Dressed to Kill (1980)

[Strevlac]

Originally Posted by Phonecia Taylor

I fail to see anything wrong with the picture of this Bluray based on the examples given in the review. This movie has NEVER looked right on video. Ralf Bode's overly diffused photography has always made this movie look terrible. If there's a better version of this movie available then they owe it to the customers to release it. But from what I'm seeing I wouldn't mind owning this a bit. There's no grain removal so I'm happy.

Sounds like you have an issue with the photography itself, and not with the various transfers out there.

The MGM bluray looks fine. 4K could make it look better in terms of grain reproduction but 4K transfers can and sometimes do screw things up. It's looking like this could be one of those times.

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by Phonecia Taylor

I fail to see anything wrong with the picture of this Bluray based on the examples given in the review. This movie has NEVER looked right on video. Ralf Bode's overly diffused photography has always made this movie look terrible. If there's a better version of this movie available then they owe it to the customers to release it. But from what I'm seeing I wouldn't mind owning this at all. There's no grain removal so I'm happy.

If you can't see the stretching, then I don't know what to tell you. It has nothing to do with the original photography.

[Rockercub]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

It's more noticeable to me having people's chins cut off but the tops of their heads visible. Most often, eye sad centered directly in the middle of the frame horizontally, instead of shifted up which is common framing, and just looks really off to me (well, since it is). The rule of thirds is killed with that Bleu transfer.

I just took a quick look at it, and you're so right! I must have been caught up in the story. But I can see how someone could at least try to defend that choice. You know, something like: "The rule of thirds was intentionally not followed to keep the viewer off balance." With Dressed to Kill, however, I don't think there's any such defense for the squished images.

[obscurelabel]

Just for fun and for what it's worth, I tried to un-squeeze one of the Criterion images and match it up with the Arrow/MGM. I wound up with a Criterion image of 2138x817 pixels (excludes the black bars), which works out to 2.62:1, which is pretty close to the ideal 2.66:1 if the entire 4x3 35mm frame was unsqueezed at 2:1.



The Arrow part of the screenshot is the upper half and to the right, I think it's easy to see (boy the Criterion is green). It extends up and to the right more than the Criterion. I think I got everything matched up pretty closely but it may be off by a pixel or two.

[Tone blare]

Back when I first saw criterion was releasing this I traded in my mgm blu. today I just ordered a used copy from go hastings for 9.50 because there's no way I'm messing with the criterion. looking back I should have kept my mgm blu cause it looks really good and I dont think a 4k master would make that big of a difference. I also like how the mgm is a little more darker then the arrow so for me mgm is where it's at.

[filmo70]

Originally Posted by MichaelB

Squishing rather than stretching, surely?

Vertical stretching or squishing, doesn't matter.

[darkness2918]

Even with all the complaints I'm sure I'll still end up liking it when my pre order arrives. I just saw no reason to not get the Criterion disc as it looks perfectly watchable to me.

[Rockercub]

Originally Posted by filmo70

Vertical stretching or squishing, doesn't matter.

It does if you're trying to figure out what went wrong and how to fix it.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by obscurelabel

Just for fun and for what it's worth, I tried to un-squeeze one of the Criterion images and match it up with the Arrow/MGM. I wound up with a Criterion image of 2138x817 pixels (excludes the black bars), which works out to 2.62:1, which is pretty close to the ideal 2.66:1 if the entire 4x3 35mm frame was unsqueezed at 2:1.

[Show spoiler]

The Arrow part of the screenshot is the upper half and to the right, I think it's easy to see (boy the Criterion is green). It extends up and to the right more than the Criterion. I think I got everything matched up pretty closely but it may be off by a pixel or two.

Good catch. If they've left the soundtrack area in certain shots then that's a schoolboy error IMO, I don't care if God himself oversaw the transfer.

[AlexIlDottore]

Originally Posted by darkness2918

Even with all the complaints I'm sure I'll still end up liking it when my pre order arrives. I just saw no reason to not get the Criterion disc as it looks perfectly watchable to me.

Be honest. You are talking crap.

Alert. Don't listen to anything that this person posts. They are a Criterion Fanboy.

[tama]

Some poster should probably refrain from posting if juvenile name calling is going to be their only contributions to this thread.

[crazyBLUE]

Originally Posted by AlexIlDottore

Be honest. You are talking crap.

Alert. Don't listen to anything that this person posts. They are a Criterion Fanboy.

It is a good thing you deleted that for you insulted someone & yes I can see it. Do it again & it will be a month!!!

[Rockercub]

Let's not get the thread shut down again. There are going to be people who don't care about the stretching. Like Brian81 pointed out earlier, there are people who stretch their 4:3 to 16:9 because they don't like the black bars on the side (I had a similar issue watching TV at a friend's house). And some people still don't see the difference between DVD and blu-ray. Personally, I don't get it, but they have the right to their opinion. As long as they're not posting anything factually inaccurate, of course.

[Christian Muth]

Originally Posted by obscurelabel

Just for fun and for what it's worth, I tried to un-squeeze one of the Criterion images and match it up with the Arrow/MGM. I wound up with a Criterion image of 2138x817 pixels (excludes the black bars), which works out to 2.62:1, which is pretty close to the ideal 2.66:1 if the entire 4x3 35mm frame was unsqueezed at 2:1.



The Arrow part of the screenshot is the upper half and to the right, I think it's easy to see (boy the Criterion is green). It extends up and to the right more than the Criterion. I think I got everything matched up pretty closely but it may be off by a pixel or two.

Re: the green. I wonder if they color timed this in the P3 DCI color space? As I understand it, "pure white" in P3 actually leans towards a greenish tint to compensate for commercial digital projection. I suppose this should be compensated for when transferring to other color spaces like High Definition's REC209, but maybe the post houses are lax in doing so which is why we're getting so much green these days.

Chris

[schlock]

Originally Posted by Rockercub

Let's not get the thread shut down again. There are going to be people who don't care about the stretching. Like Brian81 pointed out earlier, there are people who stretch their 4:3 to 16:9 because they don't like the black bars on the side (I had a similar issue watching TV at a friend's house).

Ya, I visited my sister (and mother) for 5 days recently and every tv in her house was stretched - and all they do is watch tv. I didn't even bother trying to reason with her (have tried in the past) so I just let it go. After a couple of days, you do actually start getting used to all the fat people on tv. (I wonder how all those sexy models/actors/actresses that struggle so hard to be thin and physically fit feel when they realize that probably the majority of viewers are seeing them horizontally stretched and fat anyway!) One night, we actually put in a DVD movie to watch, a 1.85:1 one, and the tv was still set to stretch so it was actually showing at 2.35:1 and distorted horizontally with black bars on the top and bottom. My sister and mother had no clue that anything was wrong. All it would have taken is a simple click of a button to reset the aspect ratio and fill up the screen properly, making the picture bigger and no stretch or black bars, but I just let them watch the whole thing distorted and they had no clue anything was off as long as the picture horizontally filled up the screen (even though there were still black bars on the top/bottom). I have a feeling if they ever watched anything where people WEREN'T stretched at this point, they would think THAT was off. It was so nice to get back home and watch things properly again.

[Rockercub]

Originally Posted by schlock

Ya, I visited my sister (and mother) for 5 days recently and every tv in her house was stretched - and all they do is watch tv. I didn't even bother trying to reason with her (have tried in the past) so I just let it go. After a couple of days, you do actually start getting used to all the fat people on tv. (I wonder how all those sexy models/actors/actresses that struggle so hard to be thin and physically fit feel when they realize that probably the majority of viewers are seeing them horizontally stretched and fat anyway!) One night, we actually put in a DVD movie to watch, a 1.85:1 one, and the tv was still set to stretch so it was actually showing at 2.35:1 and distorted horizontally with black bars on the top and bottom. My sister and mother had no clue that anything was wrong. All it would have taken is a simple click of a button to reset the aspect ratio and fill up the screen properly, making the picture bigger and no stretch or black bars, but I just let them watch the whole thing distorted and they had no clue anything was off as long as the picture horizontally filled up the screen (even though there were still black bars on the top/bottom). I have a feeling if they ever watched anything where people WEREN'T stretched at this point, they would think THAT was off. It was so nice to get back home and watch things properly again.

I sat through one movie like that at my friend's house and vowed never to do it again. Now, I always host!

[ravenus]

Originally Posted by schlock

Ya, I visited my sister (and mother) for 5 days recently and every tv in her house was stretched

Would that be a wrong TV setting or one in which the input device (DVD player or cable box) had the wrong setting for the TV i.e. thinking that the TV is a 4:3 screen, when it is a 16:9 screen. In either case I'm sure it's just a simple adjustment on the remote, and if you show them once, they will realize it and be thankful to you. Go on, be nice to them

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by Rockercub

I just took a quick look at it, and you're so right! I must have been caught up in the story. But I can see how someone could at least try to defend that choice. You know, something like: "The rule of thirds was intentionally not followed to keep the viewer off balance." With Dressed to Kill, however, I don't think there's any such defense for the squished images.

Well, not to derail the thread anymore by talking about Bleu, people can try to defend it all they want. but that doesn't make it correct, and I projected the film theatrically during its 1993 run. It's definitely wrong.

[schlock]

Originally Posted by ravenus

Would that be a wrong TV setting or one in which the input device (DVD player or cable box) had the wrong setting for the TV i.e. thinking that the TV is a 4:3 screen, when it is a 16:9 screen. In either case I'm sure it's just a simple adjustment on the remote, and if you show them once, they will realize it and be thankful to you. Go on, be nice to them

LOL, I actually WAS nice to them by not saying anything. Every tv in the house could have been set correctly just by the remote, but when my mother was watching various channels like Game Show Network and whatever else which all may have various aspect ratios, the last thing someone in their 80's is going to understand is to hit another button on the remote from channel to channel to get the aspect ratio correct. It's all just easier for them to have everything set to stretch and everyone's happy, except me of course, but I survived.

We're all pros on aspect ratios on here, but the general population isn't quite there yet. Have you ever been in a bank, store, airport or business with tv-screens on that DOESN'T have the image stretched horizontally?

[Namuhana]

Originally Posted by KilloWertz

On a better note, not knocking De Palma at all, but which Hitchcock film does this "copy"? I could probably read up on it myself, but didn't want to read too much about it since I've never seen it (or probably the Hitchcock film it is like).

Mainly Psycho, and a bit of Vertigo.