Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Blu-ray and UHD' started by Bob Furmanek, Mar 20, 2012.
Yes, I believe 1.85 is correct.
Bob, I can't believe that Criterion, for no reason, rejected Ron Furmanek's mono mix.
This makes me want to pass on AHDN on Blu-Ray for the second time, and just get the 1984 VHS version instead.
The Criterion A Hard Day's Night will have three audio tracks:
- uncompressed monaural
- uncompressed stereo
- 5.1 DTS-HD Master Audio
Screencaps of Riot in Cell Block 11 are now up at Blu-ray.com and DVD Beaver. It looks exactly as expected. This is how it'll look at my house anyway:
Just to add to this, his preceding film Little Malcolm I've just remembered is presented 1.85:1 on Blu-ray by the BFI also. Why go from 1.85:1 to 1.66:1 back to 1.85:1? I'm fairly sure these things were standardised by the mid-70s!
Neither reviewer seems to realize the film should be widescreen.
It would be interesting to know if the commentary, regarding "the production history" and "visual style of the film", even mentions that it was the very first of Walter Wanger's productions to be in widescreen, and that the disc itself doesn't offer this version at all.
Of course, it won't.
Nick, I'll be anxious to hear your report after you've viewed the film in 1.66:1. Please pay attention to the constant tilting of the camera.
I would also like to hear comments from other knowledgeable individuals after viewing the disc.
In addition to Mr. Bernstein, Criterion should have utilized a film scholar with an understanding of cinematic techniques relevant to the production of the film in August 1953...
I'm curious as to how Svet gave it a 5.0 for image, even though the review states at the top that the original aspect ratio is 1.66. Even with top picture quality, shouldn't the score be marked down due to incorrect presentation?
That section is just the listing information, which is submitted by users rather than the reviewer. Svet may be unaware of any debate around the AR, and regardless, he tends to lean towards the 1.37:1 camp in these debates.
There's got to be one reviewer out there who gets it...
Glenn Erickson knows the score, as I'm sure you're aware. He even points out the likelihood of Les Diaboliques being 1.66:1 in his review:
Yes, he certainly does. I look forward to his review!
Bump, hoping for some solid confirmation that the UK version is fixed.
These comments suggest it might be:
To me that person just confirms they don't know and it looks right to them, i am highly doubtful.
One commentator does say he has compared his disc with caps of the U.S. disc and believes they are different. Still not a confirmation of course.
Going by those dates, the other two titles that Studio Canal are releasing on Blu-ray, An Inspector Calls and Hobson's Choice, were shot before 17th December 2013 as they were classified by the BBFC by 27th November 1953 and 5th January 1954 respectively.
The Belles of St Trinians obtained its certificate on 23rd July 1954 and shooting had not begun by the beginning of January 1954 when it was written in the Cine Techinician's magazine
"Two more pictures, The Belles of St. Trinian's and The Brute are due to start before the end of January."
Our combined evidence clearly shows that this film was shot for a widescreen ratio of 1.8.
Yeah, unfortunately, many of the people posting on Amazon UK and saying the disc looks fine are not grasping what the issue is.
They're declaring "it's widescreen and looks like 2.35, so the aspect ratio is correct, and what's your problem?" Someone said something to the effect that "this obviously isn't Academy stretched to widescreen, so what's the problem?"
I posted this in the My Fair Lady thread aa The Big Country was mentioned:
A few weeks ago Amazon was showing a new UK version and in the comments somebody reported that it had the correct aspect ratio. I attempted a chat but he only replied once to say it was fine. I offered to meet and play the two versions side by side but no answer.
Does anybody know whether this Amazon UK release has corrected aspect ratio or was that person wrong, not having seen the US release?
Since then another Amazon buyer has replied also believing that the UK version is corrected and suggesting I buy it. Before I do, does anybody know anything definite?
Optically converting TLA to CS uses a standard 50% de-anamorphosis, yielding 35mm elements that would be correct. All that was necessary to create a 2.35 Blu-ray, would have been a very slight crop top and bottom.One too many digital tools being used for the US release. Have no info re foreign. To answer the query above this one in thread, MFL was affected in a similar way on its initial laser release, also not being being properly de-anamorphosized.RAH