A PEEK AT THE 3 WORLDS OF GULLIVER AND MORE (1 Viewer)

[haineshisway]

Well, I've thought all the Harryhausen/Columbia films have looked nice on Blu-ray, but Gulliver may just be the nicest of them all. I don't love the film, although it's certainly entertaining, but when something looks this good it adds immeasurably to the viewing experience. Great to have it.

Also checked out Nicholas Nickleby, which looks very nice and I'm interested to watch it all the way through. I spot checked The Barefoot Contessa, which I can't wait to watch all the way through. The transfer won't win any awards, but I've seen much worse - there are registration problems mostly, but the color had color and I do love Mr. Cardiff and the talking is witty and florid and fun. Matt's reviewed Stardust Memories, which looks fine. Not my favorite Woody, although I like it better now than I did back then.

The Keys of the Kingdom looks great and it's a great movie. So, of this new batch, just Bullet Train to check out - I'm kind of looking forward to that one, since I know nothing about it.

And a big five stars to The BFG, a movie that, for me, has gotten as unfairly knocked as A.I. I loved it, and the transfer is state of the art as is the sound.

 

[ahollis]

I have also but Bullet Train on the side to enjoy after the holidays. I am looking forward to it.

 

[John Sparks]

Was just sitting down to A/B the SD and BD of The 3 Worlds of Gulliver in the HT but the wife came in and we watched something else...Equilibrium with Christian Bale.

Can't wait to try again tomorrow and hopefully will get to do it!

 

[haineshisway]

It's a beautiful thing - this whole batch is filled with good watching.

 

[Dick]

It's a beautiful thing - this whole batch is filled with good watching.

Yeah, just received GULLIVER and BOSTON STRANGLER and STARDUST MEMORIES and SWAMP WATER. All are exemplary. The HD of Gulliver does, inevitably, reveal some shaky mattes and matte lines, but the color fidelity and sharpness are better than I might have expected.

This (once ONE MILLION YEARS B.C. comes from Kino) leaves only VALLEY OF GWANGI of the non-Blu-ray Harryhausen titles, and we have to leave that up to Warner Bros.

 

[John Sparks]

Yeah, just received GULLIVER and BOSTON STRANGLER and STARDUST MEMORIES and SWAMP WATER. All are exemplary. The HD of Gulliver does, inevitably, reveal some shaky mattes and matte lines, but the color fidelity and sharpness are better than I might have expected.

This (once ONE MILLION YEARS B.C. comes from Kino) leaves only VALLEY OF GWANGI of the non-Blu-ray Harryhausen titles, and we have to leave that up to Warner Bros.

I just A/Bed the DVD with the new BD, and on my set up (as you can see below) there isn't that much difference. Not like MYSTERIOUS ISLAND, FIRST MEN IN THE MOON and the others. To me, it was a waste of money. I only watched the 1.66:1 version and it looked zoomed in.

Now, all we need is ANIMAL WORLD, if only for the 10 minutes and we'll have all that he did (not counting the Puppetoons.)

 

[haineshisway]

How peculiar - based on your post I just looked at the DVD and there is three worlds of difference between it and the Blu-ray in just about every way. I don't get it, really. And you say "as you can see below" - are we supposed to be seeing something?

 

[John Sparks]

How peculiar - based on your post I just looked at the DVD and there is three worlds of difference between it and the Blu-ray in just about every way. I don't get it, really. And you say "as you can see below" - are we supposed to be seeing something?

What I mean is the equipment that I am using in my HT to look at this movie which is at the bottom of my post.

 

[Dick]

I just A/Bed the DVD with the new BD, and on my set up (as you can see below) there isn't that much difference. Not like MYSTERIOUS ISLAND, FIRST MEN IN THE MOON and the others. To me, it was a waste of money. I only watched the 1.66:1 version and it looked zoomed in.

Now, all we need is ANIMAL WORLD, if only for the 10 minutes and we'll have all that he did (not counting the Puppetoons.)

John -- THE ANIMAL WORLD (Irwin Allen, 1956) is a dated, and actually rather juvenile documentary (due to a poor script and moronic narration) except for the Harryhausen segment, which clocks in at under ten minutes and can be found as a supplement on the BLACK SCORPION DVD, or within its feature film origin from the Warner Archives. The animated segment might turn up as an HD supplement if THE BLACK SCORPION is upgraded, but I wouldn't count on it.

As per your observation that GULLIVER doesn't improve very much over the DVD, I have to wonder if either your set up needs tweaking or your eyeglasses do (if you wear them...if not, maybe consider a trip to the optometrist). Not trying to pick a fight , but the 1.66 transfer I just watched on the TT Blu-ray is pretty damned stunning. Not flawless, but the DVD as I recall was soft, yellowish in spots, dull brown flesh tones in others, awkwardly framed (cropped to 1.33:1), and just not very inspiring. Now I finally have an edition that feels mightily like a keeper.

 

[John Sparks]

My setup has been ISFed twice and is in top notch form and my eyes are fine. When you say, "As I recall was soft, yellowish in spots, dull brown , etc.," you haven't done a A/B comparison lately flipping back and forth between both images. I will do another A/B comparison tomorrow, and then I will play both of them on my 65738 ISfed DLP Mit and see if the difference is that glaring. Don't get me wrong, the BD is better looking, but not by much. All the other Harryhausens have been quite a stepup.

 

[John Sparks]

John -- THE ANIMAL WORLD (Irwin Allen, 1956) is a dated, and actually rather juvenile documentary (due to a poor script and moronic narration) except for the Harryhausen segment, which clocks in at under ten minutes and can be found as a supplement on the BLACK SCORPION DVD, or within its feature film origin from the Warner Archives. The animated segment might turn up as an HD supplement if THE BLACK SCORPION is upgraded, but I wouldn't count on it.

As per your observation that GULLIVER doesn't improve very much over the DVD, I have to wonder if either your set up needs tweaking or your eyeglasses do (if you wear them...if not, maybe consider a trip to the optometrist). Not trying to pick a fight , but the 1.66 transfer I just watched on the TT Blu-ray is pretty damned stunning. Not flawless, but the DVD as I recall was soft, yellowish in spots, dull brown flesh tones in others, awkwardly framed (cropped to 1.33:1), and just not very inspiring. Now I finally have an edition that feels mightily like a keeper.

Well Dick...you are right about there being a difference, but only on the TV...night and day. The noise or grain movement on the BD is much less than on the DVD. In my HT, the DVD is almost as good as the BD, and I stand by that. I'm sitting 8' from the 65" TV and 12' from the 110" HT screen, as per numerous site specs and calibrators input.

Why the difference...I don't know, Maybe someone here will shed a little light on this?

 

[Bob Furmanek]

From Boxoffice:

 

[John Sparks]

Crazy huh? All 3 aspect ratio versions (1.37:1-DVD, 1.66:1/1.78:1-BD) are wrong! Thanks for that info Bob.

Wonder why they couldn't get the correct OAR when it's plainly visible from Boxoffice?

But I would still like to know the answer to my question.

 

[aPhil]

Crazy huh? All 3 aspect ratio versions (1.37:1-DVD, 1.66:1/1.78:1-BD) are wrong! Thanks for that info Bob.

Wonder why they couldn't get the correct OAR when it's plainly visible from Boxoffice?

But I would still like to know the answer to my question.

I don't think the less-wide aspect ratios are wrong.

Over the years I have read many comments about Ray Harryhausen films not really being "perfect" at 1.85,
and that Harryhausen preferred the less-wide aspect ratio for most of his films
(with "First Men in the Moon" being a complete exception and his only anamorphic Panavision movie).

Do an online search and you will find links to Harryhausen making comments about framing issues and feeling that many of his films play better less wide. He talks about framing for 1.85 as the theatrical standard but he also framed for television at the same time -- I know some people say that one cannot do such, but, having been a camera operator on several motion pictures, I will tell you that you certainly can do such.

While preferring the 1.66-to-1 aspect ratio,
I like both the 1.66 and 1.78 framing on the new Blu-ray,
and I own the old Full Frame DVD --
This new Blu-ray blows the old DVD out of the water. In fact, this new Twilight Time Blu-ray of "The Three Worlds of Gulliver" looks better than I ever thought it could look.

I now hope that Sony/Columbia will go back and do a 4K restoration to upgrade their earlier Blu-ray of "The 7th Voyage of Sinbad." All the Harryhausen releases from Twilight Time look incredible and better than I ever saw them in a theater. Now I would like the same to happen for "The 7th Voyage of Sinbad."

 

[John Sparks]

Wow, you can remember what they looked like on their initial opening! All I remember is that they enthralled me at the Saturday Matineee back in the late 50's, early 60's!

 

[haineshisway]

They were framed at a ratio they knew would be projected everywhere in the United States, just like every other film of its era. It's not germane would he would have preferred decades later.

 

[aPhil]

Wow, you can remember what they looked like on their initial opening! All I remember is that they enthralled me at the Saturday Matineee back in the late 50's, early 60's!

Actually, the mind is a strange thing when it comes to certain memories.
Most movies I cannot remember when or where I saw them (or, in some cases, if I saw them),
but there are some that I remember like yesterday --

For Harryhausen Films I tend to have rather good memory.
I have fussed about the Blu-ray of "The 7th Voyage of Sinbad" since it was released,
and a couple people questioned me on it.
Well, within the past 5 years, the Carolina Theater in Durham NC showed what appeared to be a new 35mm print.
Wow!
It was like what I remembered as a child, and I long for that film to look as good on Blu-ray as it does on that print.

On the other hand, outside of remembering that I did not like the animated Elephant,
I have no recollection what "The Valley of Gwangi" looked like when I first saw it (or where I first saw it).

 

[John Sparks]

There you go! All I'm asking is why does the BD, when projected onto a screen, look almost as good as a DVD, yet when shown on a TV there is a noticeable difference?

 

[aPhil]

There you go! All I'm asking is why does the BD, when projected onto a screen, look almost as good as a DVD, yet when shown on a TV there is a noticeable difference?

I would have to see your setup.
The most obvious answer is that your projector is not putting out the best image that it should be giving you.

 

[John Sparks]

I would have to see your setup.
The most obvious answer is that your projector is not putting out the best image that it should be giving you.

I guess the 2 calibrators aren't worth their salt, huh? One is US wide known and the other is local. My PJ was and still is at the top of its class (for the time it was made.)

You know, maybe some BDs aren't as good as they seem. Maybe reviewing them on a TV is totally different than doing the reviewing on a PJ?

I enjoy watching movies as they were meant to be seen (through the PJ) and just can't seem to be able to enjoy them looking as if they were filmed under tons of fluorescent lights (through the TV.)