DVD Review HTF DVD REVIEW: How the West Was Won: Ultimate Collector's Edition (1 Viewer)

[Patrick McCart]

It's been confirmed that the "flat" version exposes far more on the sides than what would have been printed, so the Smilebox version isn't cropping valuable picture area.

 

[john a hunter]

I saw the same release and it was only a flat print not anamorphic.That's probably why it left a lot to be desired.

 

[Lord Dalek]

Which explains why we were all confused when this title was announced since the long-held ratio for Cinerama was believed to be 2.55:1

EDIT: Also 2001 would look quite awful smileboxed. Film was shot 70mm flat and wasn't even supposed to be in the Cinerama format to begin with.

 

[RolandL]

I have a comparison of the SD-DVD to the BD on this page - New Page 1 . Not only is the BD better in PQ but the Smilebox version does not remove as much information as the same Smilebox scene on Cinerama Adventure.

 

[GerardoHP]

I don't think Smilebox is there to correct distortions, Patrick. In fact, you can see that the distortion and perspective problems inherent to Cinerama seem to be, for the most part, digitally fixed in the letterbox version. The Smilebox version actually distorts more than the letterbox version, especially on the side panels, and this happens throughout the video presentation, not just in selected shots.

It seems to me that the purpose of Smilebox is primarily to evoke the shape of the giant screen this film was meant to be shown on.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

Take a closer look, Gerardo. SmileBox does correct some issues, like sightlines. Also, notice that the image appears to recede from the viewer in the flat transfer, while in the SmileBox transfer, it appears to envelop the viewer. Gary Tozze's captures over at DVD Beaver show this quite clearly.

 

[GerardoHP]

Hi, Stephen, I was referring more to what seems to me to be the overall purpose of Smilebox, which I don't think is to deal with distortions but to present the film in a shape more akin to the original.

I still think that, shot by shot, there's more distortion in the Smilebox, and yet it looks better to me.

As usual with these discussions, we tend to get lost in the tangents of the argument we're trying to make. I was just trying to defend why I'd love to see more 50's and 60's epics in this format, that's all. Cheers.

 

[AdrianTurner]

I beg to differ here. The original MGM press release for 2001, then called Journey Beyond the Stars, and released to the press on 23 Feb 1965, stated the film would be released in Cinerama. On-set pictures of Kubrick also feature 65mm cameras bearing the Cinerama logo. I also remember early posters for 2001 appearing in 1966 (!) at the Coliseum Cinerama theatre in London.

 

[RolandL]

I wouldn't call 5% "noticeable". The letterboxed image is 2.89:1 and the smilebox is 2.75:1. Even with the smilebox, you are seeing more picture information on the sides than was shown at Cinerama theatres as Cinerama was 2.59:1.

 

[RolandL]

See this comparison on the DVDBEAVER web site -

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDRe...ay/large/7.jpg

and

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDRe...0911190657.jpg

On the letterboxed image, the log on the raft in the lower left corner appears to be bent to the left which is wrong. It is straight as it should be in the smilebox image.

 

[Jonny_L]

I just got my Blu Ray the other day. Overall I'm pleased with the image although the seems between the panels have definitely NOT been totally eliminated. There are some scenes here or there where they are most definitely visible. It seems to be WB didn't go all the way in their restoration. My guess as I've mentioned earlier is that the 3 panels have deteriorated at different rates which leads to colors being off on different panels. Instead of restoring the color and painting out their differences, they have left them as is and as a result the leftovers can be just as distracting as the original join lines. I'd say overall though that 90% of the film looks great and is definitely the best it's ever looked on home video.

As for which is better, the smile box or letter box, my own personal preference is the letter box. I found the smile box VERY distracting.

Also, since the lines are mainly gone it's easy to see that the "cinerama effect" could easily be shot today with an anamorphic camera and a fisheye lens. It's amazing so much effort and research was put into something that today could more or less be achieved with software if necessary on a home computer.

 

[Charles H]

Based on the Smilebox demonstrations in the documentary, I would happily buy a Smilebox SD HTWWW dvd if WB released it.

 

[GerardoHP]

That is correct. 2001 was always meant to be shown on a deeply curved screen "in Cinerama", as a separate end credit indicates. It wasn't true Cinerama, but that title referred to its preferred form of exhibition in Cinerama and Super Cinerama theaters during its initial engagement.

 

[Fabian Kusch]

Well, I did "notice" the cropping anyway but I agree it is probably insignificant and omits no essential picture information.
I believe having a transfer that shows all the available image information of the exposed negative can't really hurt.
Sad though that none of the two aspect ratios correctly represents the film's theatrical release ratio. That's a bit like seeing an open matte version of a film the director intended for 1.85:1.

 

[RolandL]

Cinerama was not an exact medium. The size of Cinerama screens, there aspect ratio and degrees of arc (146, 120 and 90 degrees) varied from theatre to theatre.

New York Warner - 67ft by 24 ft = 2.79:1
New York Loew's - 90ft by 33ft = 2.72:1
Milwaukee Palace - 75ft by 25ft = 3:1
Salt Lake City Villa - 96ft by 35ft = 2.74:1
San Francisco Orpheum - 78ft by 28ft = 2.78:1
San Diego Cinerama - 100ft by 36ft - 2.77:1

 

[widescreenforever]

I lived briefly in L.A back in 1969 thru 1971.. and I went to the old Cinerama Dome (Arclight Cinemea) to see in Cinerama Krakatoa East of Java .,, But I also saw 2001 at the Pantages Theatre in the summer of 1969 ( not 1968 ) . But for the life of me I can't remember if 2001 , at the pantages was Cinerama or just 70 MM .
I saw 2001 at least 18 times over a three year period,.. and some or a couple of those viewings I saw in Cinerama in Vancouver BC in June of 1968.
Did the Pantages have a Cinerama Screen? Did 2001 play at the Cineramadome (now Arc Light Dome) for over a year???.,
compared to these days when movies come and go within days of each other..

( You know I can remember when films like Ben Hur or Lawrence of Arabia would play for like.... 56 weeks at the same venue.. Astonishing play times wasn't it? ) .

 

[BillyFeldman]

2001 didn't play the Pantages, it was at the Pacific's down the street - Pacific's was the former Warners Cinerama theater, and I believe it was shown on a curved screen there, although it's many years since I lived there and my memory may be faulty about the curved screen (although I don't think so). I saw 2001 many times at the Pacific's - a grand experience.

 

[yosemite sam]

Billy is right, “2001, A Space Odyssey” opened at the Warner Cinerama theater on April 4, 1968 & ran for 80 weeks. During the run, the theater ownership changed hands & was renamed the Hollywood Pacific Theatre, & yes it was shown on a curved screen. Interestingly, this film was originally contracted for 3-panel Cinerama but due to the inherent distortions of the 3 camera process, it was done in the single 70mm format.

I grew up in Southern California & was fortunate enough to have seen most of the Cinerama 3 strip films including HTWWW. Just got my copy of the new DVD set in standard definition & I love it! I don’t have Blu-ray but the Smilebox out takes in the WONDERFUL documentary film “Cinerama Adventure” look very nice. Hopefully we will be able to see this version on one of the high definition movie channels soon.

 

[yosemite sam]

Yes, after it’s 80 week run at the Warner Cinerama Theater on Hollywood Blvd. “2001, A Space Odyssey” played at the Cinerama Dome on Sunset Blvd. If I’m not mistaken, it had several runs @ ‘The Dome’ during the 1970’s ranging from a few days to several weeks. You mentioned that you remember the astonishing play times of the earlier films & it should be noted that the original “This is Cinerama” run @ the Warner was 133 weeks!

 

[Charles H]

On every incarnation (theater, television, homevideo) that I have ever seen of HTWWW, I have noticed a black speck in the clouds during Spencer Tracy's opening narration. It would appear to me that it is something that would be easy to correct since it is black against white, and I am surprised that it has never been removed. If they can purge the panel lines, why can't they eliminate the speck?