captainsolo

Nice, but I don't think it will outdo the work here which really gave this film some care for the first time ever. They re-did The Shadow from a new scan, and I still can't tell what the heck happened. Great, forgotten, underrated movie I've loved to death on DTS LD, and their new "scan" has deep color not before seen but is so filtered looking much of the detail is gone.

No, he was just horridly underdeveloped and underutilized and little more than Samuel L. Jackson spouting lines most of the time. At least there was great Mace material in the EU that also utilized the actor's persona.

They missed such a huge opportunity with the later days of Mace Windu: Grizzled, one armed amnesiac pissed off bounty hunter, who is capable of incredible Force-like feats yet cannot explain why...

I only discovered this because I was playing with my two LD players, comb filter and Dr. No.

The Criterion CAV and MGM CLV Connery Collection...are from the same print!

They have the exact same damage marks, the exact same reel change markers, the exact same everything which I verified by switching back and forth on exact still frames. The Criterion is cropped on top and right, and the MGM opens these up to a noticeable degree. The Criterion is far darker and features much more heavily saturated color levels. The MGM appears to be slightly more accurate to what is on the negative probably but does appears to have been a bit brightened in terms of contrast, whereas the Criterion would mimic more of an original print. The middle ground would be best because the skin tones appear more accurate on the MGM for example.

This would explain the somewhat contrasty look of the Connery collection titles I've always noticed and why they are gone on the Criterions and even the CAV THX Goldfinger box, which was supposedly mastered from a new print struck off the negative in 1994.

I'm wondering if the transfer was possibly the same. Apparently Criterion could have licensed their work back to MGM or took the rough scan from MGM and did their own disc. In any case the later MGM edition attempts to "correct" the transfer for CRT or be from a better machine. I will do a comparison with Goldfinger, but am still missing the CAV FRWL.

Comparing the Criterion, Connery and SE DVD reveals that probably around the THX reissues all the films may have gotten spruced up. The few Lasers that trickled out predated the SE DVD which were essentially direct ports. Comparing the three reveals Dr. No is the same overall print source but received a slight cleanup as some more obtrusive marks are gone but others remain intact. Aspect ratio breaks down like this:

MGM appears as somewhere around 1.55:1, Criterion crops right and top to closer to 1.60, and the SE DVD crops a bit of the right edge from the Criterion along a significant portion of the bottom and gives back a pixel line from the top for a 1.78 frame.

Tell me I don't study these films enough...

DuracellEnergizer said:

Tower of London (1962)

Though I love B&W cinematography, I feel that Roger Corman's films look best when shot in colour; there's just so much he can do visually with a full palette of bright, bold colour to work with. As a consequence, this movie is pretty drab compared to his later, better films.

Still, there is Vincent Price as Richard III. While not his best performance, he still breathes plenty of hammy life into this picture, elevating it above what it would have been without his presence. 

8/10

Mystery of the Wax Museum (1933)

If it hadn't been for Glenda Farrell's performance and the fact that the film was shot in two-colour Technicolor, I probably would have found Mystery of the Wax Museum plainly average. As it is, though, Farrell steals every scene she's in, and I just love the look of two-colour Technicolor.

7/10

Tower of London (1939)

I expected to like this movie more than I did. Unfortunately, I didn't.

I found the story hard to follow in the first half of the film, and Boris Karloff -- who is the only reason why I wanted to watch the movie in the first place -- didn't have very much screentime, leaving me disinterested in pretty much the rest of the proceedings. And that ending -- I don't think I've ever seen an anticlimax that anticlimactic before in my life.

6/10

 ToL works better in the '39 version because Rathbone gorges on scenery and Vincent has arguably a better time in the smaller role. The Corman film somehow drags more than this.

MOTWM is 500,000 times the film House of Wax could ever be. The remake only has VP as a positive, and Atwill outshines even Vincent because the character was far better written. Better performances, better atmosphere, better direction, tighter plot, less unnecessary exposition, 30's charm.

Now if only WB would actually restore the original two-strip colors from LD.

FanFiltration said:

Everything or Nothing (2012)  8/10

If you have seen all of the Bond film DVD extras, then there is really nothing new here information wise.

Indeed and it's far too short. No one ever discusses that Connery's concerns began over money and were never resolved. Nor do they get very much candid material as they should do. Nor do they adequately discuss the 70's breaking of the partnership, nor the eventual loss of creative team members. The best moments were with Lazenby and especially Dalton, who perfectly summed up his entire tenure in one soundbite.

I saw TDK theatrically in regular scope 2.35 and thought it was fine. (Image not the film) Far better than the distracting shifts in TDKR 15/70 IMAX with the awful blowups of 35mm material.

The bigger thing is full IMAX 1.43, and new transfers for at least the first two which are extremely poor and inadequate.

I broke in my DMR-ES25 comb filter with the CAV Criterion Dr. No.

As many say sometimes just going by screencaps alone cannot fully articulate in motion differences. The color is more saturated, all reel change marks are present, but what is most striking is how well the color pops throughout and how much it appears the MGM was either brightened or from an IP. I now see why Terrence Young signed off on this. It looks really damn good.

The Criterion is far darker, and the color is far richer. Interiors have much deeper tones to all the walls and sets, skin tones are far more natural looking than the slightly whitish we're used to, but in the exteriors things really take off. Any of the outdoor scenes, especially Bond getting out of the taxi to meet Quarrel are striking.

The soundtrack appears to be slightly different as well, in terms of the levels of the effects. I noted that some of my favorite effects were a bit different, for example the engine noise during close shot of Leiter-Quarrel's car when tailing Bond booms out to a distorted cutoff on all versions I've ever heard but here instead it does not and you can actually hear more of the car engine. The overall noise floor is quite good for what is apparently sourced from optical....but there is one glaring difference. In the closing credits the James Bond theme is reprised, but instead of fading out early and having the horn note go completely out of pitch as on all other versions, there is a slight jump and the theme starts back a bit and then carries onto a black screen for a few seconds. Perhaps this was Criterion's attempt to fix the original error?

In any case the track is so good it should be preserved with the cleaner MGM mono.

I messaged Jon Mulvaney @ Criterion about transfer info if any exists. Hopefully someone knows somewhere, as there are no printed materials with the discs.

I can see it now: on sale this week with s*** digital copy included, the Ultimate Special Edition of Raiders of the Lost Ark: Reflecting the Snakes, Warts and All...no changes, Dolby 35mm+Dolby 70mm+abandoned split surround VistaSonic mixes...

The new release being a "restoration"...it is sooo apparent on film that it is not.

Fantastic work all. What the flip is up with the light change???

Here's my two cents:

Remember the DVD was a Lowry job, so it may not be fully accurate. It does seem to match the LD overall and not be a "new scan cleanup" like they always advertised and then proceeded to remove all grain.

On the big screen in 35mm the new restoration was FAR too overexposed 100% of the time and the level in brightness really contrasted with the boosted and re-timed color. It didn't sit right with me at all.

I agree that the BD likely uses the same base scan as the WOWOW with further tinkering done by both those involved and Spielberg's own admitted tweaking to the opening. (not even getting into Ben Burtt completely redoing the sound mix.)

My overall thought? The film was shot fast and dirty, without a light meter and is likely going to be a bit on the brighter side especially in the exteriors. The scan reflects this, the BD overemphasizes this, and it appears that this was tamed for VHS/LD in the days of early video and maintained by Lowry for the DVD as it was deemed more correct in terms of video of the era. (They did  this all the time. Just go back to their atrocious North by Northwest DVD)

Of course, we've seen trailers in various states of color and brightness and have no idea if they, 16mm, BD, WOWOW, 8mm or anything else available is correct.

I do believe that all three have this odd dark /bright exposure dynamic as cells from TOD are different from video and LC looked this way when on ebay a few years back.

I drove an hour in the freezing cold just at the end of the year to see a movie at midnight. What would provoke me to do this you ask?

The last testament of the Master.

Eyes Wide Shut

When I was 9, I wanted to see the film more than anything despite the adult nature of the storyline and the complete failure of the marketing to explain that this was a fully mature look at the societal psychosis of fidelity, truths and trusts amongst MANY other things. I had just begun learning all I could about the Master after seeing Paths of Glory and Dr. Strangelove and then he suddenly died before EWS was released. But of course, I was deemed too young and not allowed in.

I have always been moved by this picture and marveled at the intricate layers of depth, care and thoughts within. Though we will never know what Stanley may have done in a final edit, this rough version completed by his team and WB remains both a masterpiece and a genuinely affecting motion picture that will make any who see it weep at what the medium still has the power to do.

All this being said, this was an original 1999 theatrical print with the US digital censoring applied. The long held rumors of the deep rich and blown out look of prints is 100% accurate. I do not know what they were thinking on home video, but all DVD/BDs are horribly wrong. The print is awash with grain, GRAIN, GRAIN due to the negative being push processed to hugely accentuate the color scheme primarily around primary colors. It is also very soft almost in places like classic Hollywood glamor shots, looks like a Christmas card in others, and at all times otherworldly. On all video editions everything has been normalized in color, shorn of virtually all the grain and made to look like anything else. It's terrible!!

The sound was the DD 5.1 and if I'm thinking correctly had the censored bits from the Bhagavad Gita during the orgy. The overall soundmix was still the front almost mono seeming one we know from video but the bass seemed deeper akin to what DD theatrically of the era was like or it's variant on ac-3 LDs. The credits listed DTS and SDDS which I never realized existed.

The print was gorgeous save for some wear at the first reel change (mirror) and had inherent jitter that kept poking up in scene backgrounds.

My question is now, were the uncut European prints similar in heavy grain structure and deep color? If not, one could insert the unedited portions from it into a US print and use the DTS for a new scan..and by someone I mean WB doing a complete overhaul of the Kubrick canon still stuck in hugely outdated and inappropriate transfers!!

In short;

Criterion had SK and his editor on Full Metal Jacket approve the transfer of a 35mm intermediate negative and it was timed to their specifications. There may have been some slight cropping for TVs and machines of the time but most 35mm prints were already hard cropped to 2.21:1. The sound is the 70mm 6 track mag stereo run through a Dolby matrix encoder.

(This info copied from disc insert.)

MGM's first disc a few years later used 70mm sources but has totally different color, without the browns and 60's look that is found only on print sources and the Criterion. Later for the CAV box they re-timed the same master and made it better. The last version added an ac3 track and this was ported to DVD, and I'll try to find one. The caps from DVDBeaver show that perhaps it is too far on the brown side and that the later Warner transfers go too far in the other direction.

Or it could be that maybe the 35mm sources project differently than the 70mm ones..who knows. The 35mm print is still the best I have ever seen and that was about 6-7 years ago from the Warner archive.

Guys, I have an extra Criterion CAV box if it helps. I'll need to just spot check it for any rot. The box is a bit beat up but everything else seems fine; I just got an extra copy in a lot once. It has color bars.

Holy crap...that is starting to look like the 35mm print I saw a few years ago and which the current 2K DCP/BD looks nothing like.

How sad is it that scope will only last as a simple crop done in a computer for "aesthetic effect", and without any knowledge of the size or how to compose for it?

Speaking of Christmas specials, both Charlie Brown Christmas and Grinch are differently colored on the "restored" BD/DVds and have lossy 5.1 audio. I treasure the Grinch LD for the old color and mono track.

PDB said:

One could argue that the yellow tinting on the BD was done poorly. That it was done is such a way that it punched the reds too orange. After all red and yellow equal orange. We have seen that kind of bad color timing recently on The Good, The Bad and the Ugly 4K BD. Were the excessive levels of yellow created a green tint on everything. That color timing was proven false when the IB tech print was seen. The yellow was right but the green was wrong. The debate on how much orange is one worth having but its worth noting that the 35mm does have an orange tint in a lot of places.

And speaking of TGTBATU, I know were this mistrust comes from as we have seen many, many screw ups before. And many people around here have fixed those mistakes. As h_h pointed out Star Wars, scanned from the negative, doesn't look like a release print. Road Warrior/Mad Max 2 scanned from the negative, doesn't look like a release print. Conan The Barbarian scanned from the negative, doesn't look like a release print. The Matrix is an entire entry on its own. But why redo Raiders and not the others? Why spend the time on Raiders at all? Why do it in a specific way that tends towards the pics of the 16 and 35 and the style at the time? Is that coincidence?

At the end of the day I love the WOWOW. I have a copy of it myself and I have watched many times. As a scan its superior to the BD in detail. As for the color I think it most likely looks like the Neg or an IP just like the LD, DVD and European master. I think the BD was an honest attempt to recreate the look of a release print, faults and all. The only way this will be decided is with scanned a 35mm print. I have been searching awhile and never found a good one or one at a reasonable price. If someone here can get a print, get it scanned and give me a copy that proves what I just said was wrong. I will happily thank that person for proving me wrong. Gladly. Until then I believe that Raiders is suppose to have more yellow then the WOWOW based on the evidence at hand.

 It's posts like this that remind me why I love this place so much. Thoughtful, insightful, honest and respectful to the film itself.

Plus people here don't think I'm crazy. That helps.

That "restored" 35mm toured the country and was indeed what I saw theatrically. It was from a 6K scan I think from what I've heard and was the last thing Ron Smith oversaw before leaving Paramount. Other than a fresh scan I don't think they did very much...but then of course you have the color which was the basic source of the BD look. Seeing this print was an odd experience as the color was the look of the BD but with far greater detail in addition to being extremely bright. You could faintly see some of the coverups done to hide the negative damage from the Tanis dig sequence at times. The sound seemed to be a very low volume version of the DVD 5.1. Then this was shown digitally in IMAX with apparently the new Blu-ray mix.

Trailers have a certain look, original prints look a certain way, and all of those have their own identities. All I can say is that my favorite audio is on the WS LD.

Now I really want to see a print for all 3. I've seen grabs of frames from LC, and that had a depth not found on disc. I can't even begin to think of how awesome Temple would be.

This may eventually float out as part of a Peckinpah set from Warner, akin to the legendary westerns set. Probably as WB doesn't really license out to the smaller labels, and I don't see it as an Archive title.

Needs one badly. One of the great American Westerns and one of the most genuinely death ridden films ever made. The new cut was terrible.

Perhaps an SE with Turner cut, additional scenes not used and the theatrical release version?

So unbelievably bummed about the news. With the casting announcements and the new pitiful title, they should have just called it "Really going by the numbers at this point".

The DB10 doesn't even look real. And what's with the consistent retconning of the older material? It doesn't work in this universe and sticks out horribly, like that one moment in Skyfail where everyone in the audience sat up straight no matter how old they were. The DB5 made its inexplicable and unnecessary appearance, which was more powerful than anything going on in the narrative.

As with EP VII I really don't want to know what happens until it does, but with this I really really don't want to know.

The rankings kill me. It's actually worse than anything else.

If forced, and I do mean forced because I adore the first 16 and the Brosnans to a slightly lesser extent more than anything else. It boils down to eras mostly.

My agonized top ten in no order are DN through OHMSS, LALD-TMWTGG-TSWLM, and TLD. The rest are equals in my mind despite their flaws, but these ten all have the greater strengths and childhood memories.

The best as "films" are FRWL and OHMSS. My favorite movie of all time is LALD.

I can appreciate NSNA if prodded through my wincing, and portions of the score are excellent (Ok, I refer only to the tiny jazz piece used twice in the film that always gets stuck in my head) and one can see the bones of the far better picture Kersh and Sean intended.

CR '67 is a pop art masterpiece, a time capsule, and the greatest bad movie in history.

The three eventually four abominations never happened. If you want my true feelings however, the worst film I have ever seen was in 2006.

litemakr said:

TServo2049 said:

litemakr, you have a recording of the mono mix? I'm surprused to hear of it being used in theaters, I thought all 35mm prints were Dolby by 1981.

Does it have the alternate Jock voice heard at 1:00 in this documentary: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmLDNk8MbLs

Waaaay back in the 90s, Treadwell (I think) mentioned hearing a different Jock voice on a 16mm print. When that DVD featurette came out, I assumed this voice is what he was talking about.

I know that 16mm prints of Empire had the rarer mono mix, so I'd believe a mono mix of Raiders being on 16mm prints of that...but on theatrical prints? That I've never heard...

You are probably right. The theater was a mono theater, but maybe is was just the regular dolby mix played in mono.  I always assumed it was a separate but similar mix, but I don't know of any differences offhand aside from surround effects. I will dig out the tapes and check Jock's voice, but I don't think it is different.

I do know that there is a completely different mix for Raiders which was used for some 16mm prints and is the base for most non-english mixes. There are many differences in sound effects and music editing. The music during the ark opening is edited very differently once the ghosts emerge from the ark. You can hear this mix on the French and Portuguese audio tracks on the blu ray, it's rather fascinating. I am guessing it was an early mix because it isn't as polished. Unfortunately I don't have an english version of that mix, so I can't say if Jock's voice is different. I have only heard it in english once, on a 16mm screening. The other 16mm print I have seen had the theatrical mix (in mono).

Curiously the featurettes for Raiders on music, sound and visual effects use this mix and in mono. I thought it was really odd that they used an alternate mono mix to demo sound effects and music. Especially when that mix does have stereo stems (used on the foreign mixes) Perhaps the theatrical stems were not available?

I just watched the clip you posted and that sounds like the alternate mix in mono. I guess they used it for all of the special features where they needed separate stems. 

 This may be the source of the odd bits some have noticed on TV screenings and more of these documentaries. The one that always jumps out to me is that in one variant, Indy says something to the effect of "do they think I'm dumb?" when placing the whip under the truck. Then of course there was the last minute jump from the abandoned VistaSonic format and a hasty remix into Dolby for the film's premiere.

After going through the wowow version, it does indeed to seem much more natural to my eyes and more in line with what we've been used to from video. It doesn't have that slightly garish look of the new transfer, one that was even more apparent on the big screen in native 35mm, but of course without direct comparison to an original print it becomes near impossible to judge what the printing process of 1981 resulted in. Neither result is bad; it remains a case of what one prefers since we have no way to judge accuracy.

Why can't they give restoration info on every release? Is it that much to ask?

So did we ever finish all the audio patches to correct the errors? I always held off buying the WB standalone as it was the same copy being reissued alone, but apparently they did fix some of the errors but not all.

I'll have to check the difference between WB and Diamond audio tracks, but the WB will likely be better as they had higher gen materials to work with and the Diamond is still coming from optical.

This is likely the best source we will ever have as WB seems to have no desire to ever reissue this in 1080p. The only way would be for an Archive BD with errors fixed. I'll see if I can drop them a line.

Ookay so if you're a nut like me this might be of some interest. After viewing that wonderful IB Tech trailer I sat down for a bit with my various copies of YOLT, trailers across videos, and the IB Tech trailer.

I did this on my calibrated Trinitron CRT. Here's what was really interesting when going back and forth between all of them. Comparing all the trailers, shows that this IB Tech scan is from a US 1967 trailer with the US narration, cropped form the scope original. The UK narrated version found on all DVDs is the same footage but in scope. (The so-called US version merely dubs the US narrated voice onto this same scope trailer). Comparing the two reveals that the brown of this IB Tech wasn't in the original and may have partially resulted from the cropping. (I've seen this happen often on trailers of this vintage if cropped. Not sure why it happens.) Most striking is the teaser trailer only found on the 1989 LD. (Can be seen here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaoS9yH3tks)

When comparing my 89 LD, 93 LD form the Connery Collection Vol. 2, 1997 pan n scan VHS, SE DVD and UE DVD this way I found an odd thing...it appears that the SE DVD was a quiet remaster which would be in keeping with the abandoned THX Laserdisc reissue series that was scrapped in 1998 and all ported over to the SE DVD line. For example: The VHS and LDs have a cropped and off center gunbarrel that was fixed for the SE DVD. What is most striking is the difference in overall color tonality.

I had always assumed that the SE was the rough equivalent of the LDs and that when the UE was made no one had taken the time to dial back in the proper color timing akin to the theatrical release. In comparing all four, it shows this: The 1989 and 1993 repressing LDs are virtually identical, with the latter being maybe pressed slightly better and having perhaps just a touch difference in skintones. The SE is far more detailed but has increased noise and an overall blanket of this brown-yellow cast that is only fully apparent when looking at each copy in succession. The UE is the most detailed because of the later scan but as usual appears as if it had been bled dry of color.

The odd thing really is that the 89/93 LD appears to fall somewhere between the SE and UE. I don't know if MGM scanned a Technicolor print for the proposed THX LD or something but it is certainly a different transfer from the LDs.

The scene I used for checking was the opening and especially Ling's apartment. In Bond's initial closeup in bed it should be possible to see Sean's tan lines around the neck and forearms. The UE makes this glaringly obvious, the SE has him far more reddish and thus obscures much of this, and the LD allows for a bit of both. Also, the walls are a general mix of browns, but this is pushed to the maximum in the SE.

Now I really need to get that stinking blu-ray....

EDIT: After this experience and my observations on the THX Moonraker LD, I don't think it's always safe to assume the SE DVD/THX LDs will match their counterparts from the 1989 LD series and previous. It seems that starting with the Thunderball CAV box in 1995 MGM began working on new transfers for each film.

If that were true, we'd all have a lot of "collector's items". ;) I wrote Foxconnect again to see if I can swap my set disc or entire set, as I already had the old discs-still nothing.

Our compatriots at 007 Dossier have transferred a 35mm IB Tech trailer of YOLT...CLICK IT NOOOW!

http://www.the007dossier.com/007dossier/post/2014/11/14/You-Only-Live-Twice-35mm-IB-Tech-Trailer

Here is my comment from over there:

a drooling captainsolo said:

Wow, just wow! First of all it's strange to see this as I'm so used to the teaser version on LD shown here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Secondly I love the "lamb" comment and that may be the sharpest ever rendering of Connery's scope gunbarrel pose.

But finally after being called silly for upholding the LD/SE DVD look for so long, THAT is how YOLT is SUPPOSED to look!!! It may be printed a bit warmer as some trailers were, but for all intents and purposes this gives you the general idea and is extremely similar to my favored LD/SE transfer that at least still looks like the film. What is most striking is the footage's prevalence of browns; this seems to be something that couldn't be replicated in the telecine transfers originally done in the late 80's/early 90's and is NOWHERE to be found post 2006.

Just gorgeous, a taste of what a print would look like and exactly some of the same blacks I was shocked to see in a vintage print of THUNDERBALL. (Which are of course nowhere on the Lowry messes. The 1989 LD has the deepest color rendering, and if an IB trailer ever shows up, it would likely look like this I would think.)

Like I said, this Tech trailer reflects the LD/SE timing in terms of the yellow cast and brightness level for the most part. What is most striking is the deeper black level and prevalence of browns.

Now I'm wondering about Sean's overdubbed lines in the trailers...I'm guessing it was for publicity only but in this there is an added line at the bath and in the teaser I linked an extra dubbed line with Bond and Aki: "Even better in the dark".

I've recently stumbled across a great number of titles that have either been buried with mediocre DVD transfers or poorly released-all in web DL HD versions of varying quality. I take it that m,any of these are being found on Amazon/itunes etc.?

Some are upscales, but some seem to be genuine higher quality copies straight from whatever master was generated. I just watched a wonderful 720p version of Son of Frankenstein that was a genuinely higher res version of the same print found on my defective DVD.

The pubHD 720p version of Ambersons I found has the Criterion LD commentary synced to boot. It looks like an upscale of the WB DVD that should have been a Blu-ray and not bare bones, that they of course made us shell out $20 for.

I have the Criterion CAV, and on a good CRT, it holds it's own and displays that even the DVD is far from what it should be in this day and age. The DVD seems to be from the same source as the PAL DVDs that have been around for years, just with proper frame rate. The Criterion was at least supervised by individuals who attempted to master it correctly and not just dump it to a disc. Comparing the two reveals the DVD format's better blacks and overall detail, but the LD feels more natural. This is the same phenomenon I get with Criterion's CAV box of It's a Wonderful Lifeversus the Paramount DNR DVD/BD. The LD may have contrast boosted, be a bit fuzzy, have only analog sound, print damage-but when properly viewed the experience is far greater.

If we can sync a copy of the Criterion PCM mono, that will get this release as good as it ever will be short of a new scan. Then every one of us could send our pathetic single layer DVDs back to WB and demand a proper release after all these years. This is a perfect title for their Archive division.

The PCM is only on the rarer later CLV reissue. We should also do a full scale capture of the CAV features, but alas I can't get my stupid ATI card to ever work.

Either the Archive should re-issue this title, or better yet allow Criterion to regain another lost from its LD days. And perhaps someone could be allowed to search for the lost materials again. Despite some interest in the past, there has never been a cohesive and invasive search across all parties, whether still in existence or not. If the missing parts of Metropolis were found....there's always hope. (And of course, no one ever cares about finding the cuts from The Lady from Shanghai.)

Thanks for the assist guys. Indeed the Goldfinger transfer is identical.

SE:

http://s1292.photobucket.com/user/humphreybogart1941/media/snapshot_dvd_001042_20141114_114759_zpsbdb03d5d.jpg.html?filters[user]=141930851&filters[recent]=1&sort=1&o=2

http://s1292.photobucket.com/user/humphreybogart1941/media/snapshot_dvd_001131_20141114_114357_zpsa54c5285.jpg.html?filters[user]=141930851&filters[recent]=1&sort=1&o=3

UE:

http://s1292.photobucket.com/user/humphreybogart1941/media/snapshot_dvd_001034_20141114_115845_zpscfde15f3.jpg.html?filters[user]=141930851&filters[recent]=1&sort=1&o=0

http://s1292.photobucket.com/user/humphreybogart1941/media/snapshot_dvd_001034_20141114_115845_zpscfde15f3.jpg.html?filters[user]=141930851&filters[recent]=1&sort=1&o=0

The crop is really not that bad. The 1.78 or so recalls the Young approved 1.75 Criterion framing and is essentially how I have seen the early films projected here in rep houses. I don't think they really worried about losing too much of the frame at that point because of the US screen difference and/or improper projections. Looking at the 1.66 comparison again, you only lose top and bottom with a slight loss to the sides. God, I forgot just how soft and putrid the UE was!

Wow, that fullframe transfer actually is open matte! Like most it does crop from the sides but it does beg the question what the full camera aperture would look like.

I'd be tempted to buy these, but most are probably bad like even some SEs. I still need another FYEO. You have to rip backups of these at some point, like all the faulty Universal Monster Legacy sets.

Flat spherical refers to the process of creating a matted widescreen image on regular 35mm film that is Academy ratio in its native format. By basically masking off the top and bottom edges this creates a rectangular widescreen image inside the original squared frame. The common ratios were 1.85 for the US, and 1.66 for Europe. Some films can be viewed with the full aperture, called open matte, and this will reveal most of the time if the widescreen shape was intended or not when shot.

I still think the Bonds are better as flat films. They seem more focused and down to earth. On the big screen, the scope photography is spectacular but it does seem to lose a certain something.

Silver, I think LALD and TMWTGG were shot flat as a cost cutting measure. This was the point at which Saltzman's financial troubles were at their peak, and the budgets had to suffer heavily as this crisis dragged down the partnership before its dissolve.

It's merely a general reference, and we try to also compare to any film frames we come across. The happy medium would be somewhere between the better of the older transfers and the Lowry/MGM stuff but of course colored by someone who was competent and referenced vintage material.

At this time, I'm convinced that the best way we can present something watchable is to sync LD audio to SE video ala our old GOUT projects. Almost all of them are okay and the same as their LD counterparts-save with better resolution despite the low bitrates.

Does anyone here have the old THX DVDs for the first three films? I've come across some references that claim that while the SEs were the same and added the bonus features, that the old discs were 1.66 like their LD counterparts. Can anybody confirm this?