Anamorphic transfers of Vertigo and Psycho! See post #54 about new boxset. (1 Viewer)

[david*mt]

Anamorphic transfers look much better on a WS tv than non-anamorphic ones. I won't purchase Vertigo and Psycho without the 16x9 enhancement. Others that I am waiting for are Titanic, True Lies, Armaggedon, From Dusk til Dawn, and Enemy of the State. Hopefully they will all be given the treatment they deserve.

 

[ToddF]

I agree that it would be nice if the original soundtrack of 'Vertigo" was included on an "enhanced" version. The re-recorded sound effects sound too modern in the mix and destroys the illusion of the film. They sound too clean compared to the diologue....

 

[Roger Manning]

The region 1 disc the old one and the new one are only 5.0
back cover says 5.1 but it is wrong they should have fixed this when it was re-packaged.
Roger

 

[Kevin M]

Also, correct me if I am wrong but in reality you don't actually get "33% More" resolution from the 16:9 format, I believe I read somewhere that in fact it is the same resolution as the 4:3 format, it is just that the lines of resolution are arranged differently for the wide aspect screen...right?

 

[mark alan]

Consider yourself corrected. When you play an enhanced dvd on a 4:3 television, the dvd player actually removes 1 out of every 4 lines of information in order to display it properly.

 

[Patrick McCart]

A 16x9 NTSC DVD uses exactly the same amount of pixels as a 4x3 NTSC....

However, a 16x9 DVD would have roughly 33% more resolution than a 4x3 DVD of the same film. (For example, Smokey and the Bandit or Charade)

Here's an example:

 

[Kevin M]

Well I think I am going to un-correct myself because if you select 16:9 format in any DVD menu the image (let's say 1.85.1) will un-squeeze to it's full resolution on a 4:3 screen, you can then perform the "squeeze trick" if you wish but the point is that the same information is stored on the disc, a 16:9 TV generally has the same maximum pixel count as a 4:3 TV the lines are simply arranged differently for the format...I know someone here at the forum stated this in a thread from about a year and a half ago.

Yes but only because the formats arrange the lines differently, right? A 16:9 screen in fact doesn't have "more" resolution as much as it displays the same resolution in a different way, if you selected 16:9 mode on a 4:3 screen you would regain the lost lines, right? So in point of fact it doesn't have "more" as much as it presents the pixels correctly.

 

[Dave F]

As would I, but I don't see the relevance here. It's not like we have to choose one or the other. We have very good DVD's of Vertigo and Psycho right now, but these are great films that deserve great DVDs.

-Dave

 

[Patrick McCart]

It has more resolution because the space the black bars take up is replaced by actual image.

The diagram I posted shows how much wasted resolution there is on 4x3 encoded LBX transfers compared to 16x9 enhanced.

Do remember, though... if you have a 4x3 TV, it doesn't really matter if the transfer is great like Vertigo or Psycho.

 

[Kevin M]

Yes, but for anyone who doesn't have a 16:9 screen or a TV that performs the "squeeze" you don't gain a thing, the reason I called it into question is that I think such a blank statement is misleading to some, an anamorphic transfer does not by definition contain more resolution, the way you display it is the key.

With Vertigo I would still like an anamorphic transfer as this would require a new SE which might give Universal the chance to finally offer the DTS soundtrack to all non LD owners.

 

[RobertR]

In addition to a lack of 16x9 enhancement, Psycho has noticeable EE.

 

[Craig Beam]

I'm frankly surprised neither of these titles has been revisited by now. Both were released way back (within the first year or so of the format), and given the proliferation of double-and-triple dippers these days, these seem like natural choices.

HOWEVER...

Both really are stellar DVDs (minus the lack of anamorphic enhancement). They were among the very first discs I bought way back in '98, and they've aged very well. Having said that.... I'd be first in line for new editions. What d'ya say, Universal?

 

[Dave F]

Yes, it does. With an anamorphic disc, more resolution is dedicated to the image of the film, rather than expending it upon the black bars.

When an anamorphic disc is played on a 4:3 tv, the player removes lines of resolution & the player generates the black bars.

When a non-anamorphic disc is played on a 4:3 tv, every line of resolution is displayed. The player does not generate the black bars, because they have been encoded into the image (using up valuable lines of resolution).

-Dave

 

[Jake Johnson]

Come on, Universal. DO IT! You know you want to. These discs would sell very well, especiallly if they were new special editions. But the collector's editions with anamorphic transfers would be good enough for me.

 

[Kevin M]

I understand that less image is dedicated to actual picture in a non-anamorphic format because that real estate is dedicated to black bars but to me the statement seems to suggest it is a "higher" resolution NTSC than "standard" NTSC when it is basically the same amount of pixels just arranged differently (with or without black bars). I guess it is a matter of semantics.

It doesn't matter, I would gladly double dip for a DTS track anyway. Plus, since I have a 41" WEGA that does the anamorphic squeeze, I would also gain from any new transfer.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

It's not a matter of semantics to suggest that the *active image area* using 720 x 480 pixels (in the case of a @1.85:1 transfer) is encoded with more resolution than a digital signal that only uses 720 x 360 pixels to encode the same image (the additional 120 veritcal pixels being wasted on non-picture content).

Now, as to whether the source image has significant enough resolution to begin with to generate a visible improvement is sometimes in doubt. There are some transfers/masters that are so over-filtered veritically that even offering them the added 33% vertical resolution on DVD doesn't necessarily make a significant improvment in clarity. But that's the fault of BAD mastering...just like a CD can have a dynamic range of 96db but it doesn't mean that a studio can't over-compress the master tape and make a bad-sounding CD and not take advantage of the level of fidelity it has to offer.

In the case of both of these films, a proper film-tape transfer in the HD domain downconverted to 16x9 DVD would show a substantial improvment in detail over the existing discs--if done properly.

 

[Gordon McMurphy]

Well... Universal have started remastering a few of their most popular catalogue titles, like Scarface, Animal House and Field of Dreams in anamorphic with DTS, etc, so remasters of Psycho and Vertigo wouldn't be out of the question.

If only Universal would participate in HTF Chats...

 

[Sten F]

If only Universal would hire some of us... me in particular We do know what we are talking about. The customer is always right. Right?

 

[Kevin M]

The "semantics" I refer to is my fault, the way I perceive the statement that a 16:9 enhanced image as having more resolution than a non-enhanced image to my ears suggests that it is higher resolution than NTSC standards...it isn't. But that is the way it comes off to my ears, I understand that isn't what is meant by saying this but I always want some clarification about this because we as yet don't have a disc based "Higher Resolution/Definition" format and it bugs me that some might misunderstand these sort of statements...I have gotten into arguments about this because when some people read these blank statements they start barking that DVD in it's present format is High Resolution...not yet it ain't and I know we have some time to wait before hollywood get's their legal issues in a row.

As I said, since I can do the necessary squeeze to regain the lost lines of resolution (for years I could do this on almost any TV through the sub-menu before the WEGA) I also will gain from any new transfer, I just wanted to make clear what we were talking about.

 

[Gordon McMurphy]

What with Universal now remastering many back catalogue titles (Scarface, Animal House, Field of Dreams, The Thing, Dracula [1979] ) I have began to wonder if we will be seeing remastered anamorphic editions of Vertigo and Psycho. A commentary track by Janet Leigh amd others for Psycho would be a great bonus also. DTS could also make an appearance, but the original mono tracks should be present (the Laserdisc for Vertigo had the mono).

The remastering for The Thing was a most welcome surprise, so perhaps we'll see the same for two of Hitchcock's best-loved films in the coming months.