3 Stooges Collection Vol. 7 - 1952-1954, November 10 (1 Viewer)

Is there a way that Sony can fix the audio issue with the aforementioned short? It is part of the gag. Maybe include it on the next volume of shorts for the fans...after all, this is a "fan collection."

 

[Joe Lugoff]

Is the part of GOOF ON THE ROOF which looks wrong taken from an earlier short? The old footage used in so many '50s shorts is going to result in heads being cut off when it's framed for 1.85:1.

 

[Robbie^Blackmon]

Goof on the Roof had all new material. Shots like the one below are the problem:

widescreen, from the new dvd

https://static.hometheaterforum.com/imgrepo/thumbs/d/d1/gr8.jpg/1000x500px-LL-gr8.jpg">

The same image taken from the older, full-frame Columbia VHS version

 

[Bob Furmanek]

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.

 

I just watched this short and it is not nearly as bad when viewed in motion.

 

[Robbie^Blackmon]

Originally Posted by Bob Furmanek

By the time this short went before the cameras in November 1953, Columbia's DP's had over 6 months of widescreen cinematography to learn the ropes. After all, they did a splendid job in May when SPOOKS began shooting only a few weeks after the camera view-finders had been modified with colored plastic masks to block for 1.85 while protecting for 1.37.

Cinematographer Sam Leavitt had previously lensed the widescreen 3-D western SOUTHWEST PASSAGE for Edward Small Productions in June and July. GOOF ON THE ROOF began a 4 day shoot on November 17, 1953. It's interesting to note that Leavitt took this assignment while working on A STAR IS BORN, so he was certainly familiar with the requirements of widescreen cinematography.

Oh, I agree that the other wide-aspect shorts in the set look great and, at times, phenomenal, as in the case of Shot in the Frontier. But I really think that Goof on the Roof just doesn't look that good framed at 1.85 and it's the only widescreen short in the set that consistently doesn't look good.

And, Goof on the Roof is the only widescreen short in the set with Leavitt as DP so, although the information you have provided presents him as a competent visionary, I'd say that, for this short, he just didn't bring anything worthwhile to the table.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

Originally Posted by Mark Y

I do appreciate the efforts to keep things "historically accurate" -- but seriously, this is fast becoming the new "pan & scan." Yes, I get that this is how they would have looked in a theatre. I get that. But tell me why it's BETTER to see LESS of the image

I'm a BIG supporter of films being seen in their OAR, but I think a case like this proves exactly what I've always said - that it doesn't always mean it was originally the best way.

Okay - so perhaps GOOF ON THE ROOF was screened too tight with the tops of the heads lopped off for theater screens back in the 1950s. But so what? That means it was not the optimal way to see it in those theaters back then, pure and simple. It means that this particular short actually BENEFITS from 4x3! It's rare that this happens, but just because a film may have been shown "improperly" back in the day, do we also preserve the error on DVD in 2009, just for the sake of "well, that's historically how it was shown in its day..." ..?

 

[Joe Karlosi]

Originally Posted by Eric Scott Richard

I just watched this short and it is not nearly as bad when viewed in motion.

Yes, I will agree to that. I came here first and saw the disturbing screen grabs, yet once I played the short, it wasn't that bad in motion. Still not the best way to see this particular short, though, IMO. A real shame too, as it's an all-new Shemp short (no stock footage), and I LOVE the "Stooges At Home" films, where they get into all sorts of trouble just doing the simplest of things, such as making lunch or setting up a TV set.

 

[moglia]

Some of this is utter rubbish. It was improper telecine operation during some of the transfers ie:Spooks, Goof On The Roof.

from Bob Furmanek (noted historical widescreen expert) Here is a proper capture from 35MM film of the spooks title:




Now here the cap from the 2009 Sony DVD, as you can see improper telecine operation:


No excuse for that anymore than there amateurish use of DNR on a bunch of the shorts. DNR is for hacks or interns. Proper film restoration is for professionals.

 

[moglia]

Some of this is utter rubbish. It was improper telecine operation during some of the transfers ie:Spooks, Goof On The Roof.

from 3 stooges.net Here is a proper capture from 35MM film of the spooks title:




Now here the cap from the 2009 Sony DVD, as you can see improper telecine operation:


No excuse for that anymore than there amateurish use of DNR on a bunch of the shorts. DNR is for hacks or interns. Proper film restoration is for professionals.

 

[Terry Hickey]

Originally Posted by Ronald Epstein


There are plans for only one more volume of shorts, at the
moment, which will cover all the remaining Three Stooges
shorts in Volume 8.

I commend Sony for doing a great job on these collections and am looking forward to the final volume to complete my Three Stoges shorts.
It's been a long time since I've seen any of the Besser shorts.

 

[moglia]

Originally Posted by Joe Lugoff

Is the part of GOOF ON THE ROOF which looks wrong taken from an earlier short? The old footage used in so many '50s shorts is going to result in heads being cut off when it's framed for 1.85:1.

Nope, improper telecine transfers by Sony , see my last post. We deserve to have these fixed. Sony needs to man-up.

 

[Mark Y]

All right, quit whinin' -- this is true to Jules White's artistic intent! They should do a movie called "Jules White," like "Ed Wood." Have stuff in there like the wonderful matching of old and new footage at the end of "Up In Daisy's Penthouse" -- the whole "Dead Shemp" thing (actually, it just hit me that's kind of like Ed's dentist "filling in" for Bela Lugosi in "Plan 9" -- this might be less sarcastic than I originally thought)!

 

The only real unfortunate Stooge edit occured in Volume One "Ants in the Pantry." In order to cover up a deleted fade-out, a line had to be partially cut. The "problems" with this volume just don't seem like problems to me.

 

[moglia]

Originally Posted by Mark Y

All right, quit whinin' -- this is true to Jules White's artistic intent!

Incorrectly done telecine transfer to DVD was Jules White's intent? I find that impossible to believe as he died in 1985, 10+ years before the innovation of DVD.

I'll take Bob Furmanek's expert analysis over Sony's marketing spin and conjecture any day. (http://threestooges.net/forums/index.php?topic=3261.msg24149#msg24149). Face it folks what you see on Vol 7 is human error during the DVD transfers, as long as Sony is looking to take money for these DVD's we have every right to point out their mistakes! They now need to man-up and make this right!

 

[Bob Furmanek]

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.

 

[Robbie^Blackmon]

Originally Posted by moglia

Some of this is utter rubbish. It was improper telecine operation during some of the transfers ie:Spooks, Goof On The Roof.

from Bob Furmanek (noted historical widescreen expert) Here is a proper capture from 35MM film of the spooks title:




Now here the cap from the 2009 Sony DVD, as you can see improper telecine operation:


No excuse for that anymore than there amateurish use of DNR on a bunch of the shorts. DNR is for hacks or interns. Proper film restoration is for professionals.

Actually, that one looks just fine, except one is sepia-toned and the other is not.

 

[Mark Y]

Originally Posted by moglia /forum/thread/291784/3-stooges-collection-vol-7-1952-1954-november-10/60#post_3628476

 

[moglia]

So he would have wanted the heads to be chopped off, even though it was not present this way on the actual film?

Edit: I get it now, that was sarcasm on your part.

Originally Posted by Mark Y /forum/thread/291784/3-stooges-collection-vol-7-1952-1954-november-10/60#post_3628490

/forum/thread/291784/3-stooges-collection-vol-7-1952-1954-november-10/60#post_3628490

 

[moglia]

Originally Posted by Robbie^Blackmon




Actually, that one looks just fine, except one is sepia-toned and the other is not.

There is more (proper amount) on the top of the frame. Without that it translates into heads being partially chopped which was the sad result on the DVD's. The telecine guy did not miss by much in the transfer, but there is no excuse for chopped off heads when they did not exist that way on the film. It's amateurish at best, and shows that quality control at Sony was rather slipshod.

Don't beleive me here's industry professional Bob Furmanek's comment:
Regarding the framing issues on GOOF, any competent projectionist would have adjusted the framing if he saw heads being cropped in a 1.85 presentation. I feel they should have done the same during the [DVD] transfer.
http://threestooges.net/forums/index.php?topic=3169.msg24177#msg24177