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

[Joseph Goodman]

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

FWIW, Mike Schlesinger, who would know these things what with being the head of Sony's rep division and all, promised 35mm quad-track (i.e. Dolby SR, Dolby SR Digital, SDDS, and DTS) prints for those not fortunate enough to have a 70mm house nearby, in a post on rec.arts.movies.tech.

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

It would be great if they could book LoA into Detroit's Fox Theater. I missed it when it played there previously and could kick myself. When 2001 finally came to Detroit this year, it was in 35mm at one of our arthouse theaters. That was a shame. :frowning: It deserves something "bigger" as does LoA.
As for Damin's question about Columbia's home video division, they have been doing pretty good work in conjunction with Grover Crisp and their catalog folks on titles like 1776 and Funny Girl lately, so I would not write them off completely. When they put the time in and actually get people who know the film involved with the transfer, they do good work. When they don't, well, you know. :frowning:
Regards,

 

[Robert Harris]

A few notes and updates:

1. Look for a couple of additional charts which should be up on Bits shortly courtesy of Bill Hunt and SMPTE.

2. Re: Rain's query concerning 1.33, 1.37...

There may be a bit of confusion here as the 1.33/1.37 issue is not the same as 1.66, 1.78, 1.85, etc.

The entire available 35/4 perf frame as far as real estate is concerned is .980 x .735.

Flat projector apertures are cut to .825 x .602 or thereabouts. This protects framelines, splices, dirt, etc. and is the current spherical projection ratio.

Many silent films were shot at full aperture (.980 x .735), which is also what is known today as Super 35, from which an image is extracted optically.

Television is 1.33, with transmitted area of .792 x .594, and a tv safe area of .713 x .535.

I'm hopeful that these comments haven't made things worse; point being that 1.33 and 1.37 have nothing to do with cropping.

RAH

 

[Rain]

I'm hopeful that these comments haven't made things worse; point being that 1.33 and 1.37 have nothing to do with cropping.

I'm a little confused, I must admit. :b

Maybe I didn't properly explain what I meant.

Of course, I realise that the matting issues as one would have with 1.66:1 or 1.85:1 films are a different matter.

The crux of the point was that George was concerned about loss of image when a 1.37:1 film is presented on DVD at 1.33:1.

My theory was that the amount of lost image (which one would hope would be minimal) would vary from film to film and that, in fact, you may actually see more image on the DVD in some cases (at least when compared to reperatory cinema screenings).

 

[Robert Harris]

Rain:

You are precisely right.

The amount of potential difference when viewing a 1.37 image on a 1.33 monitor is totally blown out of wack (a technical phrase) by overscan and other ntsc and monitor anomolies.

This is something beyond any rational measurement.

If you take a look at the dvd of Triumph of the Will (Synapse), you'll note that the main titles are windowboxed (as are several other titles) to avoid any loss whatsoever.

And then you have those rounded edges...

RAH

 

[Rain]

Thanks for the info, Robert.
I will surely sleep better tonight.

 

[Gordon McMurphy]

Robert Harris:
The Synapse DVD of Triumph Of The Will is windowboxed? Wow, that's great!
The opening credits of the Lost Weekend DVD are in windowbox.
Is it possible to *cough* letterbox a film for DVD at 1.37:1? Not so much "black bars", but "black slivers"!
I remember Marty Hart (curator of www.widescreenmuseum.com) saying something once about the atrocious cropping of old 1.37:1 shows. Is it often quite bad these days?
What about the old 1.20:1 silent movies? Are any of those on DVD? Black vertical bars at the sides?
I can't tell you how jealous I am to hear that Lawrence is being re-issued in September across the pond! Will there be a UK re-issue? Might have to make a trip to the good ole USA!
Take it easy, Bob.
Gordo

 

[Rain]

What about the old 1.20:1 silent movies? Are any of those on DVD? Black vertical bars at the sides?

The now out-of-print Image DVD of City Lights was presented that way.

 

[Damin J Toell]

The Synapse DVD of Triumph Of The Will is windowboxed? Wow, that's great!

I haven't seen the disc, but note that RAH specified that the titles are windowboxed. This isn't an uncommon practice for older films, as you noted with 1925's Lost World.
DJ

 

[Patrick McCart]

What about the old 1.20:1 silent movies? Are any of those on DVD? Black vertical bars at the sides?

They don't exist, to be precise.

The only 1.25:1 films were Movietone format films. The frame was much squarer. A few films made like this...

City Lights, Sunrise, Dracula (1931), All Quiet on the Western Front, The Big House, Broadway Melody, etc...

You'll notice that without proper matting, the composition is sometimes lop-sided. City Lights and Sunrise are the only two films put on video correctly matted like this. City Lights is the only one on DVD so far. The post-1930 Movietones (and some other early 1930's films) were made for both Vitaphone and Movietone exhibition...only the really early ones had the composition planned like this. Only a few scenes in Dracula have this look...the rest looks fine.

Silent films, however, were 1.37:1 and are almost always windowboxed on DVD. You can be assured that any Blackhawk or Kino DVD's have excellent framing, most windowboxed. All the Charlie Chaplin DVD's are like this from Image.

 

[Rain]

Patrick,
I'd be interested to hear your definition of "lopsided."
I have both Dracula and All Quiet on the Western Front on DVD. I never noticed anything that appeared way off. But I could have easily missed it.
I wonder if Frankenstein is also one of these as I noticed the credits on the DVD have side-matting, like City Lights but not the whole film.
I assumed, possibly incorrectly, that most of these were cropped at the top or bottom to make a 1.33:1 presentation. Sounds like you are saying that we are actually getting more (albeit not intended to be seen) image, almost like an open matte presentation.
Now this is interesting....

 

[Patrick McCart]

assumed, possibly incorrectly, that most of these were cropped at the top or bottom to make a 1.33:1 presentation. Sounds like you are saying that we are actually getting more (albeit not intended to be seen) image, almost like an open matte presentation.

These DVD's were most likely taken from full apature prints. It's really only more common for the lopsided effect to be found in 1927-1930 films. It's hard to tell for All Quiet, but it's clear that the credits were done at Movietone ratio. The post 1930 films don't feature it too much...City Lights is like this because the film was STARTED around 1929!

 

[Claes Ljunghorn]

The post-1930 Movietones (and some other early 1930's films) were made for both Vitaphone and Movietone exhibition

How did they do that? Were they composed for full frame silent (or Vitaphone) aperture and then they simply cropped the left side to make room for the soundtrack on the Movietone prints...or...?

 

[Robert Harris]

While not referring specifically to the Movietone/Vitaphone question, if one refers to the charts (additional should be showing up at Bits today or tomorrow) it can be seen that if one optically reduced the image to leave room for the track, one would also have to reduce the height, necessitating the addition of larger frame lines...

bringing us to Academy aperture or 1.37.

This is what would have been done to the early Universal horror titles, among others, as well as the early Rene Clair films arriving shortly via Criterion, Under the Roofs of Paris and Le Million.

The cheap and easy way would have been to simply lop off the left side of the picture.

Since this required an optical generation, it also means that if the original format did not survive, that we are now left with a grainer and contrastier dupe.

RAH

 

[Rain]

Robert,
Are you saying that it would be more appropriate to present these films in 1.37:1 then?
What about the Movietone thing? I have been told that City Lights for example was composed for that ratio (ie. narrower than 1.37:1), but I don't know how accurate that is.

...as well as the early Rene Clair films arriving shortly via Criterion, Under the Roofs of Paris and Le Million.

BTW, Le Million has been out for a long time. Did you mean À Nous la Liberté?
(And I would just like to say that this is one of the most interesting threads in Software in a long time. I know it's been said before, but thanks for being here, Robert!)

 

[Robert Harris]

I stand corrected.

I sometimes confuse my Clair films -- and type to quickly.

One of my favorites is I Married a Witch, followed by The Ghost Goes West. Both of which would be welcome on DVD.

I had the extreme pleasure of spending a couple of hours with M. Clair in Paris a number of years ago. He forgave me my lack of or attempt at horrific French.

He was an extremely intelligent and patrician gentleman, who, like Mamoulian was one of the unsung heroes in the creation of the language of the modern cinema. After our discussions and subsequent correspondence, it became quite clear that Chaplin that purloined Modern Times from his work.

As far as 1.33 v. 1.37, when one examines the charts, and adds to that an understanding of modern projection and its problems, it becomes very much the same and ultimately a moot point.

I wouldn't lose sleep over the difference in shapes, while the concept of what area of the Oneg is exposed is more of importance.

RAH

 

[Michel_Hafner]

Hi Mr. Harris,
Two questions.
- Is Sony considering a new HD transfer for Lawrence or are
they happy with the old one (telecines are better now than
back then).
- What do you mean with digital photography concerning
Amelie? The movie was shot on film followed by a digital
intermediate stage for color manipulations, as far as I
know (and I would like to see it on D-Theater via a 9 inch
CRT, direct digital transfer. That whould look better
than any prints.)

cheers
Michel Hafner

 

[Rain]

Sorry, I think I was unclear again. I have to start proofing my posts better.
When I said...

Are you saying that it would be more appropriate to present these films in 1.37:1 then?

...I was referring to the Movietone films like City Lights and the other examples Patrick mentioned above.

 

[Robert Harris]

The current LoA transfer is HiDef and technically a fine transfer.

Re: flat sperical formats, a film should be viewed with the intended picture area exposed. Again, the difference between 1.37 and 1.33 is not the cropping of a few lines of information, but rather a totally different frame setup.

RAH

 

[Aaron Reynolds]

And this is the reason why I still haven't seen Lawrence of Arabia.

Aside from the coming new theatrical prints of Lawrence, you could always pick up a LaserDisc player and Criterion's LD.

The very last showing at The York in Toronto before it closed down was Lawrence of Arabia in 70mm.

*sigh*