'Lonesome Dove' - High-Def Digest Review

[Attebery]

Kenneth's review has been posted for 'Lonesome Dove.' He says it's a rewarding western mini-series. The Blu-ray isn't perfect, but it offers a decent technical presentation of problematic audio and video that's an improvement over the standard DVD releases. Worth a look.

Full review here:
http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/1512/lonesomedove.html

[Jimbo976]

Thanks for the review. I watched this last week and really enjoyed it a lot. I was disappointed with the PQ in many parts but overall it was ok.

[ZebraMajor]

Am I wrong or did the review totally dodge the reframed aspect ratio controversy? This deserved at least a mention in the PQ section.

[Jimbo976]

Part of the special features on the disc has the Director saying he is glad that his work in finally going to be able to be presented in widescreen format. I don't see how there is a controversy.

[Ken Brown]

Originally Posted by ZebraMajor

Am I wrong or did the review totally dodge the reframed aspect ratio controversy? This deserved at least a mention in the PQ section.

No dodging. I just wasn't aware of an aspect ratio controversy. Would you mind elaborating on what it is and where the controversy stems from? Thanks!

[Jimbo976]

Well this was filmed for and shown on TV in 4:3 format. It was never shown in theatres and never shown before in widescreen other than possibly for a test screening for critics before it was on TV.

[Ken Brown]

Originally Posted by Jimbo976

Well this was filmed for and shown on TV in 4:3 format. It was never shown in theatres and never shown before in widescreen other than possibly for a test screening for critics before it was on TV.

Ah. I was confused when the word "controversy" was used since that implies dissatisfaction amongst fans. Perhaps zebra was referring to some controversy at the time of its original broadcast.

Anyway, the miniseries was filmed in widescreen (as a result of possible international theatrical distribution), but was presented in 4:3 on domestic television. However, since the original image wasn't reformatted for this Blu-ray release in any way, fans are getting 'Lonesome Dove' as it was ideally meant to be seen. The full screen version can officially be forgotten

[ZebraMajor]

The controversy I was referring to was the reframing from 4:3 to widescreen. Leading up to the Blu-ray release there were a lot of LD fans angry on various boards regarding:

- the reframing itself (loss of top/bottom picture info vs. gaining side picture info.)
- the director's involvement, if any
- the exhibitor's screenings in widescreen prior to the original TV broadcast
- unhappiness that the original 4:3 framing is not included and/or will be ultimately replaced by the widescreen reframing
- unhappiness that a trend may emerge of reframing 4:3 to suit HDTV owners

If "controversy" meant unhappiness in the fans then the word fits. Some people were really burned up by it.

I'm generally a purist at heart so reframing is generally a bad thing to me. I'll admit the screen caps I saw looked pretty good and left me with the impression they were being as respectful as possible.

Ken, I'd be curious to know what you thought of the reframing, if you get the opportunity to compare. I was waiting for the LD review since the set was released and was looking forward to feedback on the framing changes. I probably should've used a different word that "dodging." I honestly though the framing issue was common knowledge and found it curious it wasn't mentioned.

[ZebraMajor]

Originally Posted by Ken Brown

Ah. I was confused when the word "controversy" was used since that implies dissatisfaction amongst fans. Perhaps zebra was referring to some controversy at the time of its original broadcast.

Anyway, the miniseries was filmed in widescreen (as a result of possible international theatrical distribution), but was presented in 4:3 on domestic television. However, since the original image wasn't reformatted for this Blu-ray release in any way, fans are getting 'Lonesome Dove' as it was ideally meant to be seen. The full screen version can officially be forgotten

That's a slippery slope. I guess I should forget Han shot first too. Lots of films were shot in a different aspect ratio than their "official," original, theatrical presentation. Does that justify mucking with the framing years later? To some people this is just as bad as pan-and-scan. IMO, the reframing was partially a marketing hook to get consumers interested in the product again and hopefully generate some home video repurchases. Director's intent, not so much.

[krylonman]

Originally Posted by ZebraMajor

That's a slippery slope. I guess I should forget Han shot first too. Lots of films were shot in a different aspect ratio than their "official," original, theatrical presentation. Does that justify mucking with the framing years later? To some people this is just as bad as pan-and-scan. IMO, the reframing was partially a marketing hook to get consumers interested in the product again and hopefully generate some home video repurchases. Director's intent, not so much.

I think you may have missed what he was saying; this has nothing to do with the type of director's intent that has directors tinkering with films years after completion. Since they were shot in 35mm, it wasn't unusual for high-profile TV productions to be released in theaters overseas ('Salem's Lot' is the only other one I can think of right off); with that in mind they were usually shot in soft matte. On TV they'd show a 1.33:1 frame that represented everything exposed on the film, and in theaters the top and bottom would be matted off to 1.85:1 or so. These productions were shot with full knowledge that this would happen and framed accordingly (with nothing important outside the "safe areas"), so this isn't a case of someone else swooping in and mangling the movie after the fact.

It's quite possible that's the case with 'Lonesome Dove' and nothing is being mucked with at all. Someone should compare this with an earlier release; if they end up finding that everything is in the vertical center on the Blu-ray all the way through--that you'd get the same exact framing just by covering up the top and bottom of an older release, and not that it's being moved up and down to catch action on the top/bottom/wherever of the frame from shot to shot--that's probably what it is.

[Ken Brown]

Originally Posted by ZebraMajor

The controversy I was referring to was the reframing from 4:3 to widescreen. Leading up to the Blu-ray release there were a lot of LD fans angry on various boards regarding:

- the reframing itself (loss of top/bottom picture info vs. gaining side picture info.)
- the director's involvement, if any
- the exhibitor's screenings in widescreen prior to the original TV broadcast
- unhappiness that the original 4:3 framing is not included and/or will be ultimately replaced by the widescreen reframing
- unhappiness that a trend may emerge of reframing 4:3 to suit HDTV owners

If "controversy" meant unhappiness in the fans then the word fits. Some people were really burned up by it.

I'm generally a purist at heart so reframing is generally a bad thing to me. I'll admit the screen caps I saw looked pretty good and left me with the impression they were being as respectful as possible.

Ken, I'd be curious to know what you thought of the reframing, if you get the opportunity to compare. I was waiting for the LD review since the set was released and was looking forward to feedback on the framing changes. I probably should've used a different word that "dodging." I honestly though the framing issue was common knowledge and found it curious it wasn't mentioned.

Hm... interesting. I would agree that reframing would be a controversial/worrisome thing if a full screen print were artificially reframed as a widescreen print (by lopping off the top and bottom of the image), but as far as I understand it, the 'Lonesome Dove' picture hasn't been cut off or cropped in any way. It's simply being presented in its original widescreen ratio. If anything, the original broadcast should be condemned for presenting the miniseries in full screen when it was filmed in widescreen.

Let me know if you find a source with comparison screenshots. Obviously, if portions of the image have been cut out by a reframing process, I'd like to update the review with the new information.

[Ken Brown]

Originally Posted by krylonman

Since they were shot in 35mm, it wasn't unusual for high-profile TV productions to be released in theaters overseas ('Salem's Lot' is the only other one I can think of right off); with that in mind they were usually shot in soft matte. On TV they'd show a 1.33:1 frame that represented everything exposed on the film, and in theaters the top and bottom would be matted off to 1.85:1 or so. These productions were shot with full knowledge that this would happen and framed accordingly (with nothing important outside the "safe areas"), so this isn't a case of someone else swooping in and mangling the movie after the fact.

It's quite possible that's the case with 'Lonesome Dove' and nothing is being mucked with at all. Someone should compare this with an earlier release; if they end up finding that everything is in the vertical center on the Blu-ray all the way through--that you'd get the same exact framing just by covering up the top and bottom of an older release, and not that it's being moved up and down to catch action on the top/bottom/wherever of the frame from shot to shot--that's probably what it is.

Agreed. As I understand it, the widescreen edition is the original and director-intended version of the miniseries.

Still, let me know if anyone finds specific framing info as it pertains to 'Lonesome Dove' and I'll add a blurb to the review if necessary.

Thanks as always for posting!

[ZebraMajor]

I typed up a lengthy reply this morning but the system ate it when I hit Post. I'll follow up later tonight or tomorrow morning when I get time.

[Hastor]

I'm just wondering why this got 1/2 star for HD Bonus content when the review simply lists "Nothing." under the heading. Add to that that some extras were dropped from the DVD and the ones kept are presented in SD. What keeps it from being zero on this rating?

[Ken Brown]

Originally Posted by Hastor

I'm just wondering why this got 1/2 star for HD Bonus content when the review simply lists "Nothing." under the heading. Add to that that some extras were dropped from the DVD and the ones kept are presented in SD. What keeps it from being zero on this rating?

Thanks for catching that -- it was simply an error. I updated the scores to reflect 0 stars for HD exclusives. Sorry if I caused any confusion.

Thanks as always for posting!