Topic: Three Stooges shorts coming to Blu-ray this summer

[NoahYoung]

I was introduced to them on WPIX Channel 11 in NYC.

I have a lot in Super 8, and a handful in 16mm. I've posted a list elsewhere on here, but haven't updated it in a while. None of my 16mm prints are missing anything. Some "unedited" Super 8 prints from Columbia were edited due to Screen Gems prints being the source. You'll only know something is missing if you know the short well.

The comedy does transcend most issues, except if the print was edited for violence, which WPIX did, and not elegantly at all.

I'be mentioned before that HD may show more detail than we are supposed to see. I caught an episode of BATMAN on MeTV recently, and you could see the difference in tone on The Penguins nose compared to the rest of his face. It was so obvious it was a prosthetic nose. They also did something with the frame rate that made it look lke it was shot on video-tape. I don't know if the blu-rays of the show are like this, and I have those "smoothing" settings off on my TV. People call it the "soap opera effect," a term I don't like since many TV shows other than soap operas were shot on video tape in the 70s, 80s and 90s -- ALL IN THE FAMILY, THE JEFFERSONS, GOOD TIMES, MARRIED WITH CHILDREN, etc.

If people want HD to look like they are in the theater watching a 35mm film, then they should go: camera neg ->inter positive ->dupe neg->print and scan that so unintended details won't show up. People are so caught up in "what the film makers" intended, and they didn't intend you to see an earlier generation film than the 4th. IMO, 480p (DVD) is perfect to hide enough details while still using a camera neg as the source. And for TV shows, sometimes 16mm prints were broadcast first-run for local affiliates of the networks who didn't have a direct line to get a feed, and thus needed 16mm prints for their own film-chain for broadcast.

[Larrys#1]

I’m surprised by the lack of reviews of this set, especially at blu-ray.com. But you guys can rest assured that these shorts are in best quality in this set. The scans appear to be the same as the DVDs, with a few shorts being fixed due to some minor issues on the DVDs (see my previous post for those differences which I noted).

Bit rate seems rather low on these discs, with the average bit rate remaining at the teens, but that doesn’t affect the quality of how these look. They were transferred very well. In fact, these look exceptionally well especially on my big 4K TV, so I’m wondering if these were remastered in 4K. Either way, I can’t imagine these looking any better. Even a 4K copy wouldn’t do much improvement because these blu-ray discs look so good already.

The ONLY complaint I have is that it’s missing 90 shorts. If this would’ve included all 190 shorts, this would have easily been THE ultimate collection.

[NoahYoung]

The scans appear to be the same as the DVDs, with a few shorts being fixed due to some minor issues on the DVDs (see my previous post for those differences which I noted).

Do you mean that these were originally scanned in 1080 for the DVDs, and then downscaled for release in that original set?

If they are on plain-vanilla blu-ray, they can't be 4K. And even on 4K would be useless unless they were scanned at 4k. What would they fill in the additional pixels with? (The # of pixels when you subtract the # of pixels in 1080HD from the # of pixels in 4K. That's 8.3 million minus 2 million.) That would display more "made-up" pixels than pixels that resulted from the actual scan!

BTW, on real film, you are seeing everything photographed on the days the shorts were filmed -- nothing more, nothing less. No grain is "made up" to make it look better.
 

[Larrys#1]

Do you mean that these were originally scanned in 1080 for the DVDs, and then downscaled for release in that original set?

If they are on plain-vanilla blu-ray, they can't be 4K. And even on 4K would be useless unless they were scanned at 4k. What would they fill in the additional pixels with? (The # of pixels when you subtract the # of pixels in 1080HD from the # of pixels in 4K. That's 8.3 million minus 2 million.) That would display more "made-up" pixels than pixels that resulted from the actual scan!

BTW, on real film, you are seeing everything photographed on the days the shorts were filmed -- nothing more, nothing less. No grain is "made up" to make it look better.
 

I believe they were originally scanned in 1080 and then downscaled for the DVDs. I really can't say for sure whether they rescanned the same prints again for the Blu-ray or used the same scans as the DVDs & just did some additional restoration. Because while they look like the same prints as the DVDs, they just look crisper and cleaner on the Blu-rays. I'm not exaggerating when I say these look absolutely beautiful on Blu-ray. It's such a shame 90 shorts were omitted.