Robert Harris on The Bits - 8/12/02 column - OFFICIAL THREAD (1 Viewer)

[george kaplan]

Robert, it's very clear, thanks. Although I assume when 1.37:1 is shown on a tv as 1.33:1 that there is a (very small) loss of information, or is that too an opening up?

 

[KevinLauderdale]

Robert Harris said,
"There was discussion several weeks ago from someone who felt that 20 Million should have been 1.66, and was incorrectly transferred at 1.85. This concept was incorrect and all is well with this release. The European release was even wider."
I just watched the new DVD of "20 Million Miles to Earth," and I was amazed to find more information on the full-screen version. This is obvious from the opening Columbia credits (IIRC). What you get with the 1.85 version is just the top and bottom of the image lopped off. BUT what's really odd is that you wouldn't know that from the menu screen. When you first insert the disc, you get your choice of full-screen or letterboxed. And you see a sample screen shot illustrating both. When you look at those two images, you see more information on the letterboxed image, so naturally you select the letterboxed version. But when you actually view the movie you learn that the images shown on the menu are not what you will see when you come to that scene. That is, there is more information on the letterboxed menu screen shot than there is in the letterboxed version of the actual film scene the shot was taken from.

 

[Gordon McMurphy]

Something people never touch upon, is how BAD a Techniscope show looks in 1.33:1 pan and scan(dal). Think about it:
1957-1975 film stocks.
2 perf 35mm.
BLOWN UP to 4 perf anamorphic.
1.33:1 panning and scanning, which, correct me if I'm wrong, is then blown up again to fill tape etc.
Terrible. Sergio Leone's films in pan and scan - ugh. :frowning:
------------------------------------------------------------
Also, one wonders what Fox will do with The Day The Earth Stood Still. Surely it will be THX 1.33:1 with original mono and DD5.1 options?
A THX restored Special Edition of The Innocents at some point would be most joyful. Never seen it in its full CinemaScope 2.35:1 framing. Hope they plan to do something with it soon...
Gordon

 

[Mark Zimmer]

Given the track record of utterly terrible THX-certified transfers, I'd pay a dollar extra to keep their hands away from The Innocents.

 

[Joseph Goodman]

Something people never touch upon, is how BAD a Techniscope show looks in 1.33:1 pan and scan(dal).

Another thing I don't see touched on, is how bad it looks on screen to begin with!

 

[Robert Harris]

Actually T'Scope was a very fine format.

The problem is that it was meant to be produced via dye transfer direct from the camera original.

Many of the film produced by Technicolor in this format are quite beautiful.

Its when one goes 'round the process that it becomes problematic.

Re: T'Scope and 1.33 -- the p & s versions of T'Scope titles were generally produced from the Onegs and looked fine.

Technicolor did wonderful work with this format.

Again, its when the elements were taken out of Technicolor's hands that problems occurred.

RAH

 

[Mark Anthony]

Talking of Techniscope, reportedly MGM are reconstructing a longer version of "The Good, The Bad and the Ugly" - I hesitate to use the word restoring as well as I have no idea what the shape the materials were in to begin with, if they could finally use the original stereo music masters as well, then i'm sure it will look and sound amazing...

Does anybody have any more information on this, or if they are planning to refurbish the first two dollar movies as well?

On a similar note does anyone know if the forthcoming DVD of "To Catch A Thief" has come from refurbished VistaVision elements or has it merely been a digital clean-up from a standard 35mm element?

M

 

[Gordon McMurphy]

Joseph Goodman said: "Another thing I don't see touched on, is how bad it looks on screen to begin with!"
And I say: Ha ha ha! Very funny. No, come on, some T'Scope shows look great: The Good, The Bad and the Ugly is perhaps the ultimate T'Scope movie. Or maybe it's The Torture Chamber Of Dr Sadism with Chris Lee! Anchor Bay made a Technicolor interpositive of Monte Hellman's superior road movie, Two-Lane Blacktop (shot in T'Scope in 1971) and then color-corrected it and the DVD looks great - or does it? I'm no expert, some say it looks great, others say it looks "like shit". Whatever that means. Is that a technical term?
Gordon

 

[Gordon McMurphy]

Robert Harris said: Re: T'Scope and 1.33 -- "the p & s versions of T'Scope titles were generally produced from the Onegs and looked fine."

I don't know, I've seen some ropey-looking TV broadcasts of The Bees! Ha ha ha! Yeah, I guess they look as good as can be expected.

 

[Gordon McMurphy]

Mark Anthony:

Talking of Techniscope, reportedly MGM are reconstructing a longer version of "The Good, The Bad and the Ugly" - I hesitate to use the word restoring as well as I have no idea what the shape the materials were in to begin with, if they could finally use the original stereo music masters as well, then i'm sure it will look and sound amazing...

You know that 15 minutes of outtakes that's on the DVD? They got (or are getting, I don't know which) Clint to redub lines to those Italian dubbed stuff and put that stuff back in for a 180 minute version. Not sure if it's been released yet. Stuff like this boggles the mind. Did you know that Warner, Regency and "The Estate Of Sergio Leone" are trying to restore Once Upon A Time In America to, get this - 250 minutes long! Arrghhhh! Insane. Not sure what the status of this "restoration" is. Maybe Mr Harris has some info...!
Thanks again, folks,
Gordon

 

[Rain]

Although I assume when 1.37:1 is shown on a tv as 1.33:1 that there is a (very small) loss of information, or is that too an opening up?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't that probably vary slightly on a case by case basis?

I know I have seen 1.37:1 films in reperatory theaters that were actually framed tighter than their 1.33:1 DVD counterparts (I Know Where I'm Going! is an example that comes to mind). Of course, whether I'm seeing as much image in that theater as audiences would have when the film was originally released is another question.

It has always been my assumption that for 1.37:1 films there is some slight "cropping" whether you see it in a theatre or on DVD. In other words, I assumed that I was not seeing the entire image that was captured on the exposed negative (at least not in all cases anyway).

Given the small difference between 1.37:1 and 1.33:1, I would suspect that any differences in what you are seeing would be within the normal "margin of error" anyway.

Of course, I'm just postulating here...I'd be very interested to hear Robert's take on this.

 

[streeter]

Mr. Harris,
I watched the new Atlantic City DVD shortly before reading this article, and I was very surprised that you praised its video transfer. I do not know a lot about video quality and what it should be, but even based on the article I did not understand why you found it so great. The color is great, as is the contrast; I understand that there still should be grain, and I agree with that as well. But the DVD transfer had an awful lot of specks, spots and scratches.

Mike

 

[Robert Harris]

Re: Michael Streeter's comments:

Possibly my eye is too used to film to have noticed the look of a twenty year old film element when it looks right.

All too often today, we are treated to a digitized, homogenized version of a film which no longer looks like...

film.

To my eye, Atlantic City looked like film.

While it may have had a bit of minus density, to be expected in a film of this age, there was certainly nothing objectionable, and to be honest, like Columbia's release of 1776, it looked like it should have looked, and not some overly digitized, sanitized digital clone.

I've said this before and as time goes on it becomes more true, more accurate and more important.

Film grain and the film look are our friends.

If one wishes to view video, it is best found on reality tv.

I may also be one of the odd viewers who actually notices grain and other minutia which makes up a filmed image.

But even I find it difficult to keep my mind on grain structure when I'm watching a performance like that given by Mr. Lancaster.

And the lemons do look great on dvd.

RAH

 

[Rain]

I'm glad to know that Atlantic City bears the RAH stamp of approval. I bought the DVD when it came out and it was my first ever viewing of the film. Good to know that I got a fairly accurate presentation.
And this is the reason why I still haven't seen Lawrence of Arabia.
But what about the whole 1.37:1 vs. 1.33:1 thing?

 

[Jorge Montes]

Very interesting article. The moment the inner-geek in me saw that SMPTE film alignment chart, I turned to a friend in the offices I was at and said "I want that on my wall."

Glad to know all this cropping stuff is a little blown out of proportion when it comes from 1:1.85 to 1:1.78

 

[Robert Harris]

For "inner-geeks," we'll be putting up some additional charts, one a 70mm chart courtesy of SMPTE shortly.

RAH

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

Love the charts, Robert!

OT - did you have anything to do with the upcoming 70mm Lawrence of Arabia re-issue (opens September 20)? I'm hoping the answer is affirmative as I don't want it to look like the DVD - I want it to look like it did during the first restoration!

 

[Robert Harris]

We are trying to work out a mechanism via which a new print will be shipped to NY for screening once the color correction gets close enough (based upon a 1989 print) to do final tweaking of density and color correction.

So the answer is in the affirmative. Columbia (and all involved) want to make certain that the release is fully representative of what the film should look and sound like.

Hopefully there will also be some 35mm prints for those cities which cannot run 70.

That would be a decision to come from Columbia's repertory area.

No matter the release pattern, I envy those who have never seen the film before.

I believe NY, LA have been confirmed along with a number of other cities, inclusive of one of the country's great theatres -- the Senator in Baltimore.

Like the old cigarette ad, which declared "I'd walk a mile for a camel," this one is worth traveling several hundred miles to see in 70mm.

You are in for one of the great cinema experiences of a lifetime.


RAH

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

Great news!! EVERYONE should go and see this presentation of Lawrence of Arabia when it comes near your area.

 

[Damin J Toell]

Columbia (and all involved) want to make certain that the release is fully representative of what the film should look and sound like.

Robert: does this signal a change in attitude that extents to Columbia's home video division, as well?

DJ