Comformist :coming out in 4:3!!! (1 Viewer)

[Brian PB]

With all due respect Mr. Harris (who I admire deeply), Mr. Levinson strongly implies that the full-frame transfer of The Conformist that he's working on is for home video release:
[emphasis added]

I have read and re-read these words, and I don't know of another way to interpret them. Is there another way to read "get out in the world" except as a DVD release? If this transfer were being done for a non-DVD software purpose (and I admit to not understanding what that might be), why would Mr. Levinson "conscientiously object" to the aspect ratio? Why would he imply that Paramount doesn't think it will sell "unless it's filling the screen"?

I hope that I am wrong (it wouldn't be the first time, nor the last) and that this is a tempest in a teapot. I look forward to a clarification from Paramount. If Mr. Levinson was misquoted (or I have misinterpreted his meaning) and there is no such plan afoot, I will be happy to retract my criticisms and apologize to the involved parties. But until that time, I continue to see it as a valid story and issue.

 

[Peter Neski]

"He merely stated that he was working on a full-frame transfer. There is nothing wrong with this.

The element could be for any number of software uses.

Jumping to conclusions will be a waste of time."

Well if thats the case ,Why not also be fed up!
Its been Years while Paramount releases tons of
junk every Year ,Its been remastered and shown on
TMC,and TCM Letterboxed,theres even a 16x9 Japanese
dvd which dosn't have any english Titles

HBO has already shown a cropped dubbed version

 

[Jon Martin]

But I think his most important words are:

"It's a 4:3 version"

That may not mean full frame, it may mean just not anamorphic.

Are there many films, shot at 1.66 that are available anamorphic?

 

[Brian PB]

As I noted earlier in this thread, I think it would be odd for an industry professional to refer to a non-anamorphic letterboxed transfer as "a 4:3 version".

 

[Thomas T]

Brian,

Sorry but I'm with Robert Harris. I guess I'm just not part of the "what if"/"sky is falling" crowd. Life is too short to get upset about what "might" transpire otherwise I'd worry about getting hit by a truck tomorrow or the week after or ..... well, you get my drift.

When and IF it happens, I will add my voice to the chorus of disapprovals to Paramount. But, as has been noted, there is no word from Paramount that the film is even on their release schedule. Considering Paramount's sterling work on their catalog titles, I'm confident Paramount will do it right.

 

[Robert Harris]

To be clear...

M-G-M's use of the 1.66 non-anamorphic format is current, and not from the "early days" of DVD. This concept wreaks havoc to those with wide-screen monitors or viewing devices.

 

[Marc Colella]

Aren't alot of Criterion's 1.66:1 anamorphic transfers really closer to 1.78:1?

 

[ChristopherDAC]

The video aspect ratio of any "anamorphic" DVD is going to be the 16:9 [1.78:1] HiVision ratio, no matter what the source, since the 7:3 encoding allowed by the MPEG-II standard has never been used. A "1.66 anamorphic" transfer will have narrow black bars at the sides on a wide-screen display, and will be windowboxed on a 4:3 display; a "1.66 non-anamorphic" version will have narrow black bars at the top and bottom on a 4:3 display and be windowboxed on a widescreen display. The "anamorphic" version will provide more total pixels of resolution, and is therefore to be preferred, particulary as widescreen displays are replace 4:3 displays completely in time.

Actually, the odd thing is that the Levinson quote sounds like he is referring to the same version as Storaro speaks of. Has this interview been lost in a time-warp for a decade?

 

[Brian PB]

There may be hope (though shortlived---just as MGM enters the Sony fold). It appears that MGM will be releasing Hirokazu Kore-eda's Nobody Knows (on September 13th) in anamorphic 1.66:1.

 

[Roy Batty]

So it IS full frame what he's talking about here.

 

[Brandon Conway]

But even the "they are still convinced that none of this stuff sells unless it's filling the screen" statement makes no sense, because Paramount has never done a Full-Screen only release on DVD in nearly nine years of the formats existence, save the director approved FS Jade. That record tells me that Paramount does indeed see sales if the film doesn't fill a 4:3 TV, especially for catalog titles and classic films that don't get a Full Screen counterpart upon their release.

 

[Rich Malloy]

I agree with Jose that Levinson seems to be talking about a "cropped" 4x3 transfer, not a non-anamorphic "window-boxed" one.

Obviously, I'm in the pro-anamorphic camp, but I don't think that's the issue here. Hopefully, Paramount understands that anyone interested in "filling their screens" won't be interested in this title, and anyone interested in this title won't be interested in a cropped full-frame transfer. The marketing calculus here is so simple that it's stupid.

 

[Bradley-E]

I have a difficult time in believing Paramount would botch this movie up. They are the most consistant in OAR.

 

[Brian PB]

Official Response from Paramount:

[emphasis added]

Thanks to everyone who sent emails.

 

[Haggai]

Well, that's welcome news! On the question of whether it'll be anamorphic or not, what's Paramount's record/policy with 16x9 enhancement for 1.66:1 OAR?

 

[Brook K]

Very good news indeed.

 

[Thomas T]

Thanks, Brian, for the response. I never expected anything less from Paramount. Pity that so many jump the gun before any official announcement and specs.

 

[Brian PB]

According to the advanced search function at Laser's Edge Paramount has never released a DVD with a film in 1.66:1 (anamorphic or letterboxed).

Case in point: Polanski's Rosemary's Baby was filmed transferred at 1.66:1 (if my information is correct). The specs listed on the box only say "Widescreen Version Enhanced for 16:9 TVs"--no aspect ratio is given. DVD Beaver lists it at 1.85:1 anamorphic, but it's not clear whether they measured it directly. (I think it's more likely to be closer to 1.78:1.)

Similar story with Polanski's The Tenant. Shot at 1.66:1, but transferred to DVD at 1.78:1.

Based on this (admittedly scant) evidence, I think we're most likely to see The Conformist cropped to 1.78:1 when it appears on DVD (which, if I did the math correctly, would mean cropping the picture by about 7%).

As an aside, here is an interesting piece about Paramount and Vista Vision.

 

[Paul McElligott]

If Paramount is still in the early stages, then the four-year-old interview must have been about something else.

 

[Brian PB]

Or perhaps the company has since had a change of heart? Hard to know.