Offline tvradio

Ok, apparently this Blu-ray discussion isn't going to end. Sigh!!

TVRadio- You act as if I've never seen a Blu-ray movie before. As a matter of fact, I'm probably one of the very few people here that actually own a Blu-ray player. I have a total of 21 Blu-ray discs right now. The picture quality ranges from simply astounding to poor. Why do some movies look so stunning while a few of them look poor? The answer: SOURCE MATERIAL!!!

A movie like "The Wizard of Oz" is coming out soon on Blu-ray. I've seen that on TBS-HD and based on what I saw, I'm sure that movie will look great on Blu-ray despite its old age. Why? Again, the answer is source material.

If the source material is good, you'll benefit from the added resolution.
If the source material is bad, you gain little to nothing from the added resolution.

By the way, as much as I would like the format to succeed since I invested in a Blu-ray player, I think the format is doomed. Just my opinion. Not many people are interested in adopting to the format. About 95% of people are satisfied with DVDs.

With that said, it doesn't look like I'm going to be here much longer.

WRONG !!!  IT IS NOT the source material - it is the transfer of said source material - the storage thereof - the remastering or lack thereof that is the problem

look at the recent release of i think it was GLADIATOR and the picture was horrible because they were using an old transfer from tears ago that was made for DVD (with edge enhancement) and not a new transfer where that is not needed.

if you use 35mm film of the stooges from 1939 or a 2000 year new 35mm film of a movie made then  as the source for a blu-ray transfer with no remastering then what you will get (no matter the age, no matter the quality of the film, no matter the storage of the film) a poor transfer / poor picture quality.

IF you take any film (no matter the year was made) and remaster it with blu-ray in mind (of course scrathes and splits are diffrent animals) then you will have a stunning movie

so no xraffle is is not the source material - it is how the remastering is done or not done


xraffle

  • Guest
You know, you may have something there. It does seem like both you and thephotoplayer really know your stuff. You both should definitely stick around. I like it when people can talk some sense into me. ;D


Offline thephotoplayer

Honestly, I think it's a matter of *both* source material and care of transfer.  Bad source material is bad source material.  You can't turn brass into gold.  Likewise, I've seen good source material get messed up at the transfer stage.   [pie]


Offline Porcupine73

Has anyone thought about this? In the new DVDs, the "gag" strings and such are very visible, at times ruining the effect.

Wouldn't this be even more pronounced in hi def? Or whoever does the transfer has to digitally edit those out?

And personally I don't want to count the gray hair follicles in Moe's scalp. Just like I didn't really need to know that Shatner and Nimoy were wearing makeup in the original Star Trek series. You can clearly see this in the new Blu Ray remasters, and somewhat on the DVDs as well. It was never meant to be that visibly apparent.

I don't know guys, call me old-fashioned but I don't need to see every speck of film grain or dust particle on the negative.



Offline tvradio

Honestly, I think it's a matter of *both* source material and care of transfer.  Bad source material is bad source material.  You can't turn brass into gold.  Likewise, I've seen good source material get messed up at the transfer stage.   [pie]

correct - that is why i was saying not the scratches - if pieces missing etc


Offline tvradio

You know, you may have something there. It does seem like both you and thephotoplayer really know your stuff. You both should definitely stick around. I like it when people can talk some sense into me. ;D

SOINTELY   [pie]


Offline tvradio

Has anyone thought about this? In the new DVDs, the "gag" strings and such are very visible, at times ruining the effect.

Wouldn't this be even more pronounced in hi def? Or whoever does the transfer has to digitally edit those out?

And personally I don't want to count the gray hair follicles in Moe's scalp. Just like I didn't really need to know that Shatner and Nimoy were wearing makeup in the original Star Trek series. You can clearly see this in the new Blu Ray remasters, and somewhat on the DVDs as well. It was never meant to be that visibly apparent.

I don't know guys, call me old-fashioned but I don't need to see every speck of film grain or dust particle on the negative.



They could go in and take out the wires and such, but it being Sony I doubt they will, but they should.

Well the people back then (referring to the makeup on Shatner) did not have the technology to have the HD makeup they can put on actors now. But the production companies should have known that since 35mm film had high resolution capabilities that it could be a future problem.


Offline Porcupine73

They could go in and take out the wires and such, but it being Sony I doubt they will, but they should.

That would be great if this happened for any future hi-def release, but since I don't own a HDTV (yet) I'm very satisfied with how they look anyway. You have to realize that we're comparing them to bootlegs and VHS in many cases, and this is the best the Stooges have ever looked since these were new theaters

And I'm sure I'll still think they look great when I'm playing them in my PS3, upconverted to HD... someday, maybe next year.  :-\

Quote
Well the people back then (referring to the makeup on Shatner) did not have the technology to have the HD makeup they can put on actors now. But the production companies should have known that since 35mm film had high resolution capabilities that it could be a future problem.

Interesting! Even though they filmed on 35mm, yes I doubt Desilu/Paramount ever considered Star Trek would even be seen 40+ years later, much less at any better quality than what ma and pa could get with the rabbit ears on the roof    :laugh:

Thanks for the replies and the info.