Soitenly
Moronika
The community forum of ThreeStooges.net

Three Stooges shorts coming to Blu-ray this summer

0 Members and 11 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Tony Bensley

Dizzy Detectives is pictured on the second cover art. And looks like they moved the Curly Joe movies over to the last cover art now. Are they including the missing 90 shorts now?
And I just watched "Dizzy Detectives" yesterday, too!  [nuts] Good spot!!  [thumbsup2]

Some of the revised cover artwork rather strongly suggests at least some of the missing 90 shorts may now be included. Hopefully, Sony confirms one way or the other, soon!  [scratch]

CHEERS!  [3stooges]


Offline Larrys#1

If Sony is indeed reconstructing this set to include all 190 shorts, then is pushing the release date by a couple of weeks enough time?? That’s the part I’m confused about.


Offline Tony Bensley

If Sony is indeed reconstructing this set to include all 190 shorts, then is pushing the release date by a couple of weeks enough time?? That’s the part I’m confused about.
There is definitely a lot to be confused about regarding recent developments associated with this upcoming Blu-ray release!

Sony needs to clarify any changes in what Stooge shorts and features are now being included, plus any extras that may no longer be part of the package. The sooner they do this, the better!

CHEERS!  [3stooges]


Offline NoahYoung

And let's hope they don't use edited Screen Gems prints, like THREE SAPPY PEOPLE and A BIRD IN THE HEAD. Those were ok on the DVDs.

Burt Lancaster was too short!
- The Birdman of Alcatraz


Offline metaldams

I bought those 4 Universal Abbott and Costello DVD sets back in the day and they’re still my main Bud and Lou source for those films.  They did eventually release IT AIN’T HAY individually, I think it may be DVR - but don’t quote me on that.
- Doug Sarnecky


Offline Larrys#1

I've been trying to decide whether to pre-order this or not for the longest time... not so much because of the incompleteness of it, but because I don't know if I really feeling like buying these shorts all over again. Sure, it would be nice to own these in HD, but I've been through the pain and hassle of buying these on VHS, then on DVD and then again on DVD. And I also bought the digital copies on Vudu at one point during a crazy cheap sale, as I liked the convenience of being able to digitally stream them wherever I go and also being able to toggle between several different shorts without switching discs; and at the same time, it serves as a backup in case anything should happen to my DVDs. So do I really want to buy these AGAIN?? I love the stooges, but I have been buying and re-buying these, and watching and rewatching them so many times in my life. I just don't think I have anymore gas in the tank to go through it all again.


Offline TTS#1

I discovered Tubi the other day and realised my TV has the app. Watching The Three Stooges in HD on there is such a fantastic way to watch them. If eventually all 190 shorts make it to BluRay, I will buy them. But for now Tubi is an amazing option, with my DVD set as a backup in the event that Tubi removes the Stooges off their service.

I just can’t see myself ever spending money on an incomplete BluRay, there was no reason for Sony to release a BluRay set with only 100 shorts.


Offline NoahYoung

...I don't know if I really feeling like buying these shorts all over again...
So do I really want to buy these AGAIN??

I've been going through these kind of decisions since the dawn of VHS with lots of movies I like. At some point you need to say to yourself  "I'm done" and enjoy what you have. After all, you already own these movies.

At least DVDs still play in the new-fangled blu-ray/UHD players, right? Now if there ever comes a time when there are no more players that will play a DVD, then that's s different story. You can hedge against that scenario and rip ur DVDs to disc, assuming you have the space -- but buying disc drives (or cloud storage) with enough capacity may cost more than buying the new set of blu-rays. That's how they getcha!

There's always FOMO, too. But you know what -- when was the last time a movie was impossible to get because you didn't buy it when it was available? Years and years ago, perhaps.






Burt Lancaster was too short!
- The Birdman of Alcatraz


Offline NoahYoung

I just can’t see myself ever spending money on an incomplete BluRay, there was no reason for Sony to release a BluRay set with only 100 shorts.

Yes, Sony's decision defies all logic, unless they plan to release the remaining 90 on a Volume 2.

I could understand if they released a "best of" set, with much fewer than 100 shorts. Or a set with all the Curlys. Or all the Shemps. Or all the Joe Bessers (yea right!) Or all the Curly Joes. But a random sampling of more than half the shorts makes ZERO sense.

Are the missing ones available streaming in HD? The only logical reason for not releasing all 190, is that for 90 of them they don't have the original negatives, or prints made from them, that are in good enough shape. But there's just about zero probability of that being the case.

I'm sure if you asked Sony, you'd get a corporate response put together by 100 stuffed shirts that would leave us more confused than we are now.


Burt Lancaster was too short!
- The Birdman of Alcatraz


Offline Larrys#1

I've been going through these kind of decisions since the dawn of VHS with lots of movies I like. At some point you need to say to yourself  "I'm done" and enjoy what you have. After all, you already own these movies.

At least DVDs still play in the new-fangled blu-ray/UHD players, right? Now if there ever comes a time when there are no more players that will play a DVD, then that's s different story. You can hedge against that scenario and rip ur DVDs to disc, assuming you have the space -- but buying disc drives (or cloud storage) with enough capacity may cost more than buying the new set of blu-rays. That's how they getcha!

There's always FOMO, too. But you know what -- when was the last time a movie was impossible to get because you didn't buy it when it was available? Years and years ago, perhaps.

Here we are over 24 years later since the DVD format came out and DVD players are still very easy to get. A PS5 and all Blu-ray players play DVDs. And you can still find a few standalone DVD players at Best Buy for like $30. I don't think DVD players are ever going anywhere. It will be a niche market, but will still be available to buy.


Offline Tony Bensley

Here we are over 24 years later since the DVD format came out and DVD players are still very easy to get. A PS5 and all Blu-ray players play DVDs. And you can still find a few standalone DVD players at Best Buy for like $30. I don't think DVD players are ever going anywhere. It will be a niche market, but will still be available to buy.
External DVD Readers/Burners are also still easy peasy to get online. Picked one up for around $30 about 2 months ago. They're not going away anytime soon!

CHEERS!  [3stooges]


Offline NoahYoung

External DVD Readers/Burners are also still easy peasy to get online. Picked one up for around $30 about 2 months ago. They're not going away anytime soon!

CHEERS!  [3stooges]

That's good to hear -- but how's the quality?

For the major media formats, I skipped laserdiscs and now blu-ray/HD/whatever.

So in my lifetime, to own physical media of a movie, the major formats have been film (I'll combine the different gauges into one for simplicity - Super 8, etc.), video-tape (includes beta and VHS), laserdisc, DVD, blu-ray (including super-duper ultra HD formats!). That's an average of under 12 years per format. Wasn't there a "super VHS" at one point, too? Also 8mm cassette tapes of movies. And RCA Selectavision, which was a disc that used a needle to play a movie! And there was an "HD" format that competed with blu-ray at first, but quickly lost out, to the chagrin of people who bought those players. With those, an average of 6-7 years per format in my lifetime.

Maybe people like us are just of a different ilk? Maybe most people view physical media and players as ephemera and a cheaper (in the long run) alternative to going to the movies. When you could go to a video store to rent a movie for a couple of bucks, it was a lot cheaper than going to the movies with a family of 4 just to see a movie a few months earlier. Now discs are relatively cheap to buy as well. (I remember when most pre-recorded video tapes were as much as $100 a pop -- no one bought them but "the rich" and video stores.)

Now throw in the fact that to just see movies at home (no physical media or ownership) you went from broadcast TV to cable to streaming.  It used to be free to watch the Stooges, assuming you owned a TV and had electricity. Ya gotta pay for cable and streaming! To stream, you need electricty, an internet service provider, a cable coming into your home, a cable modem, a wireless router, and a smart TV or a streaming device connect to the TV. That all costs money, and most worthwhile streaming services require a paid subscription. Ka-ching!

I'm still annoyed that although the signal for a streaming service is available via the cable connected to my cable box by my TV, to use streaming, an equivalent cable is connected to a cable modem in another room, that's hooked up to a wireless router, that sends a signal through the air to my Amazon Firestick connected to my TV! It's the equivalent of scratching my right ear with my left foot! My cable service needs to design a single device that I can connect that cable to that will provide both my cable TV and internet. They already provide me with the cable box, modem and router. It seems like the most obvious technology advances are ignored -- combining those 3 devices into 1. I could eliminate the Firestick since my TV is "smart", but the hardware has long outlasted the software on it, even with those auto-updates.

All of the above might be the the biggest con perpetrated on humans in history! :o

That's why the only physical media I still buy is film -- Super 8, Standard 8, and 16mm. 40+ year old projectors still work, and most are easily repaired by me. (Does a 40+ year old VCR still work?)

You can hold a film up to the light and see images with the naked eye. If some future society finds an old film, it will be relatively easy to figure out how to make a device to view it. If discs are even still readable in a thousand years, will the people even deduce that it holds a movie? And if so, how will they figure out how to translate those 0s and 1s into images? (There are already so many different digital formats of a movie.) How will they even figure out that the disc contains a series of 0s and 1s?

Just sayin'...



Burt Lancaster was too short!
- The Birdman of Alcatraz


Offline Freddie Sanborn

Music for home use had the same evolution, tho spaced out over a much longer time span. First came piano rolls assuming you could afford a VERY expensive player piano. Then wax cylinders, which were plentiful, but you had to buy a player. Both can be purchased at antique shops today. Then came 78 rpm’s which required a whole new playing apparatus. 78’s were the standard for decades, but were quickly eclipsed by 45’s, LP’s, 8-track and cassette tapes, then CD’s. Now it’s all downloadable. What’s a music lover to do?
“If it’s not comedy, I fall asleep.” Harpo Marx


Offline Larrys#1

External DVD Readers/Burners are also still easy peasy to get online. Picked one up for around $30 about 2 months ago. They're not going away anytime soon!

CHEERS!  [3stooges]

The only reason VHS got completely axed was because we moved from the analog to the digital era. Digital is not going anywhere. And since DVDs are digital, they ain't goin' no where either!  :)


Offline Larrys#1

I've been going through these kind of decisions since the dawn of VHS with lots of movies I like. At some point you need to say to yourself  "I'm done" and enjoy what you have. After all, you already own these movies.

At least DVDs still play in the new-fangled blu-ray/UHD players, right? Now if there ever comes a time when there are no more players that will play a DVD, then that's s different story. You can hedge against that scenario and rip ur DVDs to disc, assuming you have the space -- but buying disc drives (or cloud storage) with enough capacity may cost more than buying the new set of blu-rays. That's how they getcha!

There's always FOMO, too. But you know what -- when was the last time a movie was impossible to get because you didn't buy it when it was available? Years and years ago, perhaps.

FOMO is a big factor on why I'm still debating about whether to get this set.

All 190 shorts (and I mean ALL; not 100, lol) are available to stream in HD on Tubi for FREE with commercials. And I've watched a bunch of them and they look great indeed. Most of them are basically the same scans used for the DVDs, except for a select few that had issues and were fixed (i.e. the sound issue on "Yes, We Have No Bonanza" and the dirt/scratches on "Idiots Deluxe"). But the video quality on Tubi is heavily compressed (which is always a downfall with streaming to save bandwidth), so that's why I'm curious to watch these on Blu-ray in even better quality.


Offline falsealarms

FOMO is a big factor on why I'm still debating about whether to get this set.

All 190 shorts (and I mean ALL; not 100, lol) are available to stream in HD on Tubi for FREE with commercials. And I've watched a bunch of them and they look great indeed. Most of them are basically the same scans used for the DVDs, except for a select few that had issues and were fixed (i.e. the sound issue on "Yes, We Have No Bonanza" and the dirt/scratches on "Idiots Deluxe"). But the video quality on Tubi is heavily compressed (which is always a downfall with streaming to save bandwidth), so that's why I'm curious to watch these on Blu-ray in even better quality.

The other problem with Tubi is several shorts are in the wrong aspect ratio, for example, some late Shemps and Bessers are in full screen even though they were in widescreen as they should be on the DVDs. I've also read - but have not confirmed - the shorts on Tubi are in 720p. Blu-Ray would be 1080p.

Edit: This confirms Tubi streams at a max resolution of 720p: https://www.pcmag.com/reviews/tubi


Offline Larrys#1

The other problem with Tubi is several shorts are in the wrong aspect ratio, for example, some late Shemps and Bessers are in full screen even though they were in widescreen as they should be on the DVDs. I've also read - but have not confirmed - the shorts on Tubi are in 720p. Blu-Ray would be 1080p.

Edit: This confirms Tubi streams at a max resolution of 720p: https://www.pcmag.com/reviews/tubi

The aspect ratio thing never bothered me because with the exception of the two 3D shorts, the widescreen version basically just crops the top and bottom of the image and doesn’t really add detail to the left and right sides of the image. And this is blatantly evident in “Goof on the Roof” which looks horrendous in widescreen.


Offline falsealarms

The aspect ratio thing never bothered me because with the exception of the two 3D shorts, the widescreen version basically just crops the top and bottom of the image and doesn’t really add detail to the left and right sides of the image. And this is blatantly evident in “Goof on the Roof” which looks horrendous in widescreen.

GOOF was shot in late 1952, and based on that, I would believe it was not shot in widescreen. Widescreen shorts often look very good - for instance, I think SHOT IN THE FRONTIER is probably the most beautifully shot of all Stooge shorts in all its widescreen glory.


Offline NoahYoung

FOMO is a big factor on why I'm still debating about whether to get this set.

All 190 shorts (and I mean ALL; not 100, lol) are available to stream in HD on Tubi for FREE with commercials. And I've watched a bunch of them and they look great indeed. Most of them are basically the same scans used for the DVDs, except for a select few that had issues and were fixed (i.e. the sound issue on "Yes, We Have No Bonanza" and the dirt/scratches on "Idiots Deluxe"). But the video quality on Tubi is heavily compressed (which is always a downfall with streaming to save bandwidth), so that's why I'm curious to watch these on Blu-ray in even better quality.

So they had scanned them in HD and downgraded the resolution for DVD?

I understand the whole compression thing, but what I don't understand is how they can be called HD if they are compressed?

A single-layer DVD holds 4.7 gig, but HD files of 2 hour movies are often less than that.


Burt Lancaster was too short!
- The Birdman of Alcatraz


Offline Tony Bensley

So they had scanned them in HD and downgraded the resolution for DVD?

I understand the whole compression thing, but what I don't understand is how they can be called HD if they are compressed?

A single-layer DVD holds 4.7 gig, but HD files of 2 hour movies are often less than that.
It has to do with the DVD Format (Which comprises of VOB Video Files, plus IFO and BUP Files.) itself, which isn't capable of handling 1080p resolution, BUT mp4 Format files on a burned DVD can.

CHEERS!  [3stooges]


Offline Larrys#1

So they had scanned them in HD and downgraded the resolution for DVD?

I understand the whole compression thing, but what I don't understand is how they can be called HD if they are compressed?

A single-layer DVD holds 4.7 gig, but HD files of 2 hour movies are often less than that.

Yes, they were scanned in HD and then downscaled for DVD


Offline NoahYoung

It has to do with the DVD Format (Which comprises of VOB Video Files, plus IFO and BUP Files.) itself, which isn't capable of handling 1080p resolution, BUT mp4 Format files on a burned DVD can.

CHEERS!  [3stooges]

Yea, that's weird.

My simplistic view of it is that for a video frame rate of 23.9 or whatever it is -- close to 24 fps, you would need to store (1920x1080 pixels per frame) x (24) for every second of a movie. Not sure how much storage 1920X1080 pixels require.

But they don't always do that -- compression algorithms decide if a pixel needs to be displayed or not, so they don't store 1920X1080 unique pixels per frame. For example, if nothing in the background moves or changes appearance, no need to store it again. (These algorithms are called CODECS.) For animated films, this is easier since animation cells usually have fixed backgrounds as the characters move about -- until the background changes or the camera pans across the background. And for limited animation like most things for TV, now and 60 years ago, like the original FLINTSTONES TV show, they didn't draw Fred 24 times per second -- but much fewer times than that. So you can compress something like the FLINTSTONES much more that a Stooges short with no noticeable degradation.

DVDs are 720x480 pixels for a frame before compression.

Why I've tried to figure out is: what's better? Uncompressed DVD @480, or compressed HD @1080? I think, but am not sure, that even the "best" DVDs have some compression -- I've never done the math.

That's why I brought up the point of DVDs holding more data for a 480 image than an 1080 "HD" movie highly compressed. I guess the easiest way to look at it is: if you freeze frame, the HD pic will have better resolution than a DVD, but once you un-pause it, the DVD video may look better than a highly compressed HD video. High compression usually equals "digital compression artifacts". But the "better" codecs can compress more without them.  If you're using a PC/Laptop, sometimes it might not have the "horsepower" to properly view a video with some of the more sophisticated codecs. I've had that problem playing an HD video using h.265 on an old, now retired, PC, and it just couldn't display the frames fast enough -- you'd see a freeze frame as the sound continued for 10 seconds -- then it would display another frame and freeze again, etc. That same PC played h.264 perfectly. The math is something like an h.265 file is 60% of the size of an equivalent h.264 file. Meaning playing the h.264 file next to the h.265 file, you wouldn't notice the difference despite the h.265 file being smaller.

Anyway, that's my layman's understanding.

But I think there's a big con going on in streaming that advertises "HD" but is highly compressed.

So...the Stooges blu-ray will most likely look better than the HD streaming versions, but...if you have all 190 on DVD, do you really need to buy them again on blu-ray?
 [pie]
Burt Lancaster was too short!
- The Birdman of Alcatraz


Offline NoahYoung

Yes, they were scanned in HD and then downscaled for DVD

Thanks. Do you know if it was 2K, 4K, or higher?

I don't remember the year the complete Stooges DVDs first came out, and whether blu-ray was a "thing" yet.

The other con is boldly displaying "4K scan" on a regular blu-ray that is not Ultra HD. I don't know this for a fact, but to me, I think I'd rather have the film scanned at 2K for a regular blu-ray, rather than having an algorithm down-convert 4K to 2K. You would think that scanning each frame twice, in 2K and 4K, would not add much more cost to producing a digital product. But I may not know what I'm talking about!
 [3stooges]


Burt Lancaster was too short!
- The Birdman of Alcatraz


Offline Larrys#1

Thanks. Do you know if it was 2K, 4K, or higher?

I don't remember the year the complete Stooges DVDs first came out, and whether blu-ray was a "thing" yet.

The other con is boldly displaying "4K scan" on a regular blu-ray that is not Ultra HD. I don't know this for a fact, but to me, I think I'd rather have the film scanned at 2K for a regular blu-ray, rather than having an algorithm down-convert 4K to 2K. You would think that scanning each frame twice, in 2K and 4K, would not add much more cost to producing a digital product. But I may not know what I'm talking about!
 [3stooges]

Highly unlikely they were scanned in 4K. These were remastered over 10 years ago for DVD. I don’t think 4K was a thing back then. So I think they would have to rescan everything for 4K. But don’t quote me on that. I’m just guessing here. :)


Offline Larrys#1


So...the Stooges blu-ray will most likely look better than the HD streaming versions, but...if you have all 190 on DVD, do you really need to buy them again on blu-ray?
 [pie]

Yeah thats what I’ve been debating, lol.

Back when I had a 32” TV or even a 43” TV, I would’ve been content with the DVD copies. But now that I have a 55” 4K TV, the upgrade to HD would be substantial. That’s one of the disadvantages of having a bigger screen TV.  ;D