Thumbs Down to The New "Hard Day's Night" DVD!!!
Festus FireHead
First, where was the opening montage sequence with the song "I'll Cry
Instead? What NON-Beatles fan made the decision to cut this from the DVD????
Second, I thought the sound was garbage. Not a true 5:1 surround. You heard
dialog from the center speaker, but the songs ended up being more like a
mono with reverb added. If there was stereo, it was so muddy, it was
pathetic!!
The film quality was really good, along with all the other extras, but I
love my "Hard Day's Night" DVD from the out of print "MPI" label. Picture is
maybe not as crisp, but a hard true stereo throughout!! Not muddy,
rechanneled mono.
I really want to know what other true fans fell about this,,,any comments?
Tim Brent
wrote:
The montage was made up originally for the 1982 video issue,it was
never part of the original film.
Beatletoon
watch them again. And there was a lot of repeated scenes shown throughout the
extra bits. Not much new to learn. It was nice seeing the actors and extras as
they look NOW, but George Martin had NO real important recollections about each
song.
Great picture quality though and the sound was JUST OKAY!
All in all, much ado about nothing (well actually, about SOMETHING, but not as
much as I'd hoped).
Fondly,
Mitch
Bob
"Festus FireHead" <Fes...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:jRqk9.1191$wH.58@sccrnsc01...
While I was a little dissapointed with the extras, I feel that the sound of
the movie is exceptional.
I was aware that it was the original mono mix before I bought it, but I was
completely surprised at the detail and clarity of the recording. I, too,
have the MPI dvd, and I feel that its sound is inferior to the Miramax
version (even though the MPI is stereo).
What I did enjoy, in the extras, was seeing the grown-up kid from the 'This
Boy' scene -- except he hasn't grown up! He still has the same facial
expressions as he did almost 40 years ago. Kind of refreshing.
Bob
microknee finger
never
> watch them again. And there was a lot of repeated scenes shown throughout
the
> extra bits. Not much new to learn. It was nice seeing the actors and
extras as
> they look NOW, but George Martin had NO real important recollections about
each
> song.
Yeah, but that would mainly be the fault of the interviewer not really
asking him pertinent questions. Instead we get the same old story about
George not liking his tie, and so forth.
Most of the other interviews are cool, though - particularly Klaus
Voormann... that guy was so close to the Beatles, particularly George and
John, and it really comes across. I could listen to that guy for hours - I
bet he's got A LOT of amazing stories to tell. Anyway, he's great.
> Great picture quality though and the sound was JUST OKAY!
I think the sound is quite excellent, actually. Pristine mono. You know, I
think we're all getting more than a little spoiled with all the 5.1 stuff.
This film is from another age and was never intended to be presented in
anything other than mono... it would have been somewhat Frankensteinish
trying to bend it into something else. Tantamount to colorization.
> All in all, much ado about nothing (well actually, about SOMETHING, but
not as
> much as I'd hoped).
I like it overall, but I am a bit befuddled that there's no director's
commentary on it. I keep checking to see if I missed it, but it doesn't
appear to be here. Plus there's no interview with Victor Spinetti! What
gives?!
~ Chad
lennon fan
cd versions, I could be picky and say I thought She Loves you sounded a
bit off, but outside of a few dynamic fluctuations on a couple tracks I
liked it very much. I liked the picture and x-tras, especially klaus
Voorman.
Nimrod ``
wrote:
>I was so disappointed with the new "Hard Day's Night" DVD.
Uh...don't know how to break this to you, sport...but A HARD DAY'S
NIGHT was made in mono, not stereo. And it did not originally have
that "I'll Cry Instead" montage.
Both the montage and the stereo song segments were grafted on almost
two decades after the fact, for a special re-release....which meant
that certain ambient sounds and effects were lost from the original
film during the song segments.
This DVD has justifiably truly restored the film to its original form.
N``
Nimrod ``
<sur...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote:
>
>I think the sound is quite excellent, actually. Pristine mono. You know, I
>think we're all getting more than a little spoiled with all the 5.1 stuff.
>This film is from another age and was never intended to be presented in
>anything other than mono... it would have been somewhat Frankensteinish
>trying to bend it into something else. Tantamount to colorization.
Precisely.
N``
Luke Pacholski
"microknee finger" <sur...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote:
>I think the sound is quite excellent, actually. Pristine mono. You know, I
>think we're all getting more than a little spoiled with all the 5.1 stuff.
>This film is from another age and was never intended to be presented in
>anything other than mono... it would have been somewhat Frankensteinish
>trying to bend it into something else. Tantamount to colorization.
The problem is, they didn't simply leave it in mono. They added some
fake surround processing, very similar to the fake stereo of yesteryear.
Much more similar to colorization than using true stereo mixes of the
music.
Luke
--
Luke Pacholski
"Bob" <nimby1_n...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>While I was a little dissapointed with the extras, I feel that the sound of
>the movie is exceptional.
>
>I was aware that it was the original mono mix before I bought it, but I was
>completely surprised at the detail and clarity of the recording. I, too,
>have the MPI dvd, and I feel that its sound is inferior to the Miramax
>version (even though the MPI is stereo).
See my other post - why they used the mono mix as their source, they
added a bunch of fake surround processing to "make" it 5.1. They would
have been *much* better off if they had left things as straight mono.
Luke
--
Jpgr1972
the original monophonic versions of the songs. I always hated the way MPI
inserted the stereo versions.
jpgr...@aol.com
HeyJude
Luke Pacholski wrote:
> The problem is, they didn't simply leave it in mono. They added some
> fake surround processing, very similar to the fake stereo of yesteryear.
> Much more similar to colorization than using true stereo mixes of the
> music.
Exactly, and they could have included this fake 5.1 mix and also included
the original mono mix on another audio track. They also apparently cropped the
picture to make it fit exactly into a 16:9 ratio for 16:9 TV sets. The movie
was not shot in widescreen, although the cropping on past issues of the movie
in the normal 4:3 TV aspect ratio led to a bit of cropping. So the consenses
apparently was that the picture may have been slightly larger than what 4:3
would allow, so a small amount of letterboxing may have been needed. But as far
as I know, the film was not shot in 1.66:1 or 16:9, so it appears that while we
may be getting more of the sides of the image than we ever have, the top and
bottom may be cropped to fit it into 16:9. I point that out because I'm
thinking the reason this was done in 16:9 and with a fake 5.1 mix is that the
general DVD buying public supposedly expects a 16:9-enhanced picture and a 5.1
Dolby Digital mix with just about any DVD, especially a "special edition" like
this new AHDN DVD.
I'll go ahead and re-post something I posted to another mailing list. It
repeats a bit of what I mentioned above (apologies if my copy and paste job is
unreadable):
This new AHDN DVD package is confusing me in many ways.
There are lots of great things about it as well. The things
that are confusing me:
1. The aspect ratio. We've been told for years that the film
was not
shot in widescreen. The MPI DVD issued in 1997 was 4:3 TV
aspect
ratio just like the other video releases. Reviews of the MPI
DVD
indicated there was slight cropping of the picture on several
sides.
This indicated that perhaps the image was slightly larger than
the 4:3
aspect ratio, and perhaps would require a small amount of
letterboxing
to capture the entire image. Now, this new Miramax DVD presents
the
film enhanced for 16:9 televisions. The only way you can do
that is
with a film that has an aspect ratio that is as large or larger
than
16:9 (You'll notice that movies in the most extreme 2.35:1 (or
whatever it is) aspect ratio can still be enhanced for 16:9
TV's). I
have all of my other AHDN VHS/DVD issues packed away at the
moment, so
I can't compare it to the new DVD. But it seems that they
inevitably
had to crop the image to get it to fit into the 16:9 aspect
ratio. The
sides of the image aren't cropped at all, so it seems we might
be
getting more of the sides of the image than we ever have. But
it seems
as though the top and bottom may have been cropped even more
severely
than the 1997 DVD in order to enhance the DVD for 16:9 TV's (I
don't
have a 16:9 TV, so while I can deal with watching a letterboxed
presentation when needed, it seems a bit pointless to crop
something
that is close to a normal TV aspect ratio of 4:3 in order to
make it
fit into 16:9 TV's).
2. The sound. Okay, what do we have to deal with in terms of
all of
the AHDN movie mixes ever put out? There's the original mono
mix which
indeed exists now. Then there's the various MPI versions which
simply
cut out the movie soundtrack during the songs and dubbed in the
stereo
EMI masters for the songs. What is on the new Miramax DVD?
Well,
there's only one soundtrack available for the movie. It is
indeed
*encoded* into a 5.1 Dolby Digital signal. Is it a true 5.1
mix? Not
really, at least not in terms of the Beatles songs. No new 5.1
mixes
were done for the songs like the YS DVD from 1999. So what have
they
done on this new DVD? Did they once again substitute the stereo
version of the songs, and just mix them in with the soundtrack
of the
movie and pan and echo things in the rear speakers to give the
illusion of 5.1? Well, yes and no. There are plenty of fake 5.1
things
going on. However, it seems as though they did utilize the
original
mono mix of the movie to incorperate it into this faux-5.1 mix.
Again,
much of my reference material is packed away, but I think I
hear the
unique movie mono mix for "Tell Me Why" as well as the mono mix
for
the other songs, and we can also hear things like George
falling back
on his amp. But this is all still quite confusing. There was
plenty of
room on the first disc of this set to include whatever 5.1
nonsense
they wanted to, and then also include the original mono mix
(and maybe
even the MPI stereo mix for good measure).
3. The extras. It seems as though some of the "extras" on the
second
disc of the set are "DVD-Rom" only features, such as the
roundtable
discussion and the script. What is the point of this? I have
two DVD
players, but do not have a DVD Rom drive in my computer. Why
would
they go to the trouble of filming a roundtable discussion and
promote
it as one of the many extras on the DVD set, and then only make
it
accesible via a computer DVD Rom drive? Baffling. (I haven't
spent a
super-duper amount of time with this DVD set, so if this stuff
is
accesible via a normal DVD player, my apologies.)
So what's the bottom line? As usual, there's great stuff here
but
enough little screw-ups to keep it from being the definitive
release.
It's a shame considering how long we've been waiting for it. My
guess
is that the choice of doing the film in 16:9 ratio and doing a
fake
5.1 mix is to cater to the general DVD market which expects
widescreen
and a 5.1 mix with any "special edition" DVD.
--
HeyJude's "Beach Boys Resource Page" - http://www.geocities.com/heyjude160
Ltb3105
more for new generations to watch and appreciate them.
I'll be sitting down with my kids and let them see a part of history being
made.
Peace,
Laura B.
Mr Kite
This film was shot in mono and the new DVD is in mono even when the music
pans to the stereo front and back speaker for a bigger sound it's still in
mono....Not fake stereo....
You people that wish this film would sound like Yellow Submarine 5.1 are
nuts and must of been born in the 1980's or something....
Spoiled Brats...YS they had two 4 track mulitrack tapes (8 tracks) to work
with....Ahdn had 4 tracks....
Come on talk about destroying a film and soundtrack... in the 1980's they
made this great film sound like shit
And I'll Cry instead...Please...Like this film needed to be better or
something....
Mr Kite
"Festus FireHead" <Fes...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:jRqk9.1191$wH.58@sccrnsc01...
Peter Perpetua III
Do That" and some trailers ?
Mister Charlie
Seems to me to be nitpicking. So what of the film was 'originally'
mono, with no accompanying I'll Cry Instead montage? People like it in
stereo. People liked the montage. And *none* of the other extras were
ever included with any package. So there is no purity here.
And yes, I happen to enjoy colorization as well.
--
"...I don't want to spoil the party so I'll go,
I would hate my disappointment to show..."
Mister Charlie
> All you stereo 5.1 fans what's up with you all....
>
> This film was shot in mono and the new DVD is in mono even when the
> music pans to the stereo front and back speaker for a bigger sound
> it's still in mono....Not fake stereo....
>
> You people that wish this film would sound like Yellow Submarine 5.1
> are nuts and must of been born in the 1980's or something....
>
> Spoiled Brats...YS they had two 4 track mulitrack tapes (8 tracks) to
> work with....Ahdn had 4 tracks....
>
> Come on talk about destroying a film and soundtrack... in the 1980's
> they made this great film sound like shit
>
> And I'll Cry instead...Please...Like this film needed to be better or
> something....
>
You needn't get huffy, there is plenty of room for everyone. It would
have been ridiculously simple for them to have a mono, encoded 5.1 AND a
stereo audio track like most DVD's do, and let the people have their
choice.
The I'll Cry Instead is just an extra, just like the extras included
with this set that were NOT part of the original movie. I don't see
anyone claiming to toss the extras away due to their staunch refusal to
view anything not 'original'.
The main complaints seem to come from the fact that no one took the time
to THINK about Beatle legacy product, but simply shoved yet another
version out there.
Spoiled brats? Shit, get a clue.
(BTW I don't have this DVD nor do I care to get it now.)
microknee finger
> And yes, I happen to enjoy colorization as well.
ewwwww!!!! (runs away)
;3)
microknee finger
> to THINK about Beatle legacy product, but simply shoved yet another
> version out there.
Naaaah, it's not that bad, Charlie. They obviously spent a lot of time
working on this.
I do think it would have been cool to include the "I'll Cry Instead" thing,
and other extras from earlier releases, and a director's commentary, etc.
But it's still far from a rush job - it's got loads of cool stuff on it.
~ Chad
whata...@themovieproducersareapain.com
The movie was shot in a unique aspect ratio used on many English
filmsof that era....not quite 16.9 but wider than 4.3
The idea would be to show it in it's correct aspect ratio
and to format it as an anamorphic disc.Therefore on 16 x 9 screens you
would get everything as well as some small black bars down the sides.
you could also use the 4x3 option as used by the spinal tap dvd
where those with 4 x 3 sets could view it in 4 x 3.
a 2 disc set which could have dual layers on both discs is a total
ripp off for what they have done.
the amount of space they could have
1.had the movie in the correct aspect ratio and in 4x3
2.Had the original mono soundtrack
as well as the 5.1 mix and the stereo mix form the 1980's
and the fake stereo 1980's mix from the video and the french mono mix
(the French mono mix was incidently was on the previous version of
ahd.n. dvd, so on the previous release you could get the original mono
songs as well as stereo)
and even after all of these options there is still more audio room for
a dts discreet mix ala yello submarine if the guys at abbey road had
the time to play with the 4 track tapes in dioscreet surround.
3.had the movie as it was originally edited
and also had the movie with You can't do that edited back into the
concert and Tell me why , if I fell as complete songs.
In short the time taken , the amount of discs used
and the end result is a joke .It could have had everything and made us
all happy. what a waste of money this box set really is.
I say Boycott the dvd. or tell the producers they suck...big time...
On Wed, 25 Sep 2002 19:15:12 -0700, HeyJude <blac...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
whata...@themovieproducersareapain.com
I just want one AHDN dvd in my collection...not several.
They stuffed the picture and they messed around with the sound
and why?
we can all use matrix surround with a mono track and do it ourselves
at home if we want to , but why not some basic options.
It's not like they didn't have the room
and in order to show us more of the sides of the film, they cut the
top and bottom off,because the aspect ratio would have had black bars
down the side on a 16.9 screen if they hadn't...what a stupid thing to
do.just show us the movie as it was made.....all you people who want
the original mono sound as genuine, what about the picture that is now
butchered , why not the genuine picture as well please.
Nah this dvd is a ripp off.
what the hell are they going to do with Let it be......I hate to
think.
Who Me
too late
Bill
"Television is not the truth. Television is a goddamn amusement park"
-- Howard Beale
"A lot of people in this business think I'm a smart-ass."
--David Letterman, 2/28/01
"I don't have any regrets, they can talk about me plenty when I'm gone.
HeyJude
whata...@themovieproducersareapain.com wrote:
> The movie was shot in a unique aspect ratio used on many English
> filmsof that era....not quite 16.9 but wider than 4.3
> The idea would be to show it in it's correct aspect ratio
> and to format it as an anamorphic disc.Therefore on 16 x 9 screens you
> would get everything as well as some small black bars down the sides.
This is what I was thinking they would have to do to have it in the correct
letterboxed aspect ratio and also make it anamorphic. I'm all for making things 16:9
compatible, since even though I don't have a 16:9 TV I figure I will at some point
and would like to watch widescreen movies in which it fills up as much of the screen
as possible. But I don't see a reason for doing a 16:9 enhanced picture if it still
crops the picture. It defeats the purpose of putting a movie on a DVD or video in
widscreen format. It seems as though the high-end HDTV market is dictating how
movies are to be formatted on DVD now. They should have either done what you
mentioned by letterboxing the left and right sides as well, or they should have just
put it in the correct aspect ratio and not enhanced it for 16:9 TV's.
> you could also use the 4x3 option as used by the spinal tap dvd
> where those with 4 x 3 sets could view it in 4 x 3.
Luckily, I have the 1997 MPI AHDN DVD as well as several past VHS issues.
Perhaps they also crop a bit of the picture, but it doesn't seem to be any worse
than the new DVD from Miramax.
> 2.Had the original mono soundtrack
> as well as the 5.1 mix and the stereo mix form the 1980's
> and the fake stereo 1980's mix from the video and the french mono mix
> (the French mono mix was incidently was on the previous version of
> ahd.n. dvd, so on the previous release you could get the original mono
> songs as well as stereo)
This is one of the things that really bugs me. The YS DVD has something like 4
different audio tracks on it (a 5.1 mix, a commentary track, an isolated music 5.1
track, and the original mono mix). They could have put the unadultered mono mix on
the AHDN disc with no problem. I have no problem doing a faux-5.1 mix to appease
those who need it, so long as the original mix is also included. I don't even have a
problem with them hyping this 5.1 mix as a selling point, as long as they stick the
mono mix on there for the dedicated fans to find.
> and even after all of these options there is still more audio room for
> a dts discreet mix ala yello submarine if the guys at abbey road had
> the time to play with the 4 track tapes in dioscreet surround.
It is true that the 5.1 mixes produced from 4-track tapes without any other
bounce-down tapes, etc. does not provide a very dynamic 5.1 mix (for instance,
"Nowhere Man", recorded in 1965, on the YS DVD really only has unique information
coming out of three of the speakers: left, center, and right). The way they
incorperated the mono mix into the fake 5.1 mix on the new AHDN DVD proves that the
mono mix does have plenty of punch, so not having a true 5.1 mix for the songs is
not an issue if the unadultered mono mix is available. Also having some
multi-channel mixes of the songs would be great too, don't get me wrong! That is one
thing that perhaps does have to do with Apple not pitching in on the DVD, since they
would have access to EMI much easier than Miramax (in fact, EMI can't do any
releases of Beatles music without Apple's permission).
> 3.had the movie as it was originally edited
> and also had the movie with You can't do that edited back into the
> concert and Tell me why , if I fell as complete songs.
Well, it doesn't seem this is possible since true outtakes from the film (as
opposed to behind-the-scenes "b-roll" footage) are scarce to none. As for "You Can't
Do That", they apparently don't have the original film of that. All they have to use
for that is the videotape of the 1964 episode of the Ed Sullivan show that broadcast
the clip. Thus, both the aspect ratio and film quality of that clip (being a film
clip broadcast on television captured on videotape from the broadcast) would not
match up to the rest of the film. They would have no film to work with to restore,
only the Sullivan broadcast videotape (I suppose the Sullivan archives might have
the actual film reel that United Artists/The Beatles sent them, although that
doesn't seem likely).
Jeffrey CDO
times, making the picture look "cramped" The psuedo "widescreen" allows for
slightly more information on the sides, but at the expense of the top and
bottom of the picture. Also the contrast has been altered, allowing for
more detail in the blacks but sometimes making the picture look hazy...
http://www.rhythm.com/~jeffrey/harddays.html
Cheers,
Jeffrey
whata...@themovieproducersareapain.com
wrote:
on the beatles video release of"you can't do that...the making of a
hard days night"..It has them walking out in front of the crowd and
starting with this song....from memory that wasn't on the ed sullivan
show....hence, I think they do have the film...
but even so it's enough to compile a 4 x3 edit of the concert and it
doesn't take much imagination to get another 50 seconds of video to
finish off"tell me why"...i did it once myself......actually come to
think of it....I've done this concert complete with the extra song and
a finished version of tell me why in digital stereo 4 x 3 on digital
video tape.....maybe I should start selling dvd's of my video
collection on ebay........
You know emi ,apple and mpi can complain all they like about bootleg
videos, but if they actually did anything right in the first place,
then the bootleg stuff wouldn't be selling.....there's something like
100 beatles songs covered by video clips,available from a beatles
collection consisting of about 200 different songs...you wouldn't
think that 30 odd years after they finished that something reasonable
couldn't be done...It would only take up a few dvd's.
actually you could have a box set of beatles videos on dvd's (include
concerts,ed sullivan as well to make up the numbers)
just like the box set of cd's,sell it for about the same price and
make everyone happy.
On Wed, 25 Sep 2002 23:21:04 -0700, HeyJude <blac...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
whata...@themovieproducersareapain.com
That is a very damning couple of pictures on your webpage !
what a depressing thing to do to a good movie.
the producers of the Hard days night dvd
should be tied up to a chair and forced to listen to the entire yoko
ono collection, followed by"what a shame mary jane","revolution no 9"
and "make love to the end"(john ,yoko and mal evans)
There is no way that I will EVER buy this dvd now that I've seen those
photos.
THEY HAVE RUINED THE WHOLE GODDAM PICTURE
and I mean picture...forget the audio changes...the visuals are
ruined.
Nimrod ``
So presumably you would like to see them colorize A HARD DAY'S NIGHT
and make that the official version, because most people today prefer
color movies?
N``
Nimrod ``
Indeed. A sad statement...
N``
Mister Charlie
No. AHDN should stay in B&W, as should classic old flix and noir.
Where I don't object to it is all the massive amounts of films made in
the old days that were NOT made for artistic reasons in B&W but simply
because they didn't HAVE color film then or the money for expensive
color processing.
Then again, I don't feel even if they colorized everything it would be a
crime on the scale of Hitler.
Mister Charlie
Snobish attitudes. Who cares if the Three Stooges are colorized?
Nimrod ``
whata...@themovieproducersareapain.com wrote:
>
>That is a very damning couple of pictures on your webpage !
>
>what a depressing thing to do to a good movie.
>
>the producers of the Hard days night dvd
>should be tied up to a chair and forced to listen to the entire yoko
>ono collection, followed by"what a shame mary jane","revolution no 9"
>and "make love to the end"(john ,yoko and mal evans)
>
>There is no way that I will EVER buy this dvd now that I've seen those
>photos.
>THEY HAVE RUINED THE WHOLE GODDAM PICTURE
>and I mean picture...forget the audio changes...the visuals are
>ruined.
I think you guys are getting your shorts in a bunch over something
that you would never have seen in the theaters in the first place.
Having been a projectionist for several years, some time ago, I can
tell you that virtually every film you saw had information at the top
and bottom of the frame that was never really meant to be seen if the
image was properly centered vertically in the projector's aperture.
In fact, due to this projection consideration, it was physically
impossible to actually project the entire frame from top to bottom
with the standard aperture. If a projectionist shifted the frame
downward, to an improperly low level...that is when one sometimes
could find a bit of dangling microphone at the top of the frame, which
was never intended to be seen by the audience.
It's all part of the appropriate configuration in order for a film to
be able to pass properly through the mechanism, and
filmmakers/cameraman make allowances for that....knowing that the very
top and very bottom information in the image will not usually be seen.
It's like a margin for error and compensation at top and bottom,
because of fluctuations in projectors and theater conditions.
If all films were literally transferred full frame, top-to-bottom,
you'd be surprised how many dangling mikes and stray unmentionables
you would suddenly see atop the frame in some very respected motion
pictures.
N``
David Elliott
I was also REALLY hoping to see outtakes from the film... I know "You Can't
Do That" was supposed to be in the film at the end, and I saw it years ago
on an Ed Sullivan/Beatles Bootleg tape. I really thought the interviews
were good, but I really don't care to see what the make up artist and
hairstylist had to say... instead of that nonsense, add outtakes!!! Movie
trailers and promotional material, too. I think Miramax missed the boat. I
really think the mono mixes shopuld have been there to preserve the
integrity of the film... or atleast an option of mono and a truer stereo.
"Festus FireHead" <Fes...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:jRqk9.1191$wH.58@sccrnsc01...
Strabbo
news:Luvk9.15808$121.3...@twister.austin.rr.com:
> Naaaah, it's not that bad, Charlie. They obviously spent a lot of time
> working on this.
>
> I do think it would have been cool to include the "I'll Cry Instead"
> thing, and other extras from earlier releases, and a director's
> commentary, etc.
>
> But it's still far from a rush job - it's got loads of cool stuff on
> it.
Thanks for the positive message, Chad. I'm thinking someone will be getting
this for my birthday this weekend, and I was hoping this thread would get
me all giddy and excited. I didn't expect so much disappointment from
everyone.
Anyway, I'll ignore whatashame's advice and keep it anyway. I don't have
the other DVD, so this'll be a treat!
Marty
Nimrod ``
<wid...@angelfire.com> wrote:
But you just said that they should have A HARD DAY'S NIGHT in stereo
and with the montage still tacked on....because people liked them.
And it's a known fact that most people prefer color films; in fact, I
can guarantee you that if you took a poll of the population, including
the youngsters of today, you would find that most people would say
they would like it better if AHDN was in color...and they would be
more likely to watch it if it were.
So, why shouldn't they have their way...since you feel a popularity
contest is all that's needed to justify these other changes in A HARD
DAY'S NIGHT?
>
>Where I don't object to it is all the massive amounts of films made in
>the old days that were NOT made for artistic reasons in B&W but simply
>because they didn't HAVE color film then or the money for expensive
>color processing.
Almost no movies in Hollywood were made for artistic reasons, sport.
They were all made for money and profit...pure and simple. If you
started trying to get a committee to decide which older films have
"artistic merit" and which ones don't, you'll have one big hairy fight
on your hands. I've hung out for years in
rec.arts.movies.past-films....and I can assure you of that much.
>
>Then again, I don't feel even if they colorized everything it would be a
>crime on the scale of Hitler.
I do. It would be killing the soul of the artistic works of thousands
of artists....for they were artists, nonetheless, and you're talking
about that which they poured their life's work into, the very product
of their being, even if that work was for hire and profit.
For you or anyone else today to arbitrarily decide that you can
fingerpaint on the Mona Lisa...then offer it up as the primary version
of that painting for future generations, even if it was originally a
work for hire (which it was), is an abomination. A spiritual
abomination.
Furthermore, the lighting values and artistic decisions
photographically were based upon the use of black & white at the time
those films were made (even if the decision to film in b&w was for
economic reasons only); still they were crafting their work based upon
the palette they had arrived at for whatever reason. So the adding of
color to an image not lit or structured for color creates an image
that is neither good color imagery or good black & white imagery. It
becomes a muddy bastardization; as the overwhelming majority of
colorization has proven to be, with a lot of mediocre second-guessing
by technicians far removed from the original artistic creation.
Your logic is like saying "well, they were limited to only one track
at the time they recorded those great old Delta bluesmen, so there's
no great harm in making the primary reissues of their recordings
available from now on with overdubbed tracks by modern musicians,
since those old guys would have no doubt loved to have multi-track
recording at their disposal, but it just wasn't technically or
economically feasible for them at the time. Fortunately, we can fill
in for them and fix it for them now, without their input....because we
know best; hindsight being 20/20".
I suppose, if some future generation of music marketeers decides that
Sgt. Pepper appeals more with some techno-pop rhythm tracks grafted on
by some whiz-kid engineer of the next millennium, then you'll feel
that should become the accepted version for future kids to be exposed
to. After all, the majority at the time would no doubt prefer it that
way.
N``
Tim Brent
<dsl...@optonline.net> wrote:
>It would have been nice to see the "I'll Cry Instead" video... I missed it!
>I was also REALLY hoping to see outtakes from the film... I know "You Can't
>Do That" was supposed to be in the film at the end, and I saw it years ago
>on an Ed Sullivan/Beatles Bootleg tape. I really thought the interviews
>were good, but I really don't care to see what the make up artist and
>hairstylist had to say... instead of that nonsense, add outtakes!!! Movie
>trailers and promotional material, too. I think Miramax missed the boat. I
>really think the mono mixes shopuld have been there to preserve the
>integrity of the film... or atleast an option of mono and a truer stereo.
>
The I'll Cry Instead montage at the beginning was made up for the 1982
theatrical and video rerelease.
Back then as well,outtakes and cut out scenes usually were not
preserved for posterity.
In the movie, I'll Cry Instead was to have been used for the field
scene(the famed Can't buy Me Love sequence).
Tim Brent
>
>Thanks for the positive message, Chad. I'm thinking someone will be getting
>this for my birthday this weekend, and I was hoping this thread would get
>me all giddy and excited. I didn't expect so much disappointment from
>everyone.
>
>Anyway, I'll ignore whatashame's advice and keep it anyway. I don't have
>the other DVD, so this'll be a treat!
>
Marty,
RMB did the same thing three years ago,everyone complained about
Yellow Submarine Songtrack,that mixes were thin etc.
There is no such thing as satisfying a Beatles fan....
They want the songs remastered,but you have to remaster it to sound
exactly like the analogue recording from 196X sounded,which with
technology as it was then (and despite SuperAudio,as I have yet to
fiund a remstered Stones CD).
Everything has to be redone in the new technology but made to not look
like it is new.
Tim Brent
whata...@themovieproducersareapain.com wrote:
>
>The movie was shot in a unique aspect ratio used on many English
>filmsof that era....not quite 16.9 but wider than 4.3
>The idea would be to show it in it's correct aspect ratio
>and to format it as an anamorphic disc.Therefore on 16 x 9 screens you
>would get everything as well as some small black bars down the sides.
>
Similar reasoning as to why a lot of UK TV looks odd here,as Britain
and the rest of the world has PAL 625 lines whereas the USA,North
America and Japan have 525 line NTSC,so when you transfer a UK video
to US standards you lose a lot of resolution.
Even worse is British B&W video for a 405 line monitor,it would look
for what exists even more distoreted.
Nimrod ``
whata...@themovieproducersareapain.com wrote:
>
>I just want one AHDN dvd in my collection...not several.
>
>They stuffed the picture and they messed around with the sound
>and why?
>we can all use matrix surround with a mono track and do it ourselves
>at home if we want to , but why not some basic options.
>It's not like they didn't have the room
>and in order to show us more of the sides of the film, they cut the
>top and bottom off,because the aspect ratio would have had black bars
>down the side on a 16.9 screen if they hadn't...what a stupid thing to
>do.just show us the movie as it was made.....all you people who want
>the original mono sound as genuine, what about the picture that is now
>butchered , why not the genuine picture as well please.
So you condemn the new DVD for not showing the entire top and bottom
of the frame....when theaters never showed that top and bottom area
either (and the image was composed in accord with that standard); but
you accept the old DVD which cropped information on the sides?
Go figure...
N``
Strabbo
news:gu96pusnt9d7son1q...@4ax.com:
> RMB did the same thing three years ago,everyone complained about
> Yellow Submarine Songtrack,that mixes were thin etc.
Yeah, and the debate over '1' went on so long I started skipping threads.
> There is no such thing as satisfying a Beatles fan....
So the secret is to date Stones fans then...
> They want the songs remastered,but you have to remaster it to sound
> exactly like the analogue recording from 196X sounded,which with
> technology as it was then (and despite SuperAudio,as I have yet to
> fiund a remstered Stones CD).
> Everything has to be redone in the new technology but made to not look
> like it is new.
I'm just disappointed that they took out the "I'll Cry Instead" montage.
It's alright though, I'll still look forward to adding it to my collection.
We didn't have DVD when YS came out, so this'll be my first Beatles DVD!
Marty
Mister Charlie
Because they're not selling it to the directors in the world. They're
selling product to the squares out there with money.
They have It's A Wonderful Life in both B&W and colorized. All I am
saying is as far as the sound goes there is *no* reason they could not
have had more than one soundtrack on it. As to colorizing, they can
just as easily issue both. Let people have the choice and let the sales
dictate what the people want. This is not a BAD thing.
>
>>
>> Where I don't object to it is all the massive amounts of films made
>> in the old days that were NOT made for artistic reasons in B&W but
>> simply because they didn't HAVE color film then or the money for
>> expensive color processing.
>
> Almost no movies in Hollywood were made for artistic reasons, sport.
> They were all made for money and profit...pure and simple. If you
> started trying to get a committee to decide which older films have
> "artistic merit" and which ones don't, you'll have one big hairy fight
> on your hands. I've hung out for years in
> rec.arts.movies.past-films....and I can assure you of that much.
So then you prove my point. If they were originally made for NO other
reason than to make money, then what the hell is the problem with
colorizing movies IF the overwhelming amount of people want that? You
seem to be saying there is no artistic integrity, therefore who cares?
Sport.
>
>>
>> Then again, I don't feel even if they colorized everything it would
>> be a crime on the scale of Hitler.
>
> I do. It would be killing the soul of the artistic works of thousands
> of artists....for they were artists, nonetheless, and you're talking
> about that which they poured their life's work into, the very product
> of their being, even if that work was for hire and profit.
You are contradicting yourself left and right. A cogent theme would be
helpful here.
>
> For you or anyone else today to arbitrarily decide that you can
> fingerpaint on the Mona Lisa...then offer it up as the primary version
> of that painting for future generations, even if it was originally a
> work for hire (which it was), is an abomination. A spiritual
> abomination.
Balderdash. Over the top emotions about what you admittedly called
nothing but 'product'. Abomination indeed.
>
> Furthermore, the lighting values and artistic decisions
> photographically were based upon the use of black & white at the time
> those films were made (even if the decision to film in b&w was for
> economic reasons only); still they were crafting their work based upon
> the palette they had arrived at for whatever reason. So the adding of
> color to an image not lit or structured for color creates an image
> that is neither good color imagery or good black & white imagery. It
> becomes a muddy bastardization; as the overwhelming majority of
> colorization has proven to be, with a lot of mediocre second-guessing
> by technicians far removed from the original artistic creation.
Yeah yeah yeah I've heard it all before. Hence my qualification about
noir. It's cultural elitism and it's ridiculous, IMO.
>
> Your logic is like saying "well, they were limited to only one track
> at the time they recorded those great old Delta bluesmen, so there's
> no great harm in making the primary reissues of their recordings
> available from now on with overdubbed tracks by modern musicians,
> since those old guys would have no doubt loved to have multi-track
> recording at their disposal, but it just wasn't technically or
> economically feasible for them at the time. Fortunately, we can fill
> in for them and fix it for them now, without their input....because we
> know best; hindsight being 20/20".
It is not what I am saying. I said what I meant, and all your parables
are are diversions. They have cleaned up old recordings considerably
for CD release, to our benefit. Has *nothing* to do with movies. In
fact, this whole colorization brouhaha is a diversion as well, because I
only tossed off the comment as a humorous aside. The fact that I happen
to believe it makes no never mind to the subject at hand, which is WHY
could they not have included the stereo track? Again, let the CONSUMERS
make the choices. That is not unreasonable.
>
> I suppose, if some future generation of music marketeers decides that
> Sgt. Pepper appeals more with some techno-pop rhythm tracks grafted on
> by some whiz-kid engineer of the next millennium, then you'll feel
> that should become the accepted version for future kids to be exposed
> to. After all, the majority at the time would no doubt prefer it that
> way.
You're just going off on a projecting binge that has no basis in
reality, mine or anyone elses.
>
>
> N``
saki
news:amv7bo$99ovg$1...@ID-63206.news.dfncis.de:
> Nimrod `` wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 Sep 2002 03:43:27 GMT, "microknee finger"
>> <sur...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> And yes, I happen to enjoy colorization as well.
>>>
>>> ewwwww!!!! (runs away)
>>> ;3)
>> Indeed. A sad statement...
> Snobish attitudes.
I disagree. It's not snobbish to want to see a film released on DVD as
close as possible to the version that was released in 1964. It's a sign
of respect for the original work.
> Who cares if the Three Stooges are colorized?
Stooges aficionados might. :-)
Of course we're talking about "A Hard Day's Night", which is
artistically somewhere beyond the Three Stooges (no offense to any
Stooges fans, naturally). Colorization is entirely inappropriate for a
film that was intentionally lit and shot for maximum black-and-white
effect.
So are other fiddles, like stereo-ization (as was done for the 1982
release) or sweetening of the soundtrack (as was done for the film
intro in the previous Rutan/AMC "restoration"---extra screams were
inexplicably added to the opening and the final concert sequence).
To me it's akin to the bowdlerization of Shakespeare that took place in
the eighteenth and nineteenth century, ostensibly to present a more
popular and "proper" (i.e. inoffensive) version of the plays. If were
talking about "authorized" versions or "restorations" of classic films,
then the idea of colorization or stereo reprocessing is antithetical to
those concepts.
If we're just talking about what we personally prefer (stereo over
mono, for instance, or color over black-and-white), that's a different
matter. But you can see why personal preferences can't be considered if
the goal is to reproduce a film that adheres to its original released
format. This is also why the opening montage (which was never a part of
the original release) is missing from this edition of the DVD. It's
nice---I like it---but it doesn't belong in a back-to-originial format.
To nitpick: I miss the original United Artists logo that is on all
original prints and its replacement by the "Walter Shenson Presents"
logo...but, it might well be argued, I'm going overboard a bit.
It's interesting that Gil Taylor, the cinematographer, was initially in
favor of using color photography for "AHDN". He mentioned in an
interview that he felt the richness of emotion expressed by the fans
would have been better served by color, but it wasn't Taylor's artistic
vision that was paramount here; he wasn't the filmmaker.
Richard Lester specifically hired Taylor because he had such extensive
capability in black-and-white cinematography and lighting---the famous
cinematographer Gregg Toland was Taylor's inspiration, and you can
certainly see this in Taylor's style.
Color cinematography requires different camerawork and lighting for
best effects. Laying color over a film made specifically for black-and-
white obscures the cinematographer's art and does it a disservice. Not
that anyone's suggesting this, I'm sure. But does anyone feel the
argument that this DVD should have provided stereo is akin to the
colorization issue?
----
"She's like a rainbow...."
------------------------
sa...@ucla.edu
saki
news:3D926DB0...@ix.netcom.com:
> But as far as I know, the film was not shot in 1.66:1 or 16:9, so it
> appears that while we may be getting more of the sides of the image
> than we ever have, the top and bottom may be cropped to fit it into
> 16:9. I point that out because I'm thinking the reason this was
> done in 16:9 and with a fake 5.1 mix is that the general DVD buying
> public supposedly expects a 16:9-enhanced picture and a 5.1 Dolby
> Digital mix with just about any DVD, especially a "special edition"
> like this new AHDN DVD.
I can't speak for the 5.1 mix, but "A Hard Day's Night" was shot to be
projected either at 1.66:1 (American widescreen) or 1.75:1 (a British
variant); I'm not sure which one Lester intended, but both of these
were among the standard definitions of "widescreen" (as was 1.85:1).
The 16:9 aspect ratio works out to about 1.78:1, so if I understand
this motivation correctly it may indeed replicate the original intended
projection ratio for the film.
Are there any technically-inclined film students here who might like to
comment further?
If anyone would like some further reading on these distinctions, I
highly recommend:
http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/anamorphic/
Don't forget to read the "Widescreen-O-Rama" page there as well.
----
"Tell me what you see...."
------------------------
sa...@ucla.edu
Mister Charlie
> disservice. Not that anyone's suggesting this, I'm sure. But does
> anyone feel the argument that this DVD should have provided stereo is
> akin to the colorization issue?
>
> ----
> "She's like a rainbow...."
> ------------------------
> sa...@ucla.edu
Disagree if you must, but what you and others are requiring is only one
'true' version, when alternates (such as multiple soundtracks, different
endings, etc.) have been offered for a long time.
It SHOULD be a consumer choice, if they can fit it on the disk. And
there are the 'premium' versions of such things like Casablanca and Gone
With The Wind that gives those with the money and the severe aesthetic
senses what they want...the boxed set version of the totally original
product.
These DVD's are like 45's were in the 60's. The 'original/true to the
artist stuff can be as easily released as the more popular versions (or
at least versions with a choice).
Sorry, I find it restrictive and snobbish to *insist* (when the artists
themselves often don't) that the only versions of ANYthing are the true
released versions. Where would we be without Beatle outtakes/boots?
saki
> saki wrote:
> Sorry, I find it restrictive and snobbish to *insist* (when the
> artists themselves often don't) that the only versions of ANYthing
> are the true released versions. Where would we be without Beatle
> outtakes/boots?
I didn't say that this "AHDN" should be the only available version. But
what we're discussing here is the restored, authorized version of
"AHDN", released intentionally to replicate as closely as possible the
original intent of the filmmakers. I don't see that as snobbish; I see
it as respectful. We may have to disagree on this point.
While one may appreciate (as I certainly do) the many bootlegs that
brought alternate song takes to us over the years (and eventually
persuaded the Fabs to release them themselves), it would not be
restrictive or snobbish, IMHO, to suggest that the first released
version of "Norwegian Wood" should be considered the official one.
While the outtake is fascinating, and one may like it better, it's not
definitive.
Alternate versions and director's cuts of films have somewhat blurred
the lines of what constitutes "definitive", I'll agree, and often I
find (in the case of "Blade Runner", for instance) that there are
compelling arguments for considering the director's cut of that film
the one that most closely follows the director's intent, even if it's
not the original version.
But as far as I know, neither the Beatles nor Richard Lester are
suggesting that their orginal vision included color or stereo for
"AHDN". In fact, the care they took to officially release a restoration
as close as possible to the original should suggest that this was their
intent, and I think that's a vital point.
----
"It is no surprise, love...."
------------------------
sa...@ucla.edu
Mister Charlie
Who says any or every release need be definitive? They didn't shoot in
color because they had next to nothing for a budget. And they didn't
release it in stereo at the time as stereo was not the main format being
used. These were logistical, not artistical decisions.
Presumably people expect AHDN to be in B & W, so there's no reason to
color it. But a stereo soundtrack would not diminsh the movie one iota.
For many it would make them enjoy it more.
MY point again is simply this: put both soundtracks on the disk. It's no
big deal to manufacture that way, and then the consumers are offered a
CHOICE.
Mister Charlie
my feelings about colorizing movies goes back to the 80's when the whole issue
came up. I never said AHDN should be color, in fact I excluded it along with a
lot of other movies.
My point was simply this: AHDN DVD can fit a stereo AND a mono track on it.
And it would harm no one, not the film or the original intent.
The colorization thing was a red herring.
saki
> Who says any or every release need be definitive? They didn't
> shoot in color because they had next to nothing for a budget.
True that their budget was limited, but the decision to shoot in black
and white was an artistic one, not a budgetary one, according to
Richard Lester and Alun Owen. Even with a larger budget this would have
been their intent.
> And
> they didn't release it in stereo at the time as stereo was not the
> main format being used. These were logistical, not artistical
> decisions.
But logistical decisions are still a part of the orignal release, and
if the Fabs are releasing a DVD with a restored version of "AHDN", one
would expect it to follow the original technology of its time.
Silent films didn't have sountracks. Would it be okay to dub in a vocal
track to "The General" so that viewers have an option if they want it,
now that we have the technology to do it? Or would that compromise the
whole point of understanding what made silent movies unique?
> MY point again is simply this: put both soundtracks on the disk.
> It's no big deal to manufacture that way, and then the consumers
> are offered a CHOICE.
If "AHDN" had originally been released as both a mono and stereo movie,
I might agree with you....
----
"Let's forget about the past...."
------------------------
sa...@ucla.edu
saki
news:20020926144037...@mb-da.aol.com:
> Allow me to clarify something. I am not accusing you of being a
> snob.
I knew that. :-)
> In fact, my feelings about colorizing movies goes back to the
> 80's when the whole issue came up. I never said AHDN should be
> color, in fact I excluded it along with a lot of other movies.
And I mentioned in an earlier post that I knew no one here was
suggesting it for "AHDN".
> My point was simply this: AHDN DVD can fit a stereo AND a mono
> track on it. And it would harm no one, not the film or the original
> intent.
I disagree with you here; I think it compromises the intent of the
filmmakers. As I mentioned, we may be at an impasse here.
> The colorization thing was a red herring.
Well of course it's a red one. It's been colorized!
----
"So you can colour my world with sunshine yellow each day...."
------------------------
sa...@ucla.edu
Mister Charlie
> "Mister Charlie" <wid...@angelfire.com> wrote in
> news:amvjd0$9.
>
>> Who says any or every release need be definitive? They didn't
>> shoot in color because they had next to nothing for a budget.
>
> True that their budget was limited, but the decision to shoot in black
> and white was an artistic one, not a budgetary one, according to
> Richard Lester and Alun Owen. Even with a larger budget this would
> have been their intent.
He may have said it but I don't believe it.
>
>> And
>> they didn't release it in stereo at the time as stereo was not the
>> main format being used. These were logistical, not artistical
>> decisions.
>
> But logistical decisions are still a part of the orignal release, and
> if the Fabs are releasing a DVD with a restored version of "AHDN", one
> would expect it to follow the original technology of its time.
>
> Silent films didn't have sountracks. Would it be okay to dub in a
> vocal track to "The General" so that viewers have an option if they
> want it, now that we have the technology to do it? Or would that
> compromise the whole point of understanding what made silent movies
> unique?
As to dialogue, no. However most silent movies do have musical
soundtracks attached now. Not at all intrusive. And again, they were
silent NOT because of artistic reasons (with very few Chaplinesque
exceptions) but because the technology did not exist at the time.
>
>> MY point again is simply this: put both soundtracks on the disk.
>> It's no big deal to manufacture that way, and then the consumers
>> are offered a CHOICE.
>
> If "AHDN" had originally been released as both a mono and stereo
> movie, I might agree with you....
Not an issue. The issue (for me) is choice. No reason in the world not
to do that.
>
> ----
> "Let's forget about the past...."
> ------------------------
> sa...@ucla.edu
Mister Charlie
> cc...@aol.com (Mister Charlie) wrote in
> news:20020926144037...@mb-da.aol.com:
>
>> Allow me to clarify something. I am not accusing you of being a
>> snob.
>
> I knew that. :-)
>
>> In fact, my feelings about colorizing movies goes back to the
>> 80's when the whole issue came up. I never said AHDN should be
>> color, in fact I excluded it along with a lot of other movies.
>
> And I mentioned in an earlier post that I knew no one here was
> suggesting it for "AHDN".
>
>> My point was simply this: AHDN DVD can fit a stereo AND a mono
>> track on it. And it would harm no one, not the film or the original
>> intent.
>
> I disagree with you here; I think it compromises the intent of the
> filmmakers. As I mentioned, we may be at an impasse here.
Impasse it is.
>
>> The colorization thing was a red herring.
>
> Well of course it's a red one. It's been colorized!
>
If I had said a gray herring would the point have gotten made? :)
whosbest54
says...
>> they didn't release it in stereo at the time as stereo was not the
>> main format being used. These were logistical, not artistical
>> decisions.
>
>But logistical decisions are still a part of the orignal release, and
>if the Fabs are releasing a DVD with a restored version of "AHDN", one
>would expect it to follow the original technology of its time.
>
released in the theater with prints made from the original negative
projected with 1960s projectors and speakers.
Or, one could argue that the DVD shouldn't include extras, such as
interviews and outtakes because they weren't part of the original release.
Where do you draw the line with the standard of "as close as possible to
the original release"?
DVD is a new technology that was never envisioned in the 1960s. It has
the capability to provide additional information never envisioned for
presentation with the original release. Producers can and do add to
original releases to enhance the experience. One of the main reasons DVDs
are so popular is the extra features. Yes, sometimes it can go too far.
But stereo on the music portions on this disk wouldn't, IMHO.
>
>> MY point again is simply this: put both soundtracks on the disk.
>> It's no big deal to manufacture that way, and then the consumers
>> are offered a CHOICE.
>
>If "AHDN" had originally been released as both a mono and stereo movie,
>I might agree with you....
>
I have to agree with Charlie on this. I agree with the main presentation
on the disk being as close a possible to the original, with the original
soundtrack. I would also like an alternative soundtrack with the music
portions in stereo, so one could view them sorta like music videos and
enjoy them that way, if they so choose. Leave it up to the consumer to
decide if they want to watch it that way or not. Why limit choices if the
technology is available? whosbest54
--
The flamewars are over...if you want it.
Unofficial rec.audio.opinion Usenet Group Brief User Guide:
http://members.aol.com/whosbest54/
Unofficial rec.music.beatles Usenet Group Brief User Guide:
http://members.aol.com/whosbest54/rmb.html
Brian Fried
"Nimrod ``" <NO...@JOSE.COM> wrote in message
news:tB6TPZEnBlkzQb...@4ax.com...
> Having been a projectionist for several years, some time ago, I can
> tell you that virtually every film you saw had information at the top
> and bottom of the frame that was never really meant to be seen if the
> image was properly centered vertically in the projector's aperture.
> In fact, due to this projection consideration, it was physically
> impossible to actually project the entire frame from top to bottom
> with the standard aperture. If a projectionist shifted the frame
> downward, to an improperly low level...that is when one sometimes
> could find a bit of dangling microphone at the top of the frame, which
> was never intended to be seen by the audience.
Wrong. It has *nothing* to do with the position of the gate (that small
frame that shapes the image projected). Boom mics and other assorted gear
that fall into the frame often do so for one of three reasons:
1. There was insufficient room to get all of the equipment in tightly
and/or insufficient time to make sure it was all secured before shooting
began,
2. The camera operator was concentrating too much on one of the other
screen ratio outlines visible on the camera's screen to notice that it was
visible on other ratio outlines (such as widescreen versus pan-and-scan), or
3. The technical equipment's visibility wasn't noticed on the daily
rushes, making it often too late to reshoot a scene once its noticed in
post-production.
As someone who has projected film of various sizes (16, 35, a handful of
others) plus scope and other effects, I can safely say that while you are
correct that not all of the frame is visible when projected, the percentage
of what's missing is infentisimally small -- helped greatly by the common
positioning of the figure safely in the frame for all formats.
saki
news:amvod6$9s90r$1...@ID-71072.news.dfncis.de:
> In article <Xns9295793C26...@169.232.48.140>,
> sa...@ucla.edu says...
>>But logistical decisions are still a part of the orignal release,
>>and if the Fabs are releasing a DVD with a restored version of
>>"AHDN", one would expect it to follow the original technology of
>>its time.
>>
> To take this to its logical conclusion, then it should have only
> been released in the theater with prints made from the original
> negative projected with 1960s projectors and speakers.
That would be my choice, if it were possible. :-)
> Or, one could argue that the DVD shouldn't include extras, such as
> interviews and outtakes because they weren't part of the original
> release.
Extras labeled as such aren't a problem for me. Understanding the
distinction between the film itself as originally presented (or as
close to original as possible, in the case of a restoration) and the
extras that accompany it can easily be made clear.
> Where do you draw the line with the standard of "as close as
> possible to the original release"?
It's worthy of debate, but I think the filmmaker's wishes should
predominate.
> DVD is a new technology that was never envisioned in the 1960s. It
> has the capability to provide additional information never
> envisioned for presentation with the original release. Producers
> can and do add to original releases to enhance the experience. One
> of the main reasons DVDs are so popular is the extra features.
> Yes, sometimes it can go too far. But stereo on the music portions
> on this disk wouldn't, IMHO.
See, I just see it otherwise, for the reasons I've stated.
> I have to agree with Charlie on this. I agree with the main
> presentation on the disk being as close a possible to the original,
> with the original soundtrack. I would also like an alternative
> soundtrack with the music portions in stereo, so one could view
> them sorta like music videos and enjoy them that way, if they so
> choose. Leave it up to the consumer to decide if they want to
> watch it that way or not. Why limit choices if the technology is
> available?
Because what you have then is not a definitive restoration. If
restoration isn't the focus, but enhancement is, that's a different
matter, and addition of a stereo track would be appropriate. For a
restoration of an original work, to me it doesn't make sense.
----
"This happened once before...."
------------------------
sa...@ucla.edu
whosbest54
Strabbo
news:Xns9295793C26...@169.232.48.140:
> True that their budget was limited, but the decision to shoot in black
> and white was an artistic one, not a budgetary one, according to
> Richard Lester and Alun Owen. Even with a larger budget this would have
> been their intent.
And I think it was a good choice. I wouldn't want to see it in color,
myself.
> But logistical decisions are still a part of the orignal release, and
> if the Fabs are releasing a DVD with a restored version of "AHDN", one
> would expect it to follow the original technology of its time.
The film itself, yes.
> Silent films didn't have sountracks. Would it be okay to dub in a vocal
> track to "The General" so that viewers have an option if they want it,
> now that we have the technology to do it? Or would that compromise the
> whole point of understanding what made silent movies unique?
Different kettle of cats, saki. We're talking about a different way to
listen to what's already there, not coming up with something new to insert
into an existing piece.
>> MY point again is simply this: put both soundtracks on the disk.
>> It's no big deal to manufacture that way, and then the consumers
>> are offered a CHOICE.
>
> If "AHDN" had originally been released as both a mono and stereo movie,
> I might agree with you....
I'm with Charles on this one.
To clarify, I think when you pop in the DVD and hit play, you should hear
the movie as it sounded originally. But there's always an audio options
menu, y'know, where you can choose to hear it overdubbed in french or
spanish if you have such leanings.
What's the difference in just allowing another option to flick on and off
the stereo sound?
Another reason I'm a little disappointed about the "I'll Cry Instead"
portion being yanked. I mean, every DVD has theatrical trailers as an
option, hell, this one even has an interview with their hairdresser! Why
not include it as a video extra?
Marty
Brian Fried
"David Elliott" <dsl...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:nyFk9.2089$x9.7...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
> It would have been nice to see the "I'll Cry Instead" video... I missed
it!
"I'll Cry Instead" was, as many have pointed out, assembled for the 1982
theatrical re-release. Given that the intention of the DVD is to re-present
the original cut of the film, it makes sense that it would be cut from the
film's presentation. Its absence from the extras portion may have something
to do with that portion being made specifically by United Artists, whereas
this DVD is released by Disney.
> I was also REALLY hoping to see outtakes from the film...
There are no outtakes. There never were. Everything not in the film was
destroyed.
DVD has convinced many consumers that outtakes exist for every film, but
this isn't so. The idea of keeping outtakes for future release only took
hold in American cinema in the last five years, with the advent of DVD and
the sudden awareness that an added outtake or two could help sell more
units.
Outtakes for films before the advent of DVD exist for the following reasons:
1. The director kept a longer cut for themselves, feeling that the
studio damaged the film too much
2. The studio kept the director's cut of the film, and used the
negatives to cut their own, shorter version
3. A longer cut ended up getting released outside of North America
4. An accompanying documentary was made by the studio for promotion to
theatre owners
5. An accompanying documentary was made by the studio for internal use
6. An accompanying documentary was made by the director, who felt this
would be a great film
7. An accompanying documentary was made by the director for the studio
to use
8. Some footage was used for promotion purposes and not used in the
final cut
9. A joke reel was assembled for the wrap party
10. Some footage was taken home by people associated with the film for
some reason.
Examples of each abound:
Coppola kept Apocalypse Now's longer cut for himself.
Blade Runner's director cut survived because Warner Brothers made the
new one out of the original negative.
Austin Powers had a longer running time outside of North America.
And these are just off the top of my head.
> I know "You Can't
> Do That" was supposed to be in the film at the end, and I saw it years ago
> on an Ed Sullivan/Beatles Bootleg tape.
"You Can't Do That" falls into category eight above. It was shot as part of
the final concert sequence, and handed to Ed Sullivan for broadcast in the
US as part of the film's promotion. Then, when Lester cut the film, he found
the musical sequence too long and cut that song from the stage show.
It turned up again years later, and became the centrepiece of the television
special YOU CAN'T DO THAT: THE MAKING OF A HARD DAY'S NIGHT. Hosted by Phil
Collins, it has interviews with Shenson, Lester, Owen, Spinetti, and a few
film buffs (Ebert) and contemporaries (Peter Noon). The documentary,
incidentally, is still available on DVD.
> Movie
> trailers and promotional material, too.
These are included on YOU CAN'T DO THAT -- at least, the non-American one
is. I'm surprised Miramax didn't put any on the disc, it should have.
> I think Miramax missed the boat. I
> really think the mono mixes shopuld have been there to preserve the
> integrity of the film... or atleast an option of mono and a truer stereo.
There's no such thing as a "truer stereo" with this film. It was shot with
location mics, and those are only in mono. (Similarly, anything not recorded
with the EMI stereo recording equipment for Let It Be is mono.)
There should have been the option between the standard mono and 5.1 mono
mix, though.
Tim Brent
>Silent films didn't have sountracks. Would it be okay to dub in a vocal
>track to "The General" so that viewers have an option if they want it,
>now that we have the technology to do it? Or would that compromise the
>whole point of understanding what made silent movies unique?
The soundtracks music on silents mimic the live music that would have
been played in theatres of the era.
I agree with keeping the integrity of the original,but giving the
option of a stereo musical feed for those who desire it.
As for keeping the original integrity of all films again yes,though
there are some where it may not be possible.
One example is The Birth Of A Nation--not even film historians can
agree on how the 1915 original was assembled,length of the film,or
anything else.
Also,I have no problems with the 1997 redoing of the first Star Wars
trilogy.
whata...@themovieproducersareapain.com
Nimrod,
it's not a matter of slight cropping at a cinema, it's about taking a
movie that's 1.37:1 and cutting it into a 16 x9 picture.
that's MAJOR BUTCHERY.....I REPEAT MAJOR BUTCHERY...
There was less butchery involved in making it a 4x 3 picture.
I remember once that"Gone with the wind"was turned into a 16x9 film
by chopping the top and bottom off so"modern day"cinemas
could advertise it as widescreen...another stupid idea.
it's like the difference between fading hey jude at 6.58and at 4.45.
On Thu, 26 Sep 2002 10:51:35 -0500, Nimrod `` <NO...@JOSE.COM>
wrote:
whata...@themovieproducersareapain.com
wrote:
>
>So presumably you would like to see them colorize A HARD DAY'S NIGHT
>and make that the official version, because most people today prefer
>color movies?
>
>N``
and you're happy with major butchery to turn a 1.37:1
film into a 16 x9 picture?
at least with colorisation you can turn the tv to black and white,
but there's no hope once the film has been cut to bits..
and there was room on the dvd to do things properly.
Luke Pacholski
saki <sa...@ucla.edu> wrote:
>But does anyone feel the
>argument that this DVD should have provided stereo is akin to the
>colorization issue?
It depends on what you're talking about:
1) if you mean the "5.1" mix on the new DVD, yes, that is akin to
colorization. They took a mono soundtrack and added processing to "make"
it surround. Just as bad as the fake stereo of the '60s.
2) if you mean the old home video soundtrack, with the stereo mixes
dubbed in, maybe, but not so much. The stereo doesn't bother me, but the
fact that some effects (and mix elements) are missing does.
3) if you mean a new stereo mix that properly incorporates all of the
elements of the original soundtrack, no. If, for example, the original
audio elements still existed (like they did for YS), and they were able
to use stereo mixes of the songs that matched the film mixes (I believe
there are some double-tracking differences, for example), I don't think
there would be a problem. If, for example, they had the audio source
that had the amp falling over in If I Fell and were able to mix that
with a stereo mix that matched the old film mix, I'd say there'd be no
issue at all.
Of course, the original mix should probably be present as well
(*especially* in cases 1 & 2), but I think #3 above would let you hear
things in stereo without compromising the integrity of the original (as
colorization does).
Luke
--
Uncle Al
"Nimrod ``" <delt...@wings.to> wrote in message
news:y1GSPbxLsT7OY6...@4ax.com...
> Uh...don't know how to break this to you, sport...but A HARD DAY'S
> NIGHT was made in mono, not stereo. And it did not originally have
> that "I'll Cry Instead" montage.
>
> Both the montage and the stereo song segments were grafted on almost
> two decades after the fact....
> This DVD has justifiably truly restored the film to its original form.
>
Well.... no.
It has taken the mono soundtrack and made it into faux 5.1 surround. This is
like those old electronically re-channeled stereo records, only futzed with
even more to spread the sound into more channels. I guess if you do not have
a surround set up, this won't bother you. If you do - your amp will
automatically default into surround mode when you play the disc. In order to
listen to it in mono, you must go through the surround set up routine, which
brings you into a series of sub-menus you probably never wanted to see again
after your initial setup. When your done with the disc, you have to repeat
the procedure and put everything back. It would have been much easier if
they gave an "on screen" option for a mono (or stereo) track.
whata...@themovieproducersareapain.com
1.37:1 to 16 x9 is not a minor projectionist adjustment....it is major
butchery........MAJOR BUTCHERY......
what you are refering too in your projectionist adjustments,
is not this case with this type of alteration....This is a major
destruction to the movie..
turn" gone with the wind" into 16 x9 and see how you feel,
because this is almost that bad..
On Thu, 26 Sep 2002 10:01:09 -0500, Nimrod `` <NO...@JOSE.COM>
wrote:
>
>I think you guys are getting your shorts in a bunch over something
>that you would never have seen in the theaters in the first place.
>
>Having been a projectionist for several years, some time ago, I can
>tell you that virtually every film you saw had information at the top
>and bottom of the frame that was never really meant to be seen if the
>image was properly centered vertically in the projector's aperture.
>In fact, due to this projection consideration, it was physically
>impossible to actually project the entire frame from top to bottom
>with the standard aperture. If a projectionist shifted the frame
>downward, to an improperly low level...that is when one sometimes
>could find a bit of dangling microphone at the top of the frame, which
>was never intended to be seen by the audience.
>
>It's all part of the appropriate configuration in order for a film to
>be able to pass properly through the mechanism, and
>filmmakers/cameraman make allowances for that....knowing that the very
>top and very bottom information in the image will not usually be seen.
>It's like a margin for error and compensation at top and bottom,
>because of fluctuations in projectors and theater conditions.
>
>If all films were literally transferred full frame, top-to-bottom,
>you'd be surprised how many dangling mikes and stray unmentionables
>you would suddenly see atop the frame in some very respected motion
>pictures.
>
>N``
microknee finger
> the movie as it sounded originally. But there's always an audio options
> menu, y'know, where you can choose to hear it overdubbed in french or
> spanish if you have such leanings.
>
> What's the difference in just allowing another option to flick on and off
> the stereo sound?
That's a good point, I have to say. But I for one am happy without the
stereo.
> Another reason I'm a little disappointed about the "I'll Cry Instead"
> portion being yanked. I mean, every DVD has theatrical trailers as an
> option, hell, this one even has an interview with their hairdresser! Why
> not include it as a video extra?
I agree, the absence of things like this is irritating.
Has Martin Lewis ever produced a project like this before? I have no idea,
really, but it seems to me that Lewis might have been strongarmed out of a
lot of features he probably wanted to include - like a stereo mix - by
either the studio execs or the original filmmakers. And part of that could
be from his inexperience dealing with that kind of pressure, which I imagine
is always present when you're working on a big release like that.
The 'You Can't Do That' sequence, for instance, is the cornerstone of the
whole "Making of a Hard Day's Night" documentary which is still available.
Easy to see the possible argument there. Similarly "I'll Cry Instead" may
have been hampered with legal issues involving the prior MPI releases. Or
maybe Dick Lester requested it not be included, who knows. Similarly, things
like the long aspect ratio probably represent the way Lester originally
meant the film to be projected, and so on. Also, Lewis may have buckled
under such common pitfalls as poor budgeting, planning and time constraints.
Not to exonerate him, mind you... just a possible explanation.
~ Chad
Luke Pacholski
"Mister Charlie" <wid...@angelfire.com> wrote:
>Who says any or every release need be definitive? They didn't shoot in
>color because they had next to nothing for a budget. And they didn't
>release it in stereo at the time as stereo was not the main format being
>used. These were logistical, not artistical decisions.
Keep in mind stereo/multichannel mixes were big "selling points" to
theatres in the '50s and '60s. While many smaller movies were mono only,
many larger productions had true multichannel sound.
Luke
--
whata...@themovieproducersareapain.com
wrote:
>>
>Similar reasoning as to why a lot of UK TV looks odd here,as Britain
>and the rest of the world has PAL 625 lines whereas the USA,North
>America and Japan have 525 line NTSC,so when you transfer a UK video
>to US standards you lose a lot of resolution.
>Even worse is British B&W video for a 405 line monitor,it would look
>for what exists even more distoreted.
NTSC is a recognised inferior system with 100 less lines of
resolution....but to fair the reasons why are because it was
designed in 1938 and not meant to transmit color.
NTSC was designed to look great in Black and white on an 18 inch tv
set....which for 1938 was state of the art.
and the frame rates were based on the power system as an easy way to
get constant interlaced pictures.i.e. 60 (interlaced - i ) half
frames from 60 cycles =30 full frames...easier to do in 1938 using the
power system than by any other method at that time.
when you transfer PAL to NTSC you get PAL in NTSC resolution which is
not as good, but that is an NTSC problem....i.e. the resolution ends
up being what you'd pretty much get if you started with NTSC in the
first place.
go from NTSC to PAL you get NTSC resolution shoved in your face.
In short USA NTSC tv sucks,but we are in the digital age
so Tv standards in the USA have picked up( thank God) and
things are shot in 1080i (1080 lines) widescreen ,so they look good.
(except on NTSC tv sets...which can never really improve)
whata...@themovieproducersareapain.com
correct
ratios with (hopefully) restored sound and picture. So instead we seem
to be
getting a cropped picture, a low contrast picture master and weird
sound mix
as I said earlier this dvd has been butchered...
Mister Charlie
Brian Fried
"Mister Charlie" <wid...@angelfire.com> wrote in message
news:amvh0o$9l7dh$1...@ID-63206.news.dfncis.de...
> Disagree if you must, but what you and others are requiring is only one
> 'true' version, when alternates (such as multiple soundtracks, different
> endings, etc.) have been offered for a long time.
No they haven't. Until the arrival of DVD, alternate endings for most films
were only known for the extremely rare handful of films where the director
vocally objected to the final cut. Blade Runner is one example, The
Magnificent Ambersons (by Orson Wells) another. Even then, as Ambersons
demonstrates, the original cut was often tossed.
Alternate soundtracks also only exist for a rare handful of films. A Hard
Day's Night is the greatest example: there is the original mono print, and
the 1982 mono/stereo mix that United Artists made for the re-release/video
release. (The other soundtracks are derivitives of these two.)
DVD offers studios the chance to issue a "definitive" version of its
classics -- all completely restored to their original colour and/or black
and white levels -- while loading up on recent films to make you buy those
films again.
> It SHOULD be a consumer choice, if they can fit it on the disk. And
> there are the 'premium' versions of such things like Casablanca and Gone
> With The Wind that gives those with the money and the severe aesthetic
> senses what they want...the boxed set version of the totally original
> product.
Audio mix choice should be there, especially since most people don't have
the equipment to play Dolby 5.1 on every television.
Picture standard is different, since Blockbuster refuses to carry widescreen
prints of any new release.
As for Casablance and Gone With The Wind, those examples are not relevant to
this discussion. The only variations on Gone With The Wind are copies that
have been badly cropped or have had their colour faded, and those buying the
film on DVD want a top quality print for the digital medium. Casablanca's
variant is the colorized version, and there's not a sane person on this
planet who would prefer the colorized Casablanca to the original one. (The
colors are b-a-d bad.)
> These DVD's are like 45's were in the 60's. The 'original/true to the
> artist stuff can be as easily released as the more popular versions (or
> at least versions with a choice).
Artistic integrity was far less valued then as well.
You're missing a major point, and that is that DVD is seen by all but a rare
few film afficianados as the way of creating a definitive print from this
point onwards. EMI did the same with the Beatles when it moved them to CD;
the singles box and EP box aren't the definitive versions, nor is the Yellow
Submarine Songtrack as far as they're concerned: there's only one version of
each song on the albums, and they came out in 1987.
> Sorry, I find it restrictive and snobbish to *insist* (when the artists
> themselves often don't) that the only versions of ANYthing are the true
> released versions. Where would we be without Beatle outtakes/boots?
Still loving the band. ;)
Music is not film. Bootlegs and outtakes are one of two things: illegally
taken recordings of performances, or illegally copied recordings made by the
artist in studio and not released. In both cases they are not the definitive
versions, since they are not the versions selected by the artist as "the
definitive" version they want to bring to market.
Only one part of the entertainment industry brings out alternate versions on
a regular basis, and that's comicbooks. Even then, one version is selected
by the publisher to be definitive so that the others can be differentiated.
It's not restrictive, it's not snobbish -- it's trying to define what
version is closest to THE ORIGINAL ARTISTIC VISION that drove its creation.
It only becomes restrictive or snobbish when the version that has become
beloved by the audience is designated as inferior to a version the audience
is not as keen to adopt (such as the second and soon to be third version of
the Star Wars trilogy).
Bootlegs, outtakes and so on are great tools for understanding the creative
process, but in the end it's the basic product itself in its original
context that has to stand as the central entry point to the product. (If
that doesn't make sense, I can explain it further.)
saki
news:Xns929591AC6C32F...@24.70.95.211:
saki said:
>> If "AHDN" had originally been released as both a mono and stereo
>> movie, I might agree with you....
>
> I'm with Charles on this one.
No problem. My husband thinks I'm off my rocker too. He was polite
about it but the word I think he wanted to use about me was "Luddite".
:-)
----
"That's old fashioned, that's the way love should be...."
------------------------
sa...@ucla.edu
Mister Charlie
> "Mister Charlie" <wid...@angelfire.com> wrote in message
> news:amvh0o$9l7dh$1...@ID-63206.news.dfncis.de...
>> Disagree if you must, but what you and others are requiring is only
>> one 'true' version, when alternates (such as multiple soundtracks,
>> different endings, etc.) have been offered for a long time.
>
> No they haven't. Until the arrival of DVD, alternate endings for most
> films were only known for the extremely rare handful of films where
> the director vocally objected to the final cut. Blade Runner is one
> example, The Magnificent Ambersons (by Orson Wells) another. Even
> then, as Ambersons demonstrates, the original cut was often tossed.
DVD's were not invented last week. Therer are reams of them, with a
history of extras.
>
> Alternate soundtracks also only exist for a rare handful of films.
Not so.
A
> Hard Day's Night is the greatest example: there is the original mono
> print, and the 1982 mono/stereo mix that United Artists made for the
> re-release/video release. (The other soundtracks are derivitives of
> these two.)
>
> DVD offers studios the chance to issue a "definitive" version of its
> classics -- all completely restored to their original colour and/or
> black and white levels -- while loading up on recent films to make
> you buy those films again.
A 'chance'. There are many DVD's that are just as cheaply ground out as
the first CD catalog raids and old VHS tapes.
>
>> It SHOULD be a consumer choice, if they can fit it on the disk. And
>> there are the 'premium' versions of such things like Casablanca and
>> Gone With The Wind that gives those with the money and the severe
>> aesthetic senses what they want...the boxed set version of the
>> totally original product.
>
> Audio mix choice should be there, especially since most people don't
> have the equipment to play Dolby 5.1 on every television.
>
> Picture standard is different, since Blockbuster refuses to carry
> widescreen prints of any new release.
>
> As for Casablance and Gone With The Wind, those examples are not
> relevant to this discussion. The only variations on Gone With The
> Wind are copies that have been badly cropped or have had their colour
> faded, and those buying the film on DVD want a top quality print for
> the digital medium. Casablanca's variant is the colorized version,
> and there's not a sane person on this planet who would prefer the
> colorized Casablanca to the original one. (The colors are b-a-d bad.)
Geez, I never knew anyone actually colorized the thing. Yuk.
>
>> These DVD's are like 45's were in the 60's. The 'original/true to
>> the artist stuff can be as easily released as the more popular
>> versions (or at least versions with a choice).
>
> Artistic integrity was far less valued then as well.
>
> You're missing a major point, and that is that DVD is seen by all but
> a rare few film afficianados as the way of creating a definitive
> print from this point onwards.
No, it's not. It is just another format in which to sell off old back
catalog. Yes, like the CD the technology is better but the average
consumer is NOT clamoring for definitive anything. They appreciate the
better picture, sound and programability, as well as the extras. The
film buffs ARE the ones who want purity in this area.
EMI did the same with the Beatles when
> it moved them to CD; the singles box and EP box aren't the definitive
> versions, nor is the Yellow Submarine Songtrack as far as they're
> concerned: there's only one version of each song on the albums, and
> they came out in 1987.
And no one suffered from the extraneous releases. Choice.
>
>> Sorry, I find it restrictive and snobbish to *insist* (when the
>> artists themselves often don't) that the only versions of ANYthing
>> are the true released versions. Where would we be without Beatle
>> outtakes/boots?
>
> Still loving the band. ;)
>
> Music is not film. Bootlegs and outtakes are one of two things:
> illegally taken recordings of performances, or illegally copied
> recordings made by the artist in studio and not released. In both
> cases they are not the definitive versions, since they are not the
> versions selected by the artist as "the definitive" version they want
> to bring to market.
>
> Only one part of the entertainment industry brings out alternate
> versions on a regular basis, and that's comicbooks. Even then, one
> version is selected by the publisher to be definitive so that the
> others can be differentiated.
>
> It's not restrictive, it's not snobbish -- it's trying to define what
> version is closest to THE ORIGINAL ARTISTIC VISION that drove its
> creation.
Which only interests those with a rather unhealthy insistence on how it
should be for *every*body. Yes, it's art. It's also product. And only
some of it is worth the appelation of 'art'. No one will argue that
Ishtar cries out for an art label or definitive print.
It only becomes restrictive or snobbish when the version
> that has become beloved by the audience is designated as inferior to
> a version the audience is not as keen to adopt (such as the second
> and soon to be third version of the Star Wars trilogy).
>
> Bootlegs, outtakes and so on are great tools for understanding the
> creative process, but in the end it's the basic product itself in its
> original context that has to stand as the central entry point to the
> product. (If that doesn't make sense, I can explain it further.)
No need.
microknee finger
> > relevant to this discussion. The only variations on Gone With The
> > Wind are copies that have been badly cropped or have had their colour
> > faded, and those buying the film on DVD want a top quality print for
> > the digital medium. Casablanca's variant is the colorized version,
> > and there's not a sane person on this planet who would prefer the
> > colorized Casablanca to the original one. (The colors are b-a-d bad.)
>
> Geez, I never knew anyone actually colorized the thing. Yuk.
ah-HAAAA!!!
Sorry, just teasing. ;3)
~ Chad
Tim Brent
whata...@themovieproducersareapain.com wrote:
>NTSC is a recognised inferior system with 100 less lines of
>resolution....but to fair the reasons why are because it was
>designed in 1938 and not meant to transmit color.
>NTSC was designed to look great in Black and white on an 18 inch tv
>set....which for 1938 was state of the art.
>and the frame rates were based on the power system as an easy way to
>get constant interlaced pictures.i.e. 60 (interlaced - i ) half
>frames from 60 cycles =30 full frames...easier to do in 1938 using the
>power system than by any other method at that time.
>when you transfer PAL to NTSC you get PAL in NTSC resolution which is
>not as good, but that is an NTSC problem....i.e. the resolution ends
>up being what you'd pretty much get if you started with NTSC in the
>first place.
>go from NTSC to PAL you get NTSC resolution shoved in your face.
>In short USA NTSC tv sucks,but we are in the digital age
>so Tv standards in the USA have picked up( thank God) and
>things are shot in 1080i (1080 lines) widescreen ,so they look good.
>(except on NTSC tv sets...which can never really improve)
I do agree on the poorness of Never The Same Colour.
The sad thing is we still have to have the different standards for DVD
and digital.
Have you seen this site?
http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Contrib/WorldTV/
Their articles on Standards Conversion is what i was basing my
observations on.
I can imaginge how poor the 405-line system was for broadcast.
Whosbest54
>> been released in the theater with prints made from the original
>> negative projected with 1960s projectors and speakers.
>
>That would be my choice, if it were possible. :-)
>
and projector for your home at a reasonable price (seriously).
>Because what you have then is not a definitive restoration. If
>restoration isn't the focus, but enhancement is, that's a different
>matter, and addition of a stereo track would be appropriate. For a
>restoration of an original work, to me it doesn't make sense.
>
The main presentation _is_ the definitive restoration. The alternative
soundtracks and extra materials aren't. But they're on the DVD nonetheless.
Would you feel better if all the extra material and "music video" segments were
on a second disk, and the original movie with mono soundtrack was the only
thing on the first disk? I'm not sure what the difference is, but maybe that
would satisfy purists like you.
What about alternative lanaguage soundtracks, such as dubbing in French and
Spanish? Those weren't part of the original release in the US or England. If
those are present, then does that no longer make it a definitive restoration,
even they were in mono? Do alternative soundtracks constitute enhancements?
I'm really interested in what you think about DVD standards and what
constitutes an acceptable definitive restoration. whosbest54
====
saki
news:20020926184221...@mb-fi.aol.com:
>>> To take this to its logical conclusion, then it should have only
>>> been released in the theater with prints made from the original
>>> negative projected with 1960s projectors and speakers.
>>
>>That would be my choice, if it were possible. :-)
>>
> Then I would think you wouldn't want the DVD. Maybe you can find a
> 16 mm print and projector for your home at a reasonable price
> (seriously).
Heavens. Not 16mm...35mm, please. And I know just which print I want.
It's at the USC film archives and has been screened perhaps six times
since it was struck on July 22, 1964. A remarkable document!
However, that won't work for the rest of you folks. :-)
> The main presentation _is_ the definitive restoration. The
> alternative soundtracks and extra materials aren't. But they're on
> the DVD nonetheless. Would you feel better if all the extra
> material and "music video" segments were on a second disk, and the
> original movie with mono soundtrack was the only thing on the first
> disk?
I rather liked that approach in the current DVD presentation.
> Im not sure what the difference is, but maybe that would
> satisfy purists like you.
It sounds like an attractive option to me. I don't think anyone else
would care, though.
> What about alternative lanaguage soundtracks, such as dubbing in
> French and Spanish? Those weren't part of the original release in
> the US or England. If those are present, then does that no longer
> make it a definitive restoration, even they were in mono?
The DVD format precludes a certain level of definitivity, I have to
admit! But alternate dubbing is clearly marked as such; I'd consider it
a legitimate enhancement. I could handle an alternate stereo mix as
long as it was clearly marked as an enhancement, I suppose, though
reluctantly.
> I'm really
> interested in what you think about DVD standards and what
> constitutes an acceptable definitive restoration.
I haven't run through the entire "AHDN" DVD print to know for sure how
"definitive" I consider it (and I admit my definition may well be
extreme), though I've already noted that it doesn't have the original
United Artists logo at the beginning. I take points off for that. :-)
----
"Oh baby, I don't mind the criticism,
because we do it everyday in school...."
------------------------
sa...@ucla.edu
Tim Brent
this (i.e. the cropping,etc.) to get the reaction to then reissue it
in a year or 2 with the original aspect ratio and the stereo
soundtrack as an option(a typical DVD gimmick like having the 2 disc
Fellowship Of The Ring and then using it to promote the 4 disc set for
November, also the new versions of the Tarentino films).
saki
news:7u47pukfkieudaenk...@4ax.com:
The original aspect ratio of "AHDN" was either 1.66:1 (American
standard) or 1.75:1 (British standard), which was the contemporary
definition of widescreen. "AHDN" was never 1.33:1, which translates to
a standard TV screen as 4:3.
A 16:9 television screen converts to 1.78:1, if my calculations are
correct. I don't think, contrary to what the other gentleman said, that
there's been any butchery involving aspect ratios on the new "AHDN"
DVD. I'd be happy to be corrected though if I'm misunderstanding
anything here.
----
"Come along with me, see how much fun it can be...."
------------------------
sa...@ucla.edu
Bob
> Seems to me to be nitpicking. So what of the film was 'originally'
> mono, with no accompanying I'll Cry Instead montage? People like it in
> stereo. People liked the montage. And *none* of the other extras were
> ever included with any package. So there is no purity here.
>
> And yes, I happen to enjoy colorization as well.
I'll agree with all except the colorization thingie. What makes AHDN special
is it is in B & W. It would be a shame to release it in color.
--
Peace,
Bob : - )
Don't need a gun to blow your mind.
Bob
> It SHOULD be a consumer choice, if they can fit it on the disk.
Yup. That's OK. So long as the "true" version is treated with all due
respect ;)
--
Peace,
Bob : - )
Don't need a sword to cut through flowers.
Bob
> Who says any or every release need be definitive? They didn't shoot in
> color because they had next to nothing for a budget.
> MY point again is simply this: put both soundtracks on the disk. It's no
> big deal to manufacture that way, and then the consumers are offered a
> CHOICE.
Nothing wrong with that. It being in B & W was as u say a budget thing, not
an artistic call. But with 20/20 hindsight, it has now become AHDN's mark. I
would never care to see it in color, but, I agree, it should be offered as a
choice.
--
Peace,
Bob : - )
Don't need a watch to waste your time.
Bob
news:20020926144037...@mb-da.aol.com...
> The colorization thing was a red herring.
Why not a gray herring?? Why must the herring be in color? ; )
HeyJude
saki wrote:
> cc...@aol.com (Mister Charlie) wrote in
> news:20020926144037...@mb-da.aol.com:
>
> > In fact, my feelings about colorizing movies goes back to the
> > 80's when the whole issue came up. I never said AHDN should be
> > color, in fact I excluded it along with a lot of other movies.
>
> And I mentioned in an earlier post that I knew no one here was
> suggesting it for "AHDN".
I haven't mentioned anything about this recently on any threads here,
and I've already debated this in past years on RMB, but I'd definitely be
for colorizing the film, assuming a good job was done of it such as the
colorization of the "All You Need Is Love" broadcast. Obviously, someone
opposed to even including several different audio tracks on a DVD to keep
the integrity of the original film perfectly intact is probably not going
to agree that colorization should happen. But for me, it's based on the
same logic as having multiple audio tracks. I'm for having multiple audio
tracks along with originals, becuase it doesn't erase the original. I'm
for colorizing the movie because I think it would look interesting and
would not keep anybody from being able to see the original black and
white version.
>
>
> > My point was simply this: AHDN DVD can fit a stereo AND a mono
> > track on it. And it would harm no one, not the film or the original
> > intent.
>
> I disagree with you here; I think it compromises the intent of the
> filmmakers. As I mentioned, we may be at an impasse here.
But as someone else said, anything outside of screening the movie in
a movie theatre with mono sound is compromixing the intent of filmmakers.
A true filmmaker makes his film for showing in movie theaters, not for
home video, even today. So any home re-creation of viewing a film is
going to compromise the intent of the filmmaker. If you put the original
soundtrack on a DVD, what is wrong with also including another soundtrack
for those that want it? Richard Lester and Walter Shenson have gone out
in the past and done press interviews and whatnot to promote the
re-releases of AHDN on home video, including the versions that had a
cropped picture and altered stereo sound. They are the filmmakers, and
they didn't seem to be opposed to the reproduction of the movie on VHS,
etc. I don't see "Alan Smithee" listed on the credits (which directors
will do, for instance, on a pan-and-scan television screening of a movie
where they feel not showing it in its original aspect ratio means it is
not "the film they directed"). I'm all for reproducing a movie just
like the original (which the new Miramax DVD failed to do both in terms
of the picture and sound) first. But what's wrong with also including
supplemental audio tracks, etc.? I don't even think it takes away from
the original film at all if the original elements can be viewed if
wanted. I've spoken with film majors and Film/TV college professors, most
of whom are obviously film purists (who think movies should be shot on
film (as opposed to the new digital formats used by George Lucas, etc.)
and displayed on film whenever possible), but I've never met anybody who
is a purist to the point that including additional audio tracks as well
as the original audio track on a DVD is compromising the intent of the
filmmaker. Nearly everybody I spoke to was in fact very interested in
good commentary tracks from directors, etc. being included on laserdiscs
and DVD's.
--
HeyJude's "Beach Boys Resource Page" -
http://www.geocities.com/heyjude160
Danny Callahan
It reminds me of how Hitler comes up in a lot of debates.
"Nimrod ``" <delt...@wings.to> wrote in message
news:r1KSPYUp56TF36...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 25 Sep 2002 23:20:24 GMT, "microknee finger"
> <sur...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >
> >I think the sound is quite excellent, actually. Pristine mono. You know,
I
> >think we're all getting more than a little spoiled with all the 5.1
stuff.
> >This film is from another age and was never intended to be presented in
> >anything other than mono... it would have been somewhat Frankensteinish
> >trying to bend it into something else. Tantamount to colorization.
>
> Precisely.
>
>
> N``
maxwell
>color it. But a stereo soundtrack would not diminsh the movie one
iota.
>For many it would make them enjoy it more.
>MY point again is simply this: put both soundtracks on the disk. It's
no
>big deal to manufacture that way, and then the consumers are offered
a
>CHOICE.
I couldn't agree more.
When people compare the concept of colorization of the movie to
wanting the soundtrack to be in stereo or 6 channel....well, I don't
see the comparison.
In 1964 there was a choice...they could have made the film in color or
black and white. They chose black in white. Dolby 5.1 separation was
not technologically available as an option in 1964.
If the film was being made today (I know this question can't really be
answered, but...), do you think they would choose to have the
soundtrack in telephone quality mono? I doubt it.
HeyJude
whata...@themovieproducersareapain.com wrote:
> on the beatles video release of"you can't do that...the making of a
> hard days night"..It has them walking out in front of the crowd and
> starting with this song....from memory that wasn't on the ed sullivan
> show....hence, I think they do have the film...
It's possible, but that footage of them walking out may be from behind-the-scenes
footage as opposed to footage shot for the film. I vaguely recall that the very beginning
of the song as shown on Sullivan goes black as it segues from the interview Sullivan did
with them to the film footage. I believe that might be why the MPI documentary grafted
that bit of footage onto the beginning. I have my reference material packed away to
check, though. :)
> but even so it's enough to compile a 4 x3 edit of the concert and it
> doesn't take much imagination to get another 50 seconds of video to
> finish off"tell me why"
Oh, I agree. But really, I'm not that interested in seeing "You Can' t Do That"
inserted back into the film, but it should have been included as an extra clip at least
on the new Miramax DVD. It's pretty silly to not include the only true outtake from the
film that still exists. Well, at least the MPI DVD of the "Making of AHDN" is not
obselete because of the Miramax DVD. In fact, I think I still prefer the MPI documentary
over the 35-minute documentary included on the first disc of the Miramax AHDN set (and
the Miramax documentary even uses a bit of footage from the MPI interviews, at least for
the folks who are no longer with us like Alun Owen and Walter Shenson).
HeyJude
saki wrote:
> I can't speak for the 5.1 mix, but "A Hard Day's Night" was shot to be
> projected either at 1.66:1 (American widescreen) or 1.75:1 (a British
> variant); I'm not sure which one Lester intended, but both of these
> were among the standard definitions of "widescreen" (as was 1.85:1).
>
> The 16:9 aspect ratio works out to about 1.78:1, so if I understand
> this motivation correctly it may indeed replicate the original intended
> projection ratio for the film.
I do recall that the specs for the DVD listed the ratio as 1.66:1. I
didn't bother to do the math, I just assumed for some reason that it would
be eqivalent to 16:9. :) The easy solution to this would be to compare to
the MPI 1997 DVD to the new Miramax DVD. That wouldn't tell us for sure
whether the Miramax DVD presents the film at the correct aspect ratio, but
it would at least tell us whether the Miramax DVD crops the picture at all
compared to what we can see in the MPI DVD. Unfortunately, I have all of my
other DVD's packed away at the moment. I've read many claim the new Miramax
DVD still crops the picture at the top and bottom, but haven't read any
specific side-by-side comparisons between the two DVD issues. Hopefully,
Beatlefan magazine will have a good, detailed review. I hope the same
person who did the excellent review of the 1997 MPI DVD's in comparison to
the past VHS and Laserdisc editions will do the new review as well to tell
us if we finally got the "definitive" version at least as far as the
picture is concerned.
> Are there any technically-inclined film students here who might like to
> comment further?
I'm not nor was I ever a film student, but I took a few general history
of film classes in college. One thing I do recall is that before and
certainly by 1964, most movies (British or American) were shot in
widescreen format (as in something other than 4:3 or so), so I was always
puzzled since I always read that AHDN was *not* shot in widescreen. I
suppose it's possible that AHDN was shot in something near 4:3 (or 1.33:1)
and meant to be projected at the normal US and UK aspect ratios, and they
simply new in advance that they would be cropping the picture to fit it
into that ratio. I know for "Let It Be", they shot it in 4:3 on 16mm film,
then when they blew it up to 35mm for cinemas, they simply cropped off the
top and bottom to make it fit the widescreen ratio. Then, when they did the
video release in the early 80's, they took that cropped 35mm version and
pan-and-scanned it for 4:3, cropping off the sides as well! It always takes
a bit to explain to non-Beatles fans why "Let It Be" can be seen in its
full aspect ratio and reveal much more than what is on the early 80's
release while still being in 4:3 ratio. :)
Luke Pacholski
maxwe...@msn.com (maxwell) wrote:
>In 1964 there was a choice...they could have made the film in color or
>black and white. They chose black in white. Dolby 5.1 separation was
>not technologically available as an option in 1964.
Well, it was, actually. Ok, not "Dolby", but multichannel recording
techniques for movies *were* available at the time. Of course, these
were usually reserved for *big* productions, so I'm not sure they had
much of a choice in the matter, but...
Luke
--
Luke Pacholski
HeyJude <blac...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>If you put the original
>soundtrack on a DVD, what is wrong with also including another soundtrack
>for those that want it?
Well, the real issue is they *didn't* put the original soundtrack on the
DVD, at least not in its original form (unprocessed mono).
Luke
--
R.A.G. Seely
news:Xns9295A72DA6...@169.232.48.140:
> The original aspect ratio of "AHDN" was either 1.66:1 (American
> standard) or 1.75:1 (British standard), which was the contemporary
> definition of widescreen. "AHDN" was never 1.33:1, which translates to
> a standard TV screen as 4:3.
>
> A 16:9 television screen converts to 1.78:1, if my calculations are
> correct. I don't think, contrary to what the other gentleman said, that
> there's been any butchery involving aspect ratios on the new "AHDN"
> DVD. I'd be happy to be corrected though if I'm misunderstanding
> anything here.
This is (to my mind) the only really important aspect of the current
discussion (I admit that I haven't had time to look at the DVD, even though
it sits on my bookshelf waiting 90 free minutes without competition for the
TV set!). The two images posted here the other day did suggest that there
was significant cropping of the top and bottom of the screen image in the
new DVD, and if that proves so, it could be a real disappointment. But I
will probably live with this one happily enough - and I still have the old
VHS when I want another presentation ... (To date I still think I have seen
this more often in a theatre than at home - and as saki suggests, a good
theatrical release has presence no home showing is likely to duplicate.
The last time I saw this in a theatre was during a special presentation
with Shenson as a guest, during the Montreal Film Festival years ago. That
was a memorable evening I recall, even if he had few remarks I hadn't heard
before ...)
-= rags =-
--
To reply by email, use "@" not "__A@T__"
<rags AT math . mcgill . ca>
<http://www.math.mcgill.ca/rags>
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.
HeyJude
Luke Pacholski wrote:
Oh, I realize that. I've discussed that in length in some of my other
posts. My concerns in this particular thread had to do with resistance from
film purists about including multiple audio tracks on a DVD, because as I've
said in other posts I have no problem if they want to do some fake 5.1 mix as
long as they include the mono as well. Mono is my first choice, but I would
not at all be opposed to other alternate soundtracks as well. A fake 5.1 mix
that utilizes the mono soundtrack would not be my first choice for a second
audio track (I'd rather just hear the stereo mix as heard on the old MPI
issues), but if the mono were included, then if they want to do a fake 5.1 mix
to hype the DVD release, that's fine.
Nimrod ``
<dan...@rcnchicago.com> wrote:
>Could we declare a moratorium on the "colororization" analogy.
>
>It reminds me of how Hitler comes up in a lot of debates.
>
No. It is an appropriate analogy....so it stays.
N``
Nimrod ``
<wid...@angelfire.com> wrote:
>Nimrod `` wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 Sep 2002 07:58:36 -0700, "Mister Charlie"
>> <wid...@angelfire.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Nimrod `` wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 25 Sep 2002 20:06:59 -0700, "Mister Charlie"
>>>> <wid...@angelfire.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Nimrod `` wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 25 Sep 2002 22:33:51 GMT, "Festus FireHead"
>>>>>> <Fes...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I was so disappointed with the new "Hard Day's Night" DVD.
>>>>>>> First, where was the opening montage sequence with the song "I'll
>>>>>>> Cry Instead? What NON-Beatles fan made the decision to cut this
>>>>>>> from the DVD???? Second, I thought the sound was garbage. Not a
>>>>>>> true 5:1 surround. You heard dialog from the center speaker, but
>>>>>>> the songs ended up being more like a mono with reverb added. If
>>>>>>> there was stereo, it was so muddy, it was pathetic!!
>>>>>>> The film quality was really good, along with all the other
>>>>>>> extras, but I love my "Hard Day's Night" DVD from the out of
>>>>>>> print "MPI" label. Picture is maybe not as crisp, but a hard
>>>>>>> true stereo throughout!! Not muddy, rechanneled mono.
>>>>>>> I really want to know what other true fans fell about this,,,any
>>>>>>> comments?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Uh...don't know how to break this to you, sport...but A HARD
>>>>>> DAY'S NIGHT was made in mono, not stereo. And it did not
>>>>>> originally have that "I'll Cry Instead" montage.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Both the montage and the stereo song segments were grafted on
>>>>>> almost two decades after the fact, for a special re-
>>>>>> release....which meant that certain ambient sounds and effects
>>>>>> were lost from the original film during the song segments.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This DVD has justifiably truly restored the film to its original
>>>>>> form.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> N``
>>>>>
>>>>> Seems to me to be nitpicking. So what of the film was 'originally'
>>>>> mono, with no accompanying I'll Cry Instead montage? People like
>>>>> it in stereo. People liked the montage. And *none* of the other
>>>>> extras were ever included with any package. So there is no purity
>>>>> here.
>>>>>
>>>>> And yes, I happen to enjoy colorization as well.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So presumably you would like to see them colorize A HARD DAY'S NIGHT
>>>> and make that the official version, because most people today prefer
>>>> color movies?
>>>>
>>>> N``
>>>
>>> No. AHDN should stay in B&W, as should classic old flix and noir.
>>
>> But you just said that they should have A HARD DAY'S NIGHT in stereo
>> and with the montage still tacked on....because people liked them.
>> And it's a known fact that most people prefer color films; in fact, I
>> can guarantee you that if you took a poll of the population, including
>> the youngsters of today, you would find that most people would say
>> they would like it better if AHDN was in color...and they would be
>> more likely to watch it if it were.
>>
>> So, why shouldn't they have their way...since you feel a popularity
>> contest is all that's needed to justify these other changes in A HARD
>> DAY'S NIGHT?
>
>Because they're not selling it to the directors in the world. They're
>selling product to the squares out there with money.
>
>They have It's A Wonderful Life in both B&W and colorized. All I am
>saying is as far as the sound goes there is *no* reason they could not
>have had more than one soundtrack on it. As to colorizing, they can
>just as easily issue both. Let people have the choice and let the sales
>dictate what the people want. This is not a BAD thing.
>>
>>>
>>> Where I don't object to it is all the massive amounts of films made
>>> in the old days that were NOT made for artistic reasons in B&W but
>>> simply because they didn't HAVE color film then or the money for
>>> expensive color processing.
>>
>> Almost no movies in Hollywood were made for artistic reasons, sport.
>> They were all made for money and profit...pure and simple. If you
>> started trying to get a committee to decide which older films have
>> "artistic merit" and which ones don't, you'll have one big hairy fight
>> on your hands. I've hung out for years in
>> rec.arts.movies.past-films....and I can assure you of that much.
>
>So then you prove my point. If they were originally made for NO other
>reason than to make money, then what the hell is the problem with
>colorizing movies IF the overwhelming amount of people want that? You
>seem to be saying there is no artistic integrity, therefore who cares?
>Sport.
Ah, then you don't have any problem with future issues of Sgt. Pepper
having tecno-pop rhythm tracks dubbed over them if the majority of the
younger public prefers it that way. I get it.
>>
>>>
>>> Then again, I don't feel even if they colorized everything it would
>>> be a crime on the scale of Hitler.
>>
>> I do. It would be killing the soul of the artistic works of thousands
>> of artists....for they were artists, nonetheless, and you're talking
>> about that which they poured their life's work into, the very product
>> of their being, even if that work was for hire and profit.
>
>You are contradicting yourself left and right. A cogent theme would be
>helpful here.
No...you're just not reading the specifics of what I'm saying. I'm
saying that a work can be done for hire and still have artistic
integrity. I am also saying that your silly notion that anyone can
discern which films were NOT made for artistic reasons in B&W...or for
artistic reasons, period....is absurd, in light of the fact that
virtually all films in Hollywood or the film industry at large are
made for commercial reasons, for profit....just as the Beatles'
recordings were.
If you condone the changing of those films' primary form for public
consumption based upon the popularity contest of contemporary society,
then you condone the future distortion...or present distortion...of
Beatles recording, including the addition of tracks by other studio
musicians to the existing work, which is then distributed as the
"official" release.
>>
>> For you or anyone else today to arbitrarily decide that you can
>> fingerpaint on the Mona Lisa...then offer it up as the primary version
>> of that painting for future generations, even if it was originally a
>> work for hire (which it was), is an abomination. A spiritual
>> abomination.
>
>Balderdash. Over the top emotions about what you admittedly called
>nothing but 'product'. Abomination indeed.
See above. Read slowly...and try not to move your lips. Apparently
you do condone the marring of the Mona Lisa in such a fashion, despite
the fact that is was a work for hire....just as you apparently condone
the marring of all major artworks done for hire, if commercial forces
and the public think it's preferable to the original as created by the
artist.
Just you calling it "over the top emotions" does not change the fact
that the reality is consistent across the board with what I describe,
artistically and historically, and you've not refuted it in any
specific or concrete way, except to proclaim "balderdash". Pretty
weak. A non-rebuttal.
>>
>> Furthermore, the lighting values and artistic decisions
>> photographically were based upon the use of black & white at the time
>> those films were made (even if the decision to film in b&w was for
>> economic reasons only); still they were crafting their work based upon
>> the palette they had arrived at for whatever reason. So the adding of
>> color to an image not lit or structured for color creates an image
>> that is neither good color imagery or good black & white imagery. It
>> becomes a muddy bastardization; as the overwhelming majority of
>> colorization has proven to be, with a lot of mediocre second-guessing
>> by technicians far removed from the original artistic creation.
>
>Yeah yeah yeah I've heard it all before. Hence my qualification about
>noir. It's cultural elitism and it's ridiculous, IMO.
Your opinion means little in this case...because film experts can't
even agree on what films are "film noir" and what films aren't; or if
film noir even truly exists as a genre. So such ridiculous
distinctions on your part mean nothing in practical application and
your ignorance on this matter is on full display. IMO.
You may have heard it all before...but you weren't listening.
>
>>
>> Your logic is like saying "well, they were limited to only one track
>> at the time they recorded those great old Delta bluesmen, so there's
>> no great harm in making the primary reissues of their recordings
>> available from now on with overdubbed tracks by modern musicians,
>> since those old guys would have no doubt loved to have multi-track
>> recording at their disposal, but it just wasn't technically or
>> economically feasible for them at the time. Fortunately, we can fill
>> in for them and fix it for them now, without their input....because we
>> know best; hindsight being 20/20".
>
>It is not what I am saying. I said what I meant, and all your parables
>are are diversions. They have cleaned up old recordings considerably
>for CD release, to our benefit. Has *nothing* to do with movies. In
>fact, this whole colorization brouhaha is a diversion as well, because I
>only tossed off the comment as a humorous aside. The fact that I happen
>to believe it makes no never mind to the subject at hand, which is WHY
>could they not have included the stereo track? Again, let the CONSUMERS
>make the choices. That is not unreasonable.
Two different issues and the analogy holds completely:
Cleaning up a recording is comparable with restoring a film
digitally...to the best possible example of its original form.
ADDING ELEMENTS....such as an opening montage or stereo tracks that
didn't exist in the original film...are the same as colorization.
The distinction is very simple and not complex at all. It certainly
would be very clear to the artists who created the original
work...who, I assure you, would have and have had very strong opinions
and emotions about those who've mucked with and marred their original
creations.
But hey, you and the public know better than they...right?
>
>>
>> I suppose, if some future generation of music marketeers decides that
>> Sgt. Pepper appeals more with some techno-pop rhythm tracks grafted on
>> by some whiz-kid engineer of the next millennium, then you'll feel
>> that should become the accepted version for future kids to be exposed
>> to. After all, the majority at the time would no doubt prefer it that
>> way.
>
>You're just going off on a projecting binge that has no basis in
>reality, mine or anyone elses.
Only because you refuse to deal with it; because you can't.
The reality is here:
The opening montage, the stereo tracks added to A HARD DAY'S NIGHT.
And you've also indicated that you would have no problem with a
colorized print being made available for that majority of moviegoers
who would prefer it.
And the notion of techno-pop tracks being overdubbed on older
recordings, becoming the official version for current consumption and
future generations is no "projecting binge"....it is reality, it is
here, as witnessed by "A Little Less Conversation", the Elvis track
that has reached No. 1 on the charts in recent months.
Do you think many or the majority of folks for any time to come will
hear the original recording as it was actually made....or it will get
widespread issue? It won't. I've checked extensively, and you can't
even find the original version on the various mp3 exchange programs.
This new remix done by others far removed who didn't remotely know
Elvis, with only the vocal track surviving, has completely supplanted
the original recording. And if you think that can't also happen to
Beatles recordings...the same way you would have it done with
colorization to old movies...then it's just wishful thinking on your
part.
But your position is clear: let the consumers make the choices,
artistically and otherwise. Hell, no real need for The Beatles or
Elvis or musical genius at all....let's have music by popular
committee. Come to think of it, that's exactly what we do have, and
why rock music is in such a sorry state today.
N``
Nimrod ``
whata...@themovieproducersareapain.com wrote:
>On Thu, 26 Sep 2002 09:45:46 -0500, Nimrod `` <NO...@JOSE.COM>
>wrote:
>
>
>>
>>So presumably you would like to see them colorize A HARD DAY'S NIGHT
>>and make that the official version, because most people today prefer
>>color movies?
>>
>>N``
>
>and you're happy with major butchery to turn a 1.37:1
>film into a 16 x9 picture?
>
>at least with colorisation you can turn the tv to black and white,
>but there's no hope once the film has been cut to bits..
>and there was room on the dvd to do things properly.
First of all, a colorized print just turned to black and white is not
the same...the underlying black and white image is actually
manipulated and changed digitally to accommodate the colorization.
Anybody with first hand knowledge and familiar with the technical
process of colorization knows that.
Secondly, the film negative is not cut to bits when a digital transfer
is made to create a master for DVD release or videotape mastering. So
there is indeed every bit of hope and nothing lost, except for one
potentially bad video edition of a particular film.
You need to get it together a little better on the technical realities
of this.
N``
Nimrod ``
whata...@themovieproducersareapain.com wrote:
>
>Nimrod,
> it's not a matter of slight cropping at a cinema, it's about taking a
>movie that's 1.37:1 and cutting it into a 16 x9 picture.
>that's MAJOR BUTCHERY.....I REPEAT MAJOR BUTCHERY...
>
>
>There was less butchery involved in making it a 4x 3 picture.
>
>I remember once that"Gone with the wind"was turned into a 16x9 film
>by chopping the top and bottom off so"modern day"cinemas
>could advertise it as widescreen...another stupid idea.
There is not even remotely as much image lost top and bottom in this
new DVD print as you are portraying, and nowhere near what was lost in
creating that terrible widescreen issue of GONE WITH THE WIND.
Furthermore, I notice you snipped my original statement and completely
ignore my original comment:
That you and so many others embrace one DVD issue that crops the image
on the sides...while condemning one that loses information top and
bottom. There is no consistency here.
And it's not remotely comparable to fading Hey Jude at
4.45....because, with this edition of AHDN, as with all past editions,
all essential information is there from beginning to end. Your
analogy doesn't hold. A more appropriate analogy would be if the
reverb were turned off on one of the instrumental tracks for the
entire duration of Hey Jude...but you still heard the entire
recording, in its original mix in every other way.
By the way...your CAPITALIZATION doesn't strengthen your argument a
whit; it only makes you look childish and silly, as if that is
supposed to suffice in place of a cogent rebuttal.
N``
Nimrod ``
<comi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Nimrod ``" <NO...@JOSE.COM> wrote in message
>news:tB6TPZEnBlkzQb...@4ax.com...
>> Having been a projectionist for several years, some time ago, I can
>> tell you that virtually every film you saw had information at the top
>> and bottom of the frame that was never really meant to be seen if the
>> image was properly centered vertically in the projector's aperture.
>> In fact, due to this projection consideration, it was physically
>> impossible to actually project the entire frame from top to bottom
>> with the standard aperture. If a projectionist shifted the frame
>> downward, to an improperly low level...that is when one sometimes
>> could find a bit of dangling microphone at the top of the frame, which
>> was never intended to be seen by the audience.
>
>Wrong. It has *nothing* to do with the position of the gate (that small
>frame that shapes the image projected). Boom mics and other assorted gear
>that fall into the frame often do so for one of three reasons:
> 1. There was insufficient room to get all of the equipment in tightly
>and/or insufficient time to make sure it was all secured before shooting
>began,
> 2. The camera operator was concentrating too much on one of the other
>screen ratio outlines visible on the camera's screen to notice that it was
>visible on other ratio outlines (such as widescreen versus pan-and-scan), or
> 3. The technical equipment's visibility wasn't noticed on the daily
>rushes, making it often too late to reshoot a scene once its noticed in
>post-production.
You only mention three of the reasons that such circumstances occur,
which in no way impinges on my assertion.
>
>As someone who has projected film of various sizes (16, 35, a handful of
>others) plus scope and other effects, I can safely say that while you are
>correct that not all of the frame is visible when projected, the percentage
>of what's missing is infentisimally small -- helped greatly by the common
>positioning of the figure safely in the frame for all formats.
>
Actually, having also projected 16 and 35 in theatrical settings, I
can assuredly say that what is not visible of the top and bottom of
the frame is just about as much as is not visible in the current DVD
release of A HARD DAY'S NIGHT.
And the percentage of the frame that is not viewed in a theatrically
projected film is not "infinitesimally small"; that is a gross
misrepresentation. It is, in fact, significant enough that if the
frame is not properly centered in the gate, the entire composition can
be, and often is, thrown off....with the projected image shifted and
cropped too high or too low, as any number of moviegoers who've
experienced such a thing can attest. No doubt, I'm not the only one
who has made a trip back up to the lobby or projection booth to get
the projectionist to correct an improperly positioned image in such
cases.
If the normally unseen percentage of the frame were as "infinitesimal"
as you erroneously describe, an improperly positioned frame would be
virtually impossible...with the only possible anomaly being a
"split-frame" in which two frames divide the screen. But such is not
the case.
N``
Nimrod ``
your description of what is lost remotely accurate.
Nor has the movie been destroyed...as you so hysterically assert.
this is no "major destruction" to A HARD DAY'S NIGHT.
The film negative survives intact, in its original form. The
experience of the film on DVD is being greatly enjoyed by masses of
folks (as witnessed in this very ng) with no more of the primary image
lost than what they also didn't see when most folks alive today
watched it for decades on television or even its original theatrical
showings....including all those folks who loved watching the
bastardized "stereo" version on the earlier DVD and LaserDisc issues,
with the image significantly cropped on the sides.
There was no major butchery or major destruction to A HARD DAY'S NIGHT
then and there is none now. (Heavy capitalization unnecessary for
truth to prevail.)
N``
On Thu, 26 Sep 2002 21:04:21 GMT,
whata...@themovieproducersareapain.com wrote:
>
>
>1.37:1 to 16 x9 is not a minor projectionist adjustment....it is major
>butchery........MAJOR BUTCHERY......
>
>what you are refering too in your projectionist adjustments,
>is not this case with this type of alteration....This is a major
>destruction to the movie..
>
>turn" gone with the wind" into 16 x9 and see how you feel,
>because this is almost that bad..
>
>
>On Thu, 26 Sep 2002 10:01:09 -0500, Nimrod `` <NO...@JOSE.COM>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>I think you guys are getting your shorts in a bunch over something
>>that you would never have seen in the theaters in the first place.
>>
>>Having been a projectionist for several years, some time ago, I can
>>tell you that virtually every film you saw had information at the top
>>and bottom of the frame that was never really meant to be seen if the
>>image was properly centered vertically in the projector's aperture.
>>In fact, due to this projection consideration, it was physically
>>impossible to actually project the entire frame from top to bottom
>>with the standard aperture. If a projectionist shifted the frame
>>downward, to an improperly low level...that is when one sometimes
>>could find a bit of dangling microphone at the top of the frame, which
>>was never intended to be seen by the audience.
>>
>>It's all part of the appropriate configuration in order for a film to
>>be able to pass properly through the mechanism, and
>>filmmakers/cameraman make allowances for that....knowing that the very
>>top and very bottom information in the image will not usually be seen.
>>It's like a margin for error and compensation at top and bottom,
>>because of fluctuations in projectors and theater conditions.
>>
>>If all films were literally transferred full frame, top-to-bottom,
>>you'd be surprised how many dangling mikes and stray unmentionables
>>you would suddenly see atop the frame in some very respected motion
>>pictures.
>>
>>N``
Nimrod ``
>"Mister Charlie" <wid...@angelfire.com> wrote in
>news:amvjd0$9.
>
>> Who says any or every release need be definitive? They didn't
>> shoot in color because they had next to nothing for a budget.
>
>True that their budget was limited, but the decision to shoot in black
>and white was an artistic one, not a budgetary one, according to
>Richard Lester and Alun Owen. Even with a larger budget this would have
>been their intent.
Indeed. It contributes significantly and artistically to the
documentary feel of the film.
>
>> And
>> they didn't release it in stereo at the time as stereo was not the
>> main format being used. These were logistical, not artistical
>> decisions.
>
>But logistical decisions are still a part of the orignal release, and
>if the Fabs are releasing a DVD with a restored version of "AHDN", one
>would expect it to follow the original technology of its time.
Exactly.
If The Beatles had not been limited logistically at the time...by not
having a 16 or 32-track recording studio, they might have used even
more instruments or layers of sound, as occurs so often with the
popular, but cluttered, recordings heard on the radio today. Yet
nobody here argues that other musicians or engineers of today graft
instrumentations or effects onto the original recordings that The
Beatles *might* have used if they'd had the technology or means
logistically.
>
>Silent films didn't have sountracks. Would it be okay to dub in a vocal
>track to "The General" so that viewers have an option if they want it,
>now that we have the technology to do it? Or would that compromise the
>whole point of understanding what made silent movies unique?
>
>> MY point again is simply this: put both soundtracks on the disk.
>> It's no big deal to manufacture that way, and then the consumers
>> are offered a CHOICE.
>
>If "AHDN" had originally been released as both a mono and stereo movie,
>I might agree with you....
Yup.
N``
Nimrod ``
<wid...@angelfire.com> wrote:
>Where would we be without Beatle outtakes/boots?
Those are exactly what you say they are: outtakes and bootlegs.
They are not the official version of the album or song and are not
represented as such.
Your logic completely breaks down here.
N``
whata...@themovieproducersareapain.com
look I'm not interested /hanging out for owning a colourised movie,I'm
quite happy to see it black and white.But the destruction of the
original aspect ratio really pisses me off.especially since it's been
tears since the old 4 x3 aspect ratio version was released.
just put out the movie, the way it was made in both picture and sound
and let a simple menu choice for those that want a different sound and
a different aspect ratio....simple......but for some reason they've
spent years stuffing both up.
On Fri, 27 Sep 2002 05:39:11 -0500, Nimrod `` <NO...@JOSE.COM>
wrote:
whata...@themovieproducersareapain.com
I don't want 4x3 and i don't want a 16x9 butcher job, I just want the
movie in it's original aspect ratio....something that is pretty easily
achievable with dvd.
to spend years redoing a fim and ruining it for us all is a shame....
I hate cropped top and bottom I would probably prefer a stretched
picture....but then again that could be annoying...although not as bad
as a stretched 4x3 is...
and the contrast ration on the new film sucks as well...it's going to
look like shit on a big screen compared with the old 4x3 print....as
far as contrast goes..
just put out the film the way it was made with menu choices for the
sound and vision for those who want to play with it.
and throw on you can't do that as a bonus and perhaps the I'll cry
instead montage....6 minutes extra in a menu choice big deal and then
we are all happy.
my example of hey jude is a gentle fade out vs a major early fade out
just like minor cropping to by a projectionist vs major butchery by a
dvd company..
On Fri, 27 Sep 2002 06:33:29 -0500, Nimrod `` <NO...@JOSE.COM>
wrote:
whata...@themovieproducersareapain.com
The film negative may be perfectly intact...I hope it is...but the dvd
is shit.....it is total shit in picture and sound.....a complete stuff
up.....
and even if the negative is in one piece , how in the
hell are we ever going to see it?
in whose lifetime?
I would have seen a better version of the film, if I had been able to
go the cinema in 1964 than I can now....no matter what I buy...
as i said earlier.....the movie has not been released properly
On Fri, 27 Sep 2002 06:52:33 -0500, Nimrod `` <NO...@JOSE.COM>
wrote:
Nimrod ``
exquisitely, Brian.
Some folk don't seem to understand the artistic difference between
bootlegs or outtakes and original masters....or between original
artistic works that are also defined by their original palette and
logistical circumstance, which were either chosen by or governed the
artistic choices made by the original artists, in contrast to choices
made by people far removed from the original creation of an artistic
work, long after the fact, who use their technological toys and
advances to distort the original work from the creation of those who
originally rendered it.
If given this wonderful "choice" which Charlie so wholeheartedly
embraces, a huge faction (probably the majority) of modern audiences
would prefer classic silent films to have spoken dialogue and full
background effects just as most contemporary films do....and they
would also prefer they be in color. So, following that logic, F.W.
Murnau's classic SUNRISE on DVD should have actors dub in the dialogue
and full foley work created, along with the print being colorized;
since Charlie would surely deduce that the only reason the filmmakers
didn't make it a sound film was because of the technological
limitations, and the only reason it wasn't in color was because of
technological and budgetary limitations. But, with today's
technologies, henceforth all younger audiences could and probably
would content themselves to watch a voice-dubbed, colorized print of
SUNRISE, rather than with only an orchestral score and that ratty old
(beautiful) black & white imagery Murnau was saddled with....and
crafted so lovingly. Murnau's own original intentions, built upon the
palette both of his choosing and defined by the place and time of the
creation shouldn't enter into the matter at all....for those who
champion "choice" over artist's touch.
N``
>On Thu, 26 Sep 2002 17:15:12 -0400, "Brian Fried" <comi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Mister Charlie" <wid...@angelfire.com> wrote in message
>news:amvh0o$9l7dh$1...@ID-63206.news.dfncis.de...
>> Disagree if you must, but what you and others are requiring is only one
>> 'true' version, when alternates (such as multiple soundtracks, different
>> endings, etc.) have been offered for a long time.
>
>No they haven't. Until the arrival of DVD, alternate endings for most films
>were only known for the extremely rare handful of films where the director
>vocally objected to the final cut. Blade Runner is one example, The
>Magnificent Ambersons (by Orson Wells) another. Even then, as Ambersons
>demonstrates, the original cut was often tossed.
>
>Alternate soundtracks also only exist for a rare handful of films. A Hard
>Day's Night is the greatest example: there is the original mono print, and
>the 1982 mono/stereo mix that United Artists made for the re-release/video
>release. (The other soundtracks are derivitives of these two.)
>
>DVD offers studios the chance to issue a "definitive" version of its
>classics -- all completely restored to their original colour and/or black
>and white levels -- while loading up on recent films to make you buy those
>films again.
>
>> It SHOULD be a consumer choice, if they can fit it on the disk. And
>> there are the 'premium' versions of such things like Casablanca and Gone
>> With The Wind that gives those with the money and the severe aesthetic
>> senses what they want...the boxed set version of the totally original
>> product.
>
>Audio mix choice should be there, especially since most people don't have
>the equipment to play Dolby 5.1 on every television.
>
>Picture standard is different, since Blockbuster refuses to carry widescreen
>prints of any new release.
>
>As for Casablance and Gone With The Wind, those examples are not relevant to
>this discussion. The only variations on Gone With The Wind are copies that
>have been badly cropped or have had their colour faded, and those buying the
>film on DVD want a top quality print for the digital medium. Casablanca's
>variant is the colorized version, and there's not a sane person on this
>planet who would prefer the colorized Casablanca to the original one. (The
>colors are b-a-d bad.)
>
>> These DVD's are like 45's were in the 60's. The 'original/true to the
>> artist stuff can be as easily released as the more popular versions (or
>> at least versions with a choice).
>
>Artistic integrity was far less valued then as well.
>
>You're missing a major point, and that is that DVD is seen by all but a rare
>few film afficianados as the way of creating a definitive print from this
>point onwards. EMI did the same with the Beatles when it moved them to CD;
>the singles box and EP box aren't the definitive versions, nor is the Yellow
>Submarine Songtrack as far as they're concerned: there's only one version of
>each song on the albums, and they came out in 1987.
>
>> Sorry, I find it restrictive and snobbish to *insist* (when the artists
>> themselves often don't) that the only versions of ANYthing are the true
>> released versions. Where would we be without Beatle outtakes/boots?
>
>Still loving the band. ;)
>
>Music is not film. Bootlegs and outtakes are one of two things: illegally
>taken recordings of performances, or illegally copied recordings made by the
>artist in studio and not released. In both cases they are not the definitive
>versions, since they are not the versions selected by the artist as "the
>definitive" version they want to bring to market.
>
>Only one part of the entertainment industry brings out alternate versions on
>a regular basis, and that's comicbooks. Even then, one version is selected
>by the publisher to be definitive so that the others can be differentiated.
>
>It's not restrictive, it's not snobbish -- it's trying to define what
>version is closest to THE ORIGINAL ARTISTIC VISION that drove its creation.
>It only becomes restrictive or snobbish when the version that has become
>beloved by the audience is designated as inferior to a version the audience
>is not as keen to adopt (such as the second and soon to be third version of
>the Star Wars trilogy).
>
>Bootlegs, outtakes and so on are great tools for understanding the creative
>process, but in the end it's the basic product itself in its original
>context that has to stand as the central entry point to the product. (If
>that doesn't make sense, I can explain it further.)
>