To Kill a Mockingbird and The Sting DVDS (1 Viewer)

[Joe Karlosi]

Sure, it's noted as 1.85 on the 35mm film prints for projection purposes on theater screens. I don't think we can ask George Roy Hill anymore for what he truly wanted. Still, the scenes I mentioned do have important things blocked by the bottom matting.

 

[Dave Hahn]

Peter, I couldn't agree more! Although, I still have my doubts, without any hard facts from reliable sources, we must accept that The Sting was intended to be seen in a 1.85:1 aspect ratio.

That being said, it is now clear to me that Universal has framed the SE incorrectly, as both George's and my pictures show. It appears that they've cut off too much of the top and might even have "zoomed in" a little.

Is there a reliable, scientific way to measure objects in identical frames of both issues of the dvd? This would tell us if they "zoomed" or not.

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

Every soft-matted film will have things - some seemingly important - cropped out of the 1.85 image that are revealed when the frame is opened up. It's the nature of "shoot & protect" for 1.85 widescreen.

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

If you look at George's grabs above, you'll see a slight addition to the left & right of the frame, this would indicate that the original DVD was zoomed-in slightly while the new one is zoomed-out. For all we know, the source material for the DVD (both versions) may be zoomed-in.

The only way to make a genuine comparison would be with a frame of the 35mm print and frame grabs off the DVD.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

Unnecessary things Like table legs, ground, or sky, I'm sure. But what about necessary action, such as the goon reaching for his gun and Shaw patting for his wallet?

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

It would depend on whether the director wanted those things to be important or if he wanted you to concentrate on the actor's faces and/or dialogue. Could also be that those were the best takes regarding performances and he didn't care if the framing was a little sloppy.

 

[Dave Hahn]

Again, I agree with you Peter, but I must return to my initial point, George Roy Hill would not have framed an entire film cutting off the tops of people's heads. Their feet maybe, but not their heads!

If I remember correctly from way back when, the first thing they teach you about using a film/video camera is to leave proper head room. It is a basic tenet of filmaking.

Once again I must state firmly: Something is wrong with the framing of the new Special Edition DVD of The Sting.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

It's the natural composition of art, be it with film, drawing, painting...

 

[Joe Karlosi]

Oh, I understand this, believe me. But in the two shots I specified, one is just a medium shot of Shaw alone, and the only thing that's supposed to be in focus in the shot is Shaw by himself and that he's searching frantically for his wallet. I guess it still comes across that way in the new DVD, but we don't really see his hands.

In the second, it's a two-shot with Redford's right profile and the gangster, straight on. Redford reaches for his wallet, and the guy reaches for his gun as a precaution. This is the only thing this shot is meant to convey. When the guy sees Redford's only grabbing a wallet, he relaxes and doesn't pull out the gun.

 

[george kaplan]

I don't have time to get any more captures now, but I do think that some things are just going to be mysteries (the cinematic equivalent of who killed JFK). Psycho is another film in which the widescreen version loses lots of info from the earlier open-matte dvd.

Now, in both cases, Psycho & The Sting, there seem to be logical reasons why the open-matte might be the director's preferred aspect ratio (in the case of Psycho Hitch was purposely using a tv crew, and filmed it in black & white, so who knows if 1.33 was the intended AR), but unfortunately, that's just speculation.

But in both cases, I don't think we'll ever know for certain, unless someone uncovers notes that reveal that truth.

 

[ScottR]

I don't think open matte/widescreen is the issue here, but rather the widescreen version may itself be too tightly cropped on the top and bottom.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

Maybe we should all just ask Doyle Lonnegan. Ya folla' ?

 

[Brent Avery]

Sometimes you have to wonder if it would be better for some of us to have a case of " what you don't know can't hurt you". Many perhaps will not really care and as for myself I suppose it is worth holding on to the latest release just for the special features. It's been so long since I last saw this film that it may not matter in my case. Of course, I would rather just sit back and enjoy it but still, there is this nagging thought in the back of my head that would like to know what was definitely intended - at least you could safely take it from there. Oh well.

 

[Craig Beam]

Huh? PSYCHO has always been wide (albeit nonanamorphic) on DVD. Or is there a non-region 1 version out there with an open-matte transfer that I'm unaware of?

 

[Paul McElligott]

The VHS or TV version would be 4:3.

 

[george kaplan]

I may be thinking of the laser disc of Psycho, instead of an early dvd. But it's clear that the currently available dvd of the film is matted down, and that the 1.33 version previously available is open-matte, not pan & scan. Although, again, that doesn't tell us what the correct aspect ratio is.

 

[Paul McElligott]

Every time I've seen it since has been on TV or VHS, so my memories of the movie in widescreen are hazy at best.

I guess we need someone with both the R2 and the new R1 DVD to do a side-by-side.

 

[Kain_C]

These pictures lean more towards the full screen preference as you would need to see the full effect of Redford's 'makeover', including the full shot of his hair.

And yes, lots of decapitations in the shots. It seemed to me that GRH would have liked for his audience to see alot of his nicely-realized world instead of the 'abridged' shots we are seeing in this new version.

Has anyone watched the 5.1 mix version and noticed the high ringing during some dialogue?

 

[Mark Bendiksen]

I received both of these movies today from Amazon. I can't wait to watch them. The packaging sure is nice. Has anyone who picked up Mockingbird checked out the inserts? Pretty classy, IMHO.

 

[Patrick McCart]

We're only comparing between DVD's.

Who says the old DVD had any sort of "correctness" to the framing. All it shows is that the new DVD mattes off picture once seen in the open matte version.

I mean, is anyone going to say the old DVD had the correct color because the new one has different color timing? What makes a previous edition have any sort of authority on what's right for a movie?