Soitenly
Moronika
The community forum of ThreeStooges.net

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

BeAStooge · 308 · 78522

Linked Events

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

0 Members and 12 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Smaug


Offline falsealarms

I also noticed that about Moe's head during that scene in GOOF ON THE ROOF. But it doesn't take away too much and the rest of the short generally looks good.

Re-watching CUCKOO ON A CHOO CHOO makes me realize what a train wreck that one was. That one is kind of out of the "what were they thinking" bag. I've only gotten through disc 1 and GOOF ON THE ROOF on disc 2 but CUCKOO sticks out like a sore thumb in an otherwise solid-to-spectacular lineup.

It's too bad there wasn't more new footage on LOOSE LOOT because the new footage in that short is outstanding... the chase, the hiding in the bin, the abuse of McDonald through the door etc.



Offline Sadistic Stooge

So is the widescreen that bad ? Im getting my copy of vol 7 this Saturday , should I not have high hopes to see the widescreen versions ?


xraffle

  • Guest
So is the widescreen that bad ? Im getting my copy of vol 7 this Saturday , should I not have high hopes to see the widescreen versions ?

Some shorts like "Income Tax Sappy" looks quite nice in widescreen. "Goof on the Roof," on the other hand is a complete mess. Their heads are constantly chopped off. And there are certain shots where it chopped off almost half their faces. A good example is when the stooges try to put out the fire inside the hole in the wall. This is what most stooge fans here wanted, so I'm not going to put down Sony for this. They were only trying to do what they felt would make us happy.


Offline Sadistic Stooge


xraffle

  • Guest
Most look good. I just finished watching "Shot in the Frontier" and it looks amazing in widescreen, especially during the part where the stooges get married. The wide shot captures all 7 peoples (the stooges, their wives, and the Justice) beautifully. I have about a handful of shorts left to watch, but so far, it's only "Goof on the Roof" that's a problem. Perhaps, maybe it wasn't matted properly.


Offline falsealarms

I also just watched SHOT IN THE FRONTIER and I agree... it looks amazing. None of the other ones on the set look as sharp.

Some comments on a few of the remakes: RIP, SEW & STITCH and BUBBLE TROUBLE are mediocre at best. I wasn't a huge fan of the original versions of those shorts and the remakes didn't seem to add much. On the other hand, I'd say PALS AND GALS and KNUTZY KNIGHTS actually improve on the originals.


Offline Myren

I finally got to watch the 3D shorts. So much fun! But parts of them seemed to be very blurry. You could see all three colors even with the glasses on, and this blurred some parts of the short. Did this happen to anyone else? (No complaints, just wondering.)


Offline moelarrycurlyshemp

Goof on the roof is my favorite short, i wanan contact sony, imo they must fix it, it's one of shemps best, the best way to fix  it would be release the full screen versions of the shorts that were in widescreen on this set in volume 8 with the rest of shemps. The head cutting off of moe in goof on the roof is unacceptable where is stooged and confused?? we need to press sony on this issue.


Offline falsealarms

Interesting comments from Paul Mular over at the 3S Fan Club board:

"What film directors started doing in non-anamorphic (scope) 1954 films was to keep the bottom & top of the picture free of any important images, knowing that some theaters would crop off the top & bottom.  The directors also knew that when these films went to television they would be shown in their entire frame, so the full frame would be filmed.  This practice lasted through the 1990's until CGI effects became more common.

There is no 1:85-1 (16x9) 35mm film frame, it is 1:33-1.  For Cinemascope & other widescreen techniques, anamorphic lenses are used to squeeze a 2:33-1 (sometime larger) frame into a 1:33-1 film frame.

So the NEW Three Stooges shorts from 1954 on are shot with title cards that are shrunk down to the center of the picture, allowing the top 7 bottom to be cropped off by theaters.  The action is also shot with a longer view so that important events do not take place in the top & bottom of the frame, but the full frame is still filmed.

But now comes the real problem: starting in 1954 it became more common practice to film a new Three Stooges short with 80% or more stock footage from shorts shot & framed for full frame projection.  Now we have scenes not conceived for the wide screen being cropped off at the top & bottom.

As I mentioned before, the 3-D shorts look perfect in the cropped widescreen format, they were directed this way.  I would have been O.K. if it were just the new shorts without stock footage that were cropped, but starting in 1954 every film is cropped.

Add to this the fact that every Stooge fan has watched these films for over 50 years in their originally filmed full frame format, now we feel cheated top lose some picture.

Maybe we can start a write-in e-mail campeign to re-do disc #2 in full frame. Those with widescreen TVs can zoom the image to fill the widescreen if they want to see it cropped like it was in the theaters.  Keeping the DVDs full frame allows this as an option, but also allows the rest of us to see the full film frame."


Offline moelarrycurlyshemp

"we can start a write-in e-mail campeign to re-do disc #2 in full frame. Those with widescreen TVs can zoom the image to fill the widescreen if they want to see it cropped like it was in the theaters.  Keeping the DVDs full frame allows this as an option, but also allows the rest of us to see the full film frame."

let's go i am willing to email, call, and write sony we need this done asap!!! Our sony contact stoogedandconfused might could help us out. we need to pursue this as quick as we can and hopefully sony will listen and do the right thing, but i am kinda doubting it.....


xraffle

  • Guest
Maybe we can start a write-in e-mail campeign to re-do disc #2 in full frame. Those with widescreen TVs can zoom the image to fill the widescreen if they want to see it cropped like it was in the theaters.  Keeping the DVDs full frame allows this as an option, but also allows the rest of us to see the full film frame."

He can count me out. The widescreen shorts are the way the director intended these to be seen. As you can see from Thump's screenshots on the other thread, the widescreen version adds a little more picture on the left and right. Besides, to re-do these, Sony will have to recall this volume. If they didn't do it with the "Three Little Beers" short, which was edited on the themed release, then I doubt they will do it here.

Seriously, to complain about this is very unnecessary. It will just cause Sony to release the next Volume in full screen due to the amount of complaints. Who wants 1953-1954 in widescreen and 1955+ in full screen?!


Offline moelarrycurlyshemp

yeah the widescreen also cuts moe's head off on the scene where he eats the cheese sandwinch in goof on the roof, goof on the roof at very least needs to be included in the next release as a full frame version


Offline vomit

Could you tell me the style of 3D glasses that are included?  I want to order 2 extra pairs....thanks.  You can see there are a lot available:

http://www.3dglassesonline.com/

Blatz for you all.
Specto Caelum!


ThumpTheShoes

  • Guest
Could you tell me the style of 3D glasses that are included?  I want to order 2 extra pairs....thanks.  You can see there are a lot available:

http://www.3dglassesonline.com/

Blatz for you all.

TrioScopics 3D, green (left eye) and Magenta (the eye that's left)


Offline vomit

Thanks.  I scrutinized this thread again and got the info.  Have a great night.
Specto Caelum!


Offline RICO987


Xraffle is right - to complain might interfere with the way the future shorts are released.
And personally, I want the widescreen format used for the future volumes. 


Offline HELLOLARRY

I checked my Goof on the Roof from TV and compared it with the DVD version last night. I don't see that much of a difference to warrant asking something to be remanufactured.  I don't think Sony would/will do anything about it but I wish you all luck if you put some kind of campaign together.

That is interesting about how the titles were shrunk when the films played TV.  I always wondered if it was because of some widescreen type of formatting.

Do you realize there are only 32 more shorts to go before they are all out?  It seems like only yesterday I bought the first volume.


Offline Pegbars

This DVD collection has been a wonderful thing, and I have been collecting all of the volumes from the start.  Unfortunately, I'm sad to say, I am disappointed in the 3D content. 

There are a couple of serious technical issues that prevent the 3D effect from solidly occuring.  Please allow me to qualify my opinion.  I have been a motion picture projection and sound system engineer for the past 35 years.  Among other things, I install the various digital 3D projection systems that are in theatres today, so my gripes are coming from someone experienced in tri-dimensional imaging (ain't that a cool word?) ;)

For a dimensional illusion to occur, there must be a means to insure that the left eye image only goes to the left eye, and the right only to the right.  That isolation between the stereo pairs is key.  If part of one eye's image "leaks" to the opposite eye, the effect is destroyed -- and this is the problem with the DVD; the choice of anaglyphic colors do not adequately separate the stereo pairs.  In other words, you can still see parts of both eye views in EACH eye - which is almost like not wearing the glasses at all. 

This was noted AFTER adjusting my CRT's color level, phasing (tint), and contrast to maximize the filtering and minimize the bleeding effects.  While the green lens does filter out the magenta image sufficiently, the magenta filter only makes the green image appear dark (instead of making it invisible to that eye)... and both colors amplify themselves in their respective eyes, resulting in double outlines around everything.  IMHO, they would have made a better choice going with cyan as the left eye color instead of green.  Magenta and red have trouble filtering to begin with, but they work much better with cyan than they do with green. 

Secondly, there are wildly varying convergence (alignment) problems throughout the films.  In "Spooks," you can even see the images separate VERTICALLY in the middle of a shot!  Near the end of the film, when Shemp says, "Stannnnd back, or I'll brain ya!" watch the two images drift apart vertically.  Viewers can tolerate a certain amount of horizontal misalignment in a 3D picture, but NEVER vertically, because it tries to pull one eye up and the other down.

I don't really see them going back to fix this, so here's hoping it will appear in a superior polarized form in the near future, via some other conduit.  If you can catch a revival theatrical screening somewhere, go see it by all means.  I understand they ran "Spooks" not long ago at a festival in Los Angeles, in its original 35mm, two-strip format!   :o


Offline falsealarms

Someone associated with Sony has chimed in on this set over at HTF:

"We are well aware of how this particular short looks framed for 1.85.   There are, indeed, shots that are tight as has been mentioned, but there are many shots where this is not the case.   This short needs to be seen moving, like all movies.  Whether or not the film was shot entirely for projection at 1.85 or not, the film was unequivically intended to be shown by the studio widescreen and that is how it was released to theatres.  So, we decided to take the most historically accurate approach for this DVD as we have all along and release it widescreen as originally shown.   We could have taken liberties with the framing here and there during the transfer to basically make it look more like the whole film was framed wide, but that would not have been a very accurate or authentic way to do it, and, frankly, would have been a bit of a cheat.  The main title sequence was created for widescreen for the initial theatrical release, as will be obvious, and when it is framed and lined-up for normal transfer and let it go, some shots are tight, many not, and that is the way it was shown.  We don't think it is any less funny because of it." - Grover Crisp, VP of Asset Management and Film Restoration for the studio

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/forum/thread/291784/3-stooges-collection-vol-7-1952-1954-november-10/30#post_3628072


ThumpTheShoes

  • Guest
Someone associated with Sony has chimed in on this set over at HTF:

"We are well aware of how this particular short looks framed for 1.85.   There are, indeed, shots that are tight as has been mentioned, but there are many shots where this is not the case.   This short needs to be seen moving, like all movies.  Whether or not the film was shot entirely for projection at 1.85 or not, the film was unequivically intended to be shown by the studio widescreen and that is how it was released to theatres.  So, we decided to take the most historically accurate approach for this DVD as we have all along and release it widescreen as originally shown.   We could have taken liberties with the framing here and there during the transfer to basically make it look more like the whole film was framed wide, but that would not have been a very accurate or authentic way to do it, and, frankly, would have been a bit of a cheat.  The main title sequence was created for widescreen for the initial theatrical release, as will be obvious, and when it is framed and lined-up for normal transfer and let it go, some shots are tight, many not, and that is the way it was shown.  We don't think it is any less funny because of it." - Grover Crisp, VP of Asset Management and Film Restoration for the studio

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/forum/thread/291784/3-stooges-collection-vol-7-1952-1954-november-10/30#post_3628072

Utter poop. They dicked around with The Hot Scots and made edit tweaks in Half-Wits' Holiday.


Offline HELLOLARRY

I don't think it would've been that big a deal for them to put both versions on the DVD like they did with Spooks! and Pardon My Backfire.  Personally this doesn't bother me mainly because I'm exhausted at this point in my collecting life and having to keep alternate copies in my collection. I won't be doing that in this case as I know my self well enough and I would only make the effort to watch the films on these collections. 

Yes, Moe's head is chopped off a little more than it is in my TV print but that doesn't bother me as much as say, the segment cut from Three Little Beers (which has been corrected on these collections) or a 'corrected' speed on the Hot Scots (which was ignored on Scotched in Scotland) or Blackhawk prints being used on the Little Rascals set etc.  Compared to those things, this one doesn't bother me too much but that is just me.

Columbia has done a great job overall with these collections but it is obvious they won't make everyone happy. There is some variant to find in each collection to comment on.

I try to keep the big picture in mind though. Sure there is the imperfection from volume to volume but how cool is it that we have these collections now to make comments on. We couldn't say that a few years ago. 


Offline moglia

"we can start a write-in e-mail campeign to re-do disc #2 in full frame. Those with widescreen TVs can zoom the image to fill the widescreen if they want to see it cropped like it was in the theaters.  Keeping the DVDs full frame allows this as an option, but also allows the rest of us to see the full film frame."

let's go i am willing to email, call, and write sony we need this done asap!!! Our sony contact stoogedandconfused might could help us out. we need to pursue this as quick as we can and hopefully sony will listen and do the right thing, but i am kinda doubting it.....

He can count me out. The widescreen shorts are the way the director intended these to be seen. As you can see from Thump's screenshots on the other thread, the widescreen version adds a little more picture on the left and right. Besides, to re-do these, Sony will have to recall this volume. If they didn't do it with the "Three Little Beers" short, which was edited on the themed release, then I doubt they will do it here.

Seriously, to complain about this is very unnecessary. It will just cause Sony to release the next Volume in full screen due to the amount of complaints. Who wants 1953-1954 in widescreen and 1955+ in full screen?!

Count me in.

It's has been definitively determined in the Vol 7 comparison film thread that the errors are a result of improper telecine transfers.
These are not they way they were shown in theaters this is strictly the product of amateurish telecine operation, and as such totally 100% unacceptable!

http://threestooges.net/forums/index.php?topic=3261.msg24149#msg24149
http://threestooges.net/forums/index.php?topic=3261.msg24150#msg24150


Xraffle is right - to complain might interfere with the way the future shorts are released.
And personally, I want the widescreen format used for the future volumes. 

With all due respect xraffle and you are not correct, sorry.  "Not complaining"/commenting about Sony's poor/incorrect telecine work because of "what Sony might due to future volumes" is tantamount to suppressing the truth and letting fear run your life.  That is something that no one should do.

Yes I'm glad to have these volumes, but I am still giving Sony - My Money -  and as such I'd like to see things done correctly!

Hey, Sony! How about man-ing up and fixing your galactic level screw-up with telecine operation and giving us the Goof On A  Roof, Spooks and the rest transferred properly and stop trying to pass the blame on made-up crap.




xraffle

  • Guest
With all due respect, moglia. If I had to choose who to believe (you or Brent), I have to choose Brent. Sorry!

GOOF ON THE ROOF (1953), the first wide-screen Stooges comedy produced (but the 3rd one released), played in theatres as you see it on the DVD. Framing problems aside, the DVD presentation is historically correct.