The Criterion Collection

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by drbikeshorts

A film is shot using the full frame (which is called "open matte") and later during projection a mask with the preferred aspect ratio is placed in front of the projector.
This is usually determined by the director, but is ultimately controlled by the projectionist.
When creating old TV and VHS masters, the full frame was often used, because back then we had TVs in the 1.33:1 ratio.
Now that letter-boxing is not an issue, we usually get DVDs and blu-rays in the theatrical aspect ratio - 1.85:1, 1.77:1 or 1.66:1.

I see the diffence, got it! I am pretty much clueless on these type of things. I usually assume what is being release is the right OAR.

[BohemianGraham]

Originally Posted by drbikeshorts

Hey, did you see they've re-opened the Natalie Wood case!
Apparently, someone has come forward with more information or something.

I totally meant to write that in my post, but I got distracted by reading the ranting lunatic Wells.

Fark is having a field day with it, with all the horrible Natalie Wood jokes, and are claiming Wagner killed her because she was having an affair with Christopher Walken.

[blkhrt]

Originally Posted by drbikeshorts

Don't know if anyone else saw this, but CriterionCast tweeted a link to Jeff Wells complaining about the aspect ratio of Anatomy of a Murder.
1.85 Fascism Strikes Again
In short, Columbia's DVD from 2000 claims its 1.33:1 ratio is "the original theatrical aspect ratio", yet Criterion's blu-ray is going to be in the 1.85:1 ratio.
Obviously, the film was shot open-matte, but which is the correct ratio?
If you're Jeff Wells and you don't know, then start calling people Fascists

As many have pointed out, his argument immediately falls apart with some research. His claim is based on the fact that the DVD was 1.33:1, but apparently the European DVD released at the same time was 1.85:1, so using the DVD as evidence doesn't make sense. I am going to trust Criterion on this one.

[Beta Man]

Originally Posted by BohemianGraham

I totally meant to write that in my post, but I got distracted by reading the ranting lunatic Wells.

Fark is having a field day with it, with all the horrible Natalie Wood jokes, and are claiming Wagner killed her because she was having an affair with Christopher Walken.

My wife (Named Natalia) has never forgiven her for changing her Ukie name (well... my Wife's Ukie name... her Russian name )

[toddly6666]

If I had to pick one, what's the most rewatchable film noir released on Criterion blu-ray that also has an amazing restoration? So far, I've narrowed it down to Night of the Hunter - is that the one to get?

[Beta Man]

Originally Posted by toddly6666

If I had to pick one, what's the most rewatchable film noir released on Criterion blu-ray that also has an amazing restoration? So far, I've narrowed it down to Night of the Hunter - is that the one to get?

Leaning..... Leaning.... Leaning towards that one

**YES, get Night of the Hunter. It's a fantastic film with fantastic supplemental material.

[silentblu]

Originally Posted by toddly6666

If I had to pick one, what's the most rewatchable film noir released on Criterion blu-ray that also has an amazing restoration? So far, I've narrowed it down to Night of the Hunter - is that the one to get?

Sweet Smell of Success

[Cinemach]

Originally Posted by toddly6666

If I had to pick one, what's the most rewatchable film noir released on Criterion blu-ray that also has an amazing restoration? So far, I've narrowed it down to Night of the Hunter - is that the one to get?

Chalk another rec up for Sweet Smell of Success, based on your restoration qualification. Kiss Me Deadly is a good choice too, but Sweet Smell looks a tad better.

[drbikeshorts]

Originally Posted by toddly6666

If I had to pick one, what's the most rewatchable film noir released on Criterion blu-ray that also has an amazing restoration? So far, I've narrowed it down to Night of the Hunter - is that the one to get?

You cannot go wrong with the following:
The Killing
Sweet Smell of Success
Night of the Hunter
That's probably my order of preference, but each is an amazing film and they're all stunning transfers.

[Monty70]

Originally Posted by toddly6666

If I had to pick one, what's the most rewatchable film noir released on Criterion blu-ray that also has an amazing restoration? So far, I've narrowed it down to Night of the Hunter - is that the one to get?

I'd say Kiss Me Deadly, but you really can't go wrong with any of the Film Noir titles Criterion has released lately. (Sweet Smell of Success, The Killing, and The Night of the Hunter) If you love the noir genre, you will want all of these eventually.

[nathan_393]

Originally Posted by BohemianGraham

Just replying to draw your attention to these:

http://www.amazon.ca/Criterion-Colle...1611434&sr=1-2

http://www.amazon.ca/Criterion-Colle...1611420&sr=1-2

http://www.amazon.ca/Criterion-Colle...1611520&sr=1-2

http://www.amazon.ca/Criterion-Colle...1611550&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.ca/Criterion-Colle...1611567&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.ca/Criterion-Colle...1611577&sr=1-1

Hurry! I wasn't sure which titles you wanted so I linked them all. I put Anatomy of a Murder first.

Thanks for the tip mate! I ended up pre-ordering Anatomy of a Murder and Three Outlaw Samurai late last night - which is good, otherwise by the time I woke up I would have missed the early bird pricing. Cheers!

[retask]

The cases criterion uses? Can they be bought elsewhere? I only need the cases to put in some custom art. (Not replacing criterion titles but other titles thats not in the collection

[Tom Hiddleston]

Originally Posted by nathan_393

If anybody here is a Bergman fan - I just read a pretty hilarious article featuring 10 different responses from 10 different popular authors on the topic of "10 writing tips". So there were 100 tips from 10 different authors, many of which clashed. They argued a lot over whether it was good to read or not if you were writing/a writer, some suggesting that reading actually dampened your own creativity. (Whatever works for you is what I think, but I'm not a popular author so who cares?)

My favourite piece of advice, though: "If you have to read, to cheer yourself up read biographies of writers who went insane. And on Saturdays, you can watch an old Bergman film, preferably Persona or Autumn Sonata."

Just found the article. That is amusing.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010...ction-part-one

[ROclockCK]

Originally Posted by Joe Dalek

Same here, clueless. But he's obviously just ranting based on assumptions (oh no, that would never happen on the internet...). If the choice were to box in the top and bottom of the frame to create an artificial 1.85:1 aspect, it wouldn't be a matter of Criterion doing it out of laziness. I'm not crusading for them, it's just not how they operate. Surely it would have been a decision based on research, available elements and/or a request from the license holder.

It could be a simple case of Criterion posting an incorrect aspect ratio in their press release and online. I've found incorrect aspect ratios listed on their site before. The Richard III DVD is 1.66:1 and their site still says 1.85:1.

EDIT: It's ironic that his argument seems to hinge on the fact that he's seen it on TV in 1.33:1 rather than the theatrical 1.85:1, so that's what he wants. Sure, it was shot in 1.33:1 (and so that to him is the "correct" ratio), but it appears it was never intended to be screened in that ratio, but rather in 1.85:1, technically making 1.85:1 the correct presentation aspect ratio. [ ROCK's NOTE: true for North America, but most Europeans probably originally saw it in 1.66:1. So which market gets to define 'definitive' for a full screen OAR camera negative? ]

This issue cropped up in The Bad Seed thread too Joe. In a nutshell, except for productions filmed in one of the 'empirical' camera/lens widescreen processes of the era (CinemaScope, VistaVision, Technirama, Todd-AO, Ultra Panavision among others), anything shot in spherical 35mm full frame (Academy format) left many distribution options open. Typically, 1.85:1 release prints were struck for North America, while overseas they matted the full frame to 1.66:1 in the projector, and when the movie went to TV, it was back to the original 1.33:1 (1.37:1) full frame again.

Heck, as recently as the 80s & 90s, directors such as James Cameron were taking advantage of improved colour film stock to shoot in a similar full frame process called Super 35, from which they would extract a 2.40:1 'pseudo-scope' image for theatrical exhibition. Yet his first Laserdisc of The Abyss was approved at roughly 2.1:1; later he changed his mind again, and the special edition went to a 2.35:1 ratio, and stayed there for the DVD. Cronenberg did essentially the same thing with Dead Ringers, which went to N.A. theatres in 1.85:1, but when approving Criterion's video transfer, preferred presentation in its 1.66:1 European aspect ratio instead.

The point is, unless you actually ask the director what was intended/preferred, any spherical full frame 35mm camera negative will leave a lot of 'wiggle room' for aspect ratio interpretation. So OAR hasn't always been as absolute or fixed as some would have you believe. And in the age of 16 x 9 HD, it gets even loosey-goosier. I mean, I'm seeing a lot more 1.85:1 Panavision releases rather unceremoniously reframed for 1.78:1 on Blu-ray...not a huge difference, but I doubt they consulted with those directors* before subtley reframing their works.

* ...especially the dead ones.

[nathan_393]

Originally Posted by Tom Hiddleston

Just found the article. That is amusing.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010...ction-part-one

Yeah, should have linked to it - my bad!

[italy12]

Originally Posted by CoopFilm

That makes sense. It's just that...if you're collecting a lot of them, there's a feeling of incompleteness when you're missing the three numbers. But, I suppose, knowing there's supposed to be three numbers there makes it better.

Or maybe it's just me and I sound crazy for saying that...

It all started with By Brakhage.

[Banned User]

Originally Posted by *DrStrangelove*

I'm hoping for Le Samurai and more Godard.

http://www.amazon.fr/dp/B005OSP5QM?l...29&camp=211189

Not Criterion , but encase you are impatient.

[Tom Hiddleston]

Originally Posted by nathan_393

Yeah, should have linked to it - my bad!

No problem, it only took me about two seconds to find it.

[TJS_Blu]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

I see the diffence, got it! I am pretty much clueless on these type of things. I usually assume what is being release is the right OAR.

I enjoy Jeff Wells. His batting average on AR is about .500. In this case, all you need to know is comment 40.

Robert Harris says ...
Mr. Crisp and Criterion are correct.

1.85:1, or if you like for Blu-ray 1.78:1.

Easy.

RAH

Short of Preminger's ghostly declaration, Robert A Harris is as good as it gets.

[ROclockCK]

Originally Posted by TJS_Blu

I enjoy Jeff Wells. His batting average on AR is about .500. In this case, all you need to know is comment 40.

"1.85:1, or if you like for Blu-ray 1.78:1."

Short of Preminger's ghostly declaration, Robert A Harris is as good as it gets.

Thank you for that insight TJS_Blu.

But it's interesting that RAH doesn't seem to have a problem with 1.85:1 being rejigged for 1.78:1. Actually, I'm surprised more hasn't been said about this practice in these forums. Although it's not a huge difference, sometimes these 1.85:1 frames look a tad too tight on Blu.