Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection) - Page 5

Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

And frankly, I agree with his argument that the HD ratio should have been 2:1 instead of 16:9; alas, the powers that be decided otherwise.

Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

Aye. That certainly seems to be the case w/ Apocalypse Now. But the primary concern of this particular thread is w/ TLE, not Apocalypse Now, though his other works, history, etc. should probably be considered as part of the context for discussing the matter since he didn't shoot TLE (nor transfer it for video) in a vacuum.

In any case, while I can somewhat appreciate his concerns about the resolution vs composition/framing compromise for SD video, I can't agree at all for HD video though -- and the transfers he's doing are done in HD, not just SD, and his Univision proposal also discusses things in light of HD video, not just 16x9 SD video. And even if his stance will be different for HD video, then all the more reason not to buy the Criterion SD release and wait for an HD release.

And still, how many people actually have an in-home display-size-to-viewing-distance ratio where the potential losses in visible fine details for an OAR 16x9 SD release would outweigh the gains of keeping OAR? And also, will the Criterion release of TLE (and previous releases of Apocalypse Now) make sure to offer max bitrate quality, etc. to ensure that whatever is gained by going MAR doesn't get lost in the compression, etc.?

Of course, this part of the discussion would assume that TLE's OAR should be 2.35:1, not 2.0:1. If not, the point is moot...

_Man_

Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

I don't think I'm missing the point; I just don't agree with it. Storaro's quote from earlier in the thread was something to the effect of him refusing to do a proper 2.35:1 transfer of Apocalypse Now because it doesn't work on a television. I dispute that a 2.35:1 film doesn't work on a TV as I have literally hundreds of examples in my home against that.

I don't think the resolution gained by cropping part of the picture is a price worth paying. Sure, extra resolution is always nice, but in the end, no home video system is going to equal seeing a great print projected in a properly equipped theater. All I can hope for is to replicate enough of that experience at home to make it worthwhile, which I'm able to do to a reasonable degree of satisfaction. I'm usually hesitant to take up an argument against a filmmaker, particularly one with a resume like Storaro's. However, I think it's pretty telling that lots of directors and cinematographers choose to use a 2.35:1 frame and pretty much none of them have decided that "on a television it doesn't work" (Storaro's words, not mine). That's a pretty absolute statement for him to be making. He's not really leaving anything up for interpretation there. "On a television it doesn't work." Bullshit. It works just fine. Well-intentioned as he may be, if it's his opinion that 2.35:1 doesn't work on a TV, it's my opinion (as well as the opinion of most people on this forum, and most other filmmakers) that it works just fine.

I'm perfectly satisfied with the amount of resolution I get on my TV and/or projector with 2.35:1 films. I don't see it as a situation requiring a trade-off or a compromise between the original composition and available resolution. Robert Harris reminds us, and correctly so, that home theater is not the same as a real movie theater, and that a DVD or Blu-Ray or HD-DVD isn't the same as a film print. So if you're already getting a copy of something instead of the real thing, wouldn't you want the most accurate copy possible? Again, with newer films that he claims to have composed for 2:1, that's a different story, but I strongly believe that Apocalypse Now should be presented on DVD in the same aspect ratio it was shot in and screened in theatrical. I know I'm probably beating a dead horse at this point, but when Storaro says that a 2.35:1 film "doesn't work" on a TV set, it sounds just as ridiculous to me as when people complain about black bars. Anyone who hates black bars is going to hate the 2:1 crop of Apocalypse Now just as much as a 2.35:1 letterboxed version. Anyone who cares about seeing the theatrical experience reproduced as accurately as possible is going to be left scratching their head about why the movie was partially cropped. It's a lose-lose situation, and the amount of resolution gained from this cropping isn't nearly enough to justify mutilating the film.

Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

But then, classic academy ratio images (and most 20th century TV programs and even very many current ones) would suffer the extreme in the other direction though.

While some might half-kiddingly argue that most of the affected TV programs are junk anyway, still, they're trying to sell HD to the masses, not just to enthusiasts and cinephiles. Besides, what will all us OAR fanatics be wailing and lamenting about our friends, families and neighbors even as the CE companies try to push superduper stretch-and-zoom modes for 2:1 ratio viewing?

_Man_

Re: Storraro Crops Last Emperor???

Am I the only one who thinks the two threads should be merged?

Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

I shudder to think what a 2:1 stretch mode would look like. My parents had an Akai 720p LCD display for awhile and the stretch mode looked like looking through a fishbowl. As for any loss of resolution with classic films and TV, I would hope that rather than stretching the existing 1080 x 1920 pixels to 2:1, the industry would have increased the amount of horizontal resolution to 2160, leaving the resolution for 1.37:1 material unaffected. We'll never know in any event.

Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

But I don't think the masses (to whom they would need to sell) are nearly as concerned w/ actual resolution loss as to the wasted screen real estate though. An OAR 1.37:1 image on a 2:1 display will have the same size black (or shudder... bright gray) unused space no matter what actual resolution you come up w/. Besides, if you actually have more resolution, then someone might just argue we're wasting even more resolution w/ OAR of anything other than 2:1.

BTW, was Storaro trying to push for universal adoption of 2:1 to replace variable OARs? I didn't read that whole document (nor main theme of it), but the name Univision does suggest the possibility of something like that to me. If that's the case, then I think maybe Storaro has indeed dove off the deep end...

EDIT: OK, I tried to quickly read through that document, but it's still not that clear to me whether Storaro is pushing for 2:1 to replace variable OARs though it sounds like that may be implicit in his proposal since he seems to want everything shot on 2:1 film frame though filmmakers can still opt to mask the film frame for different OARs -- and he's also suggesting no more use of anamorphic lenses.

_Man_

Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

The median between 1.33:1 and 2.35:1 is about 1.85:1, so 2:1 would put 4x3 content at a disadvantage. Considering how much 4x3 content exists (over half a century of film and TV up until a few years ago), 16x9 was the way to go.

Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

Yes. He actually used to have a website with all the same information online, which has now been supplanted by numerous links to the .pdf document. The funny thing is, one part of his proposal has already been adopted by several DPs and directors, that being 3 perf pulldown for Super 35 shooting.

Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

There were fast stocks in 1987. I don't know what stock Storaro's 1987 films were shot on, but Kodak 5295 and 5297 were introduced in 1986 which were 400 and 250 speed respectively.

This really just cancels out anyway. There will be less depth of field with anamorphic, so you have to stop down the lens (or add more light) to increase depth of field. For Super 35 you get relatively more depth of field, so you can open the lens to improve exposure, then pull that back in the lab to avoid an excessively grainy image.

Top gun was made in 1986, and shown on 70mm prints. So Super 35 -> 70mm was being done by then. I can't think of an earlier example.

Re: Storraro Crops Last Emperor???

This we can agree on!

Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

I'm glad we can agree on @ least one thing.

Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

Greystoke The Legend of Tarzan Lord of the Apes (either the first or second Super 35 film depending on whom you ask), Baby: Secret of the Lost Legend and Revolution all predate Top Gun in the case of full width blow ups.

Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

The emphasis in the quote above is mine.

Patrick: Frankly I think the point that Storaro is trying to make with his cropping (his reasoning) has been made repeatedly throughout this thread

While I know I don't fully understand all the complexities of film formats and video resolutions at work in this discussion...it seems that in the abstract, you could make a comparison between Storaro's decision and the decision of anyone who thinks it's a good idea to have a pan-and-scan version of a widescreen movie because it fills the screen better. In his mind (Storaro or the P&S believer), it's "this is the way I like it best so this is the way it's going to be."

Many, though, want to let Storaro have his way because he was the DP...not just some "empty suit" studio executive.

And as we all want to continue to understand, we are talking about Storaro's actions with the older films that were shot in formats wider than the 2:1 he prefers to use now (and advocates all directors should use).

The question that continues here...and I guess to which we will never get a straight answer...is whether or not TLE was originally intended as 2.35:1 or 2:1. If 2.35:1, he should leave it alone and authorize a 2.35:1 transfer for home video.

Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

I don't think anybody is missing the point--they're merely disagreeing with it.

The justification given for reframing these films by cropping them horizontally is the exact same reason for pan-and-scan DVDs. That the film's DP is the one making this decision does not automatically make it a good idea. I greatly respect Storaro's opinions regarding the composition of the film itself, but I could not disagree more strongly with his opinions regarding how films should be presented at home, which is a separate issue.

As others have already said, I have hundreds of 2.35:1 films on DVD, and they all "work" just fine.

Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

Pope Julius: When will you make an end?

Michelangelo Storaro: When I am finished.

Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

The Beav's comparison is now up: The Last Emperor - Bernardo Bertolucci

You may argue that we are losing information on the sides but you can't argue that the colors are far more accurate than the quite manipulated looking R2.

Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

Now, this is interesting: I notice that DVD Beaver's second comparative screen capture is framed quite differently in Criterion's theatrical version than in their television version. The television version appears to be more-or-less centered on the frame, while the theatrical version captures the far right side while more severely cropping the left side.

If The Last Emperor was indeed composed for a 2:1 aspect ratio (and I tend to agree with an earlier poster who argued that the screen captures cast doubt on this proposition), then at least one of those framings is wrong.

Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

Another thing it confirms is how truly ugly the Artisan version was.

Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

Joel: Thanks for the link to the updated comparisons. If only we could have the better colors, sharper transfer AND the 2.35:1 AR.

Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

Well, I've just ordered the UK R2 and it's on its way to me; as to if it's any better than the French disc, I'll soon know...

Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

I assume the added sharpness is what Storaro was trying to achieve with his move to 2.00:1. You can see that the R2 France is a bit softer overall and it might due to the loss of line resolution from the matting. So ultimately its a trade-off, sharper image with truer color but cropped (In my opinion its still not as bad as some are making it out to be) vs. soft and oversaturated but original theatrical aspect ratio.

The announced single disc from Image will probably also be the same transfer except stripped down.

Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

Joel could you point me towards any information about the Image release? I cannot find any such thing anywhere.

Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

Really? I thought the Image/Jeremy Thomas deal was common knowledge.

Here's the press release:

:: View topic - Image acquires Last Emperor, among others

Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

Well, I couldn't find it anywhere. Thanks for the link.

Have you seen any date yet assigned to the Image release of TLE? In that Criterion thread, they mention one other time this sort of arrangement occurred and the Image releases followed the Criterions by a full year.

Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

Nope and its a pretty good estimate considering some other Criterions (namely 8 1/2 and I Vitelione).

Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

"Well, I've just ordered the UK R2 and it's on its way to me; as to if it's any better than the French disc, I'll soon know..."

I didn't notice that much ,but I really didn't do a side by side,The french
one is 5.1 and dosn't have the commentary,It does come in a red box with
hardcover book(in French).

Form looking at the caps on the DVDBeaver page,it looks pale(The New Set) too,But
I haven't seen it yet,And Storraro must have done the Agatha transfer
and thats Fantastic!,

Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

Image is also releasing a bare-bones Double Life of Veronique this week, a little more than a year after the Criterion version.

Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

Well, I can tell Storaro that it's the opposite for me. Every time I watch A.N. I just can't help but be a bit distracted that I am watching a cropped anamorphic presentation.

Re: Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection)

And how lame the cropping is.

For example consider this composition that has chopped the guy on the left in half, but on the right the guy standing has only his left 1/3 cropped off.



But it is even worse, because the cropping means the Emperor is now sitting slightly to the left of the image. So in a shot that seems designed to emphasise symmetry, you no longer have a symmetrical composition.

The uncropped version makes more sense:


Sure we can now see the shoulders of extras on the sides, but that simply continues the symmetrical arrangement, and gives the image a greater impression of depth (by emphasising another plane closer to the camera).

So what would make an extremely symmetrical 2.21:1 image, looks silly cropped to 2:1.

So at both a historical level, and at a pictorial level, the 2:1 reformatting of this film doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Criterion should've tried to compromise with Storaro by requesting a 2.21:1 transfer. All the work they put in to the transfer will have to be done again once Storaro dies.