Psycho (1960) (50th Anniversary Edition)

[BluProofie]

It’s clear there is no evidence that these cuts were in the original theatrical release. Interesting we now have a response from an author with nothing substantial to back up his claim and evidence to the contrary as provided by members on this site.

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Psycho was never meant to be seen at 1.37:1. There are many instances where camera shadows, etc. creep into the frame that would be hidden in a matted widescreen ratio.

[Richard--W]

Originally Posted by bigbadwoppet

Matted films were shown in all three ratios (1.66, 1.75 and 1.85) depending on the territory they were exhibited.

The fact that the opening credits are hard matted doesn't mean they film was intended expressly for 1.66:1. Of course it can be shown that way.

Now, the 1.33 one poster is suggesting is another case of "I want the movie like I saw it on TV" syndrome. The fact that anyone would want to watch a film intended for matting open matted on a 16x9 TV escapes me.

I saw PSYCHO many times in repertory screenings throughout the 1970s and
1980s. I used to be a repertory theater addict. Never missed the chance to
see a Hitchcock film projected multiple times. For example, when Rear
Window was re-released in 1983 I saw it two or three times per week for
the two months it played in San Diego. But getting back to PSYCHO, it was
almost always projected in 1.66-1 in repertory screenings. This may not
have been correct, but it was routinely done. As a filmmaker I took note of
projection. I'm the guy who always complained if there wasn't enough
brightness on the screen I'd tell management the carbon arc had burned
too far down and they needed to knob it in closer.

Regarding the TV safe version, don't let this fact escape you: there is
additional story-telling information at the top and bottom that is missing from
the theatrical aspect ratio. Hitchcock put it there for TV audiences when TV
screens were still at 1.33-1. There are NO inappropriate camera shadows in
the TV safe version.

I don't know who Jeff Wells is.

[thatguamguy]

Originally Posted by Richard--W

Regarding the TV safe version, don't let this fact escape you: there is
additional story-telling information at the top and bottom that is missing from
the theatrical aspect ratio.

Can you be more specific? I'm just curious.

[RCRochester]

Originally Posted by Richard--W

I don't know who Jeff Wells is.

Consider yourself fortunate.

[Egbert Souse]

Originally Posted by Richard--W

I saw PSYCHO many times in repertory screenings throughout the 1970s and
1980s. I used to be a repertory theater addict. Never missed the chance to
see a Hitchcock film projected multiple times. For example, when Rear
Window was re-released in 1983 I saw it two or three times per week for
the two months it played in San Diego. But getting back to PSYCHO, it was
almost always projected in 1.66-1 in repertory screenings. This may not
have been correct, but it was routinely done. As a filmmaker I took note of
projection. I'm the guy who always complained if there wasn't enough
brightness on the screen I'd tell management the carbon arc had burned
too far down and they needed to knob it in closer.

Regarding the TV safe version, don't let this fact escape you: there is
additional story-telling information at the top and bottom that is missing from
the theatrical aspect ratio. Hitchcock put it there for TV audiences when TV
screens were still at 1.33-1. There are NO inappropriate camera shadows in
the TV safe version.

I don't know who Jeff Wells is.

If the top and bottom picture is additional story-telling information, what does that make the 15% of the horizontal picture area that gets cropped out from showing at 1.33:1?

Also, was Hitchcock intending you to see all the rigging and studio lights in North by Northwest as some early video editions exposed?

[Richard--W]

Originally Posted by Egbert Souse

If the top and bottom picture is additional story-telling information, what does that make the 15% of the horizontal picture area that gets cropped out from showing at 1.33:1?

Also, was Hitchcock intending you to see all the rigging and studio lights in North by Northwest as some early video editions exposed?

Answer your own silly questions.

[koberulz]

Originally Posted by Richard--W

I'm the guy who always complained if there wasn't enough
brightness on the screen I'd tell management the carbon arc had burned
too far down and they needed to knob it in closer.

Well it's good to know your condescending sense of superiority isn't confined to the internet.

[Richard--W]

Originally Posted by thatguamguy

Can you be more specific? I'm just curious.

The "dinner with Norman" scene starts about 35 minutes in. Study that. But you will need the full-screen VHS to compare it to.

[thatguamguy]

I'm curious enough to read whatever you say -- what you wrote made me think of "My Name Is Earl", where they would throw in extra jokes in the widescreen -- but I don't think I'm curious enough to go looking for a "Psycho" VHS.

[Richard--W]

I have no idea what you're referring to re: "My Name Is Earl".

[thatguamguy]

The show broadcast in 1.78, but was cropped (rather than letterboxed) for 1.33 TVs, so they would sometimes put in things breaking the fourth wall on the extreme sides of the frame, acknowledging the viewer's HDTV and so forth.

[Richard--W]

I recorded PSYCHO off the air in about 1981 with my first JVC videotape recorder. It was not cropped to 1.78 nor was it letterboxed.

[thatguamguy]

No, but it's "storytelling information" contained in a non-primary aspect ratio. So if you don't give a specific example, I'm just gonna go on imagining Norman Bates writing notes at the bottom of the screen saying "Hello television viewer!"

[Richard--W]

That makes no sense but suit yourself. I didn't come in here to field sarcasm or to argue. If you have access to a TV-safe edition the visual story-telling information in the top and bottom area will be self-evident in various places, not so much in others. It's not complicated.

[thatguamguy]

It seems weird to me that you are trying to convince people that the fullscreen version has artistic merit because of "additional storytelling information" but refuse to offer a single example of anything specific that it adds, but I guess good luck with your quest to get them to release it.

[charlieray1]

Originally Posted by Richard--W

. There are NO inappropriate camera shadows in
the TV safe version.

Yes there are. There's a scene in Marion's hotel room where the camera is zooming in to the bed with the newspaper on it (I think it's the paper -- don't have it handy to check). The shadow of the camera is very obvious as it moves at the bottom of the frame. It doesn't show in the matted version.

[Richard--W]

I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I simply stated what I'd like to see on bluray.

I gave a time code to a specific scene that will show you what I mean. I don't know
what else I can do. My post was sincere and made in a spirit of good will. All this
bickering is unnecessary and silly and I'm done with it.

[TheHutt]

The German Legacy Collection set is now live on Amazon.de (99.99€)!
https://www.amazon.de/gp/product/B07JYVQJNW

[thatguamguy]

Originally Posted by Richard--W

I gave a time code to a specific scene that will show you what I mean. I don't know what else I can do.

You could describe (at least one of) the "important directorial touches" that are added instead of saying "You'll need a fullscreen VHS to find out!"

Like, for instance, the fullscreen version of "Jackie Brown" shows more of Bridget Fonda's butt. In fact, pretty much any example I have ever heard of something specific that was "lost" in OAR when compared to fullscreen, it has been people talking about extra nudity. I'm sure that's not the case here, that's why I'm curious what specifically you're referring to.