SPHE Press Release: Guys & Dolls Deluxe Edition

How about an "all-new" decent HD-based transfer??

With regard to MGM/Sony's poor "all-new" SE of "Midnight Cowboy", I don't expect too much in terms of improved PQ.

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDCom...ightcowboy.htm

I sure hope this is a brand new video transfer and sound remaster. As discussed on the Guys and Dolls thread, the laserdisc had much better sound than the first dvd did.

108 minuutes???????????? Is this the new dead dirctors cut? The original was 150 minutes. I sure hope thats a typo.....typical for Sony!

I noticed that, too, but if you follow the link to Sony's site, the specs there say 149.

"This rare, one-of-a-kind 72-page booklet..."

I love it publicity uses the "rare" word for something mass produced and available everywhere.

Those 72 page booklets are going to be worth a fortune.

RAH

By "rare," they were referring to how long they left it in the oven before releasing it.

The back of the new box does say "Remastered in High Definition." It also mentions an "original audio" English track in addition to the 5.1 remix. I can't quite make it out in the small image I have, but it looks like it says "English 3-D Original Audio." (It might just be an unclear "1.0".)

I would hope that they would have a new transfer, since the last one was non-anamorphic. I can't see too many DVDs released nowadays non-anamorphic.

Jason

interesting to see how Marlon Brando is making a comeback these days with Godfather the videogame, Superman Returns and now this.

What's next ?

Supposedly it's new anamorphic transfer and the original 3.0 audio is included.

The original audio is NOT 3.0 but 4.0

The box says "3.0," but it wouldn't be the first typo I've seen on a DVD sleeve if that's the case.

Re: SPHE Press Release: Guys & Dolls Deluxe Edition

Anybody seen this yet and got thoughts about whether it's worth the upgrade?

Re: SPHE Press Release: Guys & Dolls Deluxe Edition

Well, I'm still waiting on the screener, otherwise I would be able to tell you.

Re: SPHE Press Release: Guys & Dolls Deluxe Edition

The transfer is soft and lacking in detail..... It actually has less detail than the original non-anamorphic version.

Of course I do have an HTPC that does an excellent job of scaling, so that would tend to minimize the issues associated with non-anamorphic transfers.

There is a 5.1 audio track and a 3.0 audio track.

Guess it's time to stop buying Sony product on DVD, because it looks to me, at least with this release, like they have embarked on a program of intentionally degrading image quality on DVD in order to further diferentiate their upcoming BR product.

Ted

Re: SPHE Press Release: Guys & Dolls Deluxe Edition

With HD-DVD on the horizon, there's certainly going to be a lot of double-dipping over the next five or so years. I shudder to think of all the titles I'll be re-purchasing in order to have them in HD.

http://greenbriarpictureshows.blogspot.com/

Re: SPHE Press Release: Guys & Dolls Deluxe Edition

Isn't THAT disappointing news!?

Thoughts on the 5.1 track?


That is too bad. Why bother with this release then?

Re: SPHE Press Release: Guys & Dolls Deluxe Edition

DVD Savant has his review up.

http://www.dvdtalk.com/dvdsavant/s1977doll.html

He says it is a vast improvement. After watching the original, I don't know how it could not be.

Jason

Re: SPHE Press Release: Guys & Dolls Deluxe Edition

To my eyes it is that this transfer is lacking the prior one's edge enhancement. This one is smoother.

Re: SPHE Press Release: Guys & Dolls Deluxe Edition

I don't have the older release, but I have to say I was quite dissapointed in this new transfer. It has severe edge enhancement and a total lack of fine detail. It is anamorphic, but... frankly I was hoping for much better.

Re: SPHE Press Release: Guys & Dolls Deluxe Edition

I will be getting my screener by week's end, but won't be able to get to reviewing it for a week or so. I'm sorry I couldn't get my review out sooner, but it will be out eventually!

Re: SPHE Press Release: Guys & Dolls Deluxe Edition

The new transfer is a big improvement over the old one. The picture is sharper. The colors are richer and more stable. The sound is excellent.

That's the good news.

Now the bad news.

The framing is too tight everywhere. Lots of hairdos, hats and feet sliced off. Chorus girls missing on the sides.

Close but no cigar.

Re: SPHE Press Release: Guys & Dolls Deluxe Edition

Possibly a framing error, similar to the first pressing of the old "Annie" disc.

Do you think they'll issue a corrected version?

Re: SPHE Press Release: Guys & Dolls Deluxe Edition

Despite Ted's news (I tend to believe him), I picked up the new disk, which is vaguely more engaging than the old. Just a question: does the color (of the film) bother anybody else? I don't think what I'm seeing is an issue of the transfer, but the actual photography -- the color looks drab, skintones are too brown, and nothing looks good, even when the red is popping out. I thought the movie could be "restored," somehow, and look better than it looks, but I guess not.

Re: SPHE Press Release: Guys & Dolls Deluxe Edition

I suspect Savant is watching his DVD's unscaled using DVD's native 720 X 480 resolution. In that environment, and taking into account his comment about venetian blinds, I believe he is confusing the level of detail in the actual transfer with the artifacts that come from displaying a non-anamorphic transfer on a larger screen.

When both the previous version and the new version are scaled up to 1920x1080 and projected on a 5'x13' screen, it's pretty obvious when looking at fine textures such as Nicely Nicely's tweed coat, or the painted in windows on the backdrops in several early scenes that the non-anamorphic version actually has better fine detail than the new anamorphic version.

Compared to other recent DVD's this transfer is very soft. Fortunately, I did not see signs of excessive EE on it, and although the transfer is not anywhere near as good as todays technology can deliver, it should suffice for more moderate screen sizes.

Ted

Re: SPHE Press Release: Guys & Dolls Deluxe Edition

I got mine yesterday, and I plan to watch it at some point today. I've already sold my old non-anamorphic one, so I'm going to have to make-do with this one, it seems, for good or ill.

Re: SPHE Press Release: Guys & Dolls Deluxe Edition

I had time to watch about 15 minutes of it today, and I had no problem with the degree of sharpness or richness of color. The tweeds and patterns on the clothes so far are no problem and seem very solid on my display.

I can see what others are saying about the transfer not sparkling. But the picture and sound are just fine for my needs.

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.

Re: SPHE Press Release: Guys & Dolls Deluxe Edition

Looks like I'll be sticking with the 2000 disc.