Customer Review

144 of 151 people found the following review helpful
2.0 out of 5 stars This new Deluxe Edition is a disgrace to Sony Home Ent., May 3, 2006
This review is from: Guys & Dolls (Widescreen Deluxe Edition) (DVD)
Yes, indeed! The booklet included is nice and glossy. Thanks! And the two documentaries added this time around are nice too. Thanks again! But what about the film itself? Has that been given the deluxe treatment as well?

Sad answer: Definitely NOT! As a matter of fact, this new "re-master" looks much worse than the previous DVD. That one was a very fuzzy non-anamorphic mess, but this new anamorphic one is just as fuzzy. In fact, when I put the old one in the zoom mode, there is no difference in focus and contrast whatsoever. And the colors are somewhat more warm and pleasant on the old edition. But worst of all, is that the new DVD is cropped on all four sides! There is quite a lot of more picture information available on the old disc, especially on top of the frame! So much for a Deluxe Edition! Shame on you, Sony/MGM-UA! Fans of this film - myself included - will have to keep the old DVD, and get this new one for the extras and the booklet. (The 2 stars above are for those inclusions alone.) This is certainly no way to treat loyal film fans and costumers willing to pay for an upgrade version of a beloved film!
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No

[Add comment]
Post a comment
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Amazon will display this name with all your submissions, including reviews and discussion posts. (Learn more)
Name:
Badge:
This badge will be assigned to you and will appear along with your name.
There was an error. Please try again.
Please see the full guidelines here.

Official Comment

As a representative of this product you can post one Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.   Learn more
The following name and badge will be shown with this comment:
 (edit name)
After clicking the Post button you will be asked to create your public name, which will be shown with all your contributions.

Is this your product?

If you are the author, artist, manufacturer or an official representative of this product, you can post an Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.  Learn more
Otherwise, you can still post a regular comment on this review.

Is this your product?

If you are the author, artist, manufacturer or an official representative of this product, you can post an Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.   Learn more
 
System timed out

We were unable to verify whether you represent the product. Please try again later, or retry now. Otherwise you can post a regular comment.

Since you previously posted an Official Comment, this comment will appear in the comment section below. You also have the option to edit your Official Comment.   Learn more
The maximum number of Official Comments have been posted. This comment will appear in the comment section below.   Learn more
Prompts for sign-in
 

Comments

Tracked by 1 customer

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-10 of 17 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Dec 9, 2008 2:12:45 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 9, 2008 2:15:18 PM PST
thedre says:
Nowadays..well, especially for me, I want to know if a film will play with a front projector filling up the frame without zooming. Thus, if I have a 76" projection screen, that perfectly plays full width on normal settings new films like transformers, etc., then I want to know if some older DVD projects only about two thirds of the width of the screen, as they designed to be viewed on 50 inch CRT's at the max. Using a zoom function with new projectors does not work out. I come to the review areas of amazon looking for hints about this issue. Looks like the original MGM DVD release has not really been improved on, and only plays about 45 inches wide. This type of film needs the big treatment. FOr those of you not into front projection yet...It's the best way of all to watch movies at home, and can be done for less than 3 grand..including a 1080P projector, TOshiba HD player or Blue Ray..(Only plays blue ray, I think) and a hudnred dollar pull down screen. Speakers are another issue, along without a 5.1 channel or better amp. I'm using a sanyo Z 2000 projector which has a knockout of a picture, and can easily look good at 100 inches diagonal. I view it at just the distance where the very tiny pixels cannot be seen...around 8 feet with a 74 inch diagonal projection. It's unreal. Why Toshiba HD player now after HD has been discontinued? Because the top end player is now around $200 bucks new, and it upscales regular DVD's wonderfully, and many HD DVD's are now inexpensive. New versus old DVD example....How THe West Was Won has been re-leased on Blu Ray, and it fills the big screen with immaculate images, and the previous lines between the three sections have been reduced 100% in most of the film. (Shot with three cameras at once to produce the super wide cinerama or was it cinemascope look) The old DVD had poor sharpness, major transition lines in it, and a miserable watching experience...(didn't play full width of my pull down screen.)

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 30, 2011 9:46:51 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 24, 2015 2:36:42 AM PDT
Bryan Leech says:
The size of your screen has absolutely nothing to do with whether the image encompasses the screen. It's usually a matter of the image ratio of the original film,. or settings on your player or projector. I have the same projector as you, and agree it's a great projector, and viewing the larger image, with a good surround sound system is the only way to go - it brings you much closer to the cinema or live theatre experience. But, your projrctor part of the digital era, and is designed for a 16:9 screen. So you are probably watching a 4;3 film, which only fills about 2/3 of your 76" screen. It would only fill the same proportion of my 100' screen. DVDs, Blue-rays (or old tape formats for that matter) are not made for any particular range of screen size, but do relate to what is called Aspect Ratio.. If the image is 16:9 it will fill the width of any 16:9 display, from a 10" portable to a, say, 150" (arbitrary figure) front projection system, if the DVD has been manufactured properly. (And it is a mandatory industry standard that a Blu-ray player is backward compatible and play DVDs and CDs). And Cinerama came out not many years after CinemaScope (although there wa a silent film, "Napoleon", that had what amounted to a Cinerama final sequence that is incredible). Any wide-screen format can be made to show on a 16:9 system - it just means there will be appropriate black bars above and below the image if they are preserving the original proportions of the film.

Which brings us back to the most important point.Before CinemaScope, films were made with an image ratio of 4:3, known as :Hollywood Frame", and this is what analog TV used. After some years, the standard, non-CinemaScope-type image widened from the old Hollwood frame. For a while, this was called in the movie industry "wide-screen", but eventually, it became standard. It was close to the 16;9 image used in digital TV. So ordinary modern films are adapted to 16:9, and some CinemaScope type films had the sides cropped off (actually, it was usually a bit more comlicated than that, but we'll keep it simple). With the advent of larger screens and 16:9 digital, for a while, they kept on cropping. Now, they miinimize the cropping (on mosr releases - especially blu-ray) which causes the black bars above and below the picture, to preserve the image in something close to the original proportions (there still was quite a bit of cropping in How the West Was Won - Cinerama was a lot wider than CinemaScope).
If your old DVD had poor sharpness (remembering that Blu-rays are capable of a much sharper image with richer color), then it was made from a poor print of the film. Film has been capable of an image quality worthy of being transferred to Blu-ray right back to silent films. The trouble is how well the film has been preserved (and old film used a different base, called "nitrate" that deteriorated easily, rather than the acetate stock used since, I think, the late 40's, or early 50's).

Posted on May 23, 2015 11:46:21 PM PDT
BOB SZVETICS says:
i display the guys and dolls bluray and your reveiw from 2006 pops up a review that is 9 years amazon is scewed up

In reply to an earlier post on May 24, 2015 2:38:34 AM PDT
Bryan Leech says:
Bob,
I'm afraid you post is even more screwed up. I can't make sense of it. Would you like to try again, and with a little more detail?

In reply to an earlier post on May 24, 2015 3:14:06 AM PDT
BOB SZVETICS says:
i wanna know why there are reveiws from sometimes 10 or 15 years ago here i wanna know about the bluray disc that was just released not every reveiw from the dawn of man.

In reply to an earlier post on May 24, 2015 11:44:05 PM PDT
Bryan Leech says:
Hi Bob,
I guess that Amazon is lax in not removing old reviews. I've been intrigued by the diversity of discussion for this release. As I like "Guys & Dolls", and don't have any version, I have ordered it (it is cheap), and I will write an up-to-date review. It will be 2-3 weeks, but I will try to be helpful.

In reply to an earlier post on May 25, 2015 12:34:40 AM PDT
BOB SZVETICS says:
ok i just brought the bluray part of the frank sinarta collection and it looks beauitful and the audio is 5.1 this is the only film in the box set that has 5.i audio it would of been nice if warner would remastered all the films the video picture is great but the sound is another thing on the town and robin and the seven hoods should be 5.1 surround sound.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 7, 2015 1:16:24 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 7, 2015 1:29:45 AM PDT
Bryan Leech says:
Bob,
I don't know if you are continuing to follow this, but I promised a reply.
I've finally received both DVD and Blu-ray of "Guys and Dolls". The quality and format of a film transfer to video depends entirely on the nature and quality of the film. "Guys and Dolls" was filmed in CinemaScope and good-quality multi-channel sound. [I don't know where the review these comments are following from, is coming from: it is totally screwed up . Vision and sound are both excellent, and this is on a 9' screen and very high-quality equipment]. The film was made in TechniColor, which, at that time, was still a brilliant technology for color film making. So the Blu-ray (and DVD) has an excellent picture quality, and as the soundtrack on the film was recorded in milti-channel , that was able to be adapted to 5.1 (The film itself is another matter, it is a rather poor version of "Guys and Dolls").
With "On the Town" (a brilliant movie, with a vastly better performance from Sinatra), the technolgy was a few years older, with 4:3 format and with only one channel of audio, and the quality of that is not as good as the later 'Guys and Dolls". You can't take average-quality single channnel sound and make it into into good 5.1 surround. (Actually you can, sort of, but it sounds terrible).
"Robin and the Seven Hoods" (also a poor movie, but if you are a Sinatra fan, that isn't so important) was filmed much later in a CinemaScope type format, and I am surprised it isn't in multi-channel sound. I would need to know more about the original sound format, and of the movie's restoration. Hope this has been helpfull.
PS. The cover n my Blu-ray of 'Guys and Dolls" is different to the review copy above.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 7, 2015 4:01:03 AM PDT
BOB SZVETICS says:
Thanks for getting back bryan i agee with you about the films but as far as the films being in 5.1 audio every film on bluray should be in multi channel sound i have the cd from frank sinatras guys and dolls and robin and the seven hoods and its in stereo 3 track stereo to remaster a film these days because of a computer they just after flick a button and on the town would of been awesome in stereo sound one of gene kellys and sinatras best. well thanks again and have a good sunday bob.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 7, 2015 3:01:15 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 7, 2015 3:04:21 PM PDT
Bryan Leech says:
Hi Bob,
Glad to be of some help.I have had CDs where the original had been mono and a synthetic stereo had been created; I have had programs to do this myself (by the way, CDs can only be 2-channel stereo, there's no such thing as 3-channel CDs). The technology that creates synthetic stereo can't add more to the audio than was originally there, so bits of the sound are pulled out of the original mono and the bits are distributed between the 2 channels. While this creates a spread of the sound, it is not true stereo (that's the best way I can describe it without getting very technical). And old mono recording generally does not have really low bass, so there is not enough bass to create a .1 channel. Also it would be impossible to create realistic surround channels; the information is just not there in the mono, and you can't create something out of nothing. This all adds up to why mono can't be magically turned into 5.1 There just isn't enough information in the original mono. Unfortunately there's a limit to what it is possible for computers to do. There are a very small number of movies that have tried synthetic stereo for the video release, but it isn't great. Sorry Bob, but all of this is fact.
‹ Previous 1 2 Next ›

Review Details