One Eyed Jacks on Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[Robert Crawford]

Another thing about One-Eyed Jacks, it has the best dialogue of any western I can think of.

The Professionals has better dialogue in my opinion.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Hadn't seen that thread - but Mr. Wells reveals his true self in the three comparisons. In order to make his 1.66 case he has zoomed in on the image to create the 1.85 crop which, because of the zoom, makes the shot too tight. This is chutzpah of the highest order and shows him for the troll he truly is. All you have to do is look at the shot above it to see what he's done. If you do a 1.85 crop on the middle image it crops perfectly and looks great. Someone really needs to expose this guy to the world.

He hooked you. I refuse to open that link, why give him hits on his site that he doesn't deserve with his nonsense.

 

[Robert Harris]

The images being discussed were part of a proof of concept that I did several years ago.

Something to keep in mind for VVLA.

While a frame of real estate from the original negative was 24 by 36mm, the top was always lost for placement of the soundtrack.

Likewise, a decent part of the bottom, was designated as outside projected area, and will generally include studio flooring, cabling, etc.

Several millimeters of the sides were also lost to cover splices.

What was left, still a nice chunk of film, was generally printed via dye transfer, in 35mm, matted to around 1.66, which was not necessarily meant to be projected, as while the top of the image was protected, on occasion part of the bottom was not.

For ease of discussion, here are examples of frames. Note that all frames except one are pre-restoration, showing extreme fading. This will show you what a superb job Paramount did in restoring the film. All frames are fully color corrected.


The first are full open matte, from a frame not at a cut, hence no splices:

Note the apple box beneath Mr. Hardwicke's feet

You're able to see the areas outside of the matte painting.

That's Herb, down in the protected area, pulling on the other side of the rope...

And protected frames:

RAH

 

[Dr Griffin]

Wells doesn't even use the same frame to bolster his argument. His final frame looks zoomed compared to the first, Heston appears bulkier, and Brynner is in a different position. Just what's needed - another hack playing around with his computer - except this one has a pretty big platform.

 

[davidmatychuk]

He hooked you. I refuse to open that link, why give him hits on his site that he doesn't deserve with his nonsense.

He's doing "whatever works", like so many sites online. He notices that more people are looking at his posts about a particular topic, so he just keeps at it. It doesn't need to make sense, it only needs to draw clicks. I actually find it an encouraging sign about the size and the level of knowledge in the home theatre community in general that he keeps pounding away on a topic that he barely seems to understand.

 

[Robert Crawford]

He's doing "whatever works", like so many sites online. He notices that more people are looking at his posts about a particular topic, so he just keeps at it. It doesn't need to make sense, it only needs to draw clicks. I actually find it an encouraging sign about the size and the level of knowledge in the home theatre community in general that he keeps pounding away on a topic that he barely seems to understand.

Which is my point! Even talking about him here draws attention to his site.

 

[Mike Boone]

The Professionals has better dialogue in my opinion.

Robert, I absolutely love The Professionals, but can't comment on your point that its dialogue is better than that of One-Eyed Jacks, as I last saw Brando's film as a kid. And with the recent news of a quality Blu-ray in our future, I definitely now won't ruin the experience of revisiting One-Eyed Jacks, by watching the cheesy off label Blu-ray edition of the film that I was dumb enough to risk buying off the internet last winter.


The Blu-ray copy I have of OEJ is the very definition of cheesy with no company name even mentioned on the Blu-ray's case, or on the disc itself. And the picture of Brando that's on both the front of the case, and the disc itself, is only a drawing. And in very tiny printed characters on the bottom right corner of the back of the case: "2011 Made in EU" appears, which I assume, refers to the European Union.


I suffered through the first 15 minutes or so of this atrocious disc, before turning it off, last winter. After the disc loads, all sorts of printed words in German appear. And when the familiar Paramount mountain appears with the usual circle of stars overlaying it, inside that circle, the words Distribue par Paramount appear.


Now fortunately the disc's menu does include an option to hear the English language soundtrack, but the menu is so crude, and almost non-functional, that I was hearing Brando's cowboy character speaking in German for about 5 minutes before I could get the English track to play.


Have to say that a German speaking cowboy doesn't do much to set up the mood for a western. And of course, the picture quality gives no hint of the film's VistaVision roots.


But maybe the greatest entertainment value provided by my Blu-ray edition of One-Eyed Jacks is the extensive set of warnings in fine print that encircle the disc's label, at the edge of the disc.


Here are those warnings: "Warning: THE COPYRIGHT PROPRIETOR HAS LICENSED THE PROGRAMME (INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, ITS SOUNDTRACK) CONTAINED IN THIS DISC FOR PRIVATE HOME USE ONLY. UNLESS OTHERWISE EXPRESSLY LICENSED BY THE COPYRIGHT PROPRIETOR. ALL OTHER RIGHTS ARE RESERVED. USE IN OTHER LOCATIONS SUCH AS AIRLINES, CLUBS, COACHES, HOSPITALS, HOTELS, OIL RIGS, PRISONS, SCHOOLS AND SHIPS IS PROHIBITED UNLESS EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZED BY THE COPYRIGHT PROPRIETOR. ANY UNAUTHORIZED COPYING, EDITING, EXHIBITION, RENTING, HIRING, EXCHANGING, LENDING, PUBLIC PERFORMANCES, DIFFUSION AND/OR BROADCAST, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. ANY SUCH ACTION ESTABLISHES LIABILITY FOR A CIVIL ACTION AND MAY GIVE RISE TO CRIMINAL PROSECUTION."


Maybe it's just me, but I think that it could be that never in the history of filmed entertainment, has a disc of a film that was produced so poorly, been protected so extensively.


"

 

[Robert Harris]

He's doing "whatever works", like so many sites online. He notices that more people are looking at his posts about a particular topic, so he just keeps at it. It doesn't need to make sense, it only needs to draw clicks. I actually find it an encouraging sign about the size and the level of knowledge in the home theatre community in general that he keeps pounding away on a topic that he barely seems to understand.

Mr. Wells actually runs a site of interest to the industry, and is one of the top sites involving Academy Award run ups.

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

Mr. Wells actually runs a site of interest to the industry, and is one of the top sites involving Academy Award run ups.

Then you look at his postings today and see it's turned into a low-rent Letters to Penthouse Forum. He's got some issues.

 

[haineshisway]

As Pete says, check out his latest VistaVision column - or don't. Once again he manipulates images to make his case, whatever specious case that is. I now understand when people say it's all about click-throughs because no one can be this ignorant. He's wrong about EVERYTHING and frankly I don't think anyone in the industry gives a crap. He's just another guy with a website where he blogs. I can start a site and do the same thing - oh, wait, I already did that and in terms of a daily blog I've been doing it longer than anyone in the history of the Internet. But the difference is I don't pretend it's anything other than what it is - I don't give a flying Wallenda about clicks or click-throughs - meaningless to me - and yet I get 10,000,000 visitors a year. Go know.

 

[Dr Griffin]

It seems to me he may not be as serious about it as he makes out. I think he may be entertained by his baiting. When he checks out, the comments keep coming. It could be controversy for controversy's sake. He knows what buttons to push and seems to periodically keep pushing them. I could be wrong, but he sure knows how to fire up an issue.

 

[Alan Tully]

I really don't care, as long as it looks great, as I'm sure it will do. A few days ago this seemed the least likely title to get a Blu-ray release, & now it's probably going to happen (I can't imagine them doing the biz & not releasing it on Blu). A few days ago the title of this thread would have had a question mark after it.

 

[Robert Harris]

While I'm unable to speak to specifics, as I have no internal information, if the project comes to fruition, it will be done correctly.

I have great faith in what I consider the New Universal

RAH

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

While I'm unable to speak to specifics, as I have no internal information, if the project comes to fruition, it will be done correctly.

I have great faith in what I consider the New Universal

RAH

I have faith as well and I would hope this comes to fruition as it is an important film and a very good one. Just the history of the film is wildly interesting in that it was at one time a project written by Sam Peckinpah, to be directed by Stanley Kubrick and starring Marlon Brando...what a collection of talent that was! Would have been very interesting to have seen a Kubrick directed western. As the film stands now though, with Brando directing and starring with support from Karl Malden, Slim Pickens, Ben Johnson, and Katy Jurado (a cast right out of a Peckinpah film pretty much) we have a unique and outstanding western that should not be relegated to lousy looking and sounding PD releases. I hope this one makes it to blu-ray so that it can finally be seen in all its glory.

 

[Keith Cobby]

I hope it is released on blu-ray soon. We are having to wait a long time for another VistaVision title. I think the last one was Gunfight at the OK Corral (Richard III in the UK). Will it get to market before High Society?

 

[PaulaJ]

In case anyone is interested:

 

[Dr Griffin]

In case anyone is interested:

Interesting.

 

[Robert Harris]

A VVLA 2:1 ratio negated the value of Vista. Might have sounded nice, as a concept, but not in practice.

The original marketing of VVLA was to allow anywhere from 1.37 to 2.35, from the same negative, the full height of which could not be used. At a certain point marketing and sizzle must meet reality.

35/4 Panavision would have offered quality of equal resolution, without the financial overhead. I highly doubt that 1-E was ever screened at 2:1.

RAH

 

[Dr Griffin]

A VVLA 2:1 ratio negated the value of Vista. Might have sounded nice, as a concept, but not in practice.

The original marketing of VVLA was to allow anywhere from 1.37 to 2.35, from the same negative, the full height of which could not be used. At a certain point marketing and sizzle must meet reality.

35/4 Panavision would have offered quality of equal resolution, without the financial overhead. I highly doubt that 1-E was ever screened at 2:1.

RAH

Not good news for documentation, but good news for the anti-documentation crowd. I'm not sure where that document is from, but I wonder why it would be recommended for 2: 1 if VV was recommending 1.85 by that time?

 

[Bob Furmanek]

The recommendation of 1.85:1 for VistaVision was on the early titles. At some point in the mid-50's, the recommendation was changed to 2:1.


WHITE CHRISTMAS premiered at Radio City Music Hall in 1.97:1.


Here's the framing guide seen on-screen in the upper right at each reel change.