A short review of "The Professionals" SE (1 Viewer)

[Mark Cappelletty]

Yeah, this was an easy double-dip for me. Two words-- ROBERT RYAN. He's awesome in just about anything. Can't wait for HOUSE OF BAMBOO in June.

Thanks for the review Crawdaddy.

 

[Paul_Scott]

the verdict on a comparsion between the two editions over on DVD Beaver (backed up by screenshots) is
the new SE is softer and (slightly) zoomed in and cropped.
there is also a difference in color temperature, with the new SE looking 'cooler'.
i don't know which is correct, but i sure don't appreciate the softer look of the new version.
look at the screen cap of the newspaper clipping- the original version looks like a superbit compared to the new version which is odd because the older version actually has a lower bit rate -and the new one isn't much higher (guess this will be a candidate for a legitimate superbit release down the line, which like the Mask of Zorro slightly improve upon the SE which itself was a slight step down from the original)


as for the color temp difference. i prefer the 'cooler' higher temp setting look of the new disc, but my pj is set higher than 6500 (i think i usually have it around 7800) anyway so i already get that.
looks like i'll be safe to avoid this one altogether.

 

[RyanZ]

Is it me or is Columbia becoming the comeback kid when it comes to DVD release? I was really impressed and surprised by this one.

 

[ArthurMy]

The new SE's color, just to put this at rest, is completely accurate to the IB Tech release prints. The older DVD doesn't even hold a candle to it. Also, it is not a good idea to judge a DVD from screencaps - I love DVD Beaver but I've ended up getting DVDs which are soft-looking in the screencaps and just fine when you actually look at the DVD. I just don't see how anyone can make judgment calls like the one above, just from viewing screencaps.

 

[John Hodson]

Ditto; and that includes a number of MGM / Goldwyn titles which they've trashed recently (Dead End, IMHO, looks great).

I'm so pleased with this new release by Columbia which, I agree, is superior to the prior disc; great job.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I never noticed the cropping which is very slight in my opinion. I'll take another look at both dvds tonight to see if it's more obvious to me now. Regarding the rest of the video presentation, I stand by my earlier comments which stated that the SE dvd is vastly superior to the previously released dvd. Also, the audio on the SE is much improved with the 3.0 DD or 5.1 DD versus the 2.0 DD.

I'm glad others that have seen this latest dvd agree with my opinion. As John noted, we see different dvd results because everybodys HT setup is different so what appears or sounds great on one, might not be of the same quality on another.





Crawdaddy

 

[Paul_Scott]

i think when you have such a disparity in color temp/timing as you do with these two releases, that that would play a large part in ones estimation of which is 'better' irregardless of any other 'minor' quality differences(like slight cropping or softer detail).

if you are like me, no matter which is more correct, a cooler looking image, temp wise, just feels cleaner, airier.
thats why i keep my pj set above the 6500.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Another thing about what the SE has which the old dvd doesn't, this film has some of its dialogue in Spanish and the SE subtitles provides English translation to the Spanish words. Some of it is pretty funny. If you're not verse in Spanish like me, I've wonder for a long time, what were they saying in Spanish.






Crawdaddy

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

That was actually the first thing I noticed as the subtitles appeared high on the screen during the early scene where they are getting on the train. They are not contained in the 2.35:1 frame, so if you have mattes, you will either have to open them up or do without the subtitles, which is no biggie since the film plays without them OK.

Regards,

 

[Robert Crawford]

Ken,
What do you think of the dvd presentation?






Crawdaddy

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

I have both versions. I have to admit to liking the color timing on the original a little better, but I am not familiar enough with the film to know which one is more accurate.

I don't think the difference in detail is really that great. The new one looks soft at first glance due to the differences in contrast and color, but if you look closely at the usual suspects for detail like highlights of eyes and textures of detailed surfaces, it's really not that different. Also, a slight bit of edge ringing from the original gives it a "faux sharpness".

The extras are great, and having both a 3.0 original mix and 5.1 remix audio track is unquestionably an upgrade over the original's 2.0, not just based on the specs, but based on what my ears are telling me, too. If you don't already own the film, I would definitely recommed spending an extra $5 for the SE. If you are happy with the original and have no interest in the extras or an audio upgrade, then you may want to stand pat.

Regards,

 

[dpippel]

I just watched the SE last night and all I can say is - WOW! To my eyes the new transfer is a huge improvement over the original DVD release. The heavy EE and compression artifacts that plagued the previous transfer are nowhere to be seen. In my HT the SE looks very filmlike and natural. Although the print used does show some damage (occasional dirt and dust), the transfer is pretty darned great. It's about time this fine film finally received some proper treatment. Outside of a complete physical restoration, I don't see The Professionals looking much better on DVD than this.

 

[Zen Butler]

Thank you Robert.

Not my favorite but to me, a very solid western. Any film with Claudia Cardinale automatically gets :star: :star: 1/2
out of the gate.

[Like Robert, (not sure of his age), many of these westerns are dear to me for the time my father and I spent together watching them. May be true for many cats my age.]




Could a 3:10 to Yuma SE be coming?

 

[ArthurMy]

The color timing on the first release is wrong. It does not reflect how the film looked in theaters (it was printed by Technicolor). All you have to do is look at the sky - in the first release it's kind of a sickly greenish yellowish blue. In the new release it's BLUE - Tech blue. The skin tones are also perfectly renedered in the new DVD. So, I'm not sure why anyone would prefer the old DVD, but to each their own.

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

For me, it's mostly an issue of contrast/density rather than pallette. I liked that the shadows went all the way to black in the dark scenes. From a color standpoint, I do like the fact that the desert looks less magenta/red on the remaster, though.

Regards,

 

[ArthurMy]

I'd only had a chance to glance at the color before. I'm now watching the film. The DVD Beaver is completely wrong about this, and it's a textbook example that you cannot and should not trust screencaps, nor should you ever make a decision to buy based on them.

The DVD is great. It's quite improved from the previous DVD in almost every way and that includes sharpness. The color is, as I've said, completely accurate to the look of the IB release prints. I'm enjoying the 5.1, although I must profess that I find that the original 3.0 suits the film better. They don't make 'em like this anymore, do they? In any case, bravo to Columbia for a great job, and anyone who is on the fence about this because of screencaps, should get off the fence immediately and buy the disc.