Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Blu-ray, DVD, Streaming Video and Digital Downloads › DVD › 3 Stooges Collection Vol. 7 - 1952-1954, November 10
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

3 Stooges Collection Vol. 7 - 1952-1954, November 10 - Page 3

post #61 of 213
11/14/09 at 6:30pm
Is the part of GOOF ON THE ROOF which looks wrong taken from an earlier short?  The old footage used in so many '50s shorts is going to result in heads being cut off when it's framed for 1.85:1.
Reply
post #62 of 213
11/14/09 at 7:34pm
Goof on the Roof had all new material. Shots like the one below are the problem:

widescreen, from the new dvd


The same image taken from the older, full-frame Columbia VHS version



Just centering the matte on the titles and leaving it there throughout the short causes headroom problems like this throughout the picture.

Based upon the image comparison above, and many others like it, it looks like the short probably was not filmed entirely with widescreen in mind, even though Columbia had begun the transition to widescreen at the time. True, one is meant to see the pictures in motion, as Grover Crisp has pointed out, but images like the one above (with heads out of the frame), pop up throughout the entire short film.

But not always. The opening bit with the Stooges waking up is comprised of long shots which translate well into the centered 1.85 frame. After that, it's a case of some shots look good and others look like the one shown above.

The short could benefit from a shot-by-shot grading with alot of tilt/scan to move the matte up and down as necessary, but would that be the best thing?

I'd wager this was a Columbia Pictures goof from all those years ago. Widescreen teething troubles, if you will.


Edited by Robbie^Blackmon - 11/14/09 at 7:46pm
Reply
post #63 of 213
11/14/09 at 10:18pm

I've edited this post to remove inaccurate info on the production of GOOF ON THE ROOF. I've just learned that it was filmed in November 1952, nearly 5 months before Columbia switched to widescreen cinematography. Therefore, it was most certainly composed for the standard 1.37 Academy ratio. It had the misfortune to sit in the can for over a year and when it was finally released to theaters in late 1953, it was shown 1.85. You'll note the blocking on the titles accommodates the widescreen ratio, but this also explains why certain shots are missing information at the top of the image. There were quite a few features that met this same fate during that transitional period, such as WAR OF THE WORLDS, IT CAME FROM OUTER SPACE, SHANE and many others.

When mastering a film for widescreen transfer, it's most important to research when the film was produced as opposed to the date of release.



Edited by Bob Furmanek - 11/15/09 at 3:16pm
Reply
post #64 of 213
11/14/09 at 10:22pm
I just watched this short and it is not nearly as bad when viewed in motion.
Reply
post #65 of 213
11/14/09 at 11:34pm


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Furmanek View Post

By the time this short went before the cameras in November 1953, Columbia's DP's had over 6 months of widescreen cinematography to learn the ropes. After all, they did a splendid job in May when SPOOKS began shooting only a few weeks after the camera view-finders had been modified with colored plastic masks to block for 1.85 while protecting for 1.37.

Cinematographer Sam Leavitt had previously lensed the widescreen 3-D western SOUTHWEST PASSAGE for Edward Small Productions in June and July. GOOF ON THE ROOF began a 4 day shoot on November 17, 1953. It's interesting to note that Leavitt took this assignment while working on A STAR IS BORN, so he was certainly familiar with the requirements of widescreen cinematography.

 

Oh, I agree that the other wide-aspect shorts in the set look great and, at times, phenomenal, as in the case of Shot in the Frontier. But I really think that Goof on the Roof just doesn't look that good framed at 1.85 and it's the only widescreen short in the set that consistently doesn't look good.

And, Goof on the Roof is the only widescreen short in the set with Leavitt as DP so, although the information you have provided presents him as a competent visionary, I'd say that, for this short, he just didn't bring anything worthwhile to the table.


Reply
post #66 of 213
11/15/09 at 5:09am


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Y View Post

I do appreciate the efforts to keep things "historically accurate" -- but seriously, this is fast becoming the new "pan & scan." Yes, I get that this is how they would have looked in a theatre. I get that. But tell me why it's BETTER to see LESS of the image  

I'm a BIG supporter of films being seen in their OAR, but I think a case like this proves exactly what I've always said - that it doesn't always mean it was originally the best way.
 
Okay - so perhaps GOOF ON THE ROOF was screened too tight with the tops of the heads lopped off for theater screens back in the 1950s. But so what? That means it was not the optimal way to see it in those theaters back then, pure and simple. It means that this particular short actually BENEFITS from 4x3!  It's rare that this happens, but just because a film may have been shown "improperly" back in the day, do we also preserve the error on DVD in 2009, just for the sake of "well, that's historically how it was shown in its day..." ..?
Reply
post #67 of 213
11/15/09 at 5:19am


Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Scott Richard View Post

I just watched this short and it is not nearly as bad when viewed in motion.


Yes, I will agree to that. I came here first and saw the disturbing screen grabs, yet once I played the short, it wasn't that bad in motion. Still not the best way to see this particular short, though, IMO. A real shame too, as it's an all-new Shemp short (no stock footage), and I LOVE the "Stooges At Home" films, where they get into all sorts of trouble just doing the simplest of things, such as making lunch or setting up a TV set.
Reply
post #68 of 213
11/15/09 at 8:28am
Some of this is utter rubbish. It was improper telecine operation during some of the transfers ie:Spooks, Goof On The Roof.

from Bob Furmanek (noted historical widescreen expert) Here is a proper capture from 35MM film of the spooks title:




Now here the cap from the 2009 Sony DVD, as you can see improper telecine operation:


No excuse for that anymore than there amateurish use of DNR on a bunch of the shorts. DNR is for hacks or interns. Proper film restoration is for professionals.


Edited by moglia - 11/15/09 at 10:25am
Reply
post #69 of 213
11/15/09 at 8:43am


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronald Epstein View Post


There are plans for only one more volume of shorts, at the
moment, which will cover all the remaining Three Stooges
shorts in Volume 8.

 

I commend Sony for doing a great job on these collections and am looking forward to the final volume to complete my Three Stoges shorts.
It's been a long time since I've seen any of the Besser shorts.
Reply
post #70 of 213
11/15/09 at 8:56am


Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Lugoff View Post

Is the part of GOOF ON THE ROOF which looks wrong taken from an earlier short?  The old footage used in so many '50s shorts is going to result in heads being cut off when it's framed for 1.85:1.

Nope, improper telecine transfers by Sony , see my last post. We deserve to have these fixed. Sony needs to man-up.
Reply
post #71 of 213
11/15/09 at 9:19am

All right, quit whinin' -- this is true to Jules White's artistic intent! They should do a movie called "Jules White," like "Ed Wood." Have stuff in there like the wonderful matching of old and new footage at the end of "Up In Daisy's Penthouse" -- the whole "Dead Shemp" thing (actually, it just hit me that's kind of like Ed's dentist "filling in" for Bela Lugosi in "Plan 9" -- this might be less sarcastic than I originally thought)!

Reply
post #72 of 213
11/15/09 at 9:27am
The only real unfortunate Stooge edit occured in Volume One "Ants in the Pantry." In order to cover up a deleted fade-out, a line had to be partially cut. The "problems" with this volume just don't seem like problems to me.
Reply
post #73 of 213
11/15/09 at 10:11am


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Y View Post

All right, quit whinin' -- this is true to Jules White's artistic intent!


Incorrectly done telecine transfer to DVD was Jules White's intent? I find that impossible to believe as he died in 1985, 10+ years before the innovation of DVD.

I'll take Bob Furmanek's expert analysis over Sony's marketing spin and conjecture any day. (http://threestooges.net/forums/index.php?topic=3261.msg24149#msg24149). Face it folks what you see on Vol 7 is human error during the DVD transfers, as long as Sony is looking to take money for these DVD's we have every right to point out their mistakes! They now need to man-up and make this right!

Edited by moglia - 11/15/09 at 10:30am
Reply
post #74 of 213
11/15/09 at 11:13am

I've edited this post to remove inaccurate info on the production of GOOF ON THE ROOF. I've just learned that it was filmed in November 1952, nearly 5 months before Columbia switched to widescreen cinematography. Therefore, it was most certainly composed for the standard 1.37 Academy ratio. It had the misfortune to sit in the can for over a year and when it was finally released to theaters in late 1953, it was shown 1.85. You'll note the blocking on the titles accommodates the widescreen ratio, but this also explains why certain shots are missing information at the top of the image. There were quite a few features that met this same fate during that transitional period, such as WAR OF THE WORLDS, IT CAME FROM OUTER SPACE, SHANE and many others.

When mastering a film for widescreen transfer, it's most important to research when the film was produced as opposed to the date of release.


Edited by Bob Furmanek - 11/15/09 at 3:15pm
Reply
post #75 of 213
11/15/09 at 11:38am


Quote:
Originally Posted by moglia View Post

Some of this is utter rubbish. It was improper telecine operation during some of the transfers ie:Spooks, Goof On The Roof.

from Bob Furmanek (noted historical widescreen expert) Here is a proper capture from 35MM film of the spooks title:




Now here the cap from the 2009 Sony DVD, as you can see improper telecine operation:


No excuse for that anymore than there amateurish use of DNR on a bunch of the shorts. DNR is for hacks or interns. Proper film restoration is for professionals.
 

Actually, that one looks just fine, except one is sepia-toned and the other is not.

Reply
post #76 of 213
11/15/09 at 12:09pm


Quote:
Originally Posted by moglia View Post




Incorrectly done telecine transfer to DVD was Jules White's intent? I find that impossible to believe as he died in 1985, 10+ years before the innovation of DVD.

 

Reminder to self: Time to give up and accept the fact that sarcasm just does not translate on the internet. Even when you include the word "sarcastic" as part of your original post...

But yeah, if Jules White were alive today and was involved in making these DVDs, that's probably exactly how he would have done it...
Reply
post #77 of 213
11/15/09 at 12:32pm

So he would have wanted the heads to be chopped off, even though it was not present this way on the actual film?

Edit: I get it now, that was sarcasm on your part. :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Y View Post




Reminder to self: Time to give up and accept the fact that sarcasm just does not translate on the internet. Even when you include the word "sarcastic" as part of your original post...

But yeah, if Jules White were alive today and was involved in making these DVDs, that's probably exactly how he would have done it...


Reply
post #78 of 213
11/15/09 at 12:35pm


Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbie^Blackmon View Post




Actually, that one looks just fine, except one is sepia-toned and the other is not.
 


There is more (proper amount) on the top of the frame. Without that it translates into heads being partially chopped which was the sad result on the DVD's. The telecine guy did not miss by much in the transfer, but there is no excuse for chopped off heads when they did not exist that way on the film. It's amateurish at best, and shows that quality control at Sony was rather slipshod.

Don't beleive me here's industry professional Bob Furmanek's comment:
Regarding the framing issues on GOOF, any competent projectionist would have adjusted the framing if he saw heads being cropped in a 1.85 presentation. I feel they should have done the same during the [DVD] transfer.
http://threestooges.net/forums/index.php?topic=3169.msg24177#msg24177

Reply
post #79 of 213
11/15/09 at 1:49pm
 if they put the remaining 32 shorts on Vol. 8, then Sony needs to just redo these shorts and toss them in as bonus features on a third disc
Reply
post #80 of 213
11/15/09 at 2:13pm
I just received word from a Stooge expert that GOOF ON THE ROOF was filmed in November of 1952, and sat in the can for over a year before its release in December 1953. If that's the case, then this short would have been composed for the standard 1.37 Academy ratio.
Reply
post #81 of 213
11/15/09 at 2:19pm
I wish they could redo Ants in the Pantry somehow so that they don't have to clip a line of dialogue. It is very minor, but it would have been nice if they wouldn't have had to do it.
Reply
post #82 of 213
11/15/09 at 3:29pm


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Furmanek View Post

I just received word from a Stooge expert that GOOF ON THE ROOF was filmed in November of 1952, and sat in the can for over a year before its release in December 1953. If that's the case, then this short would have been composed for the standard 1.37 Academy ratio.
 

Sounds like a valid argument for just LEAVING THE THINGS ALONE.

I am still glad to have the Stooge shorts as part of this series. Overall, they've done a stellar job.

Reply
post #83 of 213
11/15/09 at 4:51pm
Well, 7 volumes and an obviously innocent mistake was made on the 152nd short, with a fantastic job done on the prior 151 shorts.... and they give us the option of 3D while they're at it!!  -- I'm not going to knock Sony too bad. 
Overall, a great job Sony!  
Would I like it corrected?  Sure. 

Since the next volume will have a lot of stock footage, we'll see stuff like that more often and it will be correct.

I'm not seeing the problem with the above Spooks screen shot.

Waiting for my copy to arrive and looking forward to picking up the next volume.
Reply
post #84 of 213
11/15/09 at 5:49pm
I don't think Sony will fix anything. After all why should they when 90% of people are overjoyed that Sony takes there money in the first place. I've never understood this mentality. As for me it's my money, you mess up, well then man-up, and try to make up for it.
Reply
post #85 of 213
11/15/09 at 5:56pm
GOOF ON THE ROOF is one of my favorites, too.

Now that we know it's a SHANE situation -- composed for standard ratio, and then "sliced" for widescreen showing -- having it at 1.85:1 on the DVD is just plain wrong.

It might be true that GOOF, like SHANE, was originally shown at 1.85:1, but all that means is that they were originally shown wrong.

In order to uphold the incredibly high standards of these Stooges sets, Sony needs to redo this one short, at least.

Rather than having everyone send in for replacement discs, I like the idea of having the correct GOOF ON THE ROOF be an extra on the next set.
Reply
post #86 of 213
11/16/09 at 3:42am
Whatever happens, I just hope Sony doesn't get annoyed and decides not to complete this series.   Hopefully the last volume is already pretty much complete and ready to go.

I've become spoiled by these shorts being in chronological order, so I really would prefer that Sony CORRECTED (yes.. CORRECTED) their blunder with GOOF ON THE ROOF and re-did the Volume 7 disc, with an opportunity for fans to send in for a replacement. This particular short needs to be seen in 1.37.
Reply
post #87 of 213
11/16/09 at 8:35am
who amongst us that grabbed Vol 7 won't be nabbing Vol 8 (especially if it has the final 32)? Sony just needs to make it a bonus feature and we'll all be happy. 
Reply
post #88 of 213
11/16/09 at 9:00am
 No, SONY needs need to release the final 32 along with HAVE ROCKET, WILL TRAVEL. Then we'll be happy. Forget bonus features.
Reply
post #89 of 213
11/16/09 at 10:08am
There were comments made by those "in the know" that strongly indicated that Sony's plans included some of the Shemp and Besser solo shorts.  I thought maybe there would be two more volumes, Vol. 8 being the remaining Shemps with Shemp solo shorts, and Vol. 9 being the Besser stuff, maybe with something really rare and exciting to give extra incentive to the anti-Besser faction.

If that's correct, the final Shemp volume should have room for the corrected GOOF ON THE ROOF.

It's true that will break up the purely chronological system.

Well, I'll put my obsessive-compulsive neuroticism next to anyone's, and expect to come out on top, but I can't stand sending for replacement discs!  There's too much tension involved in wondering:  Did they get my bad disc?  When will they mail the replacement?  Will it get lost in the mail?  The whole thing usually takes weeks!
Reply
post #90 of 213
11/16/09 at 10:40am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Lugoff View Post

Well, I'll put my obsessive-compulsive neuroticism next to anyone's, and expect to come out on top, but I can't stand sending for replacement discs!  There's too much tension involved in wondering:  Did they get my bad disc?  When will they mail the replacement?  Will it get lost in the mail?  The whole thing usually takes weeks!
 


It wouldn't keep me up at night but those reasons are why I'd rather have them put the corrected version on the last set (rather than having a replacement program).
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: DVD
Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Blu-ray, DVD, Streaming Video and Digital Downloads › DVD › 3 Stooges Collection Vol. 7 - 1952-1954, November 10