DVD FILE confused reviews (1 Viewer)

[Patrick McCart]

DVDFile isn't the only one. A lot of DVD reviewers simply don't know enough about film technology. Some will at least explain a little. Some will just go ahead and make false statements without researching further. (they may not even know they're wrong)

DVDFile is one of the better DVD review sites. (DVD Savant is the best, in terms of film tech) I think that if they did more research and be a little less biased, they'd be better. Still...most of their reviews are excellent.

However... DVD reviewers need to learn to grade sound in an inclined manner. It's annoying to see stuff like the "mono = 2/5" rule and "not enough surround information" in ANY review. It's about quality, not quantity, folks.

 

[Joe Caps]

You guys are right - there is very little written about sound formats and wide screen. There is some good technical in the carr and hayes book but TONS of wrong information.
I had talked to those guys and some of their research was sketchy, to put it mildly. Its an interesting place to start but do NOT use their lists for anything.
BTW - if you play Heaven Knows Mr Allison, you will have tons of sound thrown into the surround becuase it is just mono, throuwn out of phase, Oddly, the original movie, though made smack in the middle of theScope stero erea was released in mono.
Fox can't seem to make up their mind what to do with their old four channel stereo movies. They keep announcing they are 2.0 mix downs, but several have shown up in 4.0 after all (Journey to the center of the earth, Love is aMany Splnedored thing). Three more fox stereo biggies zre do in the next few weeks - all announced as being 2.0 mixdowns, but who knows - Blue Max, From theTerrace, long Hot Summer.
The first tow films looked terrible on laser and were badly in need of restoration. On another site, the hed of the site mentions that he has seen From the Terrce and that the picture is miles ahead of the laser. Heres hoping.

 

[Mark Zimmer]

You can see then why reviewers get confused about these things. You have to know each individual film intimately, and that's just plain unrealistic unless you're in the industry (like Glenn Erickson). But I'll know to be careful in my discussions of such things in the future. The out-of-phase fake surround on Mr Allison actually sounds pretty good.

But then, I find the Dewey Decimal System, with its logical organization infinitely preferable to the utterly random LC classification system. Well, other than where the LC wags stuck 'The Bible.'

 

[Dennis Nicholls]

Some will just go ahead and make false statements without researching further.

Hey they could always get a job at the New York Times.

OK Mark you just had to make me go look it up....
http://lcweb.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/lcco/lcco_b.pdf

 

[Mark Zimmer]

Well, it's kind of implied in the above questions back, but I might as well ask it, Joe. How do YOU know all these things off hand? Do you just remember the audio formats for every Hollywood movie? Do you have this written down somewhere? Is it all carried around in your head, or do you have some references that you'd recommend? And if it's all carried around in your head, why don't YOU write The Big Book of Aspect Ratios and Sound Formats?? It would certainly be useful! I don't mean to come off as a smartass here; I'm in awe if you know all this stuff off the top of your head.

 

[Mark Zimmer]

btw, no one's mentioned it, but here's the technical listing from IMDB for Sink the Bismarck:

Sound Mix: Mono (Westrex Recording System)

IMHO, there really isn't any excuse for misinformation in today's in today's world, where we have an information highway right at our finger tips.

Right.

 

[GregK]

Another good book is "Wide Screen Cinema" by Belton. "3-D movies" by Hayes is also helpful, although it too has it's share of minor flubs. Good information can also be accumulated from usernet where veteran film buffs or those who have worked with original prints have talked about many classic films and their original aspect ratio and/or audio format for the last 10 to 15 years. Unmoderated newsgroups certainly have their downsides, but should not be discarded as a valuable source of information.

Sometimes there's uncertainty on a film's original mix, or even if said mix survived. For example, did "War of the Worlds" ever have a stereo theatrical release? If so was it mag 3-channel? 4-channel? Perpecta? And don't get confused by the Chase stereo surround mix that was made for the remastered LD in the 1990's. The upcoming "House of Wax" DVD is also a moving target. Very reliable sources say HOW's front three channel mag audio tracks may be forever lost.. yet another victim of Jack Warner's old edict to bulk magnetic audio masters. But other sources think a mag print has been located. It's known for sure the optical effects (surround) track has survived, but again the 3-channel front mix appears to be lost. Another X-factor is WB is the king of audio re-mixes, so if HOW has a 2.0 stereo mix will it be a mild mono to stereo re-mix? Or if it's coded as 5.1, will it be the original 4.0 mix, ..or is it the original surround track with a mono to 3-channel stereo remix for the fronts, ..or will it be mono in the front w/a surround track? ..Or will it just be mono? And when it comes to the aspect ratio, will WB crop like they did with Kiss Me Kate? Will they jump between the left and right 3-D prints, causing shifts in perspective and overall image composition shifts like the WB KMK DVD? .. Boy, talk about x-factors!!

Confusion and various X-factors aside, I still agree Joe has a viable point when it comes to some on-line DVD reviews. For example DVDfile once complained "The Alamo" DVD had a 'sour' mono to 5.1 re-mastering with 'shuffled dialog', when in fact "the Alamo" always had a multi-channel audio mix from day 1. It should be noted that all VHS hi-fi and LD video versions have always been presented in stereo, Dolby Surround, or AC-3 DD from the multi-channel original. And 'directional dialog' was a very common practice in the 1950's and 60's. Well a polite e-mail to DVDfile did no good. DVD Review, on the other hand, has been very appreciative and has made corrections to posted reviews.

One on-line reviewer once posted "Ben Hur" had one of the best mono to 5.1 remixes ever. Well, at least they had the 'remix' part right....

 

[Patrick McCart]

www.film-tech.com has a page with all the corrections for Wide Screen Movies.

 

[TonyDale]

Carr & Hayes' book is a bible, to be honest.
I don't know about JoeCaps, but, a great deal of my information that I use when reviewing, IS inside of my head. My head is full of *trivial* information which is great - - if you want to play Trivial Pursuit, or online trivia games - - but, lately, I've found that to some people, the information I have is NOT EXACTLY trivial, but useful. My editor will often page me for information needed for other people's assignments. (BTW, i'm not trying to be egotistical; like Daisy Gamble, I consider my natural retention more a curse than a blessing, but nonetheless, a blessing).
I keep a copy of Carr & Hayes handy, THE INTERNATIONAL ENCYCLOPEDIA OF FILM, HITCHCOCK/TRUFFAUT, David Thompson and others are lined up on the shelf above my monitor for handy-dandy access. When in doubt, I just ask around. (IIRC, I only recently queried JoeCaps about 1776 on dvd versus the Pioneer laserdisc).
I have seen dvd review sites make corrections, it's rare, but it does happen. Hell, I'm happy if I get an email reply thanking my for pointing out any errors.
If there's one thing I hate to see when I'm reading a review (be it theater, film, book or dvd) it's lazy writing.

 

[Rob W]

Joe has been pointing out errors in transfers since at least the laserdisc days when he had to write letters to home theatre magazines. He is one of the lucky ones who has access to original prints of classic films from that mysterious underground network of 35mm film collectors. I've always enjoyed reading his posts.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Ditto. That's one of the most enjoyable things about HTF...you get to read posts by folks like R. Harris and Joe Caps and learn some things you never would have known.

 

[Gunnar Syren]

Which is, more often than not, wrong. (Re IMDB)

Can I assume that you don't mean that literally, Vince? That would mean than over 50% of the info is incorrect. While I wouldn't take anything in there for the gospel truth, I'm sure that they are right more often than not. No?

 

[Mark Zimmer]

OK, so Joe Caps says that there's a ton of wrong information in Carr & Hayes. Tony says that it's the bible. Both of you can't be right. The question is, who's wrong? That list of corrections that Patrick pointed out on www.film-tech.com is pretty darn extensive (the authors refer to it as "overwhelming"). That sure seems to support Joe's opinion that it's full of garbage information. Several years ago Widescreen Review put out a phone-book sized volume on all of the movies with aspect ratios greater than 1.85:1---any opinions on the reliability of that text?

And while IMDB may not be 50% wrong, it lists the sound formats for both Sink the Bismarck and The Blue Max as mono, while everyone here that claims to know anything about the matter says they were multi-channel. So the critical information that's at issue here is plainly unreliable on the IMDB.

btw, I have in fact posted several corrections to my reviews at dOc when someone knowledgeable has been able to provide evidence of something I've said being incorrect. I can't speak for the folks at DVD File, but I don't want to be guilty of spreading even more misinformation on the net than is already there.

 

[Joe Caps]

I keep going to www.filmtech.com but I cannot find where the carr hayes corrections are. - can anyone help?

 

[Gordon McMurphy]

While I wouldn't take anything in there for the gospel truth, I'm sure that they are right more often than not. No?

More often than not, they are indeed on the ball, but one thing they pretty much always get wrong (though ascertaining this particular technical information is difficult) is the aspect ratio for 1954-57 magnetic CinemaScope films, which is 2.55:1, but they more often than not state as being the 1958-1971 2.35:1 optical ratio. They list the original 1953 CinemaScope ratio as 2.55:1, though, but the ratio should be 2.66:1. And so and so on. But correcting such information would take a long time to get right, and only a small minority care; as long as they state the systme used (Super/Ultra/Panavision, Technirama etc) then those in the know will know the ratio.

Tech-talk.


Gordy

 

[Jeff Jacobson]

Have any of you submitted corrections to the IMDb? If so, do they actually correct their info?

(I tried to add the animated "ALF" tv series over a year ago, and they still have no listing for it.)

 

[Mark Zimmer]

I submitted several corrections to IMDB and they were eventually accepted, though I know some other people's corrections were not incorporated.

Joe, in the left hand frame of the film-tech.com site, click Tips. A new right-hand frame should come up and the link is the last one of the Projection Tips. If you can't get to it, I can send you the Word file I saved of it (since it doesn't appear to have any way to be printed readily). But it's 37 pages, single-spaced.

 

[David Lambert]

The IMDB has never paid attention to anything I've sent them. I stopped trying.

 

[Vince Maskeeper]

IMDb has never corrected entries for me either: Namely there are SEVERAL errors listed for Requiem for Dream that stem from bad framing on the open matte VHS transfer (stuff you weren't supposed to see above/below the frame line- yet they have never updated.

I honestly think, if you take just the goofs/trivia/technical and release/location info (and disregard the Cast and crew which can be taken from the credits)-- IMDB probably barely bats .500. If you include info they don't have- then I'd say they are under .100.

 

[Bill Burns]

one thing they pretty much always get wrong (though ascertaining this particular technical information is difficult) is the aspect ratio for 1954-57 magnetic CinemaScope films, which is 2.55:1, but they more often than not state as being the 1958-1971 2.35:1 optical ratio. They list the original 1953 CinemaScope ratio as 2.55:1, though, but the ratio should be 2.66:1. And so and so on.

I'm endlessly fascinated with aspect ratios, and those who are fans of CinemaScope's history are in for a visual treat in the credits that open the new film Down With Love, which I've just returned from seeing. But here's a question (if Gordon has this handy): why, briefly, did CinemaScope's aspect ratio change (was it strictly the soundtrack format? What of 2.66 to 2.55?), and are modern day CinemaScope features (such as Fox's animated Anastasia) correct in the 2.35:1 ratio, as would seem to be the case (you mentioned that ratio was valid through '71). I can't seem to find this information anywhere, and CinemaScope (in its 2.55:1 ratio) remains my hands down favorite of all film formats (distortion warts and all). Cukor's A Star is Born (mentioned earlier) is breathtaking on DVD in this format, and there are countless (well, I suppose there's a count somewhere) other examples of just how good this format can look.* Anastasia, by the way, was a visual feast (all dessert) in theatres (the DVD is non-anamorphic), nothing less than spellbinding (a word I try not to use very often ), and a work of art of which Fox (and the Don Bluth/Gary Goldman team) should be very proud, and for which I offer them my sincere congratulations.

At any rate, accurate formatting information (either sound or visual) is often smothered in violent, and silly, argument across the internet ("I KNOW I'm right!" "No, no, I'M RIGHT!" "My father shined Sam Leavitt's lenses every evening with a shammy, so I'M right!" "All three of you ignoramuses is stooopid"**), and book sources (as already discussed) are only as good as their authors. Ironing this out with level headed folks in the know is always an edifying enterprise.

Thanks -- and two cheers for mono, by the way, whether presented as two track or a single track; I'm certainly not in Woody Allen's "surround sound is distracting" camp, but a good, clean mono track can ... well, for lack of a better word, caress a film in a unique and rather beautiful way. And lazy mono mixes can sound like crap -- it's all in the care that goes into the sound design, and of course in the quality of its final presentation. Remixes have their place, and I enjoy many of them, but a solid mono track is far from the "yesterday's news" some DVD companies (and/or studios) seem to think it is.

* Just to add to the confusion, I could swear (but I won't) that I've seen films which credit both CinemaScope and Panavision in various forms ("filmed in Panavision" and "lenses by CinemaScope," or something to that effect), which of course only adds to the head scratching of we curious film photography laymen.

** Not a conversation I personally witnessed, but ....