Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About tterrace

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  1. I'm having the same problem with the Columbia Film Noir IV set mentioned in TripleHHH's post; particularly in scenes involving a camera pan, the motion is noticeably jerky. Unlike the person who initiated the Home Theater Forum thread linked in that post, I can't say it makes them unwatchable, but the problem is frequently intrusive. I've also tried different players and also different setting both on the player and my display, and the problem persists. Apparently a mastering error of some sort. The set certainly should be corrected and replacements made.
  2. > {quote:title=mongo wrote:}{quote} > TT, thank you for the correction. Once again I was mislead by a photo with the wrong name attached. I should have remembered Joe's mug since he was in some "Dick Tracy" TV shows as Sam Catchem. > Since I can't locate a decent sized photo of Joe, I have deleted it out. > Thanks again. Here's a bigger version of that screenshot (from "Mr. Skeffington") if it'll help.
  3. > {quote:title=mongo wrote:}{quote} > JOE DEVLIN (1894 - 1973) That's Paul Bryar; here's Joe Devlin: Edited by: tterrace on Feb 7, 2011 1:38 PM
  4. I posed the question about Academy ratio vs. widescreen projection in the 1960s generally, and about Bonnie and Clyde specifically at Nitrateville and Jack Theakston replied thusly: "There's all the possibility in the world that your friend went to *a* theater that ran flat films in the Academy ratio at *one* particular theater, but I highly doubt that he saw anything other than the 1.85 ratio in any more than one theater during the 1960s. Memories are funny things. There are people who swear they saw PSYCHO in color. What can I say or show them that they would possibly believe?
  5. Jack Theakston and Bob Furmanek are two widely-recognized, authoritative film historians and researchers who frequently post on a number of popular film-oriented forums. They not only do primary research on film photography and exhibition but are also film archivists and restorers. Google either of their names plus the term "aspect ratio" and you'll find many of their writings on the subject. Both have demonstrated that not only had all the studios mandated widescreen photography for all their productions starting in 1953, but that by the end of 1954 95% of the nation's theaters had completed
  6. It seems awfully unlikely to me that theaters in 1967 would be willing to show a film in Academy ratio, or in fact even be able to do so properly. The Academy ratio-shaped screens and the projection lenses of the proper focal length to fill them would have been long gone. Lenses that filled the wide screens would have an unmatted image spilling over the top and bottom. The only other option would be to have a lens that projected a smaller image, but it would be just that, a small image centered on the wide screen, which would not go over with audiences by then accustomed to, and expecting, a s
  7. To get the same size 4:3 image on an 16:9 display that you get with a 32" CRT, you'd need to get one measuring 40" diagonally. Here's a link to the screen size calculator I used for that: http://tvcalculator.com/ For "TV 1" I specified a 32" TV with a 4:3 aspect ratio. For "TV 2" I specified a 16:9 aspect ratio and played around with the screen size inches until I came up with an image size that was close. Note that you also get a graphical demonstration of the image size and how it will display, including the black bars at the sides. You'll need to set the options on the HDT
  8. Scroll to the last paragraph of [this NY Post article|http://www.nypost.com/p/blogs/movies/dvd_extra_torchy_blane_the_newsgal_JqCdGiOEtruFWpGfroxHAK] for word about Warner Archive plans for other series releases, including the Perry Masons.
  9. > {quote:title=RayFaiola wrote:}{quote} > Are these presented in their original 1:33 ratio? Despite the Web page graphics that show a 16:9 image, the one preview I watched was at 1.33:1. I'd definitely buy a DVD of complete intact shorts - I hope one is in the works.
  10. > {quote:title=primosprimos wrote:}{quote} > So Hollywoodland was a housing development? Are those houses still in existence? http://www.beachwoodcanyon.org/HISTORY.htm
  11. Amazon has matched Best Buy's $55.99 price for the Mel Brooks Blu-Ray set. Free shipping on both, but the no-tax-for-me angle with Amazon was enough to tip the balance and I decided to pop for the thing. I'm not happy about the packaging, and Fox Blu-Rays are usually notoriously slow-loading, but $6.22/disc was too good a deal to pass up.
  12. I got Dragnet, and it's an excellent recent transfer from a high-quality element. Even the opticals look a lot better than many color films of this vintage. It's full-frame unmatted, and from the compositions it looks like 1.66:1 would have been the preferred widescreen AR. Doesn't suffer all that much unmatted, though. As to whether you'd like the film, it helps if you're a fan of the Dragnet schtick, or of time-capsule glimpses into the culture of the early 1950s - the cars, the clothes, the decor - all there in vivid color. Lots of familiar faces from movies, TV shows (and commercials)
  13. There's almost undoubtedly nothing up with the movie itself. The likely explanation is that there hasn't been a widescreen transfer made of the film yet, so whoever TCM licensed the film from supplied an existing pan-and-scan transfer. Your "private company" is a bootlegger who copied a pan-and-scan broadcast from someplace. They either lied or were ignorant about the aspect ratio of their "product."
  14. > {quote:title=hamradio wrote:}{quote} > If you read the Flickflop website and other similiar websites, this only involves the *digital* transmission media i.e. Directv connected to DVD recorders (mostly the recent generation). This feature is incorporated into the DTV tuner itself. > > Funny thing is that so far my DVD recorder has not yet refused to record anything from TCM yet even though its connected directly to the 2nd audio / video output jacks on my Directv receiver. It's not the directness of the connection that matters, it's what kind of signal. You're connecting
  15. > {quote:title=markfp2 wrote:}{quote} > I went multi-region a couple of years ago and never regretted it. As for amazon.uk, I've ordered at least ten times without a problem. I'd say they're just as reliable as their U.S. counterpart. > . . . > Prices are listed in British pounds, not dollars, so you'll need to add approximately 65% to that to figure out the price in dollars. Don't let that scare you off, there are so many great films in the five to ten pound range that you'll still find many bargains. You can turn on the Amazon Currency Converter in your Account Preferenc
© 2021 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
  • Create New...