A Hard Day's Night Pan & Scan from Miramax?!? (1 Viewer)

[Patrick McCart]

AHDN is supposed to be screened at the most, matted 1.66:1. The credits are "widescreen" only because they were hard-matted onto the film to begin with!
Paul Rutan, who restored AHDN, has confirmed that this film is to be shown at 1.33:1, with 1.66:1 matting at the most. 1.33:1 is the prime aspect ratio in terms of composition and framing.
Also, the previous MPI DVD and Criterion LD have similar framing. The person who did the MPI DVD transfer confirmed that the film was transferred at the correct aspect ratio.
If Criterion did 1.33:1, why would this be wrong for the new Miramax DVD?
Also, about the mono track...
According to Paul Rutan, the original mono track was heavily distorted to the point of being unintelligble. This over-modulation was made to make the film's audio louder than the screams in theaters. The track on the old MPI DVD and the tape are both from the 1981 re-release by Universal. That's from an ever POORER element which was undermodulated from the overmodulated British tracks! The only difference was that the DVD and AMC transfer had the stereo album tracks dubbbed over. This isn't wrong in the slightest. The original release did the exact same thing. I think the restoration track was simply taken from an optical audio track on a surviving print. The only "restoration" that was done was re-equalizing the audio and digitally removing the pops, hiss, cracks, etc for home video.
Miramax's new track uses a newly found dialogue-only track, sound effects track, and digital remixes of the songs. It's like the situation with Vertigo's original mono...the DVD would simply have what's left of it.

 

[Seth Paxton]

cause Criterion is good and Miramax is bad.

I have no problem with this what so ever. Besides, isn't the British equivalent to the US 1.85 the 1.66 ratio? Meaning that matted films in England go to 1.66 as a theatrical standard just as films in the US go to 1.85 (as noted above where Peter was stuck with no option).
Then this takes us back to Kubrick as well where the open-matte side says that while 1.66 (or 1.85 US) was used, the film was done as a 1.37 with no other theatrical options but these two matted sizes (1.66, 1.85).
We all know that theaters can screw up a film's ratio/framing just as bad, especially due to AR limits that are hardware imposed for most theaters.
If you have a legitimate 1.37 film to show in theaters, GFL getting that done without hardmatting it onto a 1.85 frame.

 

[Michael St. Clair]

I'm grateful this has not been matted down to 16:9.

I'm not grateful that an original audio track was not included. Use the old Criterion laserdisc track if nothing else.

 

[Rich Malloy]

LPCM mono track would seem to be a must. When will they learn? Why is this so hard to understand?

My biggest gripe about DVDs these days are the Dolby mono and Dolby stereo tracks for what are essentially musical films, concerts, video anthologies, and the like. All the Grateful Dead release, all the Bjork releases, indeed nearly everything I can think of with the exception of several Criterion releases and Pink Floyd's The Wall.

Are LPCM tracks not used when appropriate for disc space reasons (like those great, early full-bitrate DTS tracks)?

 

[Michael St. Clair]

Here's an interesting quote from someone at UCLA two years ago, on Usenet:

Quote:

Actually, several Warner music DVDs have PCM tracks, including a handful of REM discs and Bjork's "Volumen".

 

[Ted Todorov]

Paul Rutan, who restored AHDN, has confirmed that this film is to be shown at 1.33:1, with 1.66:1 matting at the most. 1.33:1 is the prime aspect ratio in terms of composition and framing.

Not to be argumentative, but: Why is Mr. Rutan the authority on the film's "prime aspect ratio"? Didn't he do this restoration at the behest of Miramax and therefore have the incentive to defend whatever AR their marketing people chose?

It seems to me that the film has been projected at 1.66:1 from the word go -- at least that's how I've always seen it (no, I've never seen it on video or TV). After reading what has been said in this thread, with the additional evidence from Peter A. on how the print was marked, the comment about the empty seats, and the fact that the newly released European DVD is 1.66:1, I still believe that the OAR is 1.66:1. Unless Richard Lester tells us otherwise, I see no reason to believe that the film has been projected at the wrong AR for the last 35 years and that the Dutch DVD is MAR.

Ted

 

[Jon Robertson]

Well, if the DVD is truly open-matte like the Kubricks, then I can't see the problem - matte it yourself if it so troubles you.

 

[Damin J Toell]

Well, if the DVD is truly open-matte like the Kubricks, then I can't see the problem - matte it yourself if it so troubles you.

To present the other side of the argument that will certainly come up: an anamorphically enhanced 1.66:1 transfer would provide greater resolution than would be gotten by matting a 1.33:1 image yourself.

DJ

 

[John Berggren]

You snuck it in before I could, DJ. An open matte transfer does not give the same benefit as a matted transfer which has been anamorphically enhanced. As I don't buy non anamorphic DVDs (for widescreen programs), I would also not buy an improperly framed open matte program.

 

[Ted Todorov]

Well, if the DVD is truly open-matte like the Kubricks, then I can't see the problem - matte it yourself if it so troubles you.

Why would I matte it myself and forgo the higher resolution anamorphic transfer if I can simply buy the anamorphic Dutch DVD instead?

And since when has this forum started defending open matte transfers over OAR transfers?

Ted

 

[Aaron Reynolds]

And since when has this forum started defending open matte transfers over OAR transfers?

Probably about the same time it started defending cropped 16x9 transfers of non-widescreen films.

 

[Ted Todorov]

Oops, we now know I'm the slowest typist here... Sorry about the triplicate answer.

I don't want to drag this off topic, but IMHO Kubrick is a bad example: he shot with open matte transfers in mind because of his hatred for Pan & Scan, not love for Academy ratio. The story as I've read it is that he saw one of his scope films (2001?) on TV Pan & Scan and was so appalled by the result that he decided to shoot his future films in in a way that would prevent such future butchery. If he was still alive in an increasingly widescreen TV world, I very, very seriously doubt that he would object to his post 2001 films being released in anamorphic 1.66:1 or 1.77:1 AR on DVD. (Indeed I read here that Eyes Wide Shut was shown in 16:9 on HDTV).

Yes it is possible to show (some) films at different ARs without massacring them. But in an era of differently shaped TVs, choosing the AR on the basis of what "fits your screen" is a bad mistake. The AR should be chosen on the basis of what fits the film -- and lacking a clear answer, on how it was shown theatrically (Home Theater -- remember?)

Ted

 

[Damin J Toell]

Quote:

And HD-HBO also often shows 2.35:1 films cropped to 16x9. Do you really want to use them as a shining example of the right way to present a film?
DJ

 

[Michael St. Clair]

Why would I matte it myself and forgo the higher resolution anamorphic transfer if I can simply buy the anamorphic Dutch DVD instead?

Because you don't like PAL speedup and decide to wait and see what the Japan version is like.

 

[Ted Todorov]

Probably about the same time it started defending cropped 16x9 transfers of non-widescreen films.

I can speak only for myself, but I wouldn't dream of wanting a cropped 16x9 transfer of an Academy (1.37:1) film.
If I thought for one second that A Hard Days Night's OAR/Theatrical AR was Academy, I would want it that way on DVD. I am yet to see/hear anything that convinces me that it is an Academy film.
Ted

 

[Ted Todorov]

I am 99% certain you are both right. "Decalogue" was filmed in 16mm at 25fps.

This was (and probably still is) a common practive for TV films in many countries. Another interesting feature of such films is that the soundtrack (a separate magnetic perforated 16mm tape normally used during the editing) stayed separate. This meant that whenever we wanted to show a TV film (in our film club at Warsaw University) we had to borrow a special 16mm projector onto which you'd put both the image and the sound (magnetic perforated) reels in sync. We used to borrow this projector "under the table" from a guy in charge of it at one of government's press agencies (late '70s) who - while in a taxi delivering this priceless piece of equipment - would amuse us by telling stories from his latest assignment on a documentary film set (about the dangers of syphilis, for example, and how long the penis of one of the documentary subject's was).

I think "A Hard Day's Night" was also shot at 25fps, something that Criterion never investigated. When I pointed it out to them (only mentioning that I wasn't at all sure but it was worth looking into) their response was: "All films are shot at 24fps" and that was that.

Jan Bielawski

I have no way for me to know if this is true, but there is a chance we should be concerned about NTSC slow down

BTW, when is AHDN coming out in Japan?

Ted

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

There would have been absolutely no reason for A Hard Days Night to have been shot at 25fps - the poster on CriterionDVD is wildly incorrect. It was not shot for TV - it was a feature film from the outset. The world-standard for standard optical sound feature films in theaters is 24fps. Listen to the film - on a print; it's *obvious* the speed is correct at 24fps.
:rolleyes

 

[Patrick McCart]

Not to be argumentative, but: Why is Mr. Rutan the authority on the film's "prime aspect ratio"? Didn't he do this restoration at the behest of Miramax and therefore have the incentive to defend whatever AR their marketing people chose?

He started the restoration in 1990 for Walter Shenson (he held the rights at the time) in his OWN time. In fact, he single-handedly restored the entire film. Miramax bought the film rights from Shenson in 1999, I think, and then re-released it. I think he also worked on the Sparticus restoration as a negative cutter.

When they bought the rights, they then created a new 5.1 track from newly found elements. Miramax ONLY did audio restoration and remixing. They had NOTHING to do with the image restoration.

The reason why Rutan is the authority is because he had to look at every single frame of AHDN during the restoration.

If the guy who restored the film says that 1.33:1 is correct and Criterion had it at 1.33:1, why should it be shown at any other ratio? To fit our widescreen TV's better?

 

[Aaron Reynolds]

OAR/Theatrical AR was Academy, I would want it that way on DVD. I am yet to see/hear anything that convinces me that it is an Academy film.

Yes, sorry, didn't mean to imply that you'd want a cropped transfer. I was making light of another issue that seems to also have been ignored by most of HTF.
The evidence seems to point to a 1.66 film, especially Mr. Rutan's own mention of the empty seats in the auditorium.

 

[streeter]

While you guys try to get the definitive answers on the soundtrack and the aspect ratio settled, there was something else that surprised me when I saw the specs: FIVE AUDIO COMMENTARIES. Does anyone know who all recorded commentaries? They say there are three from the cast. Could that be George, Paul and Ringo maybe? I hope Richard Lester recorded commentary as well, and I don't hope that these commentaries are simply old archival bits pieced together.

...but the most important part of it: doesn't it take a lot of space to house five additional audio tracks?? I am worried that these special features will be compromised by lower video quality. Someone please give me some technical jargon and assure me that there's nothing to worry about!