Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

Hear, hear, Josh.

Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

I'm much more bothered by the possible lack of a 5.1 track on this disc. Storaro cropping a scope image is old news. The first widescreen Apocalypse Now transfer was in 1991! But this movie had a six track mix theatrically and Criterion should work to preserve that on this set.

Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

Two quick points:

Original 35mm prints of Ben-Hur had black mattes at the top and bottom of the frame, not the sides.

TLE still has black bars at the top and bottom at 2:1.

Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

There would be nothing to gain. TLE was a mono surround release and any low frequences in the six-track mix are possibly replicated as crossover bass.

Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

Right. So I'm not quite sure what your purpose is in repeating what happened with GWTW & Ben-Hur in this thread about TLE. To my mind, they have no application at all to this discussion.


And you may. Normally, I would, too. I, however, am not so sure...based on his potential motivations and prior actions.

===================

Does anyone know WHEN that "white paper" (the .pdf file that Jeff linked-to earlier) was actually written by Storaro?

Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

Sigh...

Go have a look at the 2nd shot (of the palace garden scene) in the DVD Beaver review and tell me how you can argue that was composed for 2.0:1 ratio, assuming the R2 PAL version isn't already zoomed-and-cropped like the old R1 NTSC version. Also, I would argue even the 3rd shot (of Pu Yi seated in his human carriage) would be too tight if cropped to 2.0:1 considering the positions of the 2 carriage carriers, ie. their faces would be either partially cropped or pressed right up against the side of the frame.

RE: the issue of leaving some margin for error in theatrical presentation, how 'bout sticking w/ the OAR and doing the same for the home presentation?? Not everyone has a display completely free of overscan afterall. I suppose Criterion could windowbox the DVD transfer, but why go through the trouble of doing that while lopping off signficant portions of the frame anyway?

And please do *not* suggest this particular case is simply OAR fanaticism at work w/out actually making sure for yourself that a demand for OAR is unwarranted. While I understand and agree that it's usually best to defer to the creators of the film to determine what's best/right for presentation of the film, there does seem to be enough question marks regarding Storaro's stance that we should not automatically assume he's right on the matter. It may indeed turn out that he is right and the 2.0:1 presentation would be best for the DVD (and the eventual HDM as well), but IMHO, we don't really know that right now.


Exactly!

_Man_

Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

The site states 2.0. Whether a 5.1 (or 4.1, depending on whether the 70mm mix had split surrounds) is appropriate would be determined by how the 6 track was created. If it was a simple matter of splitting out the matrixed Dolby Surround track to each of the channels, then 2.0 is appropriate. However, if a dedicated 6 track mix was created for 70mm from the original audio stems, then at the very least a 4.1 track should be available.

Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

I missed this question earlier, but in an attempt to help answer that question, I opened up the PDF in Adobe Acrobat to see if there is useful info buried w/in. That PDF was apparently created in 3/1998 w/ Adobe PageMill v2.0 via Acrobat PDFWriter v2.0. However, it seems impossible to know the actual date of origin since the PDF info suggests that's just the final output date in PDF form. The document could've been created (and edited a number of times) well before that date. Still, I doubt that the major portion of it could've been written all that many years beforehand. Of course, Storaro could still have conceived of the crux of it well before the production of TLE (and shot TLE accordingly as his blurb in the PDF states).

In any case, I doubt knowing the actual/exact creation date of that document will help...

_Man_

Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

Well...it mentions LaserDisc, tape & CD-ROM as media to which images could be transferred.

I figured if we knew when it was written, maybe it could pin down some things (or at least give some guidance) in relation to his claims about TLE. Maybe not.

Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

Not only that, but he mentions quite a bit about the AR of HDTV too though he quoted 1.79:1 instead of 1.78:1 or 1.77:1. And considering that, it seems like a substantial portion of his reasoning (or argument) for pushing Univision is based on the already established AR of HDTV.


What we probably want to know is when he actually conceived of the 2.0:1 AR as being the ideal -- and would thus compose his works accordingly even despite the fact that his ideal will likely not be well received for years to come, if ever. It may also be possible that he might've started composing in 2.0:1 semi-experimentally in his works before concluding that it's his ideal, and it's possible that TLE could be one such project for him. Perhaps, he might've even composed only certain shots at 2.0:1 w/in projects that started out as 2.35:1 -- that could potentialy explain how the couple shots I mentioned look too tight in 2.0:1 while the one shown in the PDF looks a bit too loose in 2.35:1 (and could very well be a true 2.0:1 composition though w/ essentially zero margin for error in presentation).

Of course, these are just complete speculations on my part.

_Man_

Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

Can we assume, as a clue, that the paper was written after 1998 since it uses an image from Carlos Suara's Tango, no me dejes nunca?

Your .pdf "investigation" may be spot-on , after all!

The paper also mentions a film Messiah that "is to be filmed...1:2" but I cannot locate any information about it.


Exactly. And since he makes the reference to composing TLE 2:1 in this paper, I figured there might be some indication or clue that could help us sort things out if it was written closer to the filming of TLE.

Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

HERE'S ANOTHER TLE screencap I stumbled upon which also calls into question a 2:1 composition (unless you only lose information from the right-hand side of the frame).

Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

That may be the case NOW, but I don't know if it was the case in 1979, or even 1987. My guess is that Storaro had the 70mm and 35mm hour glass markings on the view finder for both of the 1987 films, and maybe even Apocalypse Now. I strongly doubt it had a 2:1 hour glass marking for any of the films, which is what this whole issue is really about.
Oh so sorry, 2% difference. I divided 2.0 by 2.4. 2.35:1 hasn't been a theatrical format for 40 odd years.
I don't think the average viewer can tell the difference, and if they could I don't think they would care.

I don't know what this has to do with Storaro revising his films 20 years after the fact.

Re: Storraro Crops Last Emperor???

It's weird how someone who makes his living off of visuals prefers to vandalize his own work. To each his own, I guess.

Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

"Apocalypse Now" is clealy cropped and about 30% of the Picture is missing
Something that really hurts the design of the frame,Which I would think
coppola had something to do with,Bertollucci credits storraro with Lighting
saying "I take care of everything else" ,I would take that to mean camera
angles and framming
When AN Redux came out in theatres it was 2.35:1!!!

The last Emperor might be a different story,All I know is it was shown in
2.35;1,And the Fine (New Transfer)Pal dvds are 2.35:1 and the framing
looks great,
The so called "average viewer " is not spending 45.00 $for dvds
They get them at wal mart for 8.00$

Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

I can confirm that Apocalypse Now: Redux looked fine at 2.35:1 in the Megaplex I saw it in (playing on the biggest screen in the Megaplex I may add).

Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

If Storaro had painted The Last Supper it would now show Jesus and his ten disciples.

Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

While I love ET,Its hardly a film you remenber that used the picture frame
like films like Kane ,or most Leone films,


One classic example of great design of the frame is "Apocalypse now"
Its hurts that it is Storaro the great,doing this,I don't get it



cropping 10-20 % off the sides of the frame for a film like ET ,Is hardly
the same thing as 30% off a film like Apocalypse Now ,Which has things
going on all over the frame.

Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

E.T. was only cited as an example of a film composed knowing that there is variance between theatres in terms of presentation. As far as Apocalypse Now goes, I think it can successfully be argued that Storaro composed his shots knowing that Coppola was intending the 70mm blowup to be his showcase and so may be protected for 2.21:1. The issue seems to be at what point Storaro had his 2:1 "epiphany".

Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

There's a problem inherent in relying on screencaps to determine the correct AR: cinema is not a static medium, and while some scenes have the framing "locked off" (static shots), others do not. I can't tell from a screencap whether a scene is a tracking shot, a vertical pan, or the like.

Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

I can pretty much guarantee that it was the case in 1987, as the rise of the multiplex "shoebox" theatres occurred in the early 80s. Constant width theatres have pretty much been the standard since that time, and this time period also coincides with the rise of automation and platter systems, resulting in less care being taken with presentation. As for 1979, it would depend on the theatre. Keep in mind that I'm not defending Storaro's decision on Apocalypse Now.

This has more to do with your question as to why a DP like Storaro would continue to work in the anamorphic domain if he's not going to use the full width of the scope format.

Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

I agree that certain shots might not be static, and that could make a real difference. But all it'd take is to pop your favorite version of TLE into the player and verify it for yourself, no? Since some of us are concerned enough to discuss/debate this matter at length, surely it would be worth our time to do just that? If I can find time tonight (or more likely over the weekend), I'll do just that myself. It's been a long while since I've watched TLE though I definitely don't relish revisiting that awful, non-16x9 R1 version on my RPTV.

_Man_

Re: Storraro Crops Last Emperor???

Robert Harris made a very good post about this yesterday in the other TLE thread.

Re: Storraro Crops Last Emperor???

Shrinking a 35mm Panavision film down to 720x480 (more like 720x365) and using MPEG2 compression is vandalism in itself when you think about it.

Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

Not to mention that the R1 is cropped to begin with.

Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

Well, you can use a computer to capture the exact frame after the edit from one shot to a new one. Problem solved. They're not "standard" in Australia. They are common, but not standard.
Good, because it's indefensible.
This is why I think shooting anamorphic, and cropping to 2:1 is pointless (forgive me for my metric figures, I live in a metric country):

If you shoot in Super 35 for a 2.00:1 aspect ratio the intended camera aperture will be 24mm x 12mm = 288mm2 (that's squared) for each frame. (I understand you actually shoot the full 4 or 3 perf frame, but the bit that will appear on the screen will be 12mm high on the negative).

If you shoot in 35mm anamorphic for a 2.00:1 ratio the camera aperture will be 18.59mm x 18.59mm = 345mm2 (1:1 on the negative, which is 2:1 due to the anamorphic lenses).

This area is only a 16% bigger area than Super 35 cropped to 2:1 area.

This is in contrast to the full anamorphic 2.4:1 aperture which is 42% bigger than the Super 35, 'intended for 2.4:1' aperture. Which is probably why The Last Emperor was shot in anamorphic in the first place.

So there is a small increase in the size of the camera aperture cropping anamorphic to 2:1, rather than shooting 2:1 Super 35.

But if you shoot Super 35 you can change to 3 perf, and thus save on negative and lab costs, and you use spherical (non-anamorphic) lenses, which means more depth of field and / or reduced lighting requirements. Which saves time / effort / money.

So these reasons make me suspect that Tucker and The Last Emperor were both shot in 35mm anamorphic because they wanted to shoot in 2.4:1 with the highest resolution available, in order to produce the highest quality 70mm release prints.

Summary: I don't think 2:1 was ever a consideration during production of either of those films.

For what it's worth. The January 1968 issue of American Cinematographer Mag says that when shooting in 35mm anamorphic, for 70mm release, the view finder should be calibrated so that the 70mm image is kept within 0.753" x 0.668", which is a 2.24:1 aspect ratio in the camera, which is very slightly cropped on the sides to create a 2.21:1 projected image.

It goes on to say that 1.85:1 matted widescreen prints can be released on 70mm with black bars down the sides of the image (as for Jacques Tati's Playtime). However this is considered "non-standard". If Storaro wanted Apocalypse Now, Tucker, and The Last Emperor to be shown at 2:1, he should've ordered such non-standard 70mm prints.

Re: Storraro Crops Last Emperor???

I thought about it, but can't see how it is vandalism.

Re: Storraro Crops Last Emperor???

Well, I suppose one could consider such different approaches in terms of degrees of impact. On the one hand, one is (hopefully) going for something that is effectively visually lossless (when viewed on a small display) while OTOH one is going for something that's probably more noticeably different (and altered) due to the matter of composition. Yeah, it's debatable which one is actually worse in some instances.

Of course, if Storaro is *that* serious about presenting his art w/ enough resolution/detail, then maybe he should simply not approve any DVD release at all and require a release to a HiDef format in order to garner his approval, especially since HiDef has already arrived to market.

Anyway, at the moment, it's somewhat unclear whether Storaro is actually "vandalizing" anything (for TLE at least) so to speak since he claimed to have composed TLE for 2.0:1 in his Univision white paper (being discussed in the other thread). Apocalypse Now is probably a different story though...

_Man_

Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

Not really, as that would only capture the beginning or end point of a shot. Hardly definitive in describing the intent of the DP.
Hence my "pretty much" qualification. Perhaps I would have been better off saying "more common".
Given the film stocks of the period, I still say he would have been better off shooting anamorphic. Modern stocks have a much tighter grain structure, and the blemishes of Super 35 can easily be fixed by Digital Intermediates. Storaro didn't have those tools at his disposal for Tucker and TLE. As for non-standard 70mm prints, you rely on the presumption that all theatres at the time would have masking adjustable for ratios outside of 2.35:1, 2.21:1, and 1.85:1 (don't even ask about 1.66:1). My experience has been that most theatres only have two settings for masking, since masking controls are typically automated (and in the case of a theatre capable of both 35mm and 70mm projection, 3), which would leave screens showing 2:1 prints with a conundrum: do I leave white space at the sides of the screen, or do I move the masking to 1.85:1 and cut off the sides of the image? That, if Storaro was in fact composing for 2:1, would explain why he didn't go for non standard prints.

I think that sometimes HT enthusiasts (and I include myself in that category, since I'm here) fail to consider that they have a much greater degree of control over presentation than most theatre operators do. Projectionists are quite frequently faced with a way to put a square peg in a round hole and are in the hands of distributors when it comes to accurate presentation based on the limitations of their equipment. I have only been in one theatre that truly had unlimited ability to vary masking of the screen, and it was a film society theatre staffed by volunteers. The masking was varied by haing one of the staff come out and move black curtains on the stage to taped markers on the stage.

Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

Many are totally missing the point of Storaro's decision to crop films he's shot to 2:1 on video. On film, they are to be shown at 2.35:1. On video, with far less resolution, cropping allows for a compromise between framing and resolution. Storaro is obviously more concerned with detail than keeping the original framing. The flip side to that is keeping the entire frame at the cost of losing resolution. Most don't have a problem with that, but Storaro does. Oddly enough, the median between 1.78:1 (the max area of 16x9 video) and 2.35:1 is roughly 2:1 (2.065:1 exactly). So, he is literally taking the middle ground between max. resolution and max. framing.