Psycho (Hitchcock)

[illini2000]

Originally Posted by Adam_ME

My steelbook order arrived yesterday. Exactly one week after it shipped. The case was in perfect condition.

As for the movie itself, the transfer looked terrific. It blew away the DVD from the Masterpiece Collection. I haven't seen the SE DVD that came out after that, so I have no idea how that one looks.

The 5.1 remix was disappointing though. A lot of the sound FX were not the ones I was used to hearing from the dozens of times I'd watched it on TV and DVD over the years. Thankfully they included the original mono track(in lossless quality, no less), so I can just select that when I pop it in. I'm hoping Universal gives Vertigo the same respect.

Which FX are missing? There is a whole documentary on the disc about the remixing process. Everything should be there. Vertigo was presented in DTS 5.1 during its re-release several years ago, so this track should carry over. This one for sure has different fx. The gunshot on the rooftop at the beginning is a little Rambo-ish.

[drbikeshorts]

Originally Posted by WolfmanOz

Will have to import it from the UK - no sign of any release date in Australia.

I don't know if you've already ordered this, but I just bought this at JB HiFi for $20
It's in a predominantly white case, with a predominantly white slip case over the top.
The extras are the same as listed in the reviews here and it does include the booklet.

[Eidolon]

is the booklet only included with the steelbook edition?

[Yami]

Originally Posted by Eidolon

is the booklet only included with the steelbook edition?

Correct

[Mick B]

I picked this up from Asda for £6 a few months back.

What a great improvement in picture quality over the old DVD this is.

Also it was great to get both a lossless 5.1 remix and the original mono mix on this disc. Well done to all those involved.

This is the best way to treat old films... with the respect they deserve!.

Now lets hope someone gives "The Birds" the same treatment as the old DVD in the UK was a pan and scan monster and only in original mono, so lets hope for a 1.85:1 anamorphic picture on Blu-ray with lossless original mono sound and a 5.1 remix as well.

[Richard--W]

does anyone know if there is a full-screen DVD of PSYCHO ?

Hitchcock shot the film with his TV crew and kept the widescreen compositions TV safe. The additional top and bottom information is quite interesting and in many scenes, such as the lunch in Norman's parlor, looks carefully planned. I think PSYCHO is the only one of his widescreen films to have a legitimate full-screen counterpart. I have a full-screen vhs, but I would much prefer it on a DVD.

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by Richard--W

does anyone know if there is a full-screen DVD of PSYCHO ?

Hitchcock shot the film with his TV crew and kept the widescreen compositions TV safe. The additional top and bottom information is quite interesting and in many scenes, such as the lunch in Norman's parlor, looks carefully planned. I think PSYCHO is the only one of his widescreen films to have a legitimate full-screen counterpart. I have a full-screen vhs, but I would much prefer it on a DVD.

No, because it was never meant to be full screen (1.33:1), It was always intended for theatrical release, and that would be 1.85:1, as its presented.

[Richard--W]

Of course Psycho was intended for theatrical release at 1.85:1. No one has suggested it wasn't.

I must disagree that television was not considered as a necessary secondary market at the outset, in part because Hitchcock and cameraman John A. Russell layered the top and bottom with story-telling detail that is omitted in the theatrical ratio but present in the TV-safe ratio. This visual information is self-evident. It is not a matter of merely protecting for television; it is story-telling detail deliberately placed for television.

I first saw Psycho in the late 1960's and a number of times thereafter on television. I've also seen old 35mm prints projected in repertory theaters, many times before the DVD era. I've studied the film closely over the years. The TV framing is not the preferred viewing experience, but Hitchcock and Russell made sure that they made it visually interesting.

[OgamiittoMcJ]

Originally Posted by Richard--W

Of course Psycho was intended for theatrical release at 1.85:1. No one has suggested it wasn't.

I posted similar point in Australian complete Psycho collection thread, and got shot down too
I own Touch Of Evil which does have various ratio's to watch
and don't see why we can't have a TV version(1.33) as an extra BD disc for original Psycho too
even if the Theatrical 1.85 version is correct, it would be nice to have both on BD

[rip63]

Originally Posted by Richard--W

does anyone know if there is a full-screen DVD of PSYCHO ?

I seem to recall that the original DVD release of the film in Australia was full screen, as were many other Hitchcock releases. You night be able to pick one up on Ebay or something, as I've seen them still floating about in 2nd hand shops over here.

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by Richard--W

Of course Psycho was intended for theatrical release at 1.85:1. No one has suggested it wasn't.

I must disagree that television was not considered as a necessary secondary market at the outset, in part because Hitchcock and cameraman John A. Russell layered the top and bottom with story-telling detail that is omitted in the theatrical ratio but present in the TV-safe ratio. This visual information is self-evident. It is not a matter of merely protecting for television; it is story-telling detail deliberately placed for television.

I first saw Psycho in the late 1960's and a number of times thereafter on television. I've also seen old 35mm prints projected in repertory theaters, many times before the DVD era. I've studied the film closely over the years. The TV framing is not the preferred viewing experience, but Hitchcock and Russell made sure that they made it visually interesting.

You do realize like 50% of all movies are shot open matte? But just because they were doesn't mean we should have 1.33 versions of them all. Just because something is shot to be masked in theater doesn't mean we should have versions where we see what should've been masked just because it's there.

I suppose you think we should have 1.33 versions of all of James Cameron's films too, or any movie shot Super 35? No, because that would be silly.

[Richard--W]

Originally Posted by rip63

I seem to recall that the original DVD release of the film in Australia was full screen, as were many other Hitchcock releases. You night be able to pick one up on Ebay or something, as I've seen them still floating about in 2nd hand shops over here.

That's helpful, thanks. Did Universal put it out, do you know? or an Australian company?

[rip63]

Originally Posted by Richard--W

That's helpful, thanks. Did Universal put it out, do you know? or an Australian company?

Most welcome. And yeah, it was through Universal.

There's a second-hand store in Pitt Street, Sydney CBD called 'Lawsons' that often has these old Australian Hitchcock DVD's and I've seen the old Psycho release in there many times. I now remember it being fullscreen 4X3 which was why I imported it from the US way back when.

[Brett C]

Originally Posted by rip63

Most welcome. And yeah, it was through Universal.

There's a second-hand store in Pitt Street, Sydney CBD called 'Lawsons' that often has these old Australian Hitchcock DVD's and I've seen the old Psycho release in there many times. I now remember it being fullscreen 4X3 which was why I imported it from the US way back when.

The original R4 DVD was 1.85:1 and 16/9 enhanced. I had the disc back when it was released in 1999.

Here is an old review of it,

http://thefourthregion.tripod.com/DV...ychoreview.htm

[Michael A]

Originally Posted by Brett C

The original R4 DVD was 1.85:1 and 16/9 enhanced. I had the disc back when it was released in 1999.

Here is an old review of it,

http://thefourthregion.tripod.com/DV...ychoreview.htm

Right - some of the initial Hitchcock DVD releases at that time were full screen but Psycho was not one of them.

[rip63]

Originally Posted by Michael A

Right - some of the initial Hitchcock DVD releases at that time were full screen but Psycho was not one of them.

Ah, well that's where my memory must be failing me. I'm no youngster anymore, unfortunately...

But this was the one I was thinking of, which had a different cover to the one pictured above:


Anyways, my apologies to Richard--W for the bum steer.

[Richard--W]

No worries, rip63. At least you didn't launch into a tirade at my observation that the full-screen / TV-safe version was as carefully composed by Hitchcock and Russell as the theatrical version. Psycho is a stunning film no matter how you see it.

[Martoto]

Originally Posted by OgamiittoMcJ

I posted similar point in Australian complete Psycho collection thread, and got shot down too
I own Touch Of Evil which does have various ratio's to watch
and don't see why we can't have a TV version(1.33) as an extra BD disc for original Psycho too
even if the Theatrical 1.85 version is correct, it would be nice to have both on BD

Why does the 1.85:1 image have more picture horizontally here? Why doesn't the supposedly open matte 1.33:1 just have more picture above and below the 1.85:1 version?

Instead of being a taller picture than the theatrical, this "carefully composed" TV version appears to be little bit taller but also slighty narrower than the open matte frame.

[Ed1978]

Hi - Can anyone recommend the recently released 60th anniversary edition? Does it have any advantages over the previous release which would make it worth getting?

[Douglas R]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

You do realize like 50% of all movies are shot open matte? But just because they were doesn't mean we should have 1.33 versions of them all. Just because something is shot to be masked in theater doesn't mean we should have versions where we see what should've been masked just because it's there.

I suppose you think we should have 1.33 versions of all of James Cameron's films too, or any movie shot Super 35? No, because that would be silly.

More like 98%.