hahaha is that cover a joke.. all it's missing are the photoshopped rainbows, butterflies and winking "thumbs up" sunshine!
what region is shamed by that monstrosity?
as for the R1 cover, I'd have to agree that its the ugliest of all the previous released version to date from which all so ironically happen to be the same artwork zoomed in and cropped at different sizes and agles.
I just might have to additionally search out either the Five Star Collection or the most recent double digipack set because they seem to have a handful of extra features (documentary, music score featurette, interviews, galleries, etc) that are not carried over to this 40th Anniversary release and than I can go ahead and swap discs and covers as well.
I trust your word on these things, Joe, but in this case, I'm not sure there are any Deborah Kerr "vocals." I understood that Deborah and Marnie stood side by side in the recording studio, having plotted out precisely what part of each song each actress would do. There aren't any Deborah Kerr vocals beyond what can be heard in the movie or the soundtrack recording.
Deborah's speaking voice can be heard in a number of places, mostly in "Shall I Tell You What I Think Of You?" which didn't make it into the movie, of course.
I'll probably make a custom cover using the miniaturized poster art they passed out at the 2003 AMPAS screening. It has the autographs of Duane Chase, Deb Turner, Kym Karath, and party scene extra Gary Armstrong, who later became a DP on the TV shows "Cheers" and "Frasier".
Not sure what you're referring to here, but Deborah and Marni worked closely together, and did the recording of the songs prior to the filming of the scenes. Deborah is the one who had to match her lip movements to the pre-recorded tracks.
It might be interesting to hear Deborah Kerr's original vocal recordings. But she wasn't a singer, and I'd be very surprised to learn that they hadn't intended on dubbing her from the very first day. I wasn't there, so I can't say one way or another.
I'll type in a little bit of information from the soundtrack booklet:
Marni also dubbed for Deborah in An Affair to Remember.
My question is how the heck-fire are we going to get Todd-AO 30 fps stuff properly formatted on HD disc when they don't have an option for 30 fps at 1080p, only 24 fps!!?? Are these classics of cinema history relegated to 1080i only, or is this the end of 30 fps filmed material being shown in its original frame rate???
I agree with you. One problem with HD is that it can't be variable frame rate. I just wish there will be room for a modification that allows video to be encoded at any progressive frame rate (1 frame = 1 frame). This way, we can get stuff like silents in progressive HD, but at the proper 16, 18, 20, or 22 fps.
And there's all of the other types of variable frame rates... it should just be a "time code" that tells the player to play video at a certain speed. It would produce something closer to film, anyways.
There were only 2 features ever done at 30fps, and one of them, "Around the World In 80 Days" was also shot in 70mm at 24 FPS, albeit using some alternate takes.
At any rate, cleanly deinterlacing a properly mastered film from interlaced to progressive is a no-brainer and trivally easy to do.
Also, maybe you hadn't heard this, but Blue Ray is going to do 24 PsF which also uses interlaced 2 field per frame transport, not a pure 24P.
As with the 30 FPS sources, since both fields come from the same frame, deinterlacing cleanly with no artifacts is a trivial weave operation.
There are TV shows that were taped or filmed at 30 fps. I'm really not just talking about a smattering of Todd-AO features here. And what about the future of film and/or video? They should have added 1080p/60 to the specs. just in case ESPN and others decided to take the high road one of these days.
TedD, where did you hear that Blu-Ray is only interlaced encoded? If true then we may wind up with pre-interlace filtering which would destroy fine detail in order to hide artifacts that can never be recovered (above and beyond any filtering done for ease in compression). This is even if you could have perfect de-interlacing to recreate the full 1920x1080 pixel depth as a progressive frame, which is highly suspect.
Studios can't even get progressive flagging right on 480i DVD's!!! What makes you think that HD will be different?
From what I read on the AVS board it sounds like HD-DVD is more likely to use 24 PsF or straight 1080i than Blu-Ray unless specs. have been changed because Toshiba didn't want to foot the bill for HDMI transmitters that support 1080p output (hardly more expensive than 1080i chips in actuality). This is coming from Mr. Speers of Microsoft and another video compressionist.
Can you name a source for this information? I'm curious about this bit of news.
Dan, you need to research 24PsF on the internet. Then you'll understand that an interlaced TRANSPORT which is, by the way, what the Sony Qualia 004 uses doesn't mean there is a temporal displacement between the fields.
I didn't read it anywhere, but you need to understand that Sony is singlehandedly responsible for creating and promoting 24PsF. What does that tell you about Sony's support for the format?
There were no TV shows "Filmed" at 30 FPS. Taped, yes, with an interlaced capture and transport, clear from the sensors in the camera through the switchers to the tape storage medium, and then through the broadcast chain to you TV screen.
These sources do have a temporal displacement between fields and cannot be deinterlaced easily.
I thought most scripted TV shows using professional studio HD video cameras and were taped or hard disc stored in HD were shot and protected at 1920x1080p (24 or 30 fps) for archival mastering, then a 1080i or 720p downconvert was created from that for broadcast use.
Also, many TV shows have been filmed, and a few throughout the years didn't originate at 24 fps, but 30 fps for ease of use in the video world.
The other thing is that all Blu-Ray literature so far has trumpeted at least 1920x1080p at 24 fps (with no mention of 24 PsF). Sony is not the only manufacturer behind Blu-Ray, and they can't dictate all the specs. Sony's PS3 is being touted as having dual 1920x1080p HDMI outputs, again no mention of 24 PsF.
Also, Sony's Qualia projector was recently retrofitted so it could accept 1080p @ 24 fps signals (and more than likely 1080p @ 60 Hz as well). Older units can have their boards replaced for a fairly stiff fee (I heard it's a whopping $3,000!!), and all new Qualias have had true 1080p support added at the factory. If they were only going to support 24 PsF then they wouldn't have gone to the trouble of redesigning their Qualia projectors, would they? The Qualia 004 already supported 24 PsF without a new board.
I guess we'll have to see the final specs. for Blu-Ray. Of course, then it will be too late.