Jump to content



Sign up for a free account to remove the pop-up ads

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and remove the pop-up ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.


Photo
- - - - -

A few words about...™ It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World -- in Blu-ray

A Few Words About

  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
360 replies to this topic

#341 of 361 OFFLINE   Garysb

Garysb

    Screenwriter



  • 1,551 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 31 2003

Posted January 18 2013 - 05:13 AM

The version on TCM being shown on March 3 apparently will be the short version as it is listed as 159 minutes and is being shown in a 2 hour 45 minute time slot . Subject to change as schedule is still 2 months away.

#342 of 361 OFFLINE   Techman707

Techman707

    Second Unit



  • 268 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 01 2010

Posted January 18 2013 - 07:34 AM

I saved the web site but unfortunately Seattle times has taken it down........... ...........The festival will also feature two non-Cinerama epic films that were shot in 70 mm, "Oklahoma!" and "Lawrence of Arabia," as well as four more recent films that were shot in 35 mm but blown up to 70 mm for exhibition: "Ghostbusters," "Krull," "Silverado" and "Total Recall."
Would yu know whether the print of "Oklahoma" is a 30fps TAO print?

#343 of 361 OFFLINE   rsmithjr

rsmithjr

    Supporting Actor



  • 916 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 22 2011
  • Real Name:Robert Smith
  • LocationPalo Alto, CA

Posted January 18 2013 - 07:42 AM

Would yu know whether the print of "Oklahoma" is a 30fps TAO print?
There are a significant number of differences between the 70mm Oklahoma! and the 35mm. It is no trouble at all to tell the difference. I remember playing the LD of the 70mm version for my father-in-law a number of years ago. He had seen the movie in original release but it not a film buff. At one point, he exclaimed, "Is that scene different?" (just before "I Can't Say No"). I showed him the scene from the LD of the 35mm version and we talked about the differences.

#344 of 361 OFFLINE   Techman707

Techman707

    Second Unit



  • 268 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 01 2010

Posted January 18 2013 - 07:57 AM

There are a significant number of differences between the 70mm Oklahoma! and the 35mm. It is no trouble at all to tell the difference. I remember playing the LD of the 70mm version for my father-in-law a number of years ago. He had seen the movie in original release but it not a film buff. At one point, he exclaimed, "Is that scene different?" (just before "I Can't Say No"). I showed him the scene from the LD of the 35mm version and we talked about the differences.
I'm very familar with the differences, I saw the original at the Rivoli, which is why I was wondering if it's a 30fps 70mm print. After seeing the horrible 70mm print of IAMMMMW in New York a couple of weeks ago, I guess ANYTHING is possible.

#345 of 361 OFFLINE   Frankie_A

Frankie_A

    Extra



  • 16 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 26 2005

Posted January 19 2013 - 06:19 AM

I'm very familar with the differences, I saw the original at the Rivoli, which is why I was wondering if it's a 30fps 70mm print. After seeing the horrible 70mm print of IAMMMMW in New York a couple of weeks ago, I guess ANYTHING is possible.
Not to hijack this thread, but I am just wondering, with all the negative reactions about the uncinematic look of High Frame Rate (48fps) which was used in sections of the THE HOBBIT, and with many industry people saying it takes on the look of cheap video soap operas; others say it is so "realistic" looking that it breaks the "suspension of disbelieve" that is so important to the experience of film. I am just wondering why I've never heard any such negative comments about TODD-AO's 30fps higher frame rate. I'd think it would take on that same "video" look as 48fps, even if perhaps not to the same extent. Techman707-- I've never had the opportunity to see OKLAHOMA! in true TODD-AO so I can't comment on the 30fps "look" of it, but I am wondering if you noticed if OKLAHOMA! in TODD-AO somehow looked less cinematic than the 24fps version? Reading the comments about HFR seemed like what they didn't like about HFR was difficult to verbalize and everyone had their own take on it, but there was no question -- no one liked the "video look" of higher frame rate. Did you get any sense of that with TODD-AO? It also seems that Warner was so unnerved by the hostile comments about the HFR trade demo that they drastically pulled back on the number of venues that were showing THE HOBBIT in the HFR process (not sure if it even has a trade name -- all I've ever heard it refered to was HFR; as processes go, HFR doesn't exactly capture the imagination).

#346 of 361 OFFLINE   Techman707

Techman707

    Second Unit



  • 268 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 01 2010

Posted January 19 2013 - 07:24 AM

First let me say that I HATE THAT LOOK OF VIDEO for TV shows unless it's a game show. It has nothing to do with whether it looks sharp and clear. Oklahoma, in 30fps, looks NOTHING LIKE that live cheap TV look. When they started to do a lot of taping of TV shows, a little over 30 years ago, many people really hated that "look" and some of the big production houses started to experiment with processing (by degrading the image) to "make it appear" that it was film, by adding grain and other types of signal processing. At one facility they referred to the process as running it through a "shake box". But again, to me it still looked like $hit. However, today they have video cameras that the average person would be hard pressed to tell that it isn't film. Bottom line, I hate the look of TVs when Cinemotion and/or Motionflow control (different brands use different names) on TVs when it's turned on, which makes the picture look sharp, but NOTHING like film . However, REAL 30fps film DOES NOT have that strange cheap look, it's GREAT. It's sad that 30fps isn't used for ANY films today (but then again, soon there will be no film used at all). Did you ever see "Around The World In 80 Days"? I thought that REALLY looked great when it came out. Who knows, maybe Sten Speilberg will decide to makea picture in 70mm 30fps (or larger) .:cool: .......30fps.....video.:D

#347 of 361 OFFLINE   KPmusmag

KPmusmag

    Second Unit



  • 402 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 09 2011
  • Real Name:Kevin Parcher
  • LocationHenderson, NV

Posted January 19 2013 - 07:37 AM

I was lucky enough to see OKLAHOMA! in Todd-AO twice. It looked exceptionally clear, but still looked like film.

#348 of 361 OFFLINE   Techman707

Techman707

    Second Unit



  • 268 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 01 2010

Posted January 19 2013 - 07:41 AM

I was lucky enough to see OKLAHOMA! in Todd-AO twice. It looked exceptionally clear, but still looked like film.
EXACTLY!:) Did you also see "Around The World In 80 Days"?

#349 of 361 OFFLINE   Robert Harris

Robert Harris

    Archivist



  • 8,056 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 08 1999
  • Real Name:Robert Harris

Posted January 19 2013 - 07:51 AM

Originally Posted by Techman707  First let me say that I HATE THAT LOOK OF VIDEO for TV shows unless it's a game show. It has nothing to do with whether it looks sharp and clear. Oklahoma, in 30fps, looks NOTHING LIKE that live cheap TV look. When they started to do a lot of taping of TV shows, a little over 30 years ago, many people really hated that "look" and some of the big production houses started to experiment with processing (by degrading the image) to "make it appear" that it was film, by adding grain and other types of signal processing. At one facility they referred to the process as running it through a "shake box". But again, to me it still looked like $hit. However, today they have video cameras that the average person would be hard pressed to tell that it isn't film. Bottom line, I hate the look of TVs when Cinemotion and/or Motionflow control (different brands use different names) on TVs when it's turned on, which makes the picture look sharp, but NOTHING like film . However, REAL 30fps film DOES NOT have that strange cheap look, it's GREAT. It's sad that 30fps isn't used for ANY films today (but then again, soon there will be no film used at all). Did you ever see "Around The World In 80 Days"? I thought that REALLY looked great when it came out. Who knows, maybe Sten Speilberg will decide to makea picture in 70mm 30fps (or larger) .
Oklahoma! and 80 Days were both spectacular at 30fps, which eliminated "picket fencing" in pans and traveling shots. As an aside, the original prints of Oklahoma! were not 70mm.  They were 65, and ran with mag dubbers. A truly beautiful morning! RAH

"All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible. This I did." T.E. Lawrence


#350 of 361 ONLINE   OliverK

OliverK

    Screenwriter



  • 1,919 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 01 2000

Posted January 19 2013 - 10:27 AM

Oklahoma! and 80 Days were both spectacular at 30fps, which eliminated "picket fencing" in pans and traveling shots.
Very true, watched Around the World for the fist time in 70mm and 30 fps this year and it is hard to believe that even though this looked so good 30 fps were basically abandoned for big Hollywood productions from that point on..

#351 of 361 OFFLINE   KPmusmag

KPmusmag

    Second Unit



  • 402 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 09 2011
  • Real Name:Kevin Parcher
  • LocationHenderson, NV

Posted January 19 2013 - 10:38 AM

EXACTLY!:) Did you also see "Around The World In 80 Days"?
Unfortunately, no. I have only seen 80 Days on television and home vid. :(

#352 of 361 OFFLINE   Frankie_A

Frankie_A

    Extra



  • 16 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 26 2005

Posted January 20 2013 - 05:17 AM

I was never a big fan of ATWI80D,especially the Cantinflas segment. But then again, I never saw it in 70mm or 30fps, although I don't think the process alone would help the content; to me it was trying too hard to mimic a Cinerama traveloge and just adding a frivious story and popular actors on top of it, but a travelog nontheless. But hey, you can't go by me....it was a super hit at the time and when I ran it recently in 35mm to an audience of 3000 in Prospect Park, they loved it.

#353 of 361 OFFLINE   rsmithjr

rsmithjr

    Supporting Actor



  • 916 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 22 2011
  • Real Name:Robert Smith
  • LocationPalo Alto, CA

Posted January 20 2013 - 05:23 AM

Around the World in 80 Days continues to be one of my favorite films. It is a sublime and amusing piece of comedy and romance. The cameos of many famous stars are artfully inserted. Cantinflas holds every scene together, and David Niven is perfect in the role. Victor Young's magnificent score always impresses. The DVD of several years ago does a good job with the film. Let's hope that we see a Blu-ray very soon, done with the same care by Warners. I am fortunate enough to see this periodically at 35mm and magnetic stereo sound at the Stanford Theatre, which owns an archive 35mm dye-transfer print and a full-coat magnetic soundtrack.

#354 of 361 OFFLINE   Techman707

Techman707

    Second Unit



  • 268 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 01 2010

Posted January 24 2013 - 09:15 AM

Oklahoma! and 80 Days were both spectacular at 30fps, which eliminated "picket fencing" in pans and traveling shots. As an aside, the original prints of Oklahoma! were not 70mm.  They were 65, and ran with mag dubbers. A truly beautiful morning! RAH
Although I never ran either picture when they first came out myself (I’m not quite that old), I wasn’t aware that they were run in 65mm at the Rivoli. I do recall that when Ben Hur ran at Loew’s State, they ran it in 65mm on Baur projectors locked to a dubber that were installed especially for the run.

#355 of 361 OFFLINE   MCRTNYFAN

MCRTNYFAN

    Auditioning



  • 1 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 01 2013

Posted March 01 2013 - 07:38 AM

I sincerly hope there will be a 50th anniversary edition of It's A Mad Mad Mad Mad World. This is my all time favorite comedy. I saw it at the show when I was 9 years old. I have it on Beta, VHS and DVD. It would be great for the studio to work on this and give it back to us for the anniversary.

#356 of 361 OFFLINE   darkrock17

darkrock17

    Supporting Actor



  • 837 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 13 2007
  • Real Name:Andrew McClure
  • LocationAlexandria, VA

Posted March 01 2013 - 08:03 AM

I sincerly hope there will be a 50th anniversary edition of It's A Mad Mad Mad Mad World. This is my all time favorite comedy. I saw it at the show when I was 9 years old. I have it on Beta, VHS and DVD. It would be great for the studio to work on this and give it back to us for the anniversary.
I would love to see a 50th Anniversary release around Nov./Dec., but I think they only thing will likely get is a an updadted cover that says "50th Anniversary" on it and even that might be be unlikely.

#357 of 361 OFFLINE   Rachael B

Rachael B

    Producer



  • 4,637 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 05 2000

Posted March 01 2013 - 11:35 AM

I sincerly hope there will be a 50th anniversary edition of It's A Mad Mad Mad Mad World. This is my all time favorite comedy. I saw it at the show when I was 9 years old. I have it on Beta, VHS and DVD. It would be great for the studio to work on this and give it back to us for the anniversary.
If worst comes to worst you can always get the LD Boxset for a consolation.... :D ....you skipped a generation....
Rachael, the big disc cat is in real life Dot Mongur, Champion of the International Pacman Federation. You better be ready to rumble if you play Jr. Pacman with me. This is full contact Pacman and I don't just play the game, I operate it!


#358 of 361 OFFLINE   Will*B

Will*B

    Second Unit



  • 477 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 12 2003
  • LocationLondon, England

Posted March 01 2013 - 01:12 PM

After almost 15 years of storage, I dug out my old Pioneer LD player today. Surprisingly, it still works fine. The first disc I tried was IAMMMMW. I couldn't believe how TERRIBLE the picture quality was on a 40" LED. I'm sure it looked MUCH better the last time I saw it (on an old 27" CRT). I guess it's because I'm used to the clarity of BD / HDTV now... The extra scenes look particularly bad. Strange purple effects, edge-of-frame warping, etc... Really jarring. Until a fully-restored version appears, the current BD is undoubtedly the definitive version. Seriously, the LD is unwatchable!
 

 


#359 of 361 OFFLINE   Moe Dickstein

Moe Dickstein

    Filmmaker



  • 3,265 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 06 2001
  • Real Name:T R Wilkinson
  • LocationWest Hollywood, CA

Posted March 01 2013 - 01:38 PM

Theres something to that, LDs definitely looked better on SD televisions of any type, I don't think it's the LCD but the fact that running an SD signal into an HD display really makes it look worse, perhaps its the extra scaling and processing the TV has to do to show the image, but the old CRTs were very forgiving to LDs - since they looked better than anything else you put into that tv and were basically running at the top end of what the display was capable of, as Blu-Rays do now compared to Cable tv HD and other lower rez things.
Yes, these strange things happen all the time - PT Anderson, Magnolia

#360 of 361 OFFLINE   SilverWook

SilverWook

    Screenwriter



  • 1,790 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 11 2006

Posted March 01 2013 - 01:52 PM

It all depends on how good your tv is at upscaling SD signals? I've watched my import LD of The Phantom Menace on my 52 inch Samsung, and it was pretty decent. Older LD's have looked worse though.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users