It is currently Sat Nov 18, 2017 5:35 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1167 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 47  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Jun 17, 2014 11:20 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:24 pm
Location: Teegeeack
captveg wrote:
I don't know which part of that post I find more problematic - "old DVD master" or "missing side information" necessitating a 1.33 transfer.

If the master is really that old, then how could they have cropped it to widescreen to begin with? A 4K master at 1.33:1 would have enough information to do a 1080p version at 1.85:1, but it seems improbable that an "old DVD master" of Marty would have been done at 4K.


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Wed Jun 18, 2014 1:44 am 
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2012 10:25 am
jonah.77 wrote:
FWIW Delbert Mann does mention in a few interviews that he preferred the 1.33 format for Marty as it was closest to the television aspect ratio. He and Paddy Chayefsky are on record as having wished to preserve as much of the aesthetic of the live television episode as possible. Keep in mind that the aesthetic philosophy of Mann (and his producer/mentor Fred Coe) was very much "anti-spectacle," and widescreen was still associated with spectacle at that time. I don't mean this to be a definitive answer; as we know, folks can argue about aspect ratios until the cows come home without any kind of resolution.

It would certainly go some way to change my opinion. Do you have any links/sources?

The Fanciful Norwegian wrote:
captveg wrote:
I don't know which part of that post I find more problematic - "old DVD master" or "missing side information" necessitating a 1.33 transfer.

If the master is really that old, then how could they have cropped it to widescreen to begin with? A 4K master at 1.33:1 would have enough information to do a 1080p version at 1.85:1, but it seems improbable that an "old DVD master" of Marty would have been done at 4K.

That's what I am saying. An old master that does not represent accurately the width of an original print is not going to crop properly to the intended ratio. And if done at a low resolution will not have enough to remain 1080p when cropped.

We were hoping this would be a new transfer, basically.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 18, 2014 4:43 am 
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2012 10:25 am
Gregory wrote:
Great. This will probably be enough fuel to keep Jeff Wells's "antifascist" crusade going the rest of his lifetime.

Especially since on Facebook Kino have now referred to his article on the issue to support their decision...

I guess he is their "outside expert".


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 18, 2014 10:33 am 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 10:58 pm
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Quote:
After examining the film elements and consulting with the studio and outside experts, we've decided to release our DVD and Blu-ray of MARTY in anamorphic 1.33:1. There is not a lot of head room in the print, and at 1.85:1 too much of the image was being cropped. So we are releasing it in 1.33:1, the preferred aspect ratio of the studio, and the ratio at which The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences screens their prints of MARTY.


What is the purpose of putting out something in anamorphic 1.33:1? I know most people these days have a widescreen TV, but for those who still for some reason have a square monitor, it is not beneficial at all.

Is there any positive in the anamorphic 1.33:1 vs standard 4:3 1.33:1 encoding of DVDs?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 18, 2014 10:37 am 
Dot Com Dom
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
All Blu-rays of Academy titles are pillarboxed within the 1.78 frame


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 18, 2014 11:03 am 
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2012 10:25 am
It's an erroneous term. There is no anamorphic option for Blu-rays like there is for DVDs, they just mean pillarboxed 1.33:1, as dom says.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 18, 2014 8:02 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 9:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO
The guy writing the Facebook posts for Kino doesn't seem to understand the (often substantial) zooming that was done on all four sides of the frame during telecine on older transfers. That certainly seems to be the problem here. If they were working from the original 1.37 elements and creating a new master, I expect that they could frame it at 1.85 (or at least 1.66) with appropriate headroom.

I'm not entirely convinced that 1.85 is the ideal aspect ratio for Marty, and I too would love to read about Delbert Mann's supposed preference for open matte.

They also need to do something about the spiteful and tone deaf marketing guy they've got running their Facebook. His curt dismissals of informed viewpoints remind me of the guy who didn't work for Olive that always dismissed complaints about their substandard work on Face to Face as not coming from "real" reviewers. This guy (who I'm sure is entirely different from the Olive guy) is citing one of Jeff Wells' rambling blog screeds as an "article" on the correct aspect ratio.

I'm taking a wait and see approach with these titles now. With them being on sale, I had pre-ordered four titles, but I've cancelled all those orders pending reviews.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 18, 2014 8:20 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2012 10:25 am
At least one poster on HTF who has the DVD feels it crops fine to 16x9, suggesting the transfer might not even be zoomed in already. I wouldn't be surprised if that is the case. The PR guy, MisterLime (who I'm sure isn't Frank Tarzi), has said that just like Olive did with The Atomic Kid, tests were performed on Marty at 1.85:1, but they discovered 1.33:1 was actually the intended ratio.

You know they must be right because as you can clearly see from these caps, there's no way The Atomic Kid could suffer any cropping... :roll:


Last edited by EddieLarkin on Wed Jun 18, 2014 8:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 18, 2014 8:20 pm 

Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 1:53 am
Jeff wrote:
The guy writing the Facebook posts for Kino doesn't seem to understand the (often substantial) zooming that was done on all four sides of the frame during telecine on older transfers. That certainly seems to be the problem here. If they were working from the original 1.37 elements and creating a new master, I expect that they could frame it at 1.85 (or at least 1.66) with appropriate headroom.

A lot of people are referring to this as a "zoomed in transfer" or a "manipulated print" without offering any proof other than it doesn't matte successfully to 1.85:1. No one has posted a scan of a full frame from a film print showing it has been zoomed in, but speculation is being declared gospel truth. I have the highest respect for Bob Furmanek and his research, but I think it's at least possible that the director and cinematographer wanted to the film to be 1.33 or 1.66, but the studio ignored their wishes and sent it out with instructions to show it at 1.85 in order to make it look less like TV.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 18, 2014 8:25 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2012 10:25 am
You're right Jameson, we don't know. The point I've just made above is that the guy who was making the AR decisions for Olive and is now seemingly making them for Kino, has proved himself previously to be Jeff Wells level incompetent. If Kino are saying Marty is too tight at 1.85:1, it doesn't necessarily indicate that the transfer is zoomed in, OR that the director composed for a different ratio. It could just mean that this guy is a boxy fetishist.


Last edited by EddieLarkin on Wed Jun 18, 2014 8:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 18, 2014 8:26 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 9:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO
Jameson281 wrote:
A lot of people are referring to this as a "zoomed in transfer" or a "manipulated print" without offering any proof other than it doesn't matte successfully to 1.85:1. No one has posted a scan of a full frame from a film print showing it has been zoomed in, but speculation is being declared gospel truth. I have the highest respect for Bob Furmanek and his research, but I think it's at least possible that the director and cinematographer wanted to the film to be 1.33 or 1.66, but the studio ignored their wishes and sent it out with instructions to show it at 1.85 in order to make it look less like TV.

You would certainly know more about the vintage and quality of this transfer than the rest of us, Jameson, so I'll take your word for it. Zooming just seemed like a very realistic plausibility since it seems like it was screened at 1.85 in theaters without problems. Again, I think it is entirely possible that 1.37 or 1.66 would be Mann's preference (and mine as well).


EDIT: Poor MisterLime has a hard time staying in character. He's doing his thing over at Home Theater Forum, calling everyone idiots while insisting that he doesn't represent Kino, but he let this slip into one of his diatribes:
Quote:
We contacted Bob and other experts and made our decision.

Emphasis mine.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 18, 2014 8:52 pm 

Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 1:53 am
Jeff wrote:
You would certainly know more about the vintage and quality of this transfer than the rest of us, Jameson, so I'll take your word for it. Zooming just seemed like a very realistic plausibility since it seems like it was screened at 1.85 in theaters without problems. Again, I think it is entirely possible that 1.37 or 1.66 would be Mann's preference (and mine as well).

I haven't watched the entire transfer, so I'm no expert on its quality. As for its vintage, it's not as old as some people are assuming.

I'm certainly not saying my theory is right and Bob's is wrong. My theory is pure speculation, based solely upon observations watching the film both in HD video and projected 35mm; Bob's theory is logical, has some documentation and may very well be correct. But as yet it is unproven. Still, a mob mentality seems to be taking over where many people are declaring it fact, calling Kino liars or fools, and then jumping to the conclusion that the Kino-MGM deal must be a catastrophe made up only of transfers rejected by other labels. The latter is patently untrue, since some of the transfers Kino is getting are brand new.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 18, 2014 9:31 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 7:28 pm
Jeff wrote:
EDIT: Poor MisterLime has a hard time staying in character. He's doing his thing over at Home Theater Forum, calling everyone idiots while insisting that he doesn't represent Kino, but he let this slip into one of his diatribes:
Quote:
We contacted Bob and other experts and made our decision.

Emphasis mine.

I noticed that as well, but figured to call him on it would just be adding gasoline to the fire.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 18, 2014 9:37 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 7:28 pm
Jameson281 wrote:
Still, a mob mentality seems to be taking over where many people are declaring it fact, calling Kino liars or fools, and then jumping to the conclusion that the Kino-MGM deal must be a catastrophe made up only of transfers rejected by other labels. The latter is patently untrue, since some of the transfers Kino is getting are brand new.

As I said ay HTF, I'm expecting these to essentially be the same deal as the Olive Paramount/Republic releases in regards to quality. There will be some open matte mid-50s releases, but otherwise these should be generally good, if not particularly outstanding releases.

Full disclosure: I did refer to Kino as "a bunch of ass clowns", but that was specific to their FB response others have also criticized here.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 18, 2014 10:02 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 9:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO
captveg wrote:
Full disclosure: I did refer to Kino as "a bunch of ass clowns", but that was specific to their FB response others have also criticized here.

I don't think that Kino is a "bunch of ass clowns." I've respected and admired them for a long time. I'm pretty confident that there is a singular, newly re-hired ass clown under the big top, and he's currently putting on the same performance at both HTF and FB.

As I've said, the mysterious "MisterLime" can be as big of dick as he wants as long as they're putting out quality versions of films I want. In a way, I've actually come to find FrankScottWorldCinemaLime's goofball charade kind of hilarious, as long as he doesn't expect anyone to actually believe it. I would love it if Becker or Turrell made up a fake name and joined the forum to tell us all what a bunch of assholes we are. My only concern is that it's clearly turning off a lot of customers who don't want anything to do with Kino now, and is potentially undermining the success of these releases.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 18, 2014 10:08 pm 
Dot Com Dom
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
What if it turns out they have and it was PSUFootball? What if Becker was one of us? Just a stranger on a bus, trying to make his way home


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 18, 2014 10:15 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 7:28 pm
Jeff wrote:
captveg wrote:
Full disclosure: I did refer to Kino as "a bunch of ass clowns", but that was specific to their FB response others have also criticized here.

I don't think that Kino is a "bunch of ass clowns." I've respected and admired them for a long time. I'm pretty confident that there is a singular, newly re-hired ass clown under the big top, and he's currently putting on the same performance at both HTF and FB.

As I've said, the mysterious "MisterLime" can be as big of dick as he wants as long as they're putting out quality versions of films I want. In a way, I've actually come to find FrankScottWorldCinemaLime's goofball charade kind of hilarious, as long as he doesn't expect anyone to actually believe it. I would love it if Becker or Turrell made up a fake name and joined the forum to tell us all what a bunch of assholes we are. My only concern is that it's clearly turning off a lot of customers who don't want anything to do with Kino now, and is potentially undermining the success of these releases.

Pretty much, which is why I tried to respond to his post in the HTF Kino thread in a constructive manner.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 21, 2014 12:50 am 
Dot Com Dom
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
The Young Savages also coming in September


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 23, 2014 6:21 pm 
Dot Com Dom
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
And Run Silent, Run Deep-- c'mon, if you love Lancaster so much, put out a good edition of Elmer Gantry and not this stuff


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 23, 2014 6:25 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 19, 2010 11:25 am
Location: Denmark
They are doing Elmer Gantry in September as well. Announced on their twitter the 19th.


Last edited by rockysds on Mon Jun 23, 2014 6:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 23, 2014 6:35 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 4:07 pm
If the MGM-KinoLorber deal is not limited to UA titles, then I wonder how much longer we'll have to wait to see a non-English-language film announced. Or will the pattern of releases be much like Olive's in that respect? I wonder who has the rights to OOP MGM titles like The Story of Adele H. (one I'm impatient for) and so many more from the old MGM "World Films" line.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 23, 2014 6:40 pm 
Dot Com Dom
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
rockysds wrote:
The are doing Elmer Gantry in September as well. Announced on their twitter the 19th.

Hot damn, all is forgiven Kino! \:D/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 23, 2014 6:56 pm 
Dot Com Dom
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
And Taras Bulba


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 23, 2014 7:06 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 02, 2013 6:08 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
I wonder what's left for Twilight Time!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 25, 2014 4:34 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 7:28 pm
Another September title:

Flesh + Blood (1985)


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1167 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 47  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Caligula


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group




This site is not affiliated with The Criterion Collection