Psycho (1960) (50th Anniversary Edition)

[Markgway]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

The US version was Hitchcock approved since he had final cut, so anything else is not his version of the movie.

As I said before, Hitchcock was forced to make cuts to appease the MPAA (I wish I could remember the book I read this in, but it was a long time ago). The German version was most likely his director's cut, and how the film was released in less censorious territories. Because the US version has since the VHS era become the de facto version doesn't make it uncut. Whether the cut footage changes or improves the film (and I'm sure it doesn't) is irrelevant.

[Markgway]

Here's a link to a page which details Hitchcock's troubles with the MPAA.

http://the.hitchcock.zone/wiki/Produ...Administration

[OneWayFilms]

I understand everyone who wants an UNEDITED version.....but does anyone REALLY think the few extra seconds here or there REALLY make a difference in the story The Drama or The Horror?

I mean, two extra stabs in the air, and extra couple of seconds of looking at Norman's bloody hands, or seeing her unstrap her bra.....that's about it.

I don't think those scenes REALLY make much of a difference for anyone to be making such a fuss over.

But then again....that's just me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHDdcZ56HSA

[charlieray1]

Originally Posted by OneWayFilms

I understand everyone who wants an UNEDITED version.....but does anyone REALLY think the few extra seconds here or there REALLY make a difference in the story The Drama or The Horror?

I mean, two extra stabs in the air, and extra couple of seconds of looking at Norman's bloody hands, or seeing her unstrap her bra.....that's about it.

I don't think those scenes REALLY make much of a difference for anyone to be making such a fuss over.

But then again....that's just me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHDdcZ56HSA

I agree. I have read posts for years here and on Amazon going on about the "unedited version" of Psycho. The slightly shortened shots just don't make any difference in the film. Hitch may have even included them just so he could appease the censors by having something to remove. (The article mentions another shot as "a prime example of the kind of redundant shot that Hitchcock would include purely to misdirect the attention of the PCA Office from other sequences that he wished to keep.") Either way, they just don't have any impact on the greatness of the film. More hand-washing? I think I can still enjoy Psycho without it.

[Class316]

So no DVD or blu ray release has this "German TV cut"?

Originally Posted by Jar Jar Stinks

It has a lossless mono track and an episode of Alfred Hitchcock Presents. It's available for 6 GBP https://www.amazon.co.uk/Psycho-Blu-...dp/B003BEDT78/

Why is a lossless mono track better than a lossy mono track?

[Markgway]

Originally Posted by charlieray1

I agree. I have read posts for years here and on Amazon going on about the "unedited version" of Psycho. The slightly shortened shots just don't make any difference in the film. Hitch may have even included them just so he could appease the censors by having something to remove. (The article mentions another shot as "a prime example of the kind of redundant shot that Hitchcock would include purely to misdirect the attention of the PCA Office from other sequences that he wished to keep.") Either way, they just don't have any impact on the greatness of the film. More hand-washing? I think I can still enjoy Psycho without it.

I doubt the shots would make much of a difference - as I've already said myself - but that's really not the point. The article clearly states - and backs-up what I've read before - that those shots - important or not - were cut to appease the MPAA and appeared in other versions as Hitchcock intended.

[steve_dave]

Originally Posted by Class316

Why is a lossless mono track better than a lossy mono track?

Because you have a mono track purer to the original source without compression artifacts. The sound is cleaner and fidelity is stronger with lossless audio.

[Class316]

Originally Posted by steve_dave

Because you have a mono track purer to the original source without compression artifacts. The sound is cleaner and fidelity is stronger with lossless audio.

Is the difference really noticeable?

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by Class316

Is the difference really noticeable?

It can be, yes. Lossy throws audio data away. Lossless encoding just zips the PCM track. Lossless decoding re-creates the original PCM master used.

[AaronJ]

Originally Posted by Class316

Is the difference really noticeable?

Originally Posted by FilmFreakosaurus

It can be, yes. Lossy throws audio data away. Lossless just zips the PCM track.

I would guess that where someone can notice the difference probably depends on two main factors:

The audio set-up they're using.

The listener's range and sensitivity of hearing.

[sa5150]

Does the new pop art cover blu have lossless audio ?

[steve_dave]

Originally Posted by sa5150

Does the new pop art cover blu have lossless audio ?

The disc is the same US disc as before: DTS-HD MA 5.1 and DTS 2.0 mono.

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by sa5150

Does the new pop art cover blu have lossless audio ?

The UK version had lossless for both the remix and original mono tracks.

The U.S. version has lossy audio for the mono track.

[rocknblues81]

Isn't that the best version? It's the one I have and it's pretty damn good. I love the cover art also.

[steve_dave]

Originally Posted by rocknblues81

Isn't that the best version? It's the one I have and it's pretty damn good. I love the cover art also.

The UK version has one additional extra plus original mono in DTS-HD MA.

[rocknblues81]

Originally Posted by steve_dave

The UK version has one additional extra plus original mono in DTS-HD MA.

I think I only paid like 6 bucks for this version. I'm good.

[Justtoview]

Originally Posted by steve_dave

The UK version has one additional extra plus original mono in DTS-HD MA.

New picture, new sound, restored.............the 5.1 track is perfect. No need for mono or I can just go back to the VHS. Good day now.

[Adam_ME]

Originally Posted by Justtoview

New picture, new sound, restored.............the 5.1 track is perfect. No need for mono or I can just go back to the VHS. Good day now.

I disagree about the 5.1 track. It has new sound FX that are distracting. I much prefer the mono track, so I hung onto the UK Steelbook even after I got the Hitchcock box set that includes Psycho.

[sa5150]

Originally Posted by Adam_ME

I disagree about the 5.1 track. It has new sound FX that are distracting. I much prefer the mono track, so I hung onto the UK Steelbook even after I got the Hitchcock box set that includes Psycho.

(new sound FX) , I did not know that , distracting like how ? is it stuff that should not be there or is the original sound enhanced to hear everything louder ?

I like the euro cover the best and it's pretty cheap . I have a quite a few things I want to buy from Italy amazon to even out the big shipping charge . I would just get it from Germany which has very reasonable shipping rates but I hate there giant rating logo's. Too bad the usa (pop art new 2016) did not get lossless audio

Are the extras the same from uk and euro copies ?

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by Markgway

As I said before, Hitchcock was forced to make cuts to appease the MPAA (I wish I could remember the book I read this in, but it was a long time ago). The German version was most likely his director's cut, and how the film was released in less censorious territories. Because the US version has since the VHS era become the de facto version doesn't make it uncut. Whether the cut footage changes or improves the film (and I'm sure it doesn't) is irrelevant.

And as I said before, the US version he released was his approved cut and has been that way for 50 years. Most likely this and that, but it means absolutely nothing. He was also "forced" to cut the flushing toilet, but he didn't.

And yet again, tirelessly, EVERY movie has cut scenes for many reasons, so calling something "cut" is completely ridiculous and just semantics to perpetuate a non-existent argument. So let's start a thread for every single movie now saying they are ALL cut and demand uncut versions, because that's basically what some of you are doing here.

And this is a gem: "Whether the cut footage changes or improves the film (and I'm sure it doesn't) is irrelevant." It's completely relevant, because the footage adds nothing, therefore it's inclusion would satisfy non one or offer ANYTHING new to a classic 50-year-old film. Therefore, it's unneeded. If it were relevant footage you might have an argument.