Comments on: 86 This 66: The TV Classic Route 66 Hits a Dead End on the Hi-Def Highway

By: Mark

Mark — Sat, 16 May 2009 01:31:17 +0000

A properly arranged telecine transfer of the film would include full details about the aspect ratio required by the client. This is no mistake by the post production company doing the telecine work. All such organizations doing this type are of work are very aware of all of the issues. I would prefer that all of the material on the film be retained in the telecine transfer, and then cropped to the original for final release. This is possible with the current technology, but it comes with a cost.
I do sympathize with the organization attempting to decide how to release, as we all see 16:9 tv screens displaying 4:3 images stretched out horizontally to fill the screen much of the time. Very few seem to notice that everything and everyone in the picture looks strangely wide, and these are the idiots that want all images to fill the screen. (after all they paid for the real estate)

By: Moshe Kapora

Moshe Kapora — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 01:21:39 +0000

Neville A. Ross, above, mentioned “Shout Factory.”

I was an infant-toddler when the “Route 66″ series was originally broadcast, so I wasn’t acquainted with it; but having always loved both (a) road trips [having traversed the USA several times, once with a wife and 6 kids in tow], and (b) “The Fugitive” TV series with David Janssen (we have all episodes on VHS videotape), I felt that “Route 66″ was a series I should have.

I recently purchased the first 2 seasons of “Route 66″ and all four seasons of “That Girl” during http://www.deepdiscount.com ’s 25%-off sale.

Ignorantly assuming that all old TV series packaged in DVD box sets would be basically the same, I was astonished at the difference in overall quality between the “That Girl” series (excellent in every way, including navigating the DVD, the many types and amount of extras, the picture and sound quality) and “Route 66″ which seemed very amaturish, as if I created the DVD myself on a laptop.

To find out that a full 25% of the picture has been removed – for no good reason – only adds insult to injury!

Thank you very much for this interesting blog.

By: vic

vic — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 17:57:07 +0000

I have both the full-season DVD sets that have been released to date and am eagerly awaiting the subsequent season(s) to be released; I hope these guys get around to it someday soon.

Having never seen the original broadcast series, and being a Route 66 roadie and veteran of nearly 20 roundtrips off-interstate on the old highway in the past 15 years, I didn’t find the DVD’s cropping all that terrible. In fact, I’d have never noticed it were it not for your blog that I found while searching for information on any upcoming releases.

Frankly, if the examples you gave are the worst of it (and why would you use anything less to prove your point?), I think the level of outrage exceeds the harm here. For example, in the Otto gala scene’s opening, there’s plenty of wide-panned view of the entire sign so that we can see what’s going on at the party. The other scenes you featured above seem equally anodyne from version to version.

One thing I noticed, and I’m not sure whether it’s the original camerawork or this tilt and scan zoom/crop job, but there’s some awful camera panning and zooming in some of the earlier episodes that makes one wonder whether the camera operator (or post production “technician”, as may be the case) was paying attention or was watching girls walk by while he was supposed to be filming!

By: Dave Morrison

Dave Morrison — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 17:40:11 +0000

“…without our knowledge.” Yeah, right. That’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve read in this whole debacle. There’s NO way a telecine house would make a decision like that without prior approval. After all, they would almost certainly have to get somebody’s approval on the transfer before it was released to manufacturing. So, SOMEBODY would have to see this transfer and sign off on it. Here’s hoping that Roxbury will allow us all to send in our split-season boxes in exchange for a “proper” transfer in the new box. I can dream, can’t I?

By: David Bordwell

David Bordwell — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 15:18:21 +0000

I’m VERY late to this discussion, but as a fan of ROUTE 66 (saw them in original broadcast when I was a teenager) and a guy interested in aspect ratios, I was fascinated. There would seem to have been some very strange decisions made by Infinity/ Roxbury. But I’m also puzzled. In the frames you show, there is more information on the right side of the 16×9 images than in the 1.33 broadcast versions. We know that films shot for TV allowed for a “safe area” but that ran right around the whole image area, and the left and bottom edges of the 1.33 frame are preserved in the wider images you show. As often happens with films that are shot “full frame” but projected in theatres at 1.85, there is a loss of information at the top (and sometimes the bottom too).
A side note:, in writing a blog entry on aspect ratios in Godard’s films, I found that some DVD releases seem to stretch the frame optically a little to fill out the wider format. (That entry is here: http://www.davidbordwell.net/blog/?p=1592). I don’t think that has happened with the ROUTE 66 frames, but it’s something to watch for in other TV-to-DVD releases.
Anyhow, thanks for a sensitive and serious questioning of this release. As you point out so eloquently, this remarkable series deserves better treatment.

By: Ronny G

Ronny G — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 23:55:23 +0000

Sorry to join in this discussion late, but if what the Infinity spokesman said is true that the fake widescreen effect was done by a post production house “without our knowledge,” than the post production house is at fault and should redo the set at their own expense.

By: Neville A. Ross

Neville A. Ross — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 18:37:09 +0000

What a pretty kettle of sandtrout this is! (a quote from Frank Herbert’s novel Dune.) So, let’s get this straight; Sony Picture is so cheap with regards to it’s old TV programs (although it can give all of the attention to so-called ‘modern classics’ like The Shield http://www.theshieldtv.com/index.php when that’s on DVD)that they farm it out to a sub-company that’s as cheap as frack, to do the work that they should be doing themselves, simply because Route 66 is 40 years too old for them to pay consideration to.

If they wanted to have this released properly, they should have given the DVD rights to Shout Factory (which I believe is part owned by Sony); they would’ve done a better job, as evidenced by their releases of SCTV, Playboy After Dark, and Ironside. What fans of Route 66 should do is complain to Sony and get them to drop the contract with this company, then have Shout Factory pick up the contract to do this show.

By: Wes

Wes — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 02:15:07 +0000

Thank you for your excellent work in taking Infinity to task on this botched DVD set. After reading the disappointing press release with its laughable (and false) excuses for the cropping, it was interesting to see the Infinity spokesman’s comments to you on the fake widescreen effect. Most astonishingly were his comments that this was done by a post production house “without our knowledge,” ultimately causing “a larger problem,” and that the “decision was made without knowing that making it widescreen would ruin the cinematic qualities.” All damning remarks from the horse’s mouth! I can’t imagine they could now continue down this path of “ruining” future volumes of this show.

One thing I might add, which should be pointed out to the inept operator at the post production (butcher) house doing these transfers: All “widescreen” TVs have a ZOOM button, which gives the VIEWER the option to fill the screen (and crop) ANY program material. Their “tilt and scan” is NOT needed (unless they were using it as an excuse to charge more for the labor involved).

Again, THANKS for blowing the whistle here. Maybe the rest of Route 66 can be saved, even if 25% of Vol.2 is now lost.

By: Mark J. Cuccia

Mark J. Cuccia — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 07:42:10 +0000

Thank you for your report on this. I’m relieved to know that I’m not the only one out here who is OUTRAGED by what Infinity/Roxbury did to R-66 on this 2nd-half of Season-One. And yes, I noted that most of the 1st-half of Season-One DVD was 16-mm, some with bad (muffled) audio, but that wasn’t as bad as butchering the tops/bottoms for (unnecessary) forced phony widescreen in the 2nd-half of season-one. And yes, I also notice that some of the 1st-half of season-one ep’s were the “edited-for-syndicated-rerun” versions.

I hope that Sony/Columbia/Screen Gems will “take-back” R-66 for (re)releaseing (properly) on DVD.

By: Stuart Galbraith IV

Stuart Galbraith IV — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 03:19:58 +0000

Speaking of,

I’ve been watching the HD DVD of STAR TREK – SEASON ONE which, of course, is in its correct full-frame aspect ratio.

However, here in Japan NHK is currently also running STAR TREK at 1.78:1 (16:9) — the same as the Japanese HD DVD release — and I’ve been looking at five or ten-minute bits to see how it compares.

The answer is: pretty awful. For one thing, what looks razor sharp in high-def 4:3 looks very grainy blown-up to 16:9. Also, as you’d expect, the framing looks okay here and there, but extremely awkward and distracting most of the time, for the same reasons you point out in your ROUTE 66 screen grabs. One thing I’ve noticed is that STAR TREK looks much worse than KUNG FU’s 16:9 transfer because TREK uses many more tight close-ups and claustrophobic framing where KUNG FU favors wide medium and long shots (and uses real exteriors that invite a more open frame).

Why anyone, especially die-hard STAR TREK fans, would want to see significantly LESS of what they’re intended to see is beyond me.