Universal Releases: Anamorphoric Vertigo, Birds etc. coming 9/2??? (1 Viewer)

[Paul Drake]

In reading yesterday's update on the Digital Bits, it made reference to a 9/2 release schedule from Universal which included: Vertigo, The Birds, Psycho, and Rear Window.

Since all of these are still currently in print, I'm curious if these are improved by being anamorphic.

Does anybody know, or is this nothing to be excited about??


The digital bits - Universal September slate

 

[Craig Beam]

Sorry to burst bubbles, but I think those are just repricings. I'd love to be wrong, though.... an anamorphic VERTIGO (my all-time favorite film) would make me dizzy with joy!

 

[greg_t]

Yes, the article states that some are repricings. Rear Window is aleady anamaphoric by the way.

 

[Paul Drake]

Drat! I completely missed the comment regarding repricings.

This is still good news though. I always thought the Hitchcock Universals were priced a tad on the high side.

Thanks for the clarifcation.

 

[Patrick McCart]

I've wanted Vertigo for a while, but couldn't justify the pricing. (Even if it was anamorphic)

Looks like I'll be adding some of Sir Alfred's best to my DVD collection soon. I definately want Vertigo and Rear Window. (So what if Vertigo is non-16x9? It's a great transfer. If I have to re-buy it when I have a wide TV, so be it. If I can afford a 16x9 TV, I can afford rebuying a 16x9 re-do.)

 

[Dan Lindley]

I've been waiting on/hoping for 16x9 as well for those disks that are not (like Vertigo, Birds, Psycho).

FYI: North by NW is, along with Rear Window, 16x9. Any others out there?

Dan

 

[Chad Gregory]

I've been waiting on/hoping for 16x9 as well for those disks that are not (like Vertigo, Birds, Psycho).

FYI: North by NW is, along with Rear Window, 16x9. Any others out there?

Well, The Birds IS anamorphic.

Others include Frenzy, Torn Curtain, Marnie, The Man Who Knew Too Much, The Trouble With Harry.

I'm sure that there are others...

-Chad

 

[Bill Burns]

I'm fairly certain The Birds is anamorphic, Dan, so there may be some good news there for ya'. (Update: while I was writing this Chad posted, so I'm sure this is right).

As to Vertigo and Psycho, despite all of the praise for their transfers (and I own Vertigo on laser, as well, where it also looks fantastic), they are non-anamorphic, and I've long hoped for an anamorphic reissue of both. I know Robert Harris has commented here and elsewhere in the past that he can't justify asking the studio to go to the expense of remastering these films (particularly Vertigo) when the existing masters were already accomplished from high definition sources themselves made from 65mm* restoration elements of the film (please correct me if my memory's faulty, Mr. Harris), but ... I remain confused (I've read discussions on this on a number of HTF threads over the last couple of years, and on other websites as well).

This in part ties in with my disappointment over the Columbia/TriStar laserdisc of Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet, a picture which I now understand to be in the hands of Warner Bros. (is this right?). I trust and pray WB will be mastering their eventual DVD of this title from 65mm picture elements, as is proper to the Super Panavision 70 production, rather than reduction 35mm elements (as was the laserdisc). Aside from a slight aspect ratio change, you simply lose a great deal in going the latter route. The superlative (at the time, though it no longer holds up in the world of DVD) laserdisc reissue of Oklahoma!, which to my understanding was made from proper 65mm Todd-AO elements, was one of the best looking lasers I'd seen when it was released (it’s possible they reduction printed it for the transfer, but I believe the buzz at the time was that it was from true 65mm picture elements, and of course much was also made of its 30 fps origins, as per the original Todd AO spec; anyone know if that transfer was, indeed, derived from 65mm?). The jump to a larger physical film source (Oklahoma! was shot in two different formats, Todd AO and CinemaScope, and was therefore, I presume, never reduction printed for theatrical exhibition?) resulted in a remarkable jump in film quality. And while lasers, in their day, could nicely suggest a theatrical experience, Hamlet could not. I saw that film in 70mm, and the laser was an unsatisfying and unconvincing imitation of that experience.

But back to DVD ... to my understanding, Vertigo is only one corner of this issue. With Lawrence of Arabia, another restoration project of Mr. Harris', the color correction was off on the DVD, and thus, though anamorphic, it remains problematic (it was also mastered, I presume, from 35mm reduction elements). It looks quite good, at least to me (I've never seen it theatrically), but it does not look as it should. On My Fair Lady, which is also anamorphic, 35mm reduction elements were used (by necessity) for the transfer, so, again though anamorphic, it too should improve if remastered from large format elements, just as the large format elements of Vertigo already used for DVD would be better represented by anamorphic encoding. Bringing the two worlds together -- large format film elements and anamorphic DVD encoding -- should yield something quite stunning. One must simply find the money and the market, and I certainly hope the latter is in place, because all of the films I've mentioned are among the finest ever made.

To more specifically address anamorphic enhancement: such captures greater definition from the source element (after its film to video transfer) than does non-anamorphic encoding. Given that a film print (or other film element, even at 16mm, and certainly at larger gauges) contains a rather large level of practical definition that NTSC video cannot capture (note the talk of 2K and 4K film restorations in the Lowry chat, or the information concerning the restoration of Frank Capra's The Matinee Idol found on Columbia's disc of that film), it stands to reason any film will, indeed, see tangible definition improvements with new anamorphic transfers (some additional portion of that gap between film and NTSC resolution is bridged).

Mastering technology, as Mr. Harris says in the thread linked below, is there to make this happen. Large format, anamorphic, dual DD and DTS soundtracks ... again, this isn't a rallying cry for ... oh, Re-Animator or such, but for some of the most well regarded films ever made, and well regarded throughout both the industry and the viewing public.

Specific to Mr. Hitchcock, Psycho and Vertigo are two of his best known films. I was absolutely enthralled by the Vertigo restoration when I was fortunate enough to see it at a local theatre in 70mm, in full, glorious DTS. I can't begin to quantify the sublime pleasure that was my theatrical Vertigo experience -- Mr. Harris and his partner, James Katz, have my unequivocal congratulations. A DTS laserdisc of the film was later issued, along with a Dolby Digital laserdisc, but the current DVD is strictly Dolby Digital. Now, my sound equipment is only Pro-Logic at the moment, so the current sound format is enough for me (having DTS for the future would be welcome, however), but I have an anamorphic capable television, and even with detail issues aside, the NTSC scan lines visible in playing a non-anamorphic disc are typically much more noticeable than on a properly encoded anamorphic presentation. Such scan lines (or "horizontal line structure") are par for the course on 1.37:1 features (where one wouldn't want to sacrifice resolution by windowboxing the picture to avoid scan lines!), but anamorphically enhanced widescreen films truly look like films, not like video, and rival the best (which is to say, most pleasing) theatrical experience I can find locally for most features. I'd so very much love for both of these to look like films. I could buy a home video projector and then I'm sure the differences would be more minimal (confined strictly to resolution), but ....

Well, to put the advances of DVD technology in perspective, one need only compare WB's transfer of Christopher Nolan's Insomnia (widescreen edition, of course) to the transfers of films under similar conditions (recently in theatres, a well financed production, same camera system and aspect ratio, etc.) made in the first years of DVD. Insomnia is breathtaking -- it looks better than it did in theatres, and while that sort of exclamatory statement has been popularized among DVD enthusiasts since the format's very inception, I can honestly say it is true in this case. Insomnia demonstrates just how much true brilliance there is in this format -- a transfer to rival print projection for all visible color and practical detail, a fantastic soundtrack, a re-edit of the film to play alongside a commentary (it's a "shooting continuity" commentary) ... DVD is remarkable. And seeing what can be done today strictly in the arena of picture and sound transfers from 35mm originated films ... I have to think a High Definition transfer from a restored 65mm element, carefully compressed and anamorphically encoded for DVD, could give me heart failure. Aesthetically speaking, of course.

At any rate, count me among those hoping proper** anamorphic editions of these films are somewhere in DVD's future. They'd certainly have a customer in me, though I already own both pictures in their current DVD form.

* 70mm printed (w/ soundtrack), 65mm negative (w/o soundtrack), to my understanding: any corrections welcomed, of course.

** Another region saw an anamorphic release of Vertigo a while back, on which Mr. Harris and others commented ...

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htfo...threadid=82751

... but it was problematic in many respects, including cropping of the image and a lack of real resolution gains (explained on the above thread and elsewhere).

 

[EricMa]

I too have been hoping for anamorphic versions of Vertigo and Psycho. Anamorphic transfers are a pre-requisite for me. There are plenty of DVDs that I can buy with anamorphic transfers that I will not have to rebuy when future anamorphic versions are released.

But these two films are at the top of my wish list so it is hard for me to continue to hold out.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Add me to the endless list of folks who'd love a 16x9 Vertigo/Psycho. In the meantime Eric do what I did...buy them used. That way you're not giving money directly to the studio for a 4x3-encoded transfer and you're not spending as much anyway. I understand how Mr. Harris praises this transfer bcs it used the best available source elements (hi resolution) and equipment at the time it was produced...which precluded 16x9 encoding--however I would have preferred Universal delay the project a year or two so they could have provided the maximum resolution possible on SD-DVD with a 16x9 transfer that has those same qualities.

But everyone missed one more title from that list over at the bits:

Given that a film print (or other film element, even at 16mm, and certainly at larger gauges) contains a rather large level of practical definition that NTSC video cannot capture

Bill,

great comments and I concur whole-heartedly...but I must raise my usual point (that I always make) upon reading the quoted line above. I'd like to remind everyone that DVD is not really an "NTSC"-limited format. NTSC would be described by a 480-interlaced/composite/4x3-encoded signal. DVD can be 480 *progressive*, store component video, and provide either 4x3 or 16x9 aspect ratio encoding...which describes a Standard Definition Digital format...not an NTSC format.

Ok...thanks for letting me get that out!

-dave

 

[Damin J Toell]

will TWINS be 16x9 OAR???

TDB says the schedule contains "new titles and reissues of existing discs at new price points." Since Twins isn't a new title, it must be an existing disc at a new price point, so no new OAR transfer.

DJ

 

[DaViD Boulet]

It's just that whereas many of the other discs have at least "passable" 4x3 WS transfers...Twins looks like a VHS tape that's been hanging around on a rental-store shelf for a few years. It's really pretty bad...and *only* mildly-passable on sub-27" 4x3 displays.

So part of me hopes that maybe the fact that the title is gaining some visibility might indicate an inevitable new transfer.

Hopefully some-day...

 

[Gordon McMurphy]

I'm pretty confident that Vertigo will be one of Universal's first HD-DVDs, if that is of any consolation, folks!

Stunning film.


Gordy

 

[Patrick McCart]

I'm pretty confident that Vertigo will be one of Universal's first HD-DVDs, if that is of any consolation, folks!

It would definately be a title to pull film buffs into HD.

 

[Chad R]

Unless I'm wrong, the ability to transfer films from a 65mm source is both pricey and has a limited number of houses outfitted for it. At least that's what I remember being the explanation behind the 35mm transfer for 'Hamelt.'

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

Assuming high quality optics and methods are used for the reduction, it would be very difficult to detect a difference of a single generation reduction from 65mm to 35mm in a transfer at NTSC or PAL video resolution. Depending on the limitations of the 65mm capable telecine hardware available, it may be better to transfer from a 35mm element derived from an early generational source anyway.

Also, for the record, Psycho & Vertigo are the only non-anamorphic Hitchcock films in R1. All others are either anamorphic widescreen or were originally 1.37:1 academey ratio and do not require it.

With the lowered price, I may finally break down and get the Vertigo DVD to replace my laserdisc.

Regards,

 

[Bill Burns]

Assuming high quality optics and methods are used for the reduction, it would be very difficult to detect a difference of a single generation reduction from 65mm to 35mm in a transfer at NTSC or PAL video resolution. Depending on the limitations of the 65mm capable telecine hardware available, it may be better to transfer from a 35mm element derived from an early generational source anyway.

Hmmm ... I disagree, Ken. DVDs that are cast from high definition masters, even when not anamorphically encoded, look better than DVDs mastered from standard definition film to tape sources, even though the DVD spec cannot represent the dramatic resolution gain. This is why (someone correct me if I've misunderstood this) Mr. Harris describes the value of these non-anamorphic transfers -- Vertigo's transfer was, in fact, made from 65mm elements, the same elements used for the outstanding laserdisc releases of the restoration. This was much more expensive than using 35mm elements, but yielded far superior results, justifying the cost. On my end, as a consumer, I can assure everyone that laserdiscs never looked any better than Universal's Signature Series release of Vertigo, and the prior record holder among the discs I'd seen was Oklahoma!, though Vertigo easily surpassed that. I watched ... oh, dozens, maybe more than a hundred, discs during the laser years (many times that now in the world of DVD), most of them 35mm sourced. These discs rose significantly above the crowd (only a few 35mm sourced transfers struck me as remarkably film like, among them Criterion's Supercop transfer, but Vertigo was a transfer apart, stunning for its visual impact at the time).

The greater the quality of the source, the greater the quality of the product from that source (assuming proper transfer standards are observed and equipment used, as you suggested, Ken). That there's a cap on the resolution of the DVD format would seem to preclude a benefit from 65mm over 35mm (or even 35mm over 16mm), but it simply isn't the case. It was even true on laserdisc, which was analog (!) and lacked progressive and anamorphic specs (at least in the U.S. -- I'm aware there were high definition analog laserdisc systems overseas). Large format looks distinct from 35mm, and that distinction is only partially explained by "real" definition. I don't mean to sound mystical about it, but ... hey, I can only tell ya' what my own eyes have seen.

Universal did the best they possibly could for Vertigo on laserdisc before DVDs came into being, maximizing the potential of that format; I'd love to see them do the same for DVD. It wouldn't preclude issuing a true HD transfer at the dawn of HD-DVD -- the High Definition master(s) would (do?) already exist.

It's been about a year now since the comments I linked in my last post -- I'd love to hear an update on this matter, and get some sense, particularly now that anamorphic (and HD) televisions are becoming so commonplace, of where on Universal's radar the public desire (such as it is) for these remasters rests.

I'm not going to ask them to anamorphically encode 1941. I swear. Cross my heart. But Vertigo and Psycho are too good to languish, as are many of the large format films represented, even anamorphically, by 35mm transfers right now.

WB issued the My Fair Lady transfer, perfectly fine in its day (and anamorphic), but 35mm sourced. Bill Hunt reported a while ago that Kenneth Branagh commented (in a trade magazine, I believe) on an early 2004 release for Hamlet on DVD, and apparently from WB. Right alongside Universal and their terrific Hitchcock properties, I sincerely hope WB does right by that great, powerful film and transfers their DVD from elements representative of its large format origins.

I don't think we can set the bar too high on these films. Living up to the potential of the DVD format is an ongoing financial and practical challenge for every home video company/studio department, but it's one worth the effort -- with DVD as widespread as it has become, the financial gains from a (reasonably advertised) new large format edition (what a banner that might make: "Large Format 65mm Sourced Edition" -- what impulse buyer wouldn't give that disc a second look?) should not only make enthusiasts happy, but also pave the way for advertising the film in an HD-DVD version when that format rolls around. "See the Large Format Edition you've grown to love for its unique beauty on DVD in the pristine quality of High Definition DVD -- gasp as you see detail you've never dreamed possible, sigh as the window into the world of Vertigo grows ever clearer, ever more captivating" ... see, it all works to the good ... I shoulda been an ad man ).

"Noooooooooooooooooooooooooorman!"
"Yes, mother?"
"Nooooooooooooorman!"
"Yes, mother?"
"Why aren't these discs anamorphic, Norman? Do you expect your poor mother to settle for non-anamorphic, Norman? Why would you bring me these, after all I've done for you?"
"But you've settled for 35mm reductions of 65mm --"
"Don't be a smart mouth, Norman."
"I'm sorry, mother. I'll see what I can do."
"You're a good boy."

 

[Craig Beam]

VERTIGO and PSYCHO were among the very first DVDs I bought back when I got my first player back in '98. That was five years ago! The only updates these essential titles have seen are the cover redesigns (which are pretty hideous, IMHO).... Meanwhile, T2: JUDGMENT DAY is about to see its third release (after a pretty excellent second edition). VERTIGO is my favorite film, so I'm kinda partial to it... but anamorphic editions of these two films are LONG overdue. What's it gonna take? Petitions? Rioting in the street?

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

Bill,
That's way too much text for me to muster the enthusiasm to try a point by point response, so let me put it this way. If Sony re-did Lawrence of Arabia from a well produced 35mm optical reduction low-contrast transfer element and it was supervised by someone who knows the film inside and out such as Robert Harris and/or Anne Coates, it would blow away the current transfer from a 65mm source. If Sony produced a new disc with the same level of supervision from a 65mm source, the differences from the 35mm sourced one would be somewhere between subtle and imperceptible.

Regards,

 

[Bill Burns]

Ken,

Verbosity remains my undying curse. I'll edit it down to a couple of brief paragraphs that get at my point (I only have one):

Robert Harris has said in previous threads that Universal did us all a favor by going to the expense of using 65mm elements in their first, non-anamorphic transfer of Vertigo, and that a lesser, anamorphic transfer from 35mm elements would have been a let down. You seem to be saying he's wrong (a proper 35mm transfer and a proper 65mm transfer, i.e. transfers using optics and equipment of similar quality, which would mean both non-anamorphic or both anamorphic, whichever the case, are on roughly equal footing). Based on 65mm element transfers I've seen {because of its AR* I assume you're right and Lawrence is 65mm, but it doesn't really look it; it looks like very good 35mm, lacking, as I believe Mr. Harris has stated, proper color correction), primarily on laserdisc (it doesn't make much sense that laserdisc technology could demonstrate an appreciable difference, but DVD technology cannot, our digital format being more, not less, precise), and based on the distinctive look between 70mm and 35mm in theatres (one I can only partially attribute to practical definition) ... I remain convinced that Mr. Harris is correct, and a transfer from 65mm elements can appreciably outclass one from 35mm in a film originated on the former. Now that the technology is there for 65mm anamorphic transfers (again something Mr. Harris stated on the thread I linked a couple of posts ago, a thread that is now nearly a year old), I throw my hat in the "let's have these anamorphic" arena, but with the caveat that Vertigo, and perhaps reissues of Lawrence and My Fair Lady, be produced from 65mm picture elements.

If I've mischaracterized Robert Harris' statements, I invite correction. But this is what his posts seem to have said, and my experience as a consumer backs it up.

Still rather long, I know, I know, but that's about as brief as I can make it without losing the essence of my point! Sorry. A writer without an editor is a dangerous animal ....

* It should be noted, for those keeping track of Hamlet's status, that the correct ARs of Super Panavision 70 and Panavision reduction prints to 35mm are somewhat divergent: I believe the former is 2.2:1, the latter 2.35:1, or somewhere thereabouts.