Moronika
The community forum of ThreeStooges.net

Volume 7 Comparison Screenshots

luke795 · 60 · 19137

0 Members and 10 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline metaldams

i dont care if it is historically correct, i want a full frame version on the next release, i'll pay an extra $100 to get it i don't care.... goof on the roof is one of shemps best's shorts of all time. they goofed and didn't offer both versions on this set, you would think they would watch the finished product to check for problems before releasing it to the public but i guess not as time = money and money being the most important thing to companies wins out.

They released the short AS IT WAS RELEASED IN THE THEATERS in 1953.  Sony didn't goof, Jules White, or whoever the heck was responsible in 1953, did.  If you want the full screen version, it's available elsewhere. 

- Doug Sarnecky


I have it on tape but i can't get the clarity that sony can produce on dvd,as they have the negatives or whatever ever they use to master the original transfer, isn't that one of the points of a dvd to provide the best video and audio quality possible???


Offline locoboymakesgood

i have it on tape but i can't get the clarity that sony can produce on dvd,as they have the negatives or whatever ever they use to master the original transfer, isn't that one of the points of a dvd to provide the best video and audio quality possible???


Absolutely. And also the correct ratio. Which they did.
"Are you guys actors, or hillbillies?" - Curly, "Hollywood Party" (1934)


Offline metaldams

i have it on tape but i can't get the clarity that sony can produce on dvd,as they have the negatives or whatever ever they use to master the original transfer, isn't that one of the points of a dvd to provide the best video and audio quality possible???



I see your point, as a full screen GOOFS would look better remastered on DVD.  I'll probably hold onto my old VHS copy, but I can also understand why Sony released it widescreen.  GOOFS ON THE ROOF widescreen is a proper historical artifact, and any work of art should be released as intended, flaws and all.  

By the way, I'm the moderator who put up the warning about using capital letters.  Please use them when appropraite.  We let many things slide on this site, but proper typing is expected and not very hard to do.  Thank you.
- Doug Sarnecky


Offline BeAStooge

  • Birdbrain
  • Master Stooge
  • Bunionhead
  • ******
I am very pleased with the widescreen versions of the stock footage remakes.

5+ decades after-the-fact, kudos to Jules White and his Film Editors for a nice job in framing the 1.37 stock footage into the 1.85 remakes.

A few of the remade films, e.g., THE HOT SCOTS, FIDDLERS THREE, SQUAREHEADS OF THE ROUND TABLE, easily lent themselves to widescreen formatting, because the set designs had advantaged Ed Bernds and Jules White to originally film a large number of medium and long shots; when White revisited these shorts in 1954, the widescreen framing variance was not as serious a concern.

I don't have the time or tech-skill to post remake screen comparisons, i.e., OUT WEST vs. PALS AND GALS, THE HOT SCOTS vs. SCOTCHED IN SCOTLAND, etc. Were the 1940s-to-1950s ratio conversions accomplished with simple matting, were scenes adjusted +/- vertically, did White's film editor(s) use optical +/- zoom adjustments... or, were all methods employed?


Offline falsealarms

Thump may have yet another assignment with things like OUT WEST vs PALS & GALS ;-)


ThumpTheShoes

  • Guest
One thing to keep in mind, here, as we go through these comparisons is that, years ago, these films were released full-frame to theaters. Only in projection would the image be cropped, and that's the great disadvantage of the dvd presentation-- the picture information simply isn't there for us to twiddle with and adjust to our liking, or to what would be the most aesthetically pleasing.

Scotched in Scotland.

In this short, believe it or not, the stock footage translates better to the wider aspect ratio than the new footage! At least, where things like telephones are concerned.. Have a look:

Sony DVD, widescreen
Stooge-A-Palooza, off-air copy VHS, full frame









And, for good measure, this cap was taken from Sony's "Collection" dvd of The Hot Scots:



The stock footage appears exactly as it did in the original film, at least for this short!

The fifth screen cap (widescreen) does seem a tad cramped, but the composition is still effective, as the Boys "huddle" around the Earl's desk. You get a feeling of almost conspiratorial closeness, while MacPherson hovers in the background, trying to be inconspicuous while eavesdropping.


xraffle

  • Guest
I just finished watching the entire set yesterday and was very happy with the rest of the widescreen shorts. It’s just “Goof on the Roof” that was an issue. Of course, there were a few instances where the re-used footage has certain things cut off due to the cropping. For example, in “Pals and Gals” when Shemp shoots the coin in the air and all the small coins fall on the table. The table gets cut off completely and all you see is the bartender’s reaction. But I only caught a few of these. So, it’s not too bad.

Sony faced a lose-lose situation with this volume. Sony released the shorts in widescreen and now some people are mad because certain things are cut off. If Sony were to release them in full screen, then purists will be mad because these shorts are not released on DVD in their original aspect ratio.


Offline Moe Hailstone

  • Chucklehead
  • ***
  • "I am Mattie Herring. Ah, my favorite dish!"
It would figure, that my personal favorite Shemp short had to be messed with...

Sony really can't win here, since if you recall...they fixed the sped up voice issue with "Hot Scots" and people yelled bloody murder!

Now, they leave the bad Widescreen filming of "Goofs on the Roof", and people still want blood!

I personally feel that they should have included a regular fullscreen for "Goofs" to show in comparison on the DVD.  This way everyone wins.  The purists who want the version that was made (even though wrong) all those years ago, and the version that isn't Widescreen...but is MUCH better to watch.

I liked the voice change for "Hot Scots", but this version of "Goofs" is upsetting.  I guess I'll be keeping my other copy of "Goofs" to watch.   :-[
"Moronica must expand! We shall lend our neighbors a helping hand, we shall lend them two helping hands... and help ourselves to our neighbors!"  Moe Hailstone


Offline Stooges#1

With Goof on the Roof is the entire short cropped or only certain parts?

Also, this question may not make sense as the short on the DVD is in widescreen, but if the short is watched on an old old CRT or Laptop is the copping still there or does the smaller screen fix it?


Offline Bob Furmanek

Columbia, as a matter of studio policy, switched to widescreen cinematography at the end of April, 1953. Their specified aspect ratio was 1.85. From that point forward, all newly photographed material for the Stooge shorts was composed for that ratio.

Also, while the new cyan/magenta anaglyph transfers of the 3-D shorts look good, they were originally shown theatrically in the vastly superior dual-strip Polaroid method. These were extremely well photographed and there is no double image (or image ghosting) when seen in that system. In fact, SPOOKS was originally tinted sepia and was made to run with the Columbia 3-D feature FORT TI. That's why the Stooges mention Fort Ticonderoga in the opening scene. Here's a frame grab from one side of an original 35mm sepia-toned print.



I've edited this post to remove inaccurate info on the production of GOOF ON THE ROOF. I've just learned that it was filmed in November 1952, nearly 5 months before Columbia switched to widescreen cinematography. Therefore, it was most certainly composed for the standard 1.37 Academy ratio. It had the misfortune to sit in the can for over a year and when it was finally released to theaters in late 1953, it was shown 1.85. You'll note the blocking on the titles accommodates the widescreen ratio, but this also explains why certain shots are missing information at the top of the image. There were quite a few features that met this same fate during that transitional period, such as WAR OF THE WORLDS, IT CAME FROM OUTER SPACE, SHANE and many others.

When mastering a film for widescreen transfer, it's most important to research when the film was produced as opposed to the date of release.


ThumpTheShoes

  • Guest
A cheap-o, homebrew widescreen test, culled from the full frame screen grab (slightly zoomed on the VHS) from pages ago:

Sony DVD, widescreen
Columbia VHS, full frame, tweaked!

Bob Furmanek's film grab of Spooks!
Sony dvd, widescreen

Yeah, I couldn't resist!   :laugh:
 [pie]

Does anyone even want more comparisons? Has this been beaten to death enough, or do you want some more?


Offline luke795

Thanks for the comparison screenshots.  Could you do some comparison screenshots of some of the full frame shorts like A Missed Fortune, Corny Casanovas, He Cooked His Goose and Cuckoo on a Choo Choo?


Offline metaldams

Hey, I'm totally cool with the screenshots. 

My Vol. 7 copy arrived today a little earlier than I was expecting!  It's going to take some will power, but I'm going to spend the weekend watching the set in order and not skip right away to the widescreen and 3-D stuff.  Ah, a Stooge weekend.  Sweet.

This set may or may not be flawed, depending on who you ask, but it is what it is.  All I know is several of these shorts on disc 2 I've only seen in full frame, 27th generation VHS copies taped from television in the 1980's and as a result, I haven't watched them anywhere near as much as the Curlys and early Shemps.  I'm just going to enjoy this set for what it is, and out of all the releases so far, THIS is the one I'm looking forward to watching the most, not based on artistic merit, but based on the lesser (several of the remakes) and never (3D, widescreen) explored goodies within.  My friends, it's a good day, and it makes me feel all fuzzy inside knowing the genius of Joe Besser is coming to the world after this, widescreen, remastered, and in living black and white.  Now if you'll all excuse me, I have to go on a Stooge binge this weekend.  I may not make it to work on Monday.
- Doug Sarnecky


ThumpTheShoes

  • Guest
A Missed Fortune

Image sizes for this one are slightly different due to the different sized video formats.

Sony DVD
Magna Pacific dvd, Australia, PAL format



Corny Casanovas

Sony DVD
Off-air broadcast, VHS


ThumpTheShoes

  • Guest
He Cooked His Goose

Sony DVD
GoodTimes Video, VHS


Cuckoo on a Choo Choo


Sony DVD
GoodTimes Video, VHS


xraffle

  • Guest
Columbia, as a matter of studio policy, switched to widescreen cinematography at the end of April, 1953. Their specified aspect ratio was 1.85. From that point forward, all newly photographed material for the Stooge shorts was composed for that ratio.

I've run an original 35mm print of GOOF ON THE ROOF in 1.85 and it looks fine. The compositions are correct and do not suffer from the improper framing on this new transfer. Unfortunately, this is a case of the telecine operator doing a bad job during the transfer. If he had centered the titles and paid attention to the headroom, this wouldn't have happened.

Bob-

Is it possible for you to post a screenshot from your 35mm copy of "Goof on the Roof?" If not, that's fine. I'm just curious to see how bad of a job Sony did with this set. Thanks.


Offline Bob Furmanek

I would if I still had access, but I ran that 35mm print over ten years ago. Sorry about that!


Offline Bob Furmanek

I just received word from a Stooge expert that GOOF ON THE ROOF was filmed in November of 1952, and sat in the can for over a year before its release in December 1953. If that's the case, then this short would have been composed for the standard 1.37 Academy ratio.


xraffle

  • Guest
I just received word from a Stooge expert that GOOF ON THE ROOF was filmed in November of 1952, and sat in the can for over a year before its release in December 1953. If that's the case, then this short would have been composed for the standard 1.37 Academy ratio.

That explains why that short is the only one that looks funky in widescreen. The rest look good.


Offline metaldams

      As somebody who watched all of vol. 7 this weekend, my biggest disappointment with this set is, well....the shorts themselves.  There are probably about 3 or 4 genuine classics, or at least near classics on here, but come '52 - '54, we've entered the era where Jules White's unit took over the department completely and the remakes came pouring in.  I'm very happy to have these shorts in the condition they're in, but man, I just can't help but feel ripped off by all these stock footage jobs.  Not ripped off by Sony, mind you, but the Columbia shorts department.  Yeah, yeah, I know, shorts back then were released years apart and not exposed as much as they are today.  The problem is, it's 2009.  The 3-D stuff?  Nice to have for accuracy, but consider me underwhelmed.  3-D was a cheap novelty, and while it was cool for a split second to have a flame jet out at me, overall the 3-D concept is a distraction from the actual short itself.  I'm glad 2-D versions were included, not that these two shorts are all that great anyway.

      On a positive note, THREE DARK HORSES and GOOF ON THE ROOF, no matter how they're framed, are Stooge classics.  The former by far has the most spontaneous feel of any Stooge short of the era, and perhaps rushing it out there for the 1952 election has something to do with this.  The latter is just plain kick ass slapstick.  LISTEN, JUDGE is basically just using up old plot lines and routines from past Stooge efforts, but they borrow from the best stuff.  The boys perform this old material well, making LISTEN, JUDGE feel more like a great compilation album as opposed to a classic proper album.  CUCKOO ON A CHOO-CHOO?  Criminally underrated.  All the boys do a fine job in this one, and the scene where Shemp has the electric razor down his back kissing the ladies is one of the most wonderfully bizzare Stooge scenes ever.  There are a few other fun shorts on here, but overall, the mentioned four are the best.

      As far as presentation of this or any other volume goes , I am perfectly satisfied.  The restorations are beautiful, in logical order, and the shorts are complete.  I remember a DVD world with an entire gag spliced off from THREE LITTLE BEERS, crappy prints, and "themes" that nobody actually cares about.  Oh yeah, there was that whole color thing too.  You folks want something to complain about?  Try the North American treatment of the Laurel and Hardy catalog.  We're lucky as Stooge fans.
- Doug Sarnecky


Offline falsealarms

My take on the shorts, in no order

GREAT
# Shot in the Frontier
# Income Tax Sappy
# Goof on the Roof
# Pardon My Backfire
# Spooks!
# Tricky Dicks
# Loose Loot
# Corny Casanovas
# Three Dark Horses
# Gents in a Jam

GOOD
# He Cooked His Goose
# Listen, Judge
# A Missed Fortune
# Booty and the Beast
# Up in Daisy's Penthouse

OK
# Scotched in Scotland
# Knutzy Knights
# Pals and Gals
# Musty Musketeers

WEAKLINGS
# Cuckoo on a Choo-Choo
# Bubble Trouble
# Rip, Sew and Stitch


Offline JazzBill

I couldn't agree with you more. I've heard a lot of complaining since Sony started putting out these shorts. Considering this stuff was filmed between 50 and 75 years ago, I'm pretty happy with what I have watched. Money well spent in my opinion.
"When in Chicago call Stockyards 1234, Ask for Ruby".


Offline metaldams

I couldn't agree with you more. I've heard a lot of complaining since Sony started putting out these shorts. Considering this stuff was filmed between 50 and 75 years ago, I'm pretty happy with what I have watched. Money well spent in my opinion.

Amen brother Jazz. 
- Doug Sarnecky


Offline IFleecem

  • Puddinhead
  • ***
  • "Hey Moe, Wher'd You Get The Sunglasses"
Just glad that these are being released (and quickly as well) Thank You Sony!

Robin