What's new

A Few Words About A few words about...™ Hawaii -- in Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

Robert Harris

Archivist
Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 8, 1999
Messages
18,271
Real Name
Robert Harris
HaHa got me?
when I play the roadshow on my blu and on my screen at !:33., the picture is squeezed in as in a 16X9. that's the way it is. when stretched out to 16X9 the film does NOT cover all of the areas of my screen from left to right, but only partway with black on the top and bottom. Again, I wish it would fill ALL of the are from left to right and had the original laserdisc stereo track. There is NO reason either of these things could not be done.

You're absolutely correct. There is no reason why the roadshow version cannot be more properly handled.

Agreed!

RAH
 
  • Like
Reactions: PMF

Robert Harris

Archivist
Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 8, 1999
Messages
18,271
Real Name
Robert Harris
But MGM would have to spend money to do this and they are not interested.

To give MGM their due, the most recent transfers that they've been supplying to subs are a cut above what they were delivered a year ago. Some nice Blu-rays being derived.

RAH
 
Last edited:

Bob Cashill

Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2001
Messages
3,798
Real Name
Robert Cashill

OliverK

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2000
Messages
5,713
Mackenna's Gold is available in some sort of HD on at least two streaming services, probably the same master:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B002PNKX4S/ref=atv_feed_catalog?tag=wait09-20
So not SD quality but maybe not much better either, like for example The Long Ships or Lord Jim, both look really bad.

Certainly a good idea to wait for screencaps, for me it paid off with Lord Jim that I did not buy after seeing the caps.
 

MatthewA

BANNED
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2000
Messages
9,727
Location
Salinas, CA
Real Name
Matthew
I've read some horror stories over the years about how MGM/UA handled (or rather mishandled) all the roadshow scenes they found to this, Mad World, The Alamo, etc., which might be why they've never been upgraded since the laserdisc days. I do hope they're not true.

But just be glad Disney doesn't own this film or all you'd get is the shortened general release cut with the scenes exclusive to the roadshow version in a supplemental section.
 

Joe Caps

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2000
Messages
2,169
When Hawaii was done for laserdisc, they transferred the short version of the film.
Walter Mirisch provided the missing scenes and then those scenes were returned to him.
Where are they now?
 

PMF

Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 6, 2015
Messages
6,002
Real Name
Philip
...Does anyone think of what consumers want first, before diving ahead and doing this stuff?

This is the quote that addresses the overall and the big picture best; but, consumerism aside, it is restoration and preservation, alone, that should supersede all else. After all, in the beginning, God created...and on the seventh day he rested [and watched a film in UHD/4K].
 
Last edited:

johnmn

Grip
Joined
Aug 16, 2008
Messages
16
Real Name
John
How would you propose that Twilight Time take a 480i master, window-boxed within a 1.33 matte, and make it fit your 50" screen?

I'm genuinely curious about this. Projecting on a big screen, I used my Blu-ray player's zoom function to enlarge the 1:33 window-boxed image of the roadshow Hawaii to the full 16:9 size, and it looked fairly decent--not HD, by any means, but very watchable. If my plain old Panasonic Blu-ray player could zoom and enlarge this image, wouldn't MGM and/or Twilight Time have much better technology that could squeeze out an even better image if they had reprocessed the 1:33 master into an anamorphic one? They must have state-of-the-art video processing tools that could do this better than my Panny Blu-ray. (And then, perhaps, John Maher's idea of reinserting the deleted footage into the HD general-release version via seamless branching might have been feasible!--but I won't go there for now.)

I realize that MGM and Twilight Time were not inclined to spend big bucks on Hawaii, but that's my question: if I can so easily zoom the 1:33 image, couldn't they have done this--with much better video processing than I have access to--with very little work or expense? Or am I missing something?
 

haineshisway

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2011
Messages
5,554
Location
Los Angeles
Real Name
Bruce
I'm genuinely curious about this. Projecting on a big screen, I used my Blu-ray player's zoom function to enlarge the 1:33 window-boxed image of the roadshow Hawaii to the full 16:9 size, and it looked fairly decent--not HD, by any means, but very watchable. If my plain old Panasonic Blu-ray player could zoom and enlarge this image, wouldn't MGM and/or Twilight Time have much better technology that could squeeze out an even better image if they had reprocessed the 1:33 master into an anamorphic one? They must have state-of-the-art video processing tools that could do this better than my Panny Blu-ray. (And then, perhaps, John Maher's idea of reinserting the deleted footage into the HD general-release version via seamless branching might have been feasible!--but I won't go there for now.)

I realize that MGM and Twilight Time were not inclined to spend big bucks on Hawaii, but that's my question: if I can so easily zoom the 1:33 image, couldn't they have done this--with much better video processing than I have access to--with very little work or expense? Or am I missing something?

What fans do at home is their business. Twilight Time is a professional company and is not about to do what you're suggesting and which may look good to "you" but may seem inept to any number of others.
 

Rob W

Screenwriter
Joined
May 23, 1999
Messages
1,233
Real Name
Robert
Bruce, I think highly enough of you to consider that you did not intend your reply to come off as hostile and dismissive as it appears. johnman's perfectly valid question was politely and innocently posted and he deserved a more respectful answer than what he got. A bit of technical explanation would have been considerate. Let's remember that members should not be punished for not having spent their careers in the film and video business.
Replies such as yours could potentially keep others from posting questions or comments for fear of getting shot down for their lack of technical knowledge, and that would be a shame.
 
Last edited:

haineshisway

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2011
Messages
5,554
Location
Los Angeles
Real Name
Bruce
Bruce, I think highly enough of you to consider that you did not intend your reply to come off as hostile and dismissive as it appears. johnman's perfectly valid question was politely and innocently posted and he deserved a more respectful answer than what he got. A bit of technical explanation would have been considerate. Let's remember that members should not be punished for not having spent their careers in the film and video business.
Replies such as yours could potentially keep others from posting questions or comments for fear of getting shot down for their lack of technical knowledge, and that would be a shame.

Having just reread my post, sorry, not seeing anything in it to offend anyone - just stating the obvious. Really, is everyone this thin-skinned? :) I didn't call the fellow a name, I didn't deride him or anything like it. I stated simply and succinctly that what fans do is fine for fans, but it would not be acceptable for a professional company to do. My simple point being that fans can do whatever they want and they can think it looks good, but for a pro company to do something like that would result in a couple of thank yous and, more likely, a huge load of brickbats. They went the extra mile here - they didn't have to include the longer cut, but they did.
 

atfree

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
3,606
Location
Boiling Springs, South Carolina
Real Name
Alex
Having just reread my post, sorry, not seeing anything in it to offend anyone - just stating the obvious. Really, is everyone this thin-skinned? I didn't call the fellow a name, I didn't deride him or anything like it. I stated simply and succinctly that what fans do is fine for fans, but it would not be acceptable for a professional company to do. My simple point being that fans can do whatever they want and they can think it looks good, but for a pro company to do something like that would result in a couple of thank yous and, more likely, a huge load of brickbats.
Yes, unfortunately we live in a society that's got thinner skin than a skeleton.
 

johnmn

Grip
Joined
Aug 16, 2008
Messages
16
Real Name
John
Yes, unfortunately we live in a society that's got thinner skin than a skeleton.

As the guy who asked the original question, I wanted to assure you all that I don't have "thinner skin than a skeleton," and I did not take offense at haineshisway's brief but perfectly legitimate response to my question. And yet I did appreciate Rob W's kind words; I'm glad that my post came off as "politely and innocently posted," because I truly did not want to come off as a jerk. :)

It's valuable to know that tampering with an original digital master is considered unprofessional; yes, I've seen how readers are quick to throw "a huge load of brickbats" when remasterings are seen as inappropriate or badly done! I'm curious to know, though, whether all upconversions of SD material are considered unprofessional; for example, Image Entertainment recently issued a Blu-ray version of their Broadway Into the Woods, which was shot in SD and released years ago on VHS and DVD, but was then upconverted to 1080p for the Blu-ray rerelease. Do people in this forum consider that Blu-ray release of Into the Woods just as sacrilegious as my hypothetical Hawaii upconversion from letterboxed 1:33 to anamorphic 16:9? Or is there a difference? Thanks for bearing with my lack of knowledge about such things, but I'm truly curious to know what you folks think.
 

Josh Steinberg

Premium
Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2003
Messages
26,250
Real Name
Josh Steinberg
While an upconvert is less than ideal in my eyes, I don't think it's necessarily sacrilege - there are occasion where that's the only option. For "Into The Woods" I think that was originally shot in standard definition, so it was never going to look glorious and brand new. But I think in the case of the Blu-ray release, that there was a potential audio benefit to be gained going from compressed DVD audio to lossless Blu-ray audio. I have some concert Blu-rays that are the same story - the video portion was shot in SD, so whether it's on the disc as SD or whether the label has upscaled it, the video is what it is. Where those releases shine is the improved audio.

One of the downsides that TT would have likely faced if they had upconverted Hawaii would be that the upconverted version would take up much more space on the disc, and yet, be of about the same quality. The roadshow version fits on the disc because it's in SD, which takes up much less space than HD material. If they include it in SD format, it fits on the disc fine with the shorter HD version of the movie. If it's upconverted, both versions probably don't fit on the same disc anymore, and if they add another disc, that raises costs.

And depending on which player you use at home, your player may do better upscaling than whatever equipment the studio or label uses anyway.
 

haineshisway

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2011
Messages
5,554
Location
Los Angeles
Real Name
Bruce
As the guy who asked the original question, I wanted to assure you all that I don't have "thinner skin than a skeleton," and I did not take offense at haineshisway's brief but perfectly legitimate response to my question. And yet I did appreciate Rob W's kind words; I'm glad that my post came off as "politely and innocently posted," because I truly did not want to come off as a jerk. :)

It's valuable to know that tampering with an original digital master is considered unprofessional; yes, I've seen how readers are quick to throw "a huge load of brickbats" when remasterings are seen as inappropriate or badly done! I'm curious to know, though, whether all upconversions of SD material are considered unprofessional; for example, Image Entertainment recently issued a Blu-ray version of their Broadway Into the Woods, which was shot in SD and released years ago on VHS and DVD, but was then upconverted to 1080p for the Blu-ray rerelease. Do people in this forum consider that Blu-ray release of Into the Woods just as sacrilegious as my hypothetical Hawaii upconversion from letterboxed 1:33 to anamorphic 16:9? Or is there a difference? Thanks for bearing with my lack of knowledge about such things, but I'm truly curious to know what you folks think.

Into the Woods was shot on videotape in standard definition. That's a whole other ball o' wax.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
356,710
Messages
5,121,100
Members
144,146
Latest member
SaladinNagasawa
Recent bookmarks
1
Top