Topic: Reviews and ramblings by Gunnar

[GSyren]

Well, you be the judge:

 

[Hulot]

Thanks for posting those, but that shows me that the image has been cropped with no indication of it being p & s, but I won't argue the point as I don't have the DVD/ Blu-ray to compare...just noting what I read somewhere, and, as I said, I could be wrong.


edit

Since you have both, are you stating as a fact that the DVD is p & S? In any case, I think I'll avoid the DVD in favour of the BR.


edit 2

If the info on the cover of the laserdisc release of Sorcerer can be believed, then the Blu-ray image has itself been cropped

From the laserdisc:  "The film on this laserdisc was transferred from the 1.66:1 original camera negative. Director William Friedkin supervised all aspects of the audio and video element transfers."

[GSyren]

Well, that would depend on your definition of p&s. The image is cropped from widescreen down to 4:3. Whether there is actual panning or not, you are losing image information. IMDb states that the OAR is 1.85:1.

And the image quality is SO much better in the blu-ray that it's like a whole different film. Friedkin has made it clear that this is the way his film should look. Basically "lost" for 36 years, seen only in truncated, butchered versions is how he describes it in a letter that comes with the BD.

[GSyren]

[Hulot]

Well, this has certainly piqued my interest in obtaining a copy of Sorcerer...

Well, that would depend on your definition of p&s. The image is cropped from widescreen down to 4:3. Whether there is actual panning or not, you are losing image information. IMDb states that the OAR is 1.85:1.

IMDb can be hit or miss in regards to film data...various sources state the original aspect ratio of sorcerer as being 1.66, shown theatrically in the US cropped to 1.85, but these sources can be wrong as well.

My definition of p & s is a film (usually scope) that has altered "camera movements" (panning) not see in the original film

see :  http://wiki.digital-digest.com/index.php/Pan_&_Scan   for an example of a 2.55 film (Seven Brides for Seven Brothers) p & s to 4.3

If a 1.66 or 1.85 film is "merely" cropped with no panning, than it is not p & s.....but, I agree, all films should be shown/released in their original aspect ratios.

[GSyren]

Well, technically you are correct, of course, but most people don't seem to make that distinction and refer to anything cropped down from widescreen as pan & scan. And depending on how the director composes his images "just cropping" can be worse than pan & scan, so the distinction is moot, in my opinion.

If Friedkin did in fact supervise the LD transfer, then his comments in the letter seem a bit strange. But in the end all that matters is that the blu-ray looks and sounds great, and every review that I have read agree on that.

[Hulot]

 And depending on how the director composes his images "just cropping" can be worse than pan & scan

Sorry if I appear to be hijacking your thread (not my intent)....but here we completely disagree.
I'll take the cropping of the 2 photos you posted above over the abomination of the example/link I provided any day.
Going by your 2 photos, the film is still essentially the same, but somewhat cropped.

A p&s of a scope film is a totally different film from what was exhibited in theatres...it has been re-shot (panning) and re-edited with numerous "cuts" ("cut" to the actor on the left side of the screen speaking , "cut" to the one on the right, where in the original both are on screen at the same time).
Thankfully p&s is dying out.

[DSig]

Well, technically you are correct, of course, but most people don't seem to make that distinction and refer to anything cropped down from widescreen as pan & scan. And depending on how the director composes his images "just cropping" can be worse than pan & scan, so the distinction is moot, in my opinion.

If Friedkin did in fact supervise the LD transfer, then his comments in the letter seem a bit strange. But in the end all that matters is that the blu-ray looks and sounds great, and every review that I have read agree on that.

Thanks for the letter .. i can hardly wait until the disc arrives at my door.

[Dragonfire]

I've never heard of that movie before, but it does sound interesting.

[GSyren]

A p&s of a scope film is a totally different film from what was exhibited in theatres...it has been re-shot (panning) and re-edited with numerous "cuts" ("cut" to the actor on the left side of the screen speaking , "cut" to the one on the right, where in the original both are on screen at the same time).

And the same scene "just cropped" might show just two noses with empty space between them. Yes, I have seen something like that. Is that really better? Not in my opinion. Or in the scene from Seven Brides the girl would be dancing in and out of frame. Is that what the director intended? I don't think so. These examples would also be "totally different from what was exhibited in the theatres".

Any way you cut it (pun intended) both p&s and cropping is an abomination. And releasing a DVD today with the disclaimer "has been formatted to fit your screen" is just adding insult to injury...

[Hulot]

Some confusion here....I was referring to cropped standard (ie : 1.66 / 1.75 /1.85, non-scope) ffilms. as in the example of your photos....NOT to (god forbid) cropped scope (2.35/2.55) films.

"I'll take the cropping of the 2 photos you posted above over the abomination of the example/link I provided any day.
Going by your 2 photos, the film is still essentially the same, but somewhat cropped."


I have several DVDs with that disclaimer "has been formatted to fit your screen" in which the film is neither p&s or cropped, but open matte (flat 35 with mattes removed)...not ideal, but beats true p&s.

Many films are released on DVD with various degrees of cropping, even ones shot in the Academy ratio of 1.37.

[GSyren]

I was referring to cropped standard (ie : 1.66 / 1.75 /1.85, non-scope) ffilms. as in the example of your photos....NOT to (god forbid) cropped scope (2.35/2.55) films.

Fair enough, but it felt like our discussion had moved beyond Sorcerer.

A p&s of a scope film is a totally different film from what was exhibited in theatres

This, plus your reference to Seven Brides made it seem like you prefered cropping to p&s on scope films.

open matte (flat 35 with mattes removed)...not ideal, but beats true p&s.

No arguments there. But with today's TV standard I still feel that "formatted to fit your screen" is an insult when put on current releases, even if it should be open matte. In my opinion, any alteration of the intended aspect ratio can ruin the image composition. "Somewhat cropped" is not "essentially the same" to me. But hey, you're entitled to your opinion. Even if you're wrong ;-)

[Hulot]

This, plus your reference to Seven Brides made it seem like you prefered cropping to p&s on scope films.

No. You are the one that said ""just cropping" can be worse than pan & scan"....we were talking about Sorcerer, re-the pics you posted...I said I'll take the cropping as shown on your pics over p&s

In my opinion, any alteration of the intended aspect ratio can ruin the image composition. "Somewhat cropped" is not "essentially the same" to me. But hey, you're entitled to your opinion. Even if you're wrong ;-)

Lol. Now you're being funny. Making stuff up. Not a question of right or wrong, but of preferring the lesser of 2 evils
Essentially the same when compared to what you seem to prefer, re-edited, panned job, but hey, you are gonna like what you like...

Here's what I said

all films should be shown/released in their original aspect ratios.

I'll take the cropping of the 2 photos you posted above over the abomination of the example/link I provided any day.
Going by your 2 photos, the film is still essentially the same, but somewhat cropped.

 But hey, you're entitled to your opinion. Even if you're wrong ;-)

Likewise, I'm sure...

its been a blast, maybe we'll meet again on some other thread

[GSyren]

OK, Hulot, but take my word for one thing; even if you disregard the cropping, the DVD of Sorcerer looks like crap compared to the blu-ray.

[GSyren]

Title	Mars Needs Women (027616-865625)
Director	Larry Buchanan
Actors	Tommy Kirk, Yvonne Craig, Byron Lord, Roger Ready, Barnett Shaw
Produced	1967 in United States
Runtime	82 minutes
Audio	English Dolby Digital Mono, Spanish Dolby Digital Mono
Subtitles	French, Spanish
Overview	Get ready for interplanetary petting and Martian make-out madness! Teen heartthrob Tommy Kirk (Pajama Party) leads a stellar cast as a sex-starved spaceman lookin' for love on all the wrong planets. Wild, wacky and way, way out of this world, this "incredible" (The Psychotronic Encyclopedia of Film) and zany sci-fi adventure is filled with hot, heavenly bodies, hilarious alien contacts and outrageous close encounters...of the DATING kind! When a girl shortage of galactic proportions turns the Martian dating scene into a black hole, four extra-handsome extraterrestrials set their sights on Earth's own cosmic duties, hoping to find a few gorgeous girls willing to go all the way...to the stars. But when the boys at NASA  uncover the interplanetary poaching, they put rocket science to a new use – in kickin' some  Martian astronauts clear out of the solar system!
My thoughts	Some say that Larry Buchanan movies are an acquired taste. If that is true, then the acquisition is painful. Buchanan didn't make low-budget movies, he made no-budget movies. And it shows. Mars Needs Women isn't the worst of them. In fact it's the best (read: least bad) of the ones I have seen. This is my fifth Buchanan movie and, taste not acquired yet, I think it may be my last. I may be a glutton for punishment, but even I have a limit. Buchanan is perhaps best known for bad TV remakes of already bad B movies. While this one is also made for TV, it's not a remake. Perhaps that's why it's not quite as bad as the others. It's really hard to rate Buchanan's movies. Compared to most other movies they would probably all be a half star. But then I couldn't distinguish the badness between them. So their ratings sort of stand on their own. Thus the fact that I have given Mars Needs Women the same rating as the Clash of the Titans remake doesn't mean that Clash is anywhere near as bad as Mars.
My rating