From: ahall@sedona.intel.com (Andrew Hall)
Newsgroups: rec.video.releases
Subject: re: Dirty Harry (Widescreen) arrives...
Date: 2 Jan 1993 01:21:02 GMT
Organization: Intel Corporation
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: castle.intel.com

In article <BzytA1.4p6@agora.rain.com>, David Robinson
(david@agora.rain.com) writes:  

>The title says it:  Picked up the above [WS Dirty Harry] at my local
>Tower Video tonight.

Thanks, David - I would never have known it was out.  One of the
Tower's in Phoenix hadn't even ordered it; another store had the new
edition tucked away behind the old edition (i.e., it wasn't even on
the new releases rack!)

>I was favorably impressed.  Having suffered through my p&s version, I was
>immediately struck by a Panavision production with an aspect ratio of
>between 2.3 and 2.4 to 1.  The colors were much better than I remembered
>on the p&s, while even the ("reprocessed for stereo") digital soundtrack
>wasn't too back.

If there was ever a case for letterboxing....well, IMHO, this ain't
it!   I was disappointed at how poorly director Don Siegel uses the 2.35:1
Panavision frame.  Although many pans are obvious in the previous P&S
editions of Dirty Harry, the characters and action are usually
centered.   And the cinematography isn't much to write home about (of
course, since it IS just DIRTY HARRY, one can argue, "who cares?").

If I had rented the new WS Dirty Harry first, I wouldn't have bought
it.  I think, in an unusual case, the P&S doesn't hurt this Panavision
film. 

>The color was clean; no video noise that I noticed, though some of the
>"night time black" looked a little '70-ish...if you know what I mean.

But this is hardly a great film-to-disc transfer.  It is about as good
as the previous P&S version that Warner released about 18 months ago
(NOT the original DH that came about about 10 years ago), which wasn't
terrible.  Still, many of the indoor scenes are a bit grainy.  I think
Warner could have done better.

The transfer is certainly far superior to that ancient P&S Dirty
Harry, though.

>Altogether, a pleasing disc.  If you have the earlier model, tr(ash/ade)
>it and get the widescreen edition; it's the same price ($34.95--got it
>on sale at $29.95!) as the p&s, and a much better edition.

I wish I could be as enthusiastic.  If you own the old, old DH that
wasn't even second-encoded, then yes, you would do well to upgrade to
the new WS Dirty Harry.  But I wouldn't recommend it to anyone who has
the most recent P&S version (even to a letterboxing advocate like
myself).  In fact, you might even pickup that recent (chapter encoded)
P&S version used, now that the WS version is out.

Also:  Warner STILL isn't using Table-of-Contents on this disc!
Arrrrggh!


>N.B.:  The "Widescreen Edition" on this Warner issue is written in VERY
>small letters on the upper left hand side of the front cover, which is
>otherwise identical to the p&s version.  You'll also see the box on the
>back side advising you not to panic at the weird black bars...'they're
>supposed to be there!'

Just a trivial aside about the jacket artwork of the new WS disc:  while it
looks at first glance similar to the P&S disc, a more careful examination
of the back side reveals that it has been almost completely redone!  

First of the all, the summary of Dirty Harry has been completely
re-written.  Why?  Also, the chapter titles have been re-written; a
few were added, but even those that remained unchanged were re-written.
Finally, there are three photos down the left side of the back jacket.
The top two are the same on both versions, but the bottom photo is
zoomed out on the new WS version (even though it is still 1:1 aspect
ratio) so you can see more.  

My point is:  someone obviously spent some time redesigning the jacket.
WHY?  Does anyone out there even read the film summary or pay much
attention to the chapter titles?  On a 20-year-old film?  Would this
affect even one person's decision to buy the new WS disc? 

(Was there a second artist?  Sounds like a conspiracy to me, JFK fans. :)

I think Warner would do better to put full 2.35:1 aspect ratio photos
from the film (perhaps next to key P&S photos from the previous release)
on the back jacket to show us how the letterboxing helps (even if I
think it doesn't help in this case).  That would probably sell more
people than will the senseless jacket redesign they've done.

---

Andrew Hall
ahall@sedona.intel.com (Internet)

Disclaimer:  My opinions do not reflect those of Intel Corporation.


--
 Intel, Corp.
 5000 W. Chandler Blvd.
 Chandler, AZ  85226
Newsgroups: rec.video.releases