Blu-ray Review Summertime (1955) Blu-ray Review (1 Viewer)

[andersmo]

In 1954, they would have been exposing 4-perf for open matte, not five like most post-1980s ones. If the Criterion is "inaccurate", it would be that their scan is showing less on the width than the height.

And that missing information would never have been visible in the first place.

5-perf?

Never heard of that, except for 65/70mm film.

 

[Robert Harris]

In 1954, they would have been exposing 4-perf for open matte, not five like most post-1980s ones. If the Criterion is "inaccurate", it would be that their scan is showing less on the width than the height.

And that missing information would never have been visible in the first place.

Five perf?

 

[Lord Dalek]

Sigh...

Shoot in the margins, you're going to gain a extra perf worth of horizontal. Simple as that.

This is why all those "raw" transfers popping up on youtube have been 1.19:1 instead of 1.37.

 

[Will Krupp]

Sigh...

Shoot in the margins, you're going to gain a extra perf worth of horizontal. Simple as that.

View attachment 145038

This is why all those "raw" transfers popping up on youtube have been 1.19:1 instead of 1.37.

4-perf refers to height (as in 4 perfs high.) There aren't (supposed to be) any actual perforations across the horizontal.

In any event, I don't think you're getting what I'm actually saying as regards the cropping. I don't love borrowing screen grabs but, in this case, the Beaver caps will help to illustrate what I mean:

The orginal Criterion DVD:

The RAN blu:

The new Criterion:

All three are the same aspect ratio, yet each one of them has different cropping within the frame. The two blus show different areas in terms of side cropping and there's no guarantee that we're NOW seeing the same area used for matting in 1955. It remains a fool's errand to try to definitively judge what info was contained in the original 1.85:1 aspect ratio by what we're seeing on a home video transfer in 2022.

 

[KeithDA]

I literally have no idea why Criterion chooses to die on the 1.33:1 hill for this film. I mean the fact that there are VISIBLE GATE HAIRS in the transfer should have been enough of a clue.

I'm very late to this aspect ratio discussion, but I've just picked up the Blu from HMV, who are having a bit of a Criterion sale. I've just had a quick look at the picture quality (with more hairs in the gate in another shot ) to compare with my Second Sight DVD.

What is really interesting is that my old DVD is also 1.33.1.......

 

[uncledougie]

This has from all accounts I’ve read never been released in a widescreen aspect ratio, which my perception of various viewpoints I’ve seen results in a consensus that 1.66:1 would be ideal. Looks like if the screenshots are accurate the new Criterion might have a little more picture information, even if it’s part of the frame that maybe shouldn’t be visible.

 

[roxy1927]

So what were Criterion's reasons for releasing it as such when everyone and their grandchildren say they're wrong?
I just can't get past that boner of a cover.

 

[JoshZ]

So what were Criterion's reasons for releasing it as such when everyone and their grandchildren say they're wrong?

That has been discussed ad infinitum in this thread already. Clearly, they think they are correct and everyone else is wrong.

 

[roxy1927]

Yes I figured it was covered many times over. After all this time though I've forgotten and couldn't bear reading all 8 pages of this thread again. It is just odd how this very small group of people(like maybe one-the person who runs the entire shebang)thinks he/she is right and everyone else wrong. I guess maybe it is covered in the notes that come with the disc.

 

[lark144]

I guess maybe it is covered in the notes that come with the disc.

It isn't. Nary a mention of it.

 

[bujaki]

And you can't even ascribe it to the arrogance of ignorance on Criterion's part.

 

[JoshZ]

Yes I figured it was covered many times over. After all this time though I've forgotten and couldn't bear reading all 8 pages of this thread again. It is just odd how this very small group of people(like maybe one-the person who runs the entire shebang)thinks he/she is right and everyone else wrong. I guess maybe it is covered in the notes that come with the disc.

In short, it is believed (though no one at Criterion has spoken on the matter) that the crux of the issue is a framing mismatch between the opening credits and the rest of the movie. The opening credits paintings do not crop well and clip some of the text when matted to 1.66:1 or 1.85:1. Criterion seems to take that as evidence that the entire movie should be open-matte to the full 1.37:1.

 

[uncledougie]

“Open matte is a filming technique that involves matting out the top and bottom of the film frame in the movie projector (known as a soft matte) for the widescreen theatrical release and then scanning the film without a matte (at Academy ratio) for a full screen home video release.”
This is indeed essentially what happened here, although previous posts do show that it was intended to be shown widescreen as was customary by 1955. It’s also true that cropping for widescreen 1.85:1 does appear to be too tight, whereas 1.66:1 looks acceptable. But rather than give viewers a choice of watching in either format, Criterion only put the open matte version on the remastered disc. No doubt they are aware of objections (after all the brouhaha with fans’ and some industry insiders’ public comments), but have no intention of changing the release from their preferred version, so it appears to be a moot point.

 

[lark144]

In short, it is believed (though no one at Criterion has spoken on the matter) that the crux of the issue is a framing mismatch between the opening credits and the rest of the movie. The opening credits paintings do not crop well and clip some of the text when matted to 1.66:1 or 1.85:1. Criterion seems to take that as evidence that the entire movie should be open-matte to the full 1.37:1.

One credit only, that for music, which has a big space at the bottom instead of the top, so the very edge of the words on top are cut off. Clearly, the projectionist balanced the composition by using the projector knob during that one shot.

But we've been over this before. The scenes with the actors was clearly designed for 1:85:1, as Katherine Hepburn is all the way on the bottom of every frame, and if you zoom in, suddenly, instead of all that empty space, the frames become not only better composed and dynamic, but tell a very specific story in terms of where people and buildings are in the frame, in terms of the diagonals and placements, which is lost when you go to open matte. In other words, in 1:85:1 it looks like a David Lean film from the concise manner in which it's composed, whereas in open matte, it looks like an amateur did it.

 

[roxy1927]

My goodness. I've already written that when I saw it in revival houses a very very long time ago it was never shown in 1.33:1 and most films I saw were in that aspect ratio so it would have stood out. Therefore I think I am remembering correctly. Bummer.

 

[lark144]

My goodness. I've already written that when I saw it in revival houses a very very long time ago it was never shown in 1.33:1 and most films I saw were in that aspect ratio so it would have stood out. Therefore I think I am remembering correctly. Bummer.

Yeah. I remember when Frank Rowley showed a Technicolor IB print at the Bombay Cinema, it was projected 1:85:1. The only reason to present it open matte, is you get to see more of the buildings, which is lovely. But this way, David Lean's storytelling acumen and delicacy in the way he uses images is turned into a mockery. Another possible rationalization is that the second unit footage--which Lean may have had nothing to do with--looks as though it may have been composed for Academy. But it's fairly generic, with very wide framing that fits !:85:1 well enough if not perfectly. Nothing is cut off. It's only there to give you a sense of place. The footage with the actors, however, is clearly designed and composed for !;85:1 and presenting it open matte really wrecks the both the beauty of the images and the mood, as well as the logic of the story. Because of all that open space, you're unable to notice Rossano Brassi looking at her from an adjoining table, as they're swamped by crowds and architecture, but if you zoom in, the composition is balanced to show them on either side of the frame, and it appears their meeting is inevitable. The same thing happens the first time she enters the shop, in open matte, the vase is a speck in the center, and the two of them are lost in that cavernous space, but zoom in and the two of them are almost in close-up on either side, with the red vase in the middle, the color bleeding onto their faces from the light coming through the window. That's magical, whereas the shot as presented by Criterion isn't. Zoom in to an approximation of 1:85:1 and there's a real sense of intimacy, romance and visual aplomb. Watch it open matte, and it turns into a run of the mill travelogue.

 

[roxy1927]

The first time I saw it was a Frank Rowley presentation(I hope he's doing well. A wonderful programmer) so it could have been the Biograph(Bombay)rather than the Regency.

 

[Robert Harris]

4-perf refers to height (as in 4 perfs high.) There aren't (supposed to be) any actual perforations across the horizontal.

In any event, I don't think you're getting what I'm actually saying as regards the cropping. I don't love borrowing screen grabs but, in this case, the Beaver caps will help to illustrate what I mean:

The orginal Criterion DVD:
View attachment 145040

The RAN blu:
View attachment 145041

The new Criterion:
View attachment 145042

All three are the same aspect ratio, yet each one of them has different cropping within the frame. The two blus show different areas in terms of side cropping and there's no guarantee that we're NOW seeing the same area used for matting in 1955. It remains a fool's errand to try to definitively judge what info was contained in the original 1.85:1 aspect ratio by what we're seeing on a home video transfer in 2022.

The film was not projected in 1955 as it is now being seen. Never was. Nor was any other film.

 

[Stefan Andersson]

Was Summertime shot in three-strip Technicolor? Or on monopack Eastmancolor, with processing and dye transfer prints by Technicolor?

Discussion here; starts with post 34:

22 Summertime - Page 2 - criterionforum.org