The Last Emperor on Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[Stephen_J_H]

Playing devil's advocate: to be fair to Mr. Storaro, I think what he was initially aiming for was a great idea: an aspect ratio that would effectively sit at a midpoint between 1.66:1 and 2.35:1 (I say 1.66:1 because Mr. Storaro is more familiar with European TV standards, which have a wider AR than NTSC). His early papers suggest the Univisium format as being universal for film and future television standards @ the time, which may not have been a bad idea, except for all the black bar haters who would have had to deal with black bars pretty much all the time; if not top and bottom, then on the sides. That being said, we still experience that issue at 1.78:1.

As well, consider this: how many cinemas are there out there that don't crop 2.35/2.39:1 at the sides? And yes, I have seen it as bad as 2.0:1.

 

[Jari K]

I wasn´t aware, that cinemas "crop" 2.35:1/2.40:1 from the sides? I guess it could happen, I don´t know...

In any case, I don´t see the connection with this and the Blu-ray/DVD-version of "The Last Emperor". If some cinemas "crop" movies, DVD/BD-version should too? Or - it really doesn´t matter (cropping), if "cinemas" are already doing that? I fail to see the point..

Btw. There are some DVD-releases, that have 1.78.1/1.85:1 "open matte"-version of 2.35:1-film, shot in "Super 35" (from the top of my head, at least some versions of "Gosford Park"). Same thing with many 1.85:1-films from the 1980s (4:3 "open matte"-version released on DVD). With these, I also prefer "theatrical aspect ratio", even when these "open matte"-versions actually have additional information...

My point is, that give me the OAR (=theatrical*). Rest are just alternate versions.

*..with some exceptions, of course..

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Would we say the same of Lucas told us that his Blu-ray versions of the Star Wars saga were going to be cropped down to 2.0:1?

 

[Mike Frezon]

Vittorio Storaro ruined my childhood!

 

[cafink]

If that were to be the only alteration affecting the Blu-ray release of the Star Wars trilogy, I would be ecstatic.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

I guess prefacing my comments with "playing devil's advocate" had no effect. :rolleyes

In any event, the last comment was designed to defuse those who say "I want to see it exactly how I saw it in the theatre." You mean, cropped on the sides, with print damage, blown speakers, visible splice marks and missing frames? Faded colour?

There comes a time when we have to assess for ourselves what the actual damage is to a film when presented in a modified aspect ratio rather than what the aperture would normally dictate. James Cameron and others were shooting in Super 35 at the same time to minimise the negative effects of their films being released on video in a 1.33:1 format; why is it so hard to believe that Storaro was shooting for 2.0:1 to protect and possibly change the world of home presentation?

Just because the frame is cropped does not mean that we're being deprived of essential information. Open matte transfers taught us that a long time ago.
Again, playing devil's advocate and encouraging others to consider a different viewpoint.

 

[cafink]

Because in the 2:1 version, different scenes are cropped differently with respect to the full 2.35:1 version. Some scenes use the center of the frame, cropping the left and right sides equally. Other scenes use one side or the other, cropping the opposite side. If Storaro was really framing the film for 2:1 while protecting the full 2.35:1 frame, wouldn't the cropping be consistent throughout the film?

And even if you believe that Storaro was composing for 2:1 while using different parts of the frame for some reason, consider that many scenes are cropped differently in the "television" version than they are in the theatrical version, both of which are presented on Criterion's DVD release. So which of these versions represents the "correct" 2:1 framing?

 

[Peter Neski]

"why is it so hard to believe that Storaro was shooting for 2.0:1 to protect and possibly change the world of home presentation?"

I would guess you don't own the 2.35:1 Pal version where People aren't
either cut in Half or missing from some shots.Like I said the Apocayple Now
redux print I saw in the Theatre was around 2.35:1 ,not 2.1 like the video

 

[Douglas Monce]

Not unless he always intended to slide the 2.0 image across the 2.35 to get a more pleasing final TV version.

If you watch the documentary on T2 comparing the letterboxed with the full screen versions, you'll see that even the letterboxed version doesn't just stay in the center of the image all the time. Sometimes they are panning and zooming with in the full image area of the super 35 frame.

The answer to the last question would be the version that Storaro supervised.

Doug

 

[Douglas Monce]

The only thing I've seen where people are half cut off are the litter bearers who are walking toward the camera and probably moving in and out of the frame as they go. I haven't seen anything where someone who is actually important to the shot is cut off in such a way.

Doug

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Actually, as far as I could tell (from the screen caps and my own nasty old R1 DVD), he probably did *not* do that. There seems to be a fair bit of panning and scanning going on w/ the new MAR-ed version, which suggests that it's mostly (if not completely all) revisionism on his part.

If you might recall, I pointed this out in my comparisons in the old SD thread -- don't remember the post # now.

_Man_

 

[Douglas Monce]

Could very well be.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

In that case, I think the better question is whether T2 was actually shot to be presented that way theatrically or is that (re)framing only a matter for the letterboxed home video version viewed on SD TVs (most of which were much smaller than what's common today).

Let's not lose sight of why we even want OAR here. It's not about what one or two filmmakers think looks best on a smallish SD TV, but about getting as close to the originally intended theatrical experience as possible. As many have said so far, if they must provide a MAR-ed version to cater to the masses because they think people are still sticking w/ smallish SD TVs, then give us 2 versions and not force us to go "MAR or nothing at all". That this is happening through Criterion and apparently Criterion's parent(?) company also now owns all the home video rights to the film just make the matter that much worse. I probably can't even hope that some 3rd party will strike a new OAR transfer (and try to just match the PQ to the Criterion/Storaro reference w/out Storaro's involvement) and release it for those of us who care. :frowning:

_Man_

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Had he really wanted 2:1 framing, why weren't the theatrical prints made with that aspect ratio? It could have been acheived by side-masking in a standard 2.35:1 projection system (hard-matted on the print itself... like Blair Witch was matted to 1.33:1 on standard 1.85:1 prints).

If it made sense to "open it up" to the full 2.35:1 width for wide-angle theater viewing, then my front-projection screen should be treated in the same manner.

Hearing him talk about his preference for 2:1, "small television screens" always seems to come into the conversation. I don't think that many film-artists fully grasp that "home video" in the brave new world of large-screen 1080p isn't bound by the same limitations of what they remember from their days of collecting laserdiscs and VHS.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

The reason 2:1 prints weren't made for theatres is simple: too much for the lab to screw up. When you're centering a 1.33:1 image in a 1.85:1 frame, whether or not it's perfectly centred is a moot point. Part of the reason that Superscope (the godfather of Super 35) switched from 2:1 to 2.35:1 was that the image was off-centre in theatres set up for CinemaScope and this is much more noticeable with small side bars than wide ones, as counterintuitive as that may sound. Granted, they could have put narrow bars on both sides, but that's putting a lot of power in the labs' hands.

I appreciate your comments about large screen 1080p, David, but you need to remember that setups like yours are the exception rather than the rule.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Already the proliferation of large-screen direct-view 1080p sets has overtaken the world of conventional 27" NTSC sets that dominated just five years earlier.

In another five years, it won't be uncommon to see 50+ screen sizes as "normal". Just five years ago, at AVS they laughed at folks like me who suggested that "one day we'll have 1080p HDTVs". And now you see 1080p HDTVs on sale at Costco. My next prophesy will come true as well: Once LED light source hits in the next couple of years, projection costs will come down and quality will go up... with lamps that never need replacing. Front projection for the masses will be a reality in less than a decade. Don't let your 1080p software get "dumbed down" for small screens... your 1080p collection will last a whole lot longer than your current TV.


The same was true for 16x9 TVs in the late 1990's. But in hindsight that fact wasn't the best rationale for the studios to hold back anamorphic encoding for fear of "downconversion artifacts" or to avoid the costs for new 16x9 transfers. Yet even on forums like this, most folks couldn't see past their 4x3 interlaced TV even as late as 1999. Funny how those same folks are all 16x9 equipped today. Let's not make the same mistake and assume we won't be enjoying large-screen 1080p in another few short years.

 

[Vincent_P]

Just out of curiosity, were people around here just as upset when David Fincher reframed SEVEN shot-by-shot for the second DVD release? Sure, the shape of the frame is still 2.35:1, but he had it reframed up and down throughout (SEVEN being a Super-35 film, this wasn't at all hard to do), sometimes actually adding digital tilts during shots. Did this alteration of the theatrical framing cause any sort of an uproar around here akin to some of the venom that's been thrown Storaro's way? Should a future HD media versions of SEVEN feature the same reframing, will they incur any uproar? Or is it only wrong when Vittorio Storaro does it?

Vincent

 

[Mike Frezon]

I suppose a search on the subject would tell you.

 

[Peter Neski]

"haven't seen anything where someone who is actually important to the shot is cut off in such a way."

Doug have you done a side by side with the pal one? do you own the pal
one? or are you going by the beaver DVD page,

 

[Douglas Monce]

I don't have any way of watching a PAL disc. I'm just going by the screen shots that I have seen, which I assume most everyone else here is as well. Do you own the new version?

Doug