1. Guest,
    If you need help getting to know Xenforo, please see our guide here. If you have feedback or questions, please post those here.
    Dismiss Notice

PHE Press Release: Hondo (Blu-ray)

Discussion in 'Blu-ray and UHD' started by Ronald Epstein, Mar 6, 2012.

  1. Ronald Epstein

    Ronald Epstein Administrator
    Owner

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 1997
    Messages:
    44,726
    Likes Received:
    3,683
    Real Name:
    Ronald Epstein


    Matt,


    Been following this thread closely. That was very well said.


    I agree that, in the proper hands, 3D is outstanding technology

    that really allows viewers to immerse themselves in the film

    experience like never before.

    I am rather saddened that Paramount didn't do the right thing

    here and offer a 3D release of this film. I would really like to

    see the floodgates open on classic 3D fare -- especially since

    I have not had the opportunity to experience what audiences

    did back in that era. I am very curious about these films, as

    I suspect most of the public is who have recently brought this

    technology into their homes.
     
  2. Robert Harris

    Robert Harris Archivist
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 1999
    Messages:
    8,645
    Likes Received:
    4,077
    Real Name:
    Robert Harris

    Hondo was restored in 3D, and beautifully, I might add, by the Wayne family. I attended a screening at the Goldwyn in 3D, and it almost brought the original days of 3D back again.
     
  3. Steve Tannehill

    Steve Tannehill Ambassador

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 1997
    Messages:
    5,550
    Likes Received:
    213
    Location:
    DFW
    Real Name:
    Steve Tannehill
    Ron, of the classic 3D movies from the 50's, I have seen House of Wax and Dial M for Murder. Both use 3D effectively. Both of these, and Hondo, would be instant buys for me if they were released on 3D blu-ray.
     
  4. RolandL

    RolandL Producer

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    3,063
    Likes Received:
    549
    Location:
    Cromwell, CT
    Real Name:
    Roland Lataille
    Maybe its a marketing ploy? Get people to buy the Blu-ray version then, a year later come out with the 3D version and some will buy it again? I'll wait.
     
  5. Brandon Conway

    Brandon Conway captveg

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2002
    Messages:
    7,973
    Likes Received:
    845
    Location:
    North Hollywood, CA
    Real Name:
    Brandon Conway
    Occam's Razor: they probably don't see a cost/profit benefit to the 3D version at this time. I'm sure the fact that it's a film title licensed to Paramount from the Wayne Estate only complicates matters, too.
     
  6. Scott Calvert

    Scott Calvert Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 1998
    Messages:
    885
    Likes Received:
    2
    Especially since the industry is currently desperately pushing 3D right now. This would seem like a no-brainer...
     
  7. RolandL

    RolandL Producer

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    3,063
    Likes Received:
    549
    Location:
    Cromwell, CT
    Real Name:
    Roland Lataille
    Well, if its from the Wayne Estate, I wonder why they didn't push for a 3D release? Also, the screen shots of the DVD at dvdbeaver look fine to me. Whether its 1.33 or 1.85 I don't care. http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDReviews18/hondo_dvd_review.htm
     
  8. Bob Furmanek

    Bob Furmanek Insider
    Insider

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2001
    Messages:
    4,480
    Likes Received:
    4,170
    When you get statements like this:
    It's clear the reviewer hasn't done his homework... Bob
     
  9. RolandL

    RolandL Producer

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    3,063
    Likes Received:
    549
    Location:
    Cromwell, CT
    Real Name:
    Roland Lataille
    Amazon says its 1.85:1: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B006YZOXDK/ref=s9_simh_gw_p74_d0_g74_i1?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_r=161RPMFCWTKQH9PH437C&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=470938631&pf_rd_i=507846 Of course Amazon has a lot of bad info.
     
  10. theonemacduff

    theonemacduff Second Unit

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2010
    Messages:
    377
    Likes Received:
    106
    Location:
    the wet coast
    Real Name:
    Jon Paul
    I think Amazon has probably just copied info over from IMDb, which lists it as 1.85:1. The DVDBeaver screenshots show a lot of headroom, and the title shot at the head of the review been cropped to roughly 1.73:1. As to whether a 1.37:1 image will have more or less detail than a 1.85, if we are talking about cinema screenings rather than DVDs or (heavens) VHS, the detail should be the same. My somewhat dated memory is that the projectionist has to (1) use the correct aperture plate to cut off parts of the image not intended to be seen and then (2) make sure the image is properly framed in the gate of the projector. I once attended a screening of Saving Private Ryan (shot open matte) where the projectionist was using the correct aperture plate, but he hadn't properly lined the image up in the gate, so that on several occasions mike booms were visible at the top of the image, and for the entire film, the bottom of the image was cut off. About a half hour into the presentation, I went into the lobby to complain to management, but they said they couldn't do anything about it – poor as he was, the projectionist was apparently the only one on duty that night who even had an idea about how to do things – so they gave me a voucher for another showing. I declined, as I figured the chances were good that the same low-skills individual would be running the projector.
     
  11. John Hodson

    John Hodson Producer

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    Messages:
    4,520
    Likes Received:
    303
    Location:
    Bolton, Lancashire
    Real Name:
    John
  12. RolandL

    RolandL Producer

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    3,063
    Likes Received:
    549
    Location:
    Cromwell, CT
    Real Name:
    Roland Lataille
    1.33 and about 1.85:1 [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]
     
  13. jim_falconer

    jim_falconer Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2004
    Messages:
    562
    Likes Received:
    104
    Hmm, looking at those screen shots, I'll take 1.33 please (and while we're at it, 1.33 of Jet Pilot too).
     
  14. haineshisway

    haineshisway Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2011
    Messages:
    2,983
    Likes Received:
    1,974
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Real Name:
    Bruce
    And I'm the opposite - every one of the 1.85 shots is more dynamic and focused as that's what the director and cameraman were framing for. It's amazing to me how many people do not understand framing and where the director and cameraman want the focus. Watch any real 1.33 film and you will see cut off heads and hats in a closer shot - they don't care about the top of the head they care about where the eyes of the actor are in the frame. And why bring up Jet Pilot as if it had something to do with Hondo? One film (Hondo) was framed for widescreen by its filmmakers, and one film (Jet Pilot) was shot before widescreen but held back for release for years and then show incorrectly in widescreen. One has nothing to do with the other.
     
  15. Robert Crawford

    Robert Crawford Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 1998
    Messages:
    28,177
    Likes Received:
    3,872
    Location:
    Michigan
    Real Name:
    Robert
    I don't see the widescreen shots being more dynamic and focused here.







    Crawdaddy
     
  16. haineshisway

    haineshisway Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2011
    Messages:
    2,983
    Likes Received:
    1,974
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Real Name:
    Bruce
    Well, then that's what makes horse racing. :) Just look at the closeup of the Duke. In one, my eye is drawn to his hat, in the other my eye is drawn to where it should be - his face and eyes. If Mr. Farrow were framing that shot for Academy he would have framed it the same way he framed the 1.85 version and the proof is in any Farrow film shot in Academy.
     
  17. Bob Furmanek

    Bob Furmanek Insider
    Insider

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2001
    Messages:
    4,480
    Likes Received:
    4,170
    This can be debated shot by shot, but I'll go with what Duke said to Jack Warner about the lens on the camera: [​IMG]
     
  18. jim_falconer

    jim_falconer Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2004
    Messages:
    562
    Likes Received:
    104

    I bring it up because the only release of the film on DVD currently, has the incorrect aspect ratio. I'm hoping when it comes out on blu (if ever), that the studio would release the correct version.
     
  19. Patrick McCart

    Patrick McCart Lead Actor

    Joined:
    May 16, 2001
    Messages:
    7,513
    Likes Received:
    116
    Location:
    Alpharetta, GA, USA
    Real Name:
    Patrick McCart
    It's likely that the 4x3 version is cropped on the sides. A lot of open matte transfers still have a degree of re-framing, despite opening up the vertical area. If anyone had a 35mm frame from Hondo handy, we would be able to check out the degree.
     
  20. RolandL

    RolandL Producer

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    3,063
    Likes Received:
    549
    Location:
    Cromwell, CT
    Real Name:
    Roland Lataille
    When I saw Dial M for Murder at the NYC Film Forum in dual projection 3D is was 1.33:1. You would lose objects in the foreground that would lessen the 3D effect if it was 1.85:1. I don't know how the 1.85:1 would affect the 3-D in Hondo. I noticed the same thing in House of Wax. I had a 3D field sequential VHS tape of House of Was that was masked to 1.85:1 to cover the Japanese subtitles. Later I obtained a 1.33:1 version of the movie and the 3-D was a lot better as again, the objects in the foreground that were covered by the masking were now visible and enhanced the 3-D effect.
     

Share This Page