Marty (1955) (Blu-ray) Available for Preorder (1 Viewer)

[Bob Furmanek]

It might be better to see a shot that is not windowboxed on this edition.

 

[jauritt]

Oh wow, so I'm actually going to have a better time cropping the 13 year old DVD? Great.

Aspect ratio aside the image looks pretty awful as well unfortunately.

It does? Guess you have a much different interpretation of "pretty awful" than I do.

 

[ThadK]

What a mess. Thanks for the warning. Not buying.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

I've just posted similar frames from the trailer and the Blu-ray here: http://www.hometheaterforum.com/topic/313215-aspect-ratio-documentation/?p=4113072

 

[Yorkshire]

I'm not sure if there isn't some misunderstanding of what window boxed titles are.If the titles (it's usually the titles, as in this case) are near the edge of the frame, then a TV which over scans a lot may clip those titles.Subsequently the image is zoomed out (looks further away) and a black band added to the edges. These black bands DO NOT block any image. The portion of the image lost with over scanning is therefore just the added black band, not the original image.Steve W

 

[JohnMor]

^I think most people understand that. The issue is that with most films, the credits don't go completely side to side and top to bottom. So in this day and age when you see windowboxing it implies either an older transfer done when overscanning was a common problem, or a zoomed transfer that would hence make the credits fill more of the screen and therefore have to be windowboxed. I don't think people think the black bands were blocking image, but that today an open aperture scan would not need any windowboxing at all. Therefore it implies an older transfer or a zoomed one, however slight the zoom may be. Or both.

 

[Brian McP]

Well, I'm an Ernest Borgnine nut, so I'm getting this, no matter what aspect it is in -- but this whole episode opens an entire new way of marketing blurays -- one of these days, years down the track I suspect, some studio, hopefully Criterion, will do a complete restoration on this movie (if only zoomed-in masters exist, they will have to go make to the movie's original materials, the original camera negative if it still exists) and re-release it with a red band across the top of the packaging and the words WIDESCREEN EDITION in the centre....deja vu all over again for laserdisc and early dvd fans (and often in vhs too)

I echo many replies earlier, this is a very important movie in the history of Hollywood and deserves more than the theatrical trailer as an extra (as it was the sole extra on the dvd) - but in an era when something like "The Alamo" is purposely mouldering away in a studio vault, what chance has this little movie, (another UA title) made as a tax loss, got for a restoration and rerelease?

Early next year is the movie's 60th anniversary -- some enterprising repertory theatres would do well to book the movie and promote it as being the first time it has been presented in it's correct widescreen aspect ratio for 60 years -- one can only hope that any DCP print they get from the studio and distributors won't be this wretched zoomed-in one! I wonder if there is anyone out there in HTF land who has an old print of "Marty" so we can see what actually was in the film frames of that butcher shop scene.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Here's a spot-on review from Gary Tooze at DVD Beaver: http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film4/blu-ray_reviews_62_/marty_blu-ray.htm

 

[lukejosephchung]

Here's a spot-on review from Gary Tooze at DVD Beaver: http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film4/blu-ray_reviews_62_/marty_blu-ray.htm

Bob, given the clear caveats stated in Gary's review, his critique of the blu-ray is fair and positive overall...I'm disappointed as YOU are about the disc's compromised AR, but will still be getting this, as I love the film and Ernie Borgnine's work in it so much...

 

[Bob Furmanek]

I agree, Luke. It's an important film and deserves better treatment.

Hopefully, that can still happen with the next transfer.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Hopefully, that can still happen with the next transfer.

Bob,

You optimistic about this?

Generally movies like these don't get a second chance that soon or at all.

I would *think* this is it for Marty on Blu-ray.

We can only anticipate 4k at this point, I would guess.

 

[Jari K]

With some of those screencaps, 1.85:1 would look just fine but then again some shots look "correct" in 4:3.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Bob,

You optimistic about this?

Generally movies like these don't get a second chance that soon or at all.

I would *think* this is it for Marty on Blu-ray.

We can only anticipate 4k at this point, I would guess.

Truthfully, no I'm not.

That's why we're trying so hard to get it done correctly now. A film like this MAY get another scan at some point, but what about the underdogs like THE ATOMIC KID, DUEL IN THE JUNGLE, ABBOTT AND COSTELLO MEET THE MUMMY, etc.

 

[lukejosephchung]

Bob,

You optimistic about this?

Generally movies like these don't get a second chance that soon or at all.

I would *think* this is it for Marty on Blu-ray.

We can only anticipate 4k at this point, I would guess.

Ron & Bob, remember that this is the 1955 BEST PICTURE Academy Award winner, so it has a prestige most other independent films DON'T enjoy...I think that eventually there WILL be a properly-transferred re-do of this movie...

 

[Bob Furmanek]

With some of those screencaps, 1.85:1 would look just fine but then again some shots look "correct" in 4:3.

Not if the director and DP were composing for tight close-ups in order to draw attention to the eyes and other facial movements.

 

[Jari K]

Well of course I should actually watch the film first, these are just screencaps. But some of those 4:3 caps doesn't look significantly "wrong" to my eyes. I've seen far worse with some of the "open matte" transfers (of theatrical 1.85:1 films)

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Remember Jari, those are close-ups. In films of all ages since the dawn of cinema, close-ups do not necessarily mean the director/cinematographer want you to see the full head. They want you to focus on either the eyes, mouth, etc.

 

[bgart13]

How successful and/or well-regarded is MARTY overseas? That's the only way I'd think another transfer could happen.

 

[Jari K]

My main point is that those Beaver's 4:3 shots doesn't look "wrong". Sure, there are some headroom etc, but I don't see any major issues. Actually some of those shots look kinda nice in 4:3.But I still don't claim that the OAR is 4:3. Just saying what my eyes are seeing. From those caps. I haven't seen the film.

 

[EddieLarkin]

Woah woah woah, are we forgetting this transfer is heavily zoomed? Of course the film is going to look "less wrong" in 4x3 if it's already had some shaved off the top and sides, as we know it has. Jari, have a look at one of those close up shots and imagine them with quite a bit more empty space above the heads. That's how an open matte print would have looked (and thus would have been suitable for matting, which this transfer is not).