HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: boyajian@ruby.enet.dec.com (The fox so cunning and free)
Newsgroups: rec.video.releases
Subject: Re: New Release Info (and a question) from the April LaserDisc Newsletter
Date: 10 Apr 92 14:52:07 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation

In article <1992Apr8.211556.23724@kong.gsfc.nasa.gov>, jonke@kong.gsfc.nasa.gov (Stephen Jonke) writes...

}In article <1992Apr8.061513.3767@engage.pko.dec.com>, boyajian@ruby.enet.dec.com (The fox so cunning and free) writes:

}} just as many directors have composed their films so that nothing
}} significant would be lost when they were cropped for television.

} This idea sounds good when you first think about it, but when you put
} further thought into you realize what an incredibly bad idea it is.
} Namely, if the director keeps the TV screen ratio in mind then what
} he/she is really creating is a direct to video movie that is cropped
} when released in the theater -- it never should have been released in
} the theater to start with!

Maybe, but that's beside the point. What's relevant is that they *did*
keep the TV ratio in mind, and that the film *was* released to theaters
first. So, if this is true, then what becomes the "true" version of the
film?

}} Keep in mind that those of us who support letterboxing do so because we
}} feel that it displays the film the way the director wanted it. If the
}} director decides that for video, he wants it transferred full screen,
}} then why should we second-guess that?

} When Kubrick goes in and starts re-editing the film he's creating a
} different film. What I want to see is the film as it was ORIGINALLY
} intended, NOT how he sees things now  [...]

No, what you want is to see the film as it was originally RELEASED. This
is not necessarily the same as what was originally INTENDED. And that's
the point I'm trying to make.

Depending on how much you want to believe James Cameron, the extended
version of ALIENS is what he originally intended. But that isn't the way
it was originally released, was it?

-- 

	"Buster, this trip downriver has been truly special.
	 Downright Twainian in a Hitchcockian sort of way."


--- jayembee (Jerry Boyajian, DEC, "The Mill", Maynard, MA)

    boyajian@ruby.enet.dec.com
From: boyajian@ruby.enet.dec.com (The fox so cunning and free)
Newsgroups: rec.video.releases
Subject: Re: What about Sparticus?
Date: 14 Apr 92 02:55:40 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation

In article <1992Apr11.070316.23299@wam.umd.edu>, dododge@wam.umd.edu (David O. Dodge) writes...

} In article <1992Apr11.025604.10553@nctams1.uucp>, tomj@pnet16.cts.com (Tom Jenkins) writes:

}} Ok where is it?

} I assume you're talking about the restored version from last year...
} It is available on VHS tape. I've heard that the quality isn't very good.
} It is NOT available on LD. I don't know if it is in the works or not.

Yes, it's in the works from Criterion, though I don't believe that there's
been any official announcement from them about it. No estimated street date
has been mentioned.

-- 

	"Buster, this trip downriver has been truly special.
	 Downright Twainian in a Hitchcockian sort of way."


--- jayembee (Jerry Boyajian, DEC, "The Mill", Maynard, MA)

    boyajian@ruby.enet.dec.com
Newsgroups: rec.video.releases
From: bill@bilver.uucp (Bill Vermillion)
Subject: Re: New Release Info (and a question) from the April LaserDisc Newsletter
Organization: W. J. Vermillion - Winter Park, FL
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 01:18:14 GMT

In article <1992Apr07.141434.20562@uhura.neoucom.edu> wlrc@uhura.neoucom.edu (William R. Cruce) writes:
>In article <1992Apr6.212533.9716@kong.gsfc.nasa.gov> jonke@kong.gsfc.nasa.gov (Stephen Jonke) writes:

>>>  *  The Criterion edition of DR. STRANGEGLOVE will be shown in a mixture of
>>>     aspect ratios (accademy and 1.66:1), as per Kubric's instructions.  Does
>>>     anyone know if this is going to be CAV all the way through, or a CLV/CAV
>>>     combo? 
>
>>Does anyone know why Kubrick wanted it done this way?  I also read that he
>>insisted that The Shining be pan&scan?  Why in the world would he insist
>>this????!!!!

>Directors are not the perfect, god-like creatures we viewers sometimes
>seem to think. Some of the best of them don't understand home-video and
>especially laser disc.  I think we could begin to compile a list of
>directors who should not be allowed near the mastering for laser disc.
>At the top of the list I would put Kubrick and Friedkin, who also doesn't
>believe in letterbox (EXORCIST, FRENCH CONNECTION, SORCERER).  

I was in one of the LA post houses about 6 years ago when they had just
finished transferring all Kubrick's films for what was to be the
definitive video version - these were to be both nework/cable and home
video.

Kubrick had spent several months going over these films with his
assistant, and made notes down to the frame level as to what he wanted.
Then the assistant work with those doing the transfer.  This took place
over a considerable length of time.  Even though he may not like the
pan and scan, he did put in considerable effort to ensure they were the
way he liked them - so we can't say he was non-involved.

I am looking forward to Strangelove so I can forget about my CED disk
of it.





-- 
Bill Vermillion - bill@bilver.uucp 
                - ..!{peora|ge-dab|tous|tarpit}!bilver!bill
Newsgroups: rec.video.releases
From: long-morrow@CS.YALE.EDU (H. Morrow Long)
Subject: Re: Cartoons for Big Kids (was: New Release Info)
Keywords: LDN laserdisc
Organization: Yale University, Department of Computer Science
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 13:55:17 GMT


In article <1992Apr9.182637.3833@tc.fluke.COM>,
 moriarty@tc.fluke.COM (Jeff Meyer) wonders:
|> Which brings up the inevitable question: how much of the stuff on CARTOONS
|> FOR BIG KIDS has been published in the various MGM/UA single discs, and the
|> two GOLDEN AGE OF LOONEY TOONS volumes?

"Red Hot Riding Hood" is also on Tex Avery's Screwball Classics LD.

					- Morrow
-- 
                   _  _    __  _                           __ 
                  (/_ /   (/ \/ \   _   __  __  ____ _ __ (/   _  __   _)
                  /  / .  /      )_(_)_/ (_/ (_(_) (_(_(  /___(_)_/ )_(_)
                 (       (                               (             _)
From: boyajian@ruby.enet.dec.com (The fox so cunning and free)
Newsgroups: rec.video.releases
Subject: Re: New Release Info (and a question) from the April LaserDisc Newsletter
Date: 14 Apr 92 02:58:01 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation

In article <1992Apr11.011814.15846@bilver.uucp>, bill@bilver.uucp (Bill Vermillion) writes...

}} In article <1992Apr6.212533.9716@kong.gsfc.nasa.gov> jonke@kong.gsfc.nasa.gov (Stephen Jonke) writes:

}}} The Criterion edition of DR. STRANGEGLOVE will be shown in a mixture of
}}} aspect ratios (accademy and 1.66:1), as per Kubric's instructions.

}} Does anyone know why Kubrick wanted it done this way?

Nothing specific to what Bill V. said, but I thought I'd toss this in, as I
just picked up a copy of the April LDN. Jeff Meyer's original quote (see the
}}} quote above) left out a significant point, I think. The full quote from
LDN is thus (the emphasis is mine):

	"Voyager's upcoming release of DR. STRANGELOVE will be
	presented in a mixture of aspect ratios measuring 1.33:1
	and 1.66:1, following director Stanley Kubrick's original
	conception. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
        ^^^^^^^^^^

-- 

	"Buster, this trip downriver has been truly special.
	 Downright Twainian in a Hitchcockian sort of way."


--- jayembee (Jerry Boyajian, DEC, "The Mill", Maynard, MA)

    boyajian@ruby.enet.dec.com
Newsgroups: rec.video.releases
From: tzung@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (tzung-i.lin)
Subject: LD mini reviews : The Omen and Heaven's Gate
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 15:42:43 GMT

Just rented these two new LDs over the weekend, here is some brief reviews.

** The Omen

	One of my all time favorite horror/thriller film. I've been
waiting for its LBX release. I must say it's somewhat disappointing to
see its film transfer. There are alot of graininess all throughout
the movie. At times, the film looked soft and out of focus. The color
restoration is O.K. It reminds me alot of the three STAR WARS LBX LDs.
And a very good reason for it : they are all done by CBS/FOX!!
And they ask for $59.99 for The Omen LBX LD.
	It's good to see the film in its original aspect ratio (approx.
2.35 : 1), But if you ask me whether it's worth it to pay $60 for
a grainy looking LBX Omen, i would say no. But worth a rental though.


** Heaven's Gate

	I remember someone posted the purchase of this film and promised
to give a full review, but it never came out. SO I rented it myself.
As long as it's a Michael Cimino's film, Cinamatography is always
an important element. Hence a LBX is a must for his films. BTW,
does anyone know whether Sicilian is origianly widescreen?
BUT, something wrong in its aspect ratio here!! At the end, the credit
said the film was host in Panavision, so it should be 2.35 : 1,
but the LBX LD presentation is such a narrow strip, I measured
the ratio, even without the overscanning problem of my TV set,
the ratio measured around 2.5 : 1. While watching the film, many scenes
gave me an impression that it was wrongly "matted". The most obvious 
one is the dance scene in the Yale campus at the beginning. When 
they finally get around in a circle and dance, you can see the lower edge
of the circle is cut off which destroys the harmony of the composition.
What happened?
	The color looks a little bit faded, the outdoor scene is O.K.
but the indoor shot was blurring, not sharp at all. Probably it's filmed
that way. No noticable graininess in the transfer. Image askd
for $59.99 (am I right?). Unless someone convince me otherwise about
the "wrongly" matted LBX release, I don't think it's worth it.
BTW, it's a reasonably good film, though the story sometimes 
drifts away and not very fine tuned. The ending is unreasonable to me,
it seems too sudden, too unrealistic to accept. 
	One last question, was this the original theatrical releases?
Many ads list it as UNCUT, (it ran about 220 min.), how long was the
original theatrical release? And was this LD version REALLY what Cimino wanted?
I really suspect this since the story line is loose and not well
thought through, it's hard for me to believe it's what Cimino intended.

Tzung-I
From: jonke@kong.gsfc.nasa.gov (Stephen Jonke)
Newsgroups: rec.video.releases
Subject: Re: New Release Info (and a question) from the April LaserDisc Newsletter
Date: 8 Apr 92 13:40:15 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center

In article <j8koq7o@zola.esd.sgi.com>, kaplan@unamas.esd.sgi.com (Larry Kaplan) writes:
> 
> Now, this is truly ridiculous. We have argued the merits of letterboxing
> for a while. Although most of you prefer it to pan & scan, and the fact
> that most movies come out both ways gives you the choice, don't be
> so close-minded as to ignore people's opinions.
> 
> Many of us can see both sides. Yes, letterboxing preserves the "proper"
> aspect ratio. But it also sacrifices detail. Film resolution is many
> times greater than television, and reducing the amount of pixels used
> (by letterboxing) is a further reduction. Some directors obviously
> prefer detail to wide screen. Kubrick and Friedkin are both director
> who put a lot of detail in their movies. Given the choice, they chose
> detail over letterboxing. You can't condemn them for their choice.
> 
> Some day, when television resolution and aspect ratios match film,
> then we can stop this debate. Meanwhile, keep an open mind and be
> wary of being so dogmatic.
> 

Although the issue of lost image detail with letterboxing is a valid one,
I still prefer letterboxing to pan & scan.  In cases where the movie is
available in both formats I'm certainly one happy pup.  However, in the case
of the Shining the fact is that we are NOT giving a choice.  For the
Shinning it's full frame only (whether or not it's p&s or unmatted is
unclear, but both are lousy in my opinion) and now for Dr. Stranglove it's
a mix (does anyone know if there is a non-Criterion version of Dr S. that is
completely letterboxed -- please let me know if there is and where I can get
it!)

Most good film directors put a lot of detail into the full WIDTH of the
film image -- with p&s you lose nearly 50% of that detail.  Seems to me that
that loss of image detail is a quite a bit more significant then the loss
in resolution that results from letterboxing.

Steve
Newsgroups: rec.video.releases
From: wlrc@uhura.neoucom.edu (William R. Cruce)
Subject: Re: Akira LD
Organization: Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 1992 18:01:47 GMT

In article <53666@hydra.gatech.EDU> gt0266d@prism.gatech.EDU () writes:
>I recently purchased Akira on laserdisc from a Tower records/video in
>California.  I thought that it was in english since the majority of the
>writing on the cover was in english.
>When I played it, the movie was in Japanese...
>I am wondering if there is an english version of the movie.

On tape yes, On disc no.  At least not yet.  Criterion is rumored to
be coming out with a disc version which will probably have Japanese
on one set of tracks and English on the others ... but a formal
announcement of the particulars has not yet appeared.

(BTW, many Japanese laserdiscs have lots of English on the cover.  Maybe
it is a kind of status thing like using French in a fancy American 
restaurant.  If the movies originated in English then usually that
soundtrack remains.  If they originated in another language then that
soundtrack remains.  Akira originated in Japan, therefore...)

-- 
BILL CRUCE, NE OHIO COLL OF MEDICINE----INTERNET: wlrc@uhura.neoucom.edu 
        Neurobiology Dept., P.O. Box 95, Rootstown, OH 44272
          "The only reason for time is so that everything
                     doesn't happen at once."
Newsgroups: rec.video.releases
From: hofbauer@csri.toronto.edu (John Hofbauer)
Subject: Tex Avery
Keywords: LDN laserdisc
Organization: CSRI, University of Toronto
Date: 6 Apr 92 21:55:49 GMT

>>Well, I recognized "Red Hot Riding Hood" as an MGM cartoon,
>
>Probably because it _is_ a Tex Avery. :-)  The disc TEX AVERY'S SCREWBALL
>CLASSICS contains this and other gems.  The sequel collection, ALL THIS AND
>TEX AVERY TOO, contains "King Size Canary".  Great stuff!  I'm a bit
>surprised to see this material showing up in a Warner's collection...
                                                ^^^^^^^^

The reason is that MGM holds the rights to the pre-1948 Warner's film
library.  That's why THE GOLDEN AGE OF LOONEY TUNES 1933-48 is from
MGM/UA.  Now why Warner's isn't doing something about a REAL Golden Age
of Looney Tunes (post 1948) I don't understand.
From: rjn@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Bob Niland)
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 13:30:44 GMT
Subject: Re: What's the deal with TRON on LD?
Organization: Hewlett-Packard/WSY Ft.Collins,CO,USA
Newsgroups: rec.video

In rec.video, jayj@hplvec.LVLD.HP.COM (Jay Johannes) writes:

>> (It was said that a letterboxed edition of 20,000 LEAGUES UNDER THE SEA
> 
> Laserland in Denver has a half dozen copies in stock (and for sale).

Yes, but are they the widescreen editions, or the cropped re-release that
Disney was rumored to have published after shutting off Bandai.

Regards,                                              Hewlett-Packard
Bob Niland      Internet: rjn@FC.HP.COM               3404 East Harmony Road
                UUCP: [hplabs|hpfcse]!hpfcrjn!rjn     Ft Collins CO 80525-9599

This article represents only the opinion[s] of its author, and is not an
official or unofficial position of, or statement by, the Hewlett-Packard
Company.  The text is provided for informational purposes only.  It is
supplied without warranty of any kind.
Newsgroups: rec.video
From: jonke@kong.gsfc.nasa.gov (Stephen Jonke)
Subject: Laser disc defect question
Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 92 14:10:33 GMT

I looked at Bob Nilands article number 17 on laser disc defects, but I'm still
not sure if what I'm seeing in my brand new copy of the letterboxed Return
of the Jedi is a disc defect or something else.  I was scanning through it
to see if it was ok and most of the disc is immaculate, but I did find one
place where several small white horizontal lines appear and scroll up the
screen.  It lasts about one second or so and then dissapears.  Article 17
says that scrolling white lines on CLV discs may indicate a disc defect, but
then it also says that most scrolling lines are the result of debris on the
disc that can be removed.  I don't see anything on the disc itself.  I should
point out that the problem is not horrible, but it is an annoyance to find
that a brand new disc may have a defect.  How commonly do these white line
defects occur on laser discs?  Should I expect to see one or two such
problems on every disc I buy?  Should I return the disc (i.e. if I do can
I expect to get one in return that does not have any visible defects?)

Steve
From: Gord_Pope@mindlink.bc.ca (Gord Pope)
Newsgroups: rec.video
Subject: Re: 8mm Video Player/Recorder
Date: 10 Apr 92 22:42:20 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: world

I have a Sony EVS 550 which is stereo and non-hi8.  I paid (about) $660 US
delivered from Camera World in Oregon.  They delivered it to California.  I am
quite please with it.  It is an editing deck and has one drawback that I have
discovered in that it does not allow for Video Insert.  If you don't need it
then who cares.  I'm not aware of there being many other choices on the market
for 8mm stuff.  None of the other Sony units offered what I needed at a price I
could afford.
Gord.
Newsgroups: rec.video
From: robe@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (robert.g.egan)
Subject: Re: Surround Sound on TV Broadcasts
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 15:53:59 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.123419.7183@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, tmkk@uiuc.edu (K. Khan) writes:
> 
> In article <1992Apr3.204157.20452@unocal.com> gary@st.unocal.com (Gary Cattelino) writes:
> >I was watching TV last night and noticed the message "Presented
> >in Dobly Surround Sound" at the beginning of the program.
> 
> Speaking of Dolby Surround TV shows, did anyone watch "Mann and Machine"
> on NBC Sunday night? Methinks the recording engineer who did Fantasia
> also works for this show. ;-)
> 



I'm glad someone else noticed and posted about M and M because I thought
my hardware was going crazy. It had to be the worst example of TV Dolby
Surround so far. But I think the tape master was SNAFUed not the recording
engineer.
From: rchrist@uswnvg.UUCP (Ron Christian)
Newsgroups: rec.video
Subject: Re: Fantasia
Date: 6 Apr 92 19:50:25 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: US West NewVector, Bellevue, WA

In article <34554@nntpd.lkg.dec.com> boyajian@ruby.enet.dec.com (The fox so cunning and free) writes:
>Nonsense. The Lechmere (department store chain in the Northeast) store in
>Nashua, NH has about a dozen or more copies of the CAV set of FANTASIA
>sitting in their racks.

Both Camelot and Silver Platters here in Bellevue have several copies
of the CAV set.  (Big thick blue thing that doesn't fit in the LD rack.
Hard to miss.)  Either Disney overprinted, or they're not selling as well
as hoped.


			Ron
From: root@cvbnet.prime.com (cvbnet)
Newsgroups: rec.video
Subject: Re: Sony vcrs with Control-L (LANC)
Date: 15 Apr 92 22:03:04 GMT


This is not true.

Control-L is LANC. It is a 3 pin mini-stereo phone plug.
Tip=LANC bus
Ring=5 volts
Sleeve=Ground

Control-Lf contains Control-L. It is 5 pins.
Pin 3 = LANC bus.
Other pins carry 5 volts, gnd, and a power switch loop.
I forget which they are but the spec has it all.

LANC is the import part. See my previous posting.

joe


From article <1992Apr14.210749.2634@spcvxb.spc.edu>, by killeen@spcvxb.spc.edu (Jeff Killeen):
> In article <19920413151035.0.VU@VN.SCH.Symbolics.COM>, VU@GODZILLA.SCH.SYMBOLICS.COM (Vu Ngo) writes:
>> Q: Does the old model SLV-575 have control-L??? The new model SLV-686???
>> Q: I think the new Sony S-VHS SLV-R5 has it, but too much $$$$.  What is
>> the best price I can get for this one???.
> 
> To my knowledge _all_ current Sony non-portable consumer VCRs have 5-pin 
> Control-L jacks.  Video Review reports only 3 of the 5 pins on the 5 pin jacks 
> carry signals.  This explains why the 3 pin jacks work on the cameras.
===============================================================================
	Joe Polcari, QCE Systems Group, Computervision, Bedford, MA USA
jpolcari@galaxy.prime.com   Voice: 6172751800x4489  Fax: 6172710017  RF: WA1PQE
===============================================================================
From: brown@vidiot.UUCP (Vidiot)
Newsgroups: rec.video
Subject: Re: Surround question
Date: 7 Apr 92 03:58:22 GMT
Reply-To: brown@vidiot.UUCP (Vidiot)
Organization: Vidiot's Hangout

In article <1992Apr03.142856.27623@ima.isc.com> jeanmarc@ima.isc.com writes:
<
<	You have a stereo system. If you feed a positive going step signal to your
<preamplifier, the conventional wisdom says your drivers should then move
<forward.
<	You now have a surround system. If you feed your preamplifier the same positive
<going step signal as above, how should the drivers move for the main, center and
<surround speakers?

If the signal is fed to both the left and right channel inputs, then your answer
is then:

	left - none
	center - movement
	right - none
	surround - none
-- 
      harvard\     att!nicmad\          spool.cs.wisc.edu!astroatc!vidiot!brown
Vidiot  ucbvax!uwvax..........!astroatc!vidiot!brown
      rutgers/            INTERNET:vidiot!brown%astroatc.UUCP@spool.cs.wisc.edu
                                   brown@wi.extrel.com
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Monday, 6 Apr 1992 20:15:11 CDT
From: Tom Ascher <U15310@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.video
Subject: NEW PIONEER BLASPHEMY!

Well folks rampant commercialism strikes again.  I just viewed my
latest purchase of a Pioneer offering, a Verdi Opera (Macbeth) on
3 sides, and guess what begins EVERY side?  You guessed it, about
20 seconds of the PIONEER LOGO!!  No more worries about seamless
viewing when you change sides.  No more cares about such trivial
distractions as 'SIDE B'.  Nope.  Just a promo from Pioneer, complete
with picture and sound cutting into the middle of the presentation
every time you change a side!  Has anyone noticed this on any other
presentations?  Like ordinary movies, etc., etc.?  If so, might be
worthy of a letter or two of comlaint to Pioneer.  Anyone have
a person or address to direct such a letter to, where it might
get some notice?  Thanks.
From: jayj@hplvec.LVLD.HP.COM (Jay Johannes)
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 15:46:23 GMT
Subject: Re: SONY TR 91 Camcorder  ?
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Co., Loveland, CO
Newsgroups: rec.video

In rec.video, chan@hpfcmgw.FC.HP.COM (Chan Benson) writes:

>    The Ricoh R88-H has different optics than the Sony TR-81.
>
>    			-- Chan

Where did you read that?  Every report I have seen said that the units
were identical including optics.

  Jay
Xref: sparky rec.video:5951 rec.video.releases:1514