A Few Words About A few words about...™ Bells are Ringing -- in Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[Joel Arndt]

Hopefully, Mr. Harris will offer his thoughts about the "cropping" authoring issue?

 

[RetroGuy]

Great colors and great picture with real depth although there IS some image missing from the top of the frame at least at some points. It's "tighter" than the DVD with the tops of people's head slightly shaved off. It seemed odd when i was watching it so i pulled out the DVD to check and sure enough the DVD has more headroom. I specifically checked the scene where Ella comes across the sleeping Jeffrey and peeps under the newspaper covering his face. She stands up in glee and the DVD is framed so her bouffant JUST clears the top of the frame while the blu-ray cuts her off mid-bouff. In the same scene It seems like there might be a mild vertical stretch (horizontal squish?) as well because everyone looks "thinner" than they should all during "Better Than a Dream" and the New York street scene that follows with circles turned into ovals (I suspect it affects the whole reel, maybe?)...could that be element related? The stretch/squish doesn't seem noticeable at all in other parts and I didn't check the entire movie for framing differences just what stuck out.

I noticed the same headroom issue most predominantly in the song "I'm Going Back". It just seems odd that part of the time she's in full frame at other times the top of her hairdo is cut off.

This was a blind buy for me, so watched for the very first time last night and noticed these same issues. I thought it odd that the tops of heads were cropped off in so many scenes and wondered to myself if this was another authoring error similar to Cohen Media's "Howards End" disc where they messed up the aspect ratio.

 

[RetroGuy]

Did everybody catch Elizabeth Montgomery's long but wordless cameo?

No, I didn't catch that. What scene was that in?

 

[Gary16]

Enjoyed the Blu ray immensely ...except for the odd cropping. My DVD of Bells Are Ringing has much more headroom in the "I'm Going Back". It is frustrating to see this great number with top of her haircut off. This is not what Minnelli intended.
Was someone asleep when authoring this new transfer?

I haven't watched my copy yet but I'm wondering why Mr. Harris did not make mention of this in his review.

 

[Rob_Ray]

No, I didn't catch that. What scene was that in?

She's reading a book in the left-hand corner during the scene where Frank Gorshin and Judy are trading Brando-isms. She's also in the trailer.

 

[haineshisway]

Let me chime in, since I have the Spanish Blu-ray, which, BTW, is clearly a different transfer. Framing is exactly the same as this Blu-ray. I will only say that you can watch any scope transfer of any movie and there will be times when tops of hair are cut off - that is no proof of anything, nor is a DVD framing proof of anything - I'm not saying this is right or wrong as I have no way of being in Mr. Minnelli or his cameraman's head, but I can tell you that in every movie in every aspect ratio that tops of hairdos are frequently out of frame - it depends where they want you to look and what's important in the frame. So, my point is, if you're looking for that sort of thing you will find it in many films. In this one, yes her hair goes out of frame occasionally but then when she adjusts her height or position within the frame she's fine. Again, I no longer have the DVD and I have no idea what's at play here, wrong or right-wise. All I can say is having just compared the Spanish Blu to this, and having thought the Spanish Blu looked surprisingly good when I got it, there's no comparison - this beats it by about five country miles. Great color, great sound.

 

[Will Krupp]

I will only say that you can watch any scope transfer of any movie and there will be times when tops of hair are cut off - that is no proof of anything, nor is a DVD framing proof of anything

But in the case of a 1960 scope film they would still have been using the full top to bottom frame area would they not? To my knowledge, they didn't start reducing image height to avoid sloppy splices due to imprecise lab work (thus changing the standard scope ratio to 2.39:1) until the early 70's. My point is the transfer should have used all available image height so, if the headroom exists on the DVD, then it follows it must exist on the film and whichever one shows more vertical information should be the one that's correct, no? Do I have it wrong?

 

[haineshisway]

Again, I have no idea what's right or wrong and don't have the DVD anymore - but it's interesting that the Spanish Blu-ray has the exact same framing as this Blu-ray and is clearly not this transfer.

 

[Mark-P]

Every release should have some cropping to simulate a projection aperture. A completely uncropped image is undesirable with rounded corners and fuzzy, ugly framelines. There is a tolerance to be adhered to though.

 

[Robert Harris]

But in the case of a 1960 scope film they would still have been using the full top to bottom frame area would they not? To my knowledge, they didn't start reducing image height to avoid sloppy splices due to imprecise lab work (thus changing the standard scope ratio to 2.39:1) until the early 70's. My point is the transfer should have used all available image height so, if the headroom exists on the DVD, then it follows it must exist on the film and whichever one shows more vertical information should be the one that's correct, no? Do I have it wrong?

They would not.

And in theatrical projection, ALL bets are off.

What the audience will see is a rectangular image somewhere between 2.2 and 2.4:1 -- if you're lucky.

The huge difference here is the way that an image is attained.

The older DVD, which would have been a transfer, not a data harvest, would have protected THE SIDES of the film, which would have wear from running through printers, or have print-through from the same situation.

If one desires a 2.35 image, and the sides are protected, you then have more slop top and bottom. So pick the top or the bottom of the frame.

In a modern image harvest, one can properly expose the edges, and attain a wider image. Go that route, and you can also pick up a bit of top or bottom. Whether it's the top of bottom that one chooses to expose, is usually predicated by how the physical splices were made.

But understand, once again, that this is all moot, as neither the new Blu-ray, nor the original DVD would have looked anything like an original theatrical performance, which would have been based upon the shape of an inverted trapezoid.

There is always a great deal of mush around a film frame, and it's protected in different ways, not all being equal, and mattering not the slightest.

Also, what Mr. Kimmel noted in his post above.

RAH

 

[AnthonyClarke]

The image cropping issue is secondary as far as I'm concerned to the possibility of the distorted image Will Krupp alludes to. Hopefully, this is only a minor issue, and not a serious error as in the transfer of 'The Big Country' which rendered the entire Blu ray disc worthless as a representation of a great movie.,

 

[Mark-P]

That was another telltale moment.

Since watching it last night I've tried to look online to see if any reviews mentioned it and I came across specs on DVDTalk which list the disc as having a 2.4:1 ratio. I don't know how accurate those specs are but something is not right with the picture.

Blu-ray(dot)com just posted their review with screencaps. I see your point about it being rather tightly cropped up top. The screencaps measure 1920X800 pixels. You do the math.

 

[haineshisway]

Screen shots are meaningless in this regard - you can grab one frame of tight framing from any movie in the history of film - and it means nothing. What about the twenty-six shots that are perfectly framed? Hmmm. In one shot, the top of Ms. Holliday's hair is cut off, and in that same frame her feet are cut off. Would you say that's an awkwardly framed shot? I wouldn't because she's on the move in that shot every step of the way, therefore one frame posted on a website means nothing. And since I'm quite sure that the director and cameraman couldn't imagine anyone in 1960 sitting in a movie theater looking at the top or bottom of a frame, well...

 

[rsmithjr]

. . . And since I'm quite sure that the director and cameraman couldn't imagine anyone in 1960 sitting in a movie theater looking at the top or bottom of a frame, well...

Perhaps, but as a union projectionist in that area, I certainly looked at such things. Others did as well.

 

[Will Krupp]

Perhaps, but as a union projectionist in that area, I certainly looked at such things. Others did as well.

and Vincente Minnelli, of ALL people, certainly knew what was going on in his frame as well

Despite what the box says, the film is presented here in a 2.40:1 aspect ratio that didn't even EXIST as a standard ratio in 1960. Something is slightly off.

 

[Robert Harris]

One more time.

Aspect ratios are a guide, which are adapted and massaged for every screen via every aperture plate in every projector in every theater.

The image that hits the screen, is then further modified by the maskings.

And then, modified again, by each projectionist, and how they thread the projector, hopefully zeroing the framing adjustment to allow vertical positioning, once all of that is set.

In other words, while it's nice to have an aspect ratio as close as possible to neutral in theatrical projection, in the video world, the perceived difference between 1.85 and 1.78, or 2.35, 2.39 or 2.40, are a storm in a teacup.

Without referencing various transfers or image harvests against the final cropped images (and the image is ALWAYS cropped), slight differences would never be noticed.

Sometimes it's best to forget about tech, and enjoy a film

And if that's not enough, let's confuse the issue a bit more.

An image harvest derived from an OCN may be different from a harvest from an IP, as the two elements may have different frame lines

Especially true of a dupe created optically.

 

[Robert Crawford]

One more time.

Aspect ratios are a guide, which are adapted and massaged for every screen via every aperture plate in every projector in every theater.

The image that hits the screen, is then further modified by the maskings.

And then, modified again, by each projectionist, and how they thread the projector, hopefully zeroing the framing adjustment to allow vertical positioning, once all of that is set.

In other words, while it's nice to have an aspect ratio as close as possible to neutral in theatrical projection, in the video world, the perceived difference between 1.85 and 1.78, or 2.35, 2.39 or 2.40, are a storm in a teacup.

Without referencing various transfers or image harvests against the final cropped images (and the image is ALWAYS cropped), slight differences would never be noticed.

Sometimes it's best to forget about tech, and enjoy a film

And if that's not enough, let's confuse the issue a bit more.

An image harvest derived from an OCN may be different from a harvest from an IP, as the two elements may have different frame lines

Especially true of a dupe created optically.

Excellent comments, particularly the factors about this issue you mentioned and your advice about forgetting tech and just enjoying the film.

 

[Robert Harris]

Excellent comments, particularly the factors about this issue you mentioned and your advice about forgetting tech and just enjoying the film.

Probably the most interesting fact, is that when (whilst) viewing a film in a cinema, one has no idea what the image on film looked like

 

[haineshisway]

Here's another interesting thing: Watch the short featurette - done a while back - letterboxed scenes in a 4x3 frame - guess what? Tops of hair frequently cut off at one point or another.

 

[Will Krupp]

Here's another interesting thing: Watch the short featurette - done a while back - letterboxed scenes in a 4x3 frame - guess what? Tops of hair frequently cut off at one point or another.

Bruce, I'm not sure of your reasoning in posting this but I have to say that if you're implying either A) That we're not really seeing more information cropped form the top of the frame than in any previous version or B) That the cropping is actually the same on the DVD version as it is here then I'm sorry but you are simply incorrect.

That there is tighter framing and less headroom than on the DVD is a fact
That the blu-ray measures 2.40:1 rather than 2.35:1 is a fact
That this cropping looks awkward and doesn't seem right is not a fact but an opinion that I hold and share with some others.

Is it a dealbreaker? NO.

No one has said that it is a dealbreaker or a botch job and no one has clamored for a recall. It's a lovely disc that everyone should own and enjoy. It's never looked better. I don't understand why you seem so offended by my mentioning the tight framing in the first place but I have no wish to get into an argument with you. I was done with the conversation. You can make the argument that it doesn't matter but please don't imply that I'm seeing something that isn't there. It isn't fair.