Dressed to Kill (1980)

[jtarvainen]

I also sent a message to Jon Mulvaney about the possible stretching. In the hopes of not getting a stock reply about the transfer being director-approved, I mentioned that I'm aware of Mr. De Palma's involvement, and suggested that Criterion check that any accidental stretching hasn't occurred by comparing the original 4K scan of the film elements to the final BD transfer.

[swr2777]

Question then, friends.

So, if Criterion were to do something to fix the squeezed picture, what would you all prefer?

Just lop that extra data back off of the left side of the frame and go back to a traditional 2.35:1 ratio?

Or go ahead and include all of the visual data, get rid of the squeeze effect, and make it more of a 2.66:1 transfer (or whatever it's coming out at unsqueezed)?

Seems like there are advantages to both.

Also, I came to this thread via my love of DRESSED TO KILL, but I am a past laserdisc nerd and not a Bluray authority. I haven't seen a thread or response to a transfer this polarized or controversial before, and wasn't aware that Criterion had a more recent trend of disappointing fans. How recently did this trend begin? Also, have they ever recalled a release before due to advance pre-release reaction like this?

[obscurelabel]

Originally Posted by swr2777

Question then, friends.

So, if Criterion were to do something to fix the squeezed picture, what would you all prefer?

Just lop that extra data back off of the left side of the frame and go back to a traditional 2.35:1 ratio?

Or go ahead and include all of the visual data, get rid of the squeeze effect, and make it more of a 2.66:1 transfer (or whatever it's coming out at unsqueezed)?

Seems like there are advantages to both.

Also, I came to this thread via my love of DRESSED TO KILL, but I am a past laserdisc nerd and not a Bluray authority. I haven't seen a thread or response to a transfer this polarized or controversial before, and wasn't aware that Criterion had a more recent trend of disappointing fans. How recently did this trend begin? Also, have they ever recalled a release before due to advance pre-release reaction like this?

If the extra information on the left is from the soundtrack area, then it was never intended to be seen. It wouldn't have appeared on the release prints at all. So the 'scope ratio of 2.35/2.39:1 should be maintained and the soundtrack area (if that's what it is) should be matted off.

And if you're asking about any disappointments with Criterion, I think they've gone overboard with boosting blacks a few times. Some other minor quibbles, but I think their batting average is almost as good as anyone's (MoC and Arrow have been really, really good and maybe better over the past few years).

[captainjoe]

I'd rather lose the left side info it's not really improving the composition of the shots I'm looking at. It's also interesting how the non stretched shots of the criterion seem to have similar framing to the older transfer. Maybe this extra image area isn't intended to be seen?

EDIT: See above

[baheidstu]

Originally Posted by swr2777

Question then, friends.

So, if Criterion were to do something to fix the squeezed picture, what would you all prefer?

Just lop that extra data back off of the left side of the frame and go back to a traditional 2.35:1 ratio?

Or go ahead and include all of the visual data, get rid of the squeeze effect, and make it more of a 2.66:1 transfer (or whatever it's coming out at unsqueezed)?

Seems like there are advantages to both.

Also, I came to this thread via my love of DRESSED TO KILL, but I am a past laserdisc nerd and not a Bluray authority. I haven't seen a thread or response to a transfer this polarized or controversial before, and wasn't aware that Criterion had a more recent trend of disappointing fans. How recently did this trend begin? Also, have they ever recalled a release before due to advance pre-release reaction like this?

There's been a few debates going back a few years at least, the color timing on Thief being one example. More recently, there was quite the discussion over on the Fisher King thread because of an issue with framing different from other releases which revealed an instrustive "black bar" during one scene.

[Ray Jackson]

The scene in the elevator is one of the scariest scenes in movie history.

...ten times scarier than the shower scene in Psycho imo.

[EddieLarkin]

Originally Posted by obscurelabel

I think EddieLarkin has it right, or at least the right track.

Check out the shots of the original MGM region 1 DVD of The Great Escape (they're the second shots in each group). Much much more info on the left in those shots than what made it to the other finished disks. The compensated by making the AR 2.69:1 instead of the correct 2.35:1 so there wasn't any squeezing, though, unlike DtK.

That's a great example, thanks. Both of these films were shot 35mm Panavision, and you can see there what happens when you transfer the full frame area.

Originally Posted by swr2777

Question then, friends.

So, if Criterion were to do something to fix the squeezed picture, what would you all prefer?

Just lop that extra data back off of the left side of the frame and go back to a traditional 2.35:1 ratio?

Or go ahead and include all of the visual data, get rid of the squeeze effect, and make it more of a 2.66:1 transfer (or whatever it's coming out at unsqueezed)?

Seems like there are advantages to both.

What advantages? If they unsqueezed the video we'd have the film in a ratio it isn't supposed to be in, showing a load of image information that was never intended to be part of the composition...

If this is indeed what has gone wrong, Criterion need to recall, unsqueeze, lop off the left and a bit off the right to conform to the proper ratio as per the standards, and repress. The disc would be otherwise fine then, and an improvement over the MGM/Arrow discs, as the transfer itself is clearly superior in terms of detail/grain structure.

[swr2777]

Thanks for the friendly and honest responses, you all. I kept posting a more detailed response, which keeps getting flagged for moderation, and I'm not sure why. (Hope this one doesn't meet the same fate.)

Was going to say that, while I want this Criterion edition to be good, one of the red flags for me about that extra data being expendable is that - when comparing the Criterion screenshots to the Arrow and MGM - it doesn't really add any extra info and seems out of visual integrity. Why include HALF of a phone on a desk, HALF of a picture frame, and include a dark patch of black behind a chair? That's the tipping point for me. Given the controlled artistry of the filmmakers involved, that kind of willy-nilly compositional quality seems out of character and likely unintended.

[cad1981]

Originally Posted by swr2777

Thanks for the friendly and honest responses, you all. I kept posting a more detailed response, which keeps getting flagged for moderation, and I'm not sure why. (Hope this one doesn't meet the same fate.)

Was going to say that, while I want this Criterion edition to be good, one of the red flags for me about that extra data being expendable is that - when comparing the Criterion screenshots to the Arrow and MGM - it doesn't really add any extra info and seems out of visual integrity. Why include HALF of a phone on a desk, HALF of a picture frame, and include a dark patch of black behind a chair? That's the tipping point for me. Given the controlled artistry of the filmmakers involved, that kind of willy-nilly compositional quality seems out of character and likely unintended.

Agreed.

I just got the autoresponse from Criterion that others got too. Looking forward to seeing other reviews, but so far there's no good to be had from this news. Those "skinny" Nancy Allen and Michael Caine images are dead giveaways.

[obscurelabel]

Originally Posted by swr2777

Thanks for the friendly and honest responses, you all. I kept posting a more detailed response, which keeps getting flagged for moderation, and I'm not sure why. (Hope this one doesn't meet the same fate.)

Was going to say that, while I want this Criterion edition to be good, one of the red flags for me about that extra data being expendable is that - when comparing the Criterion screenshots to the Arrow and MGM - it doesn't really add any extra info and seems out of visual integrity. Why include HALF of a phone on a desk, HALF of a picture frame, and include a dark patch of black behind a chair? That's the tipping point for me. Given the controlled artistry of the filmmakers involved, that kind of willy-nilly compositional quality seems out of character and likely unintended.

Shot composition isn't a consideration if it can be determined that the extra information on the left of the frame(s) is from the soundtrack area. The camera doesn't bother to matte this off when filming, it's understood that it will be cropped when prints are made, the soundtrack takes up the space on the print where this information is on the negative. Even though it exists on the neg, prints would not have had it, no one would have ever seen it in a theater.

Note: I think that the reason the camera isn't modified to automatically matte this, is that sometimes you might want to use the whole frame area, like if you are doing a shot that's going to be part of a special effects composite or something like that. This is just conjecture on my part, I'm not sure.

[swr2777]

Thank you, Cad1981. Seems like you're of the same opinion. And sorry to know that the response was automated and consequently disappointing.

Also, EddieLarkin, I totally hear you on your argument of "what advantages (to the squeezing)?" Granted, some of us who followed every release of this film for years (perhaps you, too) dating back to the 1990 R-rated letterboxed laserdisc with the squeezed picture in 1.85:1, and the substantially improved 1993 unrated letterboxed laserdisc, were always struggling with overscan issues during traditional pre-HD playback. Being such a precisely shot film with such controlled compositions, that overscan issue of years past was annoying. (LOL, i.e. the exclamation point after the Health Dept. document saying "You have contracted a venereal disease!" not being visible in even a letterboxed playback.)

So, that being said, there's always a bit of a temptation to be lured by the notion of "extra data on the sides" that we couldn't see before. But nevertheless, as you are suggesting (and I myself am in my last post), if it's not intended to be seen that way, and that extra/expendable data is actually throwing off the visual integrity of the film, then clearly it's a problem and shouldn't be there.

[swr2777]

Originally Posted by obscurelabel

Shot composition isn't a consideration if it can be determined that the extra information on the left of the frame(s) is from the soundtrack area. The camera doesn't bother to matte this off when filming, it's understood that it will be cropped when prints are made, the soundtrack takes up the space on the print where this information is on the negative. Even though it exists on the neg, prints would not have had it, no one would have ever seen it in a theater.

Note: I think that the reason the camera isn't modified to automatically matte this, is that sometimes you might want to use the whole frame area, like if you are doing a shot that's going to be part of a special effects composite or something like that. This is just conjecture on my part, I'm not sure.

Thank you for this response, obscurelabel. Now, you're clearly in the know on this than I. Just want to be sure I'm understanding you. You mean this extra soundtrack data would never have been included in a theatrical print period? Not just lopped off via projection methods, but just not on the print at all?

[Catastrophe]

Well, here's my take based on the screenshots: The "stretching" actually makes things look more natural except in the one shot of Nancy Allen in the police station. Otherwise one wouldn't even really notice it; in fact, it makes the other two releases look squashed. There is more information in the frame which is always good. The coloring is a little off with that weird yellowish/greenish tint but to me, it's really only noticeable in the screenshot where Angie Dickinson is being hacked up. At the same time, in some shots it actually makes the film look older (a creative choice?). The cooler skin tones also look (for the most part) more natural than the almost "flushed" look of the previous releases.

[swr2777]

While not about the transfer of the Criterion, I'm wondering if the disc will nevertheless address - amidst its interviews or any of the info on Pino Donaggio and the score - the two pop song variations of the score's main theme (called "How Was My Heart to Know") that were apparently released internationally (?). Weird that, for many of us, this just surfaced in the last couple of years on YouTube.

I don't want my comment to get flagged for moderation by including a link. But if you other DTK fans/purists go to YouTube and search "How Was My Heart to Know - DRESSED TO KILL," you'll see the two versions of that song that I'm referring to.

I don't have the Arrow disc. Was this "pop/love song" version mentioned at all on it in the Donaggio interviews?

[obscurelabel]

Originally Posted by swr2777

Thank you for this response, obscurelabel. Now, you're clearly in the know on this than I. Just want to be sure I'm understanding you. You mean this extra soundtrack data would never have been included in a theatrical print period? Not just lopped off via projection methods, but just not on the print at all?

swr2777, I just realized that I have made an assumption about this, so I'll backtrack and say that I can't answer definitively whether the prints have this information or not. I've got a few 'scope 35mm trailers (I'm looking at Superman Returns right now) and the image fills the frame from top to bottom, but I can't determine from that whether it has the exposed image from the negative soundtrack area or not. I wouldn't think so, since it seems like that would mess up the geometry of the anamorphic squeeze, in addition to having more wasted space on the frame (as well as reduced picture quality), but I can't say for absolute certain.

I don't think is answers your question, but here's an image of a 'scope frame with the soundtrack area marked.



EDIT: I just checked my Superman Returns trailer again and saw that the WB logo is centered in the middle of the available (non-soundtrack) area. If the soundtrack area were on the print and there was to be any cropping during projection, the logo would have to be offset some to the right. So this seems to indicate that prints would never have any of the soundtrack area image that would be captured on the negative.

[EddieLarkin]

The "soundtrack area" on the negative is of course taken up by the actual soundtrack itself on a print. For example, the information that can be seen on the far left of the 2.69:1 DVD of The Great Escape could not physically be shown during its theatrical presentation, no matter what the projectionist did. If he tried to project that area, he'd simply end up projecting the soundtrack!

[babybreese]

Squeeze appears to be intermittent.
Caine's head looks OK in both caps, Nancy Allen's head less so.
criterion

arrow

criterion

arrow

[swr2777]

Thanks, obscurelabel and Eddie Larkin. Very helpful and informative, for myself and many others as well, I'm sure.

[PowellPressburger]

Dressed to Teal!

[PaperThinWalls]

Originally Posted by swr2777

Thanks for the friendly and honest responses, you all. I kept posting a more detailed response, which keeps getting flagged for moderation, and I'm not sure why. (Hope this one doesn't meet the same fate.)

Off-topic: Don't worry, you haven't done anything wrong. Since you're a new member you have posting restrictions. I think you need 10 posts to freely post without any limitations or Mod approval.