Member since:
September 2002
John,
Great review!!! It looks like video and audio are not different from the previous release. Do you recommend this as an upgrade? I know you hate to answer this question but I will like ur thoughts on this..
--Ranjan
Member since:
August 2004
Wow, you guys got this thing way ahead of release date. If it's ready, why do they wait? I know I probably sound naive asking this but I don't quite understand the need to make us salivate.
Member since:
March 2002
Product needs to be available well in advance for the following reasons:
1) to ensure quality control (just in case a batch of DVDs is not pressed properly)
2) to make sure that orders from retailers are met
3) to give retailers time to prep for shipping or displaying products.
Member since:
September 2002
Eddie,
Nice job in explaining. Looks like an MBA graduate is talking;). Last but not least -
4) For marketing purposes. The product is shipped to reviewers like in dvdtown, ahead of time so that consumers can see the quality of a product, if they are interested in purchasing it.
--Ranjan
Member since:
March 2002
Finally! A DVD I can watch and take a nap all at the same time.
Member since:
September 2002
Tim,
I recommend that you buy this one along with Gone with the Wind and Titanic. You will have full dose for sleep for days!
--Ranjan
Member since:
March 2002
Ranjan,
As I said in the review (I think), the sound quality remains the same, but the picture looks ever so much, just a tiny degree, brighter and crisper.
John
Member since:
August 2004
Where exactly is this new footage? Is it greatly noticeable, or did they simply add the time to the intermission and en'tracte?
Member since:
July 2003
This is indeed 2:50.1 and the previous release was 2:44.1? Every other review I looked at for the previous release stated that was 2:76.1.
Member since:
March 2002
Most DVD reviewers, including most of the reviewers here at DVD Town, quote the screen dimensions from the back of the keep case. I do, too, but most often I also measure the film's actual dimensions on the TV screen.
As I said in the review, the 2.76:1 number was the original MGM Camera 65 (65mm) screen size shown theatrically. But I have seldom encountered a transfer on DVD that matches a film's theatrical ratio. Most TVs overscan; that is, they cut out between 5% and 10% of the screen image left and right (a condition that can be adjusted by a video technician if it bothers you). What's more, transfer engineers sometimes abbreviate the screen size, and the transfer process itself probably loses the film a few more pixels.
The 2.50:1 number I mention in the review is the ratio I actually measured across two television screens at my house (one HD TV and one regular TV). If and when you get the new DVD set, measure it yourself (in regular mode, not in some sort of stretch mode). I think you'll see what I mean.
Incidentally, the 2.50:1 ratio is among the widest I've ever measured for any DVD movie on any television set I've owned.
Finally, as Onijay and others have pointed out, the difference in timing as marked on the keep cases of this new edition and the previous edition is apparently WB's counting or not counting the various musical interludes.
John
Member since:
September 2004
John, Will they ever put El Cid on DVD?
Member since:
March 2002
"Will they ever put El Cid on DVD?" --dmwarner
Well, nothing is for certain, but I believe that in time all things come to pass. With "El Cid" there may be legal complications. It was produced by the Samuel Bronston Company, distributed by Allied Artists and then by Miramax in rerelease. On video it was issued by Best Film, VCI, and United, and on Laserdisc by Criterion. My guess is that the DVD issue is up for grabs.
John
