Re: SPHE Press Release: Guys & Dolls Deluxe Edition
I picked up this new
Guys and Dolls: Deluxe Edition this past Tuesday, and did my own direct side-by-side comparison with the previous 2000 edition. There are some very good points... and one bad one.
First off, I'm happy to say that this new transfer is light years ahead of MGM's 2000 non-anamorphic edition. The 2000 edition looked pretty awful when it was originally released almost exactly six years ago (04.18.2000), and it looks even worse now when compared to this new 2006 edition.
This new high definition transfer is a vast improvement over the previous edition -- and by vast, I mean VAST. If you have the 2000 DVD, image what it would look like if layers and layers of gauze were magically removed from that transfer! It's a beautifully defined image now, very sharp, with excellent color reproduction. What more can I say, it look terrific!
However... and this is a somewhat big "however"...
As William noted, the framing is off. However, this is not just a simple “framing” issues - it’s worse. much, much worse. This 2006 edition suffers from a dreaded “zoomboxed” syndrome — for whatever reason, the telecine operator decided to zoom into the frame quite a bit, likely because someone decided it would be “better” to tighten up the framing to get rid of that “distracting, useless information on the sides”. The resulting transfer crops off a SIGNIFICANT amount of picture information from the left and right sides of the frame, as well as cropping a smaller (yet still noticeable) amount from the top and bottom of the frame.
Therefore, even though the transfer does retain an ~2.55:1 aspect ratio, it is absolutely NOT the original 2.55:1 framing as exists on the original negative... or seen in the theatre... or as seen on the 2000 DVD edition. Instead, this zoomed-in image has been reframed to appear to have a 2.55:1 aspect ratio.
As you can seen from the screenshot comparisons posted below, quite a bit of the original image is missing from, this 2006 edition. Actors and scenery previous visible in the original film (and 2000 DVD) are gone as if they never existed. Another very annoying problem occurs from the cropping of the top frame edge — actors heads frequently get "cut off" or disappear off the top of the frame, where they were always properly in frame before. No cinematographer purposely frames their shots so that half of their actors’ heads are missing!
Also, the "zoomboxing" amount appears to change a bit throughout the movie, depending upon the scene -- some sequences features a bit more cropping on the sides, some a bit less. For example, the Main Titles show nearly no zooming (although the right edge is missing a bit).
Anyway, here are a three comparisons for you to peruse, which will easily demonstrate the framing differences between the 2000 and 2006 editions/transfers. As far as visual quality comparisons between the two go, the 2006 transfer IS quite a bit better looking that the 2000 edition (and sharper, and cleaner, and has far better color) — however, while it’s very noticeable on your TV/monitor, it’s rather hard to tell from these downsized images. Just an FYI. (Note: These images were captured and scaled down to fit within the confines of this page... no other “touching up” or sharpening was applied. Any artifacts you see are absolutely caused by the JPG file save. So there.)
Opening Titles (2000 edition)
Opening Titles (2006 edition)
As you'll notice from the Opening Titles above, the "framing" is fairly close. The 2006 edition framing has shifted slightly so that we get a smidgen of extra image info at the bottom frame edge (and therefore a smidgen less at the top). And there's a bit missing from the right edge. Still, the framing is close enough to be acceptable -- if it stayed that way. Once the credits are over, the severe "zoomboxing" begins, as these following screenshots demonstrate:
“Fugue For Tinhorns” (2000 edition)
“Fugue For Tinhorns” (2006 edition)
“Luck Be A Lady” (2000 edition)
“Luck Be A Lady” (2006 edition)
Yeah... we really don't need to actually see the floor here, do we? Especially when the entire scene has dice rolling on the ground, bets being thrown down, etc. And try not to cringe at the large amount of image missing from the sides (especially the right edge.)
Next up we've got just but one example where the “zoomboxing” comprises the top edge of the frame, resulting in the top half of an actor’s head being removed. Have a look...
Save-A-Soul Mission (2000 edition) - Perfectly framed... no problems here.
Save-A-Soul Mission (2006 edition) - Whoa! Too close a haircut there, buddy...!
As I stated earlier, NO cameraman, cinematographer, director, or anyone purposely frames shots so their actor's head disappear off the top of the screen. Sometimes the 2006 transfer is reframed slightly in an attempt to keep all of, say, Brando or Simmons’ head just within the top frame edge... but not always. More often than not, it's a crap shoot, to put it in terms of the film. itself. Just pure luck.
In any event, these screenshots pretty much speak for themselves, don’t you think?
And remember... don't forget about "overscanning." While these screenshots feature the entire frame as transferred onto the DVD, most consumers have display devices with some amount of overscanning. The end result is that many of you will see even LESS of the image than these screenshots show.
Simply put, there was no excuse for creating "zoomboxed" transfers back in the laserdisc days, and there's absolutely NO excuse for to create such transfers these days. If Sony/MGM can transfer the entire frame for
Ben-Hur intact, they should absolutely be able to do the same thing with
Guys and Dolls and every other film in their library. There is a
major problem with this transfer, and Sony/MGM needs to correct this by retransferring the film with its entire frame intact. (Then again, I'm still waiting for them to correct EATING RAOUL -- which suffered from a "distorted" widescreen image -- which they acknowledged and promised to correct two years ago.)
So right now, I as a consumer have a very hard choice to make — Do I watch the 2006 edition, with it’s gorgeous picture, but knowing it’s missing a large amount of picture information on all sides? Or do I watch the 2000 edition, which looks quite awful in comparison, but with the entire frame intact? Hmmm... I think I’ll go and check my laserdisc edition and see how that compares to these DVDs!
Oh, and just as an FYI — if you own the 2000 edition, you may want to hold onto it for another reason (besides its having the complete frame) — it contains the terrific original theatrical trailer featuring Ed Sullivan, which runs a whopping 4:51 (i.e. 4m51s). Even though they could easily have included it, the 2006 Deluxe Edition does not contain ANY trailers for the film — although we DO get one for the upcoming
Annie Special Anniversary Edition DVD as well as
West Side Story Collector’s Edition.
Anyway, I urge everyone to contact Sony and express their displeasure of having purchased this severely compromised transfer.
'Nuff said.
