Statement concerning THE LAST EMPEROR (Criterion Collection) (1 Viewer)

[mdnitoil]

If I can go this long without African Queen, I can wait a few more years for them to get this film right.

 

[David (C)]

In home video there's always two camps. One who wants what the filmmakers want and those who want the best presentation.

Here people want what the filmmakers want until it alters their presentation. I'm in the camp that wants the best presentation. If that means desaturating an image to gain more fine detail in the character's faces so be it.

 

[Lord Dalek]

Imagines mdnitoil waiting 50 years until they finally release The Last Emperor in 2.35:1 on the new Super Ultra Mondo-Ray disc format. After acquiring the disc and watching the opening logos, he exclaims "At last I can see the left and right!" and immediately dies of a pulminary infection.

Also Optimum providing good transfers? I don't know what you importers are smoking but I sure as hell want some.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

That assumes there will eventually be a version with a 2.35:1 ratio, which is a big assumption given Storaro's bizarre obsession with cropping for 2.00:1. It took nine years for Last Emp to get a decent - though cropped - transfer. You wanna wait another decade or so for a possible 2.35:1 transfer?

 

[Mike Frezon]

Well we're gonna have to, Colin...at least. The real question...and one that's nagging the heck out of me...is should I go ahead and get this darn release because we may NEVER get anything better..other than a BD release...and THAT may be a decade or more away. Who really knows?

Even if Criterion moves forward in a year-or-two with BD releases...who knows when they will get around to TLE? And then it will likely be 2:1.

We may need to wait until after Storaro is out-of-the-picture before a 2.35:1 release will ever come...and that could be a VERY long time from now.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

With any luck, someone will release a future BD version with a transfer that is *not* approved by the director/cinematographer. They can use the current Criterion transfer as a reference for color timing and just do an optimum 1080p transfer of a full-scope source. Surely somewhere out there a 2.35:1 print exists that's worthy of the task. This new distributor need not be Criterion. What studio holds the rights to this film?

 

[Lord Dalek]

I'm going to make a big statement here and you will probably disagree but it still holds merit.

The chances of ever seeing this film in anything but 2.00:1 in any region from now on is to say the least bleak to non-existent. The transfer was done in high-def and the reframing/matting was done in the HD realm. The Image/Criterion transfer is therefore going to be the universal master for the film and all regions will probably use it when it comes to Blu-ray.

You're going to have to except it.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

From Criterion, certainly true.

But there's nothing magical about Criterion's ability to create a 1080p HD transfer. In fact, many of their DVDs derived from their HD transfers have been pretty sub-par... lots of rining and generally lacking in detail. They are really good about getting color timing correct and things that many director's focus on (framing being one of them, obviously). But when it comes to the overall transparency of the DVDs produced from these transfers, Criterion has been dissapointment... and I suspect that the fault is not merely in the downconversion to DVD given that other studios are able to downconvert to DVD with much greater transparency.

Many releases from different studios/regions (and sometimes the same studio in different areas) use different masters from different transfers. Nowdays almost all transfers are done at 1080p minimum, so there's no real obstacle to this emerging in BD from a non-Criterion source derived from another master/HD transfer.

Of course, if *that* studio seeks out the involement of Storaro to approve their transfer, the 2.0 issue will remain.

 

[Simon Howson]

When you say "reframing", do you mean that it has actually been pan and scanned, with the 2:1 frame moving side to side depending on the shots?

Or have they just taken the middle 2:1 from the 2.4:1 frame for every single shot?

 

[Lord Dalek]

Well it appears from the Beaver comparison that in most cases the frame is dead center (which adds some slight credence to Storarro's statement that he did compose the film to 2.00:1 since the viewer's object of interest is directed to the middle), however as you can see in the theatrical cut on the second set of captions the frame has been shifted a little bit to the right where, albeit curiously, the TV version sticks with having it in the middle.

 

[Mike Frezon]

I was going to post something funny (read snotty) about how Storaro was probably thinking about different compositions for both the potential 2:1 televised presentation and the 2:1 theatrical presentation. And about how Da Vinci probably was always re-composing his work, too, for different audiences. I could see him inventing an elaborate system of mattes and curtains to display his prominent works in different states depending upon who his audience was.

But I suppose it's not fair since we're talking about screen captures and someone else's thought process, etc. It's not fair.

But why wouldn't this be a lesson to any artist NOT to screw around with his work after it has been seen, appreciated and honored by the public and his peers. It is only going to create this sort of controversy and complaint. Unless, of course, THAT IS the motivation--to create said controversy. But if one is already an acclaimed artist with tangible work to prove it...why screw with it?

 

[Lord Dalek]

^But the thing is we've expected this kind of stuff out of Storaro for like 20 years now. Its not a mindboggling bombshell and we're going to keep complaining about it until probably nuclear war reigns down on Italy. It has gotten to the point where I can easily say, "Oh its Storaro, he'll crop it, whatever". In fact I'm prepared to say that when we finally get a widescreen version of Ladyhawke it will be 2.00:1 and noone will care, because it will still look a vast improvement over that piece of shit we have now.

 

[Mike Frezon]

I was on the periphery during the AN debate...and while I remember it being waged...it wasn't until TLE (which is a film in which the images especially moved me) that it became 'personal" for me.

 

[Peter Neski]

AN debate...and while I remember it being waged...it wasn't until TLE (which is a film in which the images especially moved me) that it became 'personal" for me.

while I am glad you see the light,the AN cropping for some reason bothers
me even more.Maybe it the fact that I just saw it in the theatre

 

[Peter Neski]

"Ladyhawke it will be 2.00:1 and noone will care, because it will still look a vast improvement over that piece of shit we have now."

I think theres a 16x9 2.35;1 version out in some country,

 

[BIP]

(First Post)

I just had a look at the technical aspects for TLE over att IMDB. According to them (ww.imdb.com/title/tt0093389/technical - add an extra w, as I'm not allowed hyperlinks yet) it was shot on 35 mm negative, in Technovision, using Technovision camera and lenses and an Arriflex 35 BL camera.

The interesting part is that it was printed on both 70mm (blow-up) as well as 35mm format.

The 70mm prints had the aspect ratio of 2:20:1, whereas the other had the AR of 2:35:1.

Also interesting is the note that for Audio the 35mm prints had Dolby and the 70mm prints had a 6-Track audio (ww.imdb.com/title/tt0093389).

So for the 70 mm (blow-up) print an AR of 2:20:1 with a 6-Track audio is correct.

Whereas for a 35 mm print an AR of 2:35:1 and Dolby Audio is correct.

Now what I'm most interested in is which print (70 mm - blowup or 35 mm) did the Academy watch that made them award the film an Oscar for Best Cinematography and Best Sound?

BIP

 

[DaViD Boulet]

And if we get stuck with the 2.0 framing that's closer to the 70mm blow-up on home-video, why didn't we *also* get the multi-channel audio for the DVD instead of the (pretty lame) 2.0 192 kbps Dolby?

 

[Darrell Bratz]

You mean "accept" it? If so, spoken like a true Dalek. If you mean "except", that's far too accomodating and not Dalek-y at all.

Personally I picked up a used copy of the Optimum quite cheaply this past week and couldn't be happier. Looks great. So I guess I didn't accept it, or except it.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

I don't think so. If anything it seems like plenty of shots might be slightly off center, including ones shown in the Beaver comparison, even when it looks like they should *not* be.

And I've already noted some panning and scanning going on between a few scenes I bothered to check (because they were called to attention by others for something other than suspected panning and scanning).

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/...ml#post3324046

And as I stated in the review thread wrt the new Criterion blog response, I just don't buy it that TLE was originally composed for 2:1 as Storaro claimed unless someone can provide better, more conclusive evidence to support that claim. I would've been more inclined to accept his claim if it looks like the entire movie has been center cropped (w/out any notably bad effects), but the evidence (and his potential motive/agenda) just don't add up...

_Man_

 

[Simon Howson]

If it is pan and scanned as you suggest, then I think that makes Storaro's claim that it was intended to be 2:1 even more dubious. Cinematographers have too much work to do on a film, there is no time to consider how to pan and scan the frame.