comment #1

LDKA0186 says ...

Paging Andy Rooney, your son is...oh, wait, that's just Wells. My mistake.

comment #2

gruver1 says ...

Wells to LDKAO186: Say what you mean exactly -- explain in clear terms how erasing seams is different than colorization -- or STFU.

comment #3

Roman says ...

Because seems came out now from an artistic decisions but from a technological limitation. I know you will say the same thing about bw films but I dare to argue with the fact that most of the then active directors, when given a chance to project their wide ratio films without seems (and otherwise exactly the same) would have rejected that offer.

comment #4

thevisceral says ...

That would be awesome if I had a big bendy TV.

comment #5

keepingtabshunter says ...

I don't really see a problem with erasing the seems for home video. I mean, if you're that concerned with authenticity you shouldn't be watching a Cinerama movie on home video anyway.

You could go the extra length and say that classic films shouldn't be released on video at all, but instead made for rent or purchase strictly in huge 35 or 70mm film reels.

comment #6

MathewM says ...

The seams make it look like a big fold out LP cover. I'm not sure if that's good or bad. I can't see how you can be for smoothing out film grain but against erasing seams. I can't imagine too many directors actually wanting to keep seams which was a compromise of the medium. Film grain on the other hand can be used as texturing to the image like the way painters use different brushes.

comment #7

NotImpressedYet says ...

Wells, I've never seen How The West Was Won, so let me ask, can you point to a single shot in the movie where the director used the seams as part of his filmmaking vocabulary? And without that, on what basis besides nostalgia can you make your argument?

comment #8

gruver1 says ...

Wells to NotImpressedYet: Obviously the seams had zip to do with any filmmaking vocabulary -- John Ford hated working within the visual limitations of the form -- but the seams were on the screen each and every time they film was shown during its original run (even in non-Cinerama theatres) and you can't just erase that history and say, fuck that, this is better (even if the digital reconstitution "looks" better, which is neither here nor there).

Wells to Roman: Black and white and squawky monaural sound were limitations of a sort back in the '20s, '30s and '40s. Granted, some films simply played better in black and white, but obviously most of the ones shot in monochrome in the '20s, '30s and '40s were done so because shooting in color was too expensive. Every generation works with and within the technology that they have. That said, I have no problem with films being cleaned up, sharpened, made to look better by the removal of grain, etc. But Cinerama was a three-camera, three-projector process that was seen with seams, and you can't just wipe that out and ignore it.

Wells to keepingtabshunter: You said that one "could go the extra length and say that classic films shouldn't be released on video at all, but instead made for rent or purchase strictly in huge 35 or 70mm film reels." You know something? Between this and the question yesterday about what lies John McCain's campaign has put forth, I have to share a frank observation with you. Ready? You're a bit of an ignorant, not-very-clever jerkweed. No offense.

comment #9

YRG says ...

You are not going to experience what watching a cinerama film was really like by sitting at home watching it with seams or watching a smilebox version of it either. So why the fuss? It seems the seams represent something else in your mind, namely, the loss of authenticity in today's upgrade culture.

comment #10

MeandMyselfandI says ...

The aspect ratio looks stretched vertically in the "after" pic. Is that how it is on the DVD?

comment #11

keepingtabshunter says ...

Wow, "gruver1".

Are you this curmudgeonly with everyone?

comment #12

keepingtabshunter says ...

[Deleted due to my haviing taken an instant dislike to the poster. No offense. I've banned him for good measure. Don't want to take any chances. -- Jeffrey Wells]

comment #13

MathewM says ...

I don't believe they had computers back when John Ford was releasing his films theatrically. Erasing the seams seems to me to be a rational use of CGI. It's like getting rid of the wires that suspend actors flying through the air. It's nothing like colorizing which is an artificial process that always sticks out and looks tacky. If anything the seams look tacky and are a distraction from the viewing experience especially in high definition.

comment #14

NotImpressedYet says ...

I agree with what MatthewM just said.

Wells, your opinion on removal of grain, depending on what examples you would cite approvingly, does not mesh so easily with your hard line on the seams here. I'd argue that a lot of the grain removal in today's DVD rereleases go WAAAAYYY too far, to the point where it's unrecognizable as film anymore, and more like HD video. I think this is way more egregious than removing the seams.

Removing the seams is a very targeted and limited use of today's technology, but you make it sound like they're colorizing The Third Man.

comment #15

gruver1 says ...

Wells to MeMyselfandI: The "after" isn't vertically stretched -- if you compare the two it's got a lot more information on the sides so if anything it's a bit compressed. Although it doesn't seem to be when you study the proportion of the horses and whatnot.

comment #16

Chris Willman says ...

The "seams" aren't 100% absent in the new transfer--you can still make out some of the join lines occasionally, particularly in blue-sky vista shots. But the average person probably wouldn't notice that if you weren't looking for it.

I can't understand Jeff's argument against eliminating the seams. Comparing it to colorization doesn't make any sense to me. Maybe there were a few directors working in black and white who considered that a limitation in the same way that Cinerama directors considered the join lines a limitation, but I can't imagine it. Basically, what it comes down to is this: When you watch "How the West Was Won" at the Cinerama Dome in Cinerama, you try to ignore the join lines and forget, in your mind, that they're there--a mental process that takes greater psychological acumen than mine to muster, as much fun as it is to see the process. I can't image anyone involved with Cinerama in its original form looking at this DVD/Blu-Ray and saying "Oh my God! They've ruined my work!" I can't imagine many Cinerama fans saying it, either.

The Smilebox version is a lot of fun. There's been a lot of discussion on some of the more tech-oriented boards about how it actually more accurately renders some of the more wide-angle shots, around the edges. I just got the Blu-Ray and haven't had a chance to watch the whole thing and compare it to the DVD, which I've had for a while. But there is significant distortion on the standard version of some shots, like the overhead view of the buffalo stampede, that I assume looks "normal" on the Smilebox version... which, of course, otherwise doesn't look normal at all.

Warner Home Video really needs to be commended for what they did with this. I can't imagine there is going to be a huge run on used copies of the old DVD from people who think the seams are what makes the movie... though I'll probably pick one up for nostalgia's sake myself.

As for why the Smilebox version isn't on DVD: The deluxe edition already runs to three discs, and putting the Smilebox version on there in high quality would arguably have demanded a fourth. I assume they figure that anybody who's buff enough to buy a four-disc DVD set of "How the West Was Won" may have already invested in Blu-Ray anyway. The bummer is that the DVD box includes more printed material than the Blu-Ray, so a completist will need to pick up both.

comment #17

bmcintire says ...

The before and after shots alarm me more in the way the shape of the banner for the Erie Canal changes. It almost looks like they were shot from a different perspective.
And Jeff, your complaint with the missing seams sounds like someone harkening back for the days when some ancient movie theaters had pillars in the house that obstructed the view of the screen for some unlucky patrons. "But I remember seeing RIO BRAVO that way! How dare they offer me a clear image!"

comment #18

p.Vice says ...

I'm in agreement with you on this one, Jeff. This is an equivalent to a person getting plastic surgery to hide aging or imperfection. It's imperfections, however, that can make something truly unique, and viewing this or any other cinerama movie without the seams is essentially making cinerama look like any other widescreen process. Kinda like it never existed as it was.

It wasn't an artistic choice to "use" the seams when shooting, but it certainly is one to completely change the look of the film half a century later. Similar, perhaps, to the change in picture quality that accompanied the Criterion release of Days of Heaven. Or Lucas's "improvements" on the FX in Star Wars.

comment #19

btwnproductions says ...

I had the old letterboxed DVD. The seams (and the faded image) made it something of a trial to sit through. Without them the movie is still something of a patience-stretcher, but you can enjoy the flow of the widescreen imagery more, even when the seams occasionally show. Cinerama was meant for the theater, not the home theater.

My beef with DVDs is when special effects mechanisms that were hidden friom view are suddenly, carelessly exposed. The 1953 WAR OF THE WORLDS is unbearable, given all the obvious wires (the LD looked a lot better). And the loss of filmic grain to make a more "perfect" image on DVD also bugs me. I'm all for fixes that improve a film for home viewing, but not when they wreak havoc on the actual film--and that's not the case with HOW THE WEST WAS WON. (In stiills the Smileboxing seems to crop the image, but I don't have the Blu-ray disc.)

comment #20

quintus arrius says ...

Although this is hardly the most hospitable thread, I'll offer some info here. I might not get banned for another day or two.

I believe the Before has a tighter crop because it was taken from the 70mm printdown. And 70mm, wide as it was, could only photograph so much of the original Cinerama image (that is, three images). So they aimed it dead center and lost the edges, where nothing critical was happening anyway.

As for whether the directors ever put action or their main stars out toward the edge-- no. The distortion on the curved screen would have made actors look weird and anyway, the point wasn't to have action going all over the frame, it was to have the viewer look straight ahead to the main action and have peripheral vision on both sides.

comment #21

Lars says ...

Like it or not, the flaws of cinema (in this case the seams in Cinerama) contribute to the grammar of the work. Remove the flaws, and you remove the character. I agree with the poster who likened it to plastic surgery -- that's exactly what it is. All awareness of the Cinerama process has been removed, and with it, a bit of the historical significance. I want the imperfections, that's what makes it human.

comment #22

gruver1 says ...

Wells to P. Vice: The Criterion DVD of Days of Heaven is beautiful and sublime, delicate and sharp and magic-houred in every frame, supervised by Malick and looking exactly as it should. There's nothing wrong with it whatsoever, but the previous versions of the film on Paramount DVD were sweetened and yellow-ambered and toned up so that distortions came into play.

comment #23

btwnproductions says ...

I guarantee that if I gave you my old DVD of HTWWW, then the new one, you'd eject the old one and use it as a coaster within 20 minutes--whatever you believe about the historical significance, which the disc still honors. (I can only imagine how horrible this must look panned/scanned, which is how generations of TV viewers saw it.)

comment #24

Chase Kahn says ...

I don't know, my BD copy of 2001 is great. As long as they don't give it that plastic, early X360 sheen to it, I'm all for restoring it.

comment #25

Marty Melville says ...

If you think home video should replicate the original experience as closely as possible, then yes the seams should appear in any home video version of HTWWW.

Has anyone seen the print running on Encore Westerns? It's a letterboxed (obviously non-anamorphic) version of the current Blue-Ray disc... and extremely strange to watch... with those seam lines gone and missing the gigantic, curving vistas that wrapped around us in the theatrical version, it just seems as if they decided to shoot a 2:55 movie with a fish-eye lens.

How The West Was Won will never really work in the home theater until that home theater is equipped with three cinerama approved projectors.

HTWWW is a gimmick movie... an all-powerful gimmick which, when you're in the middle of it (literally), is hard to deny... but you gotta be. there to get it. That smilebox stuff is just silly.

comment #26

otakuhouse says ...

Wells, you made one giant mistake here that you know is anathema to logic. You admit you don't have a Blu Ray player and thus judge this on something you haven't seen.

I'm going to take the word of the incredible Robert A Harris who supervised the restorations of Vertigo and Lawrence of Arabia and has pointed out how the Patton Blu Ray is problematic.

He raves about the disc and what it has done.

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/ht-software-high-definition/276200-few-words-about-how-west-won-blu-ray.html

comment #27

T. S. Idiot says ...

If the seams were a defect imposed by the limited technology at the time, in what sense is eliminating them a sacrilege. The filmmakers would not have had the seams if there had been anyway around it.

comment #28

penchenk87 says ...

Awesome concept. I know a buddy of mine makes use of templates. This stuff is great for if you append rows to a grid or list.

Also, it would probably be great for having some sort of "viewer". You could have a list of documents, and use jQuery to get JSON data, then put the data into the template. Something like viewing invoices or other formatted docs.

Just to be picky too, according to w3schools.com, the "value" tag is deprecated? But I guess it is still technically valid. I like to be "valid" when I can :)

please visit my blog Ingat Solo Ingat Soloaja.com and Penchenk Dot Com

comment #29

janee says ...

Si vous etes interesses par le dossier, ou desirez en savoir plus, contactez-moi par mail, et je vous mettrai en contact.
Best regards,Jane, CEO of windows high availability