Go Back  DVD Talk Forum > Archives > Archives > DVD Talk Archive
Reload this Page >

Vertigo needs a new transfer!

Community
Search

Vertigo needs a new transfer!

 
Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 04-15-04 | 11:25 PM
  #1  
Thread Starter
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 4,688
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Vertigo needs a new transfer!

I finally watched my copy of the dvd with the original cover art tonight.

While the film itself actually looks beautiful...and I was able to finally 'get' the film for the first time ever and view the entire thing without a break.

I did notice quite a few scenes were the picture was abit shaky with peoples faces being a blur every few seconds. Also the scene when Novak leaves Stewarts place has some of the worst pixelation I have ever seen. Both of their heads disappear in a mask of jumbled lines & artifacts.

This really needs a 16.9 remaster fast!

Will Universal ever give it & Psycho one?

Oh yeah,I think the reason why I was so bored to death with the film the other times I attempted to watch it. Was because of the terribly faded non-colorful & cropped prints I saw. Thus the film was just bland and not so interesting. Yet with the restoration,it is very colorful & comes alive.

I still do not think it is Hitchs best,but will say it is a good film with some striking colors & a really dark story.
Julie Walker is offline  
Old 04-15-04 | 11:57 PM
  #2  
Senior Member
 
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
From: Fargo, ND
16:9 Vertigo and Psycho would be AWESOME. I really wish this would happen.
bis22 is offline  
Old 04-16-04 | 06:34 AM
  #3  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,504
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
From: Lincolnwood, Illinois
A new 16:9 transfer for Vertigo would be nice as long as Universal lets Robert Harris supervise it. Hopefully it won't look like the disgraceful R2 anamorphic edition which Harris did not oversee.
Simpson Purist is offline  
Old 04-16-04 | 09:52 AM
  #4  
Johnny Zhivago's Avatar
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 5,435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
From: Korova Milkbar
Re: Vertigo needs a new transfer!

Originally posted by Julie Walker
Also the scene when Novak leaves Stewarts place has some of the worst pixelation I have ever seen. Both of their heads disappear in a mask of jumbled lines & artifacts.
You might have a bad disc or some kind of player problem... I've spun Vertigo (original orange cover release) several times on several players and have never seen this. I'll pop it in over the weekend and have another look.

But yeah, Vertigo and Psycho (along with another Universal title, JC's The Thing) need new 16X9 transfers. Almost every Hitch fan here would agree with you. Sadly though, I don't think it will happen... At least not until HD-DVD comes along. This is Universal we're talking about here... And despite their mostly excellent Hitchcock releases, they're still one of (if not the) worst studios around when it comes to their DVD releases.

Last edited by Johnny Zhivago; 04-16-04 at 09:54 AM.
Johnny Zhivago is offline  
Old 04-16-04 | 11:07 AM
  #5  
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,910
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
From: Lower Appalachia
My two cents on a revisiting of Vertigo ... in addition to a 16x9 transfer ... put the original mono soundtrack on the DVD. In addition do doing a restoration of the picture, the producers decided to re-record almost all of the sound effects, and use contemporary (i.e., 1958) stereo recordings of the musical score, to create a DD 5.0 multichannel soundtrack. I have read that a number of the musical cues are not in exactly the same places as the original, and that the newly recorded sound effects are quite noticeably "new" and different from the original.

If the producers want to do this to give consumers' sound systems a workout, OK. But please include the original soundtrack as an option as well! Some might complain that it is mono, tinny, compressed, lacks bass, etc.; but if so, this is how it was originally ... and it should be made available for those who want to see the movie as close to its original presentation as possible.

Here is an article about the changes that were made to the soundtrack.

http://www.hermenaut.com/a36.shtml

A Swimming in the Head

review by Chris Fujiwara

When I first heard that Alfred Hitchcock's 1958 film Vertigo was being "restored" I was surprised. The prints I'd seen since it was released in 1984 looked fine to me. Considering that it had been out of distribution for years before that, I doubt that many Hitchcock fans were unhappy with the film's appearance. So it came as a shock to hear that the negative was badly deteriorated, the colors faded, and that it was due for a major restoration, at a cost of over a million dollars.



The restorers were Robert A. Harris and James C. Katz, who also fixed up Lawrence of Arabia, Spartacus, and My Fair Lady. Paying the bills was Universal Studios, which owns the rights to Vertigo (originally a Paramount picture). They took the VistaVision original and made a new 65mm negative—which is theoretically fine since the 35mm VistaVision frame is equal in size to two standard 35mm frames—and then made 70mm release prints from the new negative, which seems OK too. Let's not be churlish and thank them for the brighter, richer colors of the new version. Let's give them the benefit of the doubt on how well these colors match those in the original, non-deteriorated film (and how they know). Vertigo now looks great and it's good, they say, for the next 200 years. Guys, thanks.



There's one more piece of good news. While working on the project, they found the original stereo recordings of Bernard Herrmann's famous score for the film. (To be precise, about half of the score was recorded in stereo. The London orchestra Paramount was using went on strike in the middle of the sessions, and the unit had to move to Vienna, where the remainder of the score was recorded in mono.) Now, bad news. Because they had stereo music, and, I venture to say, simply because they could, the restorers decided to remix the whole soundtrack in stereo. That meant digitizing the music, dialogue, and sound effects and doing a whole new mix. Since the sound effects and foley tracks no longer existed, they had to rerecord them, using the original film as a guide and trying to copy the sounds; they consulted Hitchcock's dubbing notes.



I'm with them on the color and on the 70mm. I draw the line at the sound.



For one thing, my ears are still smarting from another recent "restoration"—Orson Welles's Othello. Welles's daughter and her husband got hold of the original negative and found that it printed pretty good, better than any print of the film had looked in decades. But of course they couldn't leave well enough alone. Because Welles was underfunded and working under labyrinthinely complex circumstances (to some extent of his own choosing), the soundtrack of Othello was, let us say, not up to James Cameron's standards. But it was Welles's soundtrack. Muffled and out of sync though much of the dialogue was, he signed off on it, allowed it to go out into the world, and never touched it again. His "restorers" decided to digitize the dialogue, slowing it down, speeding it up, and adding pauses to force it to match the actors' lips. They went so far as to commission a new recording of the film's score (done on the basis of a transcription! since the sheet music was lost). The result is a completely new soundtrack that sounds impossible for a 1952 film and that deforms the atmosphere of the film.



The difference between watching a bad print of Welles's original Othello and watching the new one is like the difference between reading the play in a faded, nth-generation Xerox with some words practically illegible, and reading a nicely printed book of a paraphrase of the play into modern English. This analogy is no good, though, for the following reason: It's unthinkable that Shakespeare's Othello wouldn't be readily available in bookstores, libraries, and on the Internet, whereas the new version of the Welles film has pushed away the old, making it virtually unavailable. (A version with Welles's original soundtrack has been released on laserdisc only.)



The restorers of Othello, who maybe had a digital Ouija board too, said that if Welles had had modern technology at his disposal to fix up his film, this is what he would have done. The restorers of Vertigo make similar assertions when it comes to the differences between the new and the old versions. According to James Katz: "People who have seen Vertigo before have never seen it like this. Those who are lucky enough to be experiencing this film for the very first time will see it as Hitchcock would have wanted it to be seen today, with all the sound, visual effects and other elements of excitement at their absolute best and in sync with '90s technology."



More revealingly, Katz also said: "Vertigo will now be seen as Hitchcock could only have dreamed it would look and sound... Audiences are going to see a film that Hitchcock never saw." And: "We're putting up something that Alfred Hitchcock never saw and was never able to see when he made it in 1958."



Well, here is Vertigo in something called DTS Stereo and to me it raises the question: Just because you have the money and the technology to do something, does that mean you have to do it? Harris and Katz aren't bad men, I don't want them from ropes. I just wonder how deeply they searched their souls before they did what they did with the soundtrack of Vertigo. And I'm sorry to say the results give me, to quote the film's (mono) trailer, "a feeling of dizzinessŠ a swimming in the head... figuratively a state in which all things seem to be engulfed in a whirlpool of terror."



The stereo makes itself felt especially in the many street scenes in the film. Car sounds are panned from left to right or right to left, as cars move across the screen. This is redundant and sometimes distracting, as when Scottie (James Stewart) and Madeleine (Kim Novak) talk on Scottie's front porch, and the cars all the way down the hill in the background of the shot are stereo-panned. One problem with a stereo mix is that it emphasizes laterality, left-right directionality, which is irrelevant to a film in which the geometry of the spiral predominates: the eye and the spiral in the opening credits, the spiral of the staircase at the Mission San Juan Bautista, the circular trajectories of Scottie and Madeleine in traffic, the curl in Madeleine's hair.



But the main problem with the new Vertigo isn't the stereo, it's the excessive detail of the sound effects. One has the impression of sounds out of control, calling attention to themselves when they should just support the image. Also, the rerecorded sound effects sometimes are significantly different from the original ones. Just listen. Vertigo opens, after the credits, with a scene of Scottie and a policeman pursuing a man across a roof. The policeman fires his gun twice. In the original version, each shot is a single report. In the new version, each shot is distinctly doubled, it has an after-report or something (I'm not a ****ing ballistics expert, I don't know how to describe it). The new gun sound is bright, crackling, and pretty scary, which wasn't the point: We don't care about the person being shot at. The old gun sound, while loud, didn't have any fatal force behind it. It was like a gunshot in a memory, perfectly right for the long shot we see of faraway dark forms running at night across a city skyline.



During the scene, Scottie loses his footing on a sloped roof and ends up hanging from a gutter over a street several stories below. Those who have seen the film will remember Herrmann's music being particularly amazing here in its evocation of absolute terror, the dizzying potential for absolute loss of self. In the new version, somehow we notice the sound of the metal gutter creaking. And to notice it is to be distracted by it.



Sometimes the restorers ignore sound effects that are rather firmly placed in the original. The first scene in the apartment of Scottie's friend Midge (Barbara Bel Geddes) has a remarkable background sound: After Midge turns off the classical music on the radio, we become aware of car noises from the street, adding to the scene's relaxed afternoon atmosphere. In the new version, the street noises are comparatively subdued, usually almost inaudible (although the foleying of footsteps, clothes rustling, Scottie's cane hitting things, etc., is always compulsively clear). Scottie and Midge's conversation now sounds like it's taking place high in a well-sealed skyscraper, not on the fifth floor of an apartment building.



Scottie tries to conquer his fear of heights by climbing a stepladder next to the window. As he puts his foot on "step number two" (so named in the dialogue), in the original version we distinctly hear two beeps of a car horn. The new version doesn't bother recreating this detail. Yet, clearly, the people who worked on the film thought about it, someone put it there with Hitchcock's approval (maybe even at his instigation), and, minor though it doubtless is, it was no accident that after the word "two" is heard in the dialogue, two beeps are heard on the soundtrack. (If you think Hitchcock and his technicians didn't pay attention to such things, you're wrong. Note how sharply the sound of another horn accentuates the close-up of Midge's look when Scottie refers to their almost having got married—a touch the restorers did preserve, although their timing is less adroit.)



On the other hand, the restorers some-times put sounds in that weren't meant to be there. The worst example of this is the birds. When Scottie and Madeleine visit a sequoia forest, in the new version we hear, very distinctly, bird calls. The enlarged soundspace of stereo gives plenty of room for the birds to be placed, and the restorers take full advantage of it. Yet, in the original, there are no birds in this sequence, at least I couldn't hear any and I was listening closely.



The sound in this sequence is critically important, and it was lovingly done in the original: the sober, haunted voices of the actors; the slow, sad music over everything. Underneath it, you can hear the wind blowing—or are you just imagining it? or is it some subliminal string effect in Herrmann's score? This wind, which as it turns out is definitely there (you can tell when it carries over into the next scene on the shore, where it's unmistakable), is crucial to the sound of the scene, especially in the eerie long shots of the people crossing the space, and in the famous shot of Madeleine marking her birth and death among the time-rings on the cross-section of a cut sequoia ("It was only a moment for you; you—you took no notice"). In the new version, the wind is barely there, it's way down in the mix, you can't feel it. To compensate, those birds chatter meaninglessly throughout the sequence. Maybe one of the restorers was an ornithologist or an Audubon Society member, because birds are also dubbed into the first two scenes at the Mission San Juan Bautista, where, again, I detect none in the original.



I could go on with examples (but I assure you I'll stop with this paragraph). Sometimes the sound just inevitably stands out more than it was supposed to because the restorers didn't compensate for the superiority of today's sound recording and reproduction over 1958's. Thus, Scottie's car, which gets a lot of mileage during the first half of the film, now makes a deep, raspy, rather agitated rumble instead of a calm low purr. Sometimes the mix is different without necessarily being "better" or "worse." But if this is a restoration, shouldn't "better" mean: more slavishly faithful to the original? The new version fails to retain the original's palpable drop in car and street noise when Scottie, following Madeleine, turns his car into the alley behind the flower shop. Later in the film, there's a shot of Midge walking down the corridor of the sanitarium where Scottie is recuperating from a nervous breakdown. In the original, her steps get progressively quieter as she walks away from the camera, finally becoming inaudible. In the new version, her steps are clearly audible all the way to the end of the hall, and Herrmann's unison cellos, which give such a desolate effect, are mixed lower.



Clearly, Vertigo's soundtrack has been made to conform to the reductive literalism that's standard in sound practice in contemporary filmmaking. If you can see it onscreen, you must hear it (Midge's foot-steps); if it moves from one side of the screen to the other, it must pan in stereo (the street traffic); if a sound would be expected in a scene if it were happening in reality, it must be heard even if the object is never visible (the birds).



In a Philip K. Dick-like process, this kind of restoration turns the film into a simulacrum of itself: similar to, but eerily unlike the original. The experience of watching it becomes strangely double. The film is there, it's almost the same film, you can watch it as if it were the real film and have (almost) the same relationship to it. At the same time, you're aware, if only from time to time, that this is not the real film. An awareness jogged by a too-crisp sound or a palpable stereo effect. You wonder how closely a given moment, a given effect, recreates that of the original: You feel driven to compare the two. This doubling of the film creates a perverse echo of the story of Vertigo, which is all about originals and copies, about trying to love the original through the copy and the copy through the original's shadow, trying to stimulate through the copy all your feelings toward the original. Unfortunately, while in the film itself this situation is deeply tragic, the real-life doubling of Vertigo 1 by Vertigo 2 is merely kind of regrettable.

Last edited by obscurelabel; 04-16-04 at 03:39 PM.
obscurelabel is offline  
Old 04-16-04 | 11:20 AM
  #6  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Joined: Apr 1999
Posts: 14,259
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
From: Docking Bay 94
I honestly can't say I disagree with anything the author has said in this excellent piece of writing. Vertigo is probably my favorite film of all time and I noticed many (but not all) of the things that he points out.

I too would hope that Universal would reissue this with the original mono track intact (just a simple port from the LD soundtrack would be fine) as an option.
bboisvert is offline  
Old 04-16-04 | 02:45 PM
  #7  
Thread Starter
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 4,688
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Great article...I am also sick of tampering with old 'outdated' soundtracks myself..as you know from my "mono is not bad,why remix it in 5.1?" posts.

I think Universal is one of the prime offenders in soundtrack tampering & discarding of the original. They could easilly fit both soundtracks on the dvd. Yet they rarely do..& when they decide on one mix,it is always the 'new' 'updated' mix..which usually sounds inferior.

So if it were released in 16.9,I would want the mono original option as well. Sadly I do not see that happening.

Speaking of pointless 5.1 remixes. Don May Jr says he is working on a HD-remastered Texas Chainsaw Massacre...which he is also remixing into 5.1. Why? The new stereo surround mix on the dvd sounds like crap. Good thing they kept the original mono intact,so why bother creating a 5.1 mix? It will just sound like crap & not have any of the impact of the original mix.

Last edited by Julie Walker; 04-16-04 at 02:55 PM.
Julie Walker is offline  
Old 04-16-04 | 03:12 PM
  #8  
eau
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 9,379
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Been holding off buying the current version of Vertigo. Hope they will release an updated version with 16x9, ...
eau is offline  
Old 04-16-04 | 03:55 PM
  #9  
Josh Z's Avatar
DVD Talk Legend
 
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 11,962
Received 350 Likes on 243 Posts
From: Boston
Re: Re: Vertigo needs a new transfer!

Vertigo could use an anamorphic remaster with better compression quality, sure. However, some of the problems with the current version (like a couple of extremely grainy scenes) cannot be fixed. Robert Harris painstakingly restored the film, but certain patches of footage could not be repaired and had to be assembled from weaker-quality dub prints.

On the soundtrack issue, Harris says that the mono sound elements were in unusable condition. He had to re-record most of the sound effects out of necessity.

Originally posted by Johnny Zhivago
But yeah, Vertigo and Psycho (along with another Universal title, JC's The Thing) need new 16X9 transfers.
Psycho needs a new 4:3 transfer!
Josh Z is offline  
Old 04-16-04 | 04:19 PM
  #10  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Joined: Apr 1999
Posts: 14,259
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
From: Docking Bay 94
Originally posted by Josh Z
On the soundtrack issue, Harris says that the mono sound elements were in unusable condition.
Maybe 'unusable' for a modern day theatrical release... but there's certainly acceptable tracks available for a home video release (noting that it will not be up to modern standards). Hell, they can just take the track they put on laserdisc and just port it over...
bboisvert is offline  
Old 04-16-04 | 05:21 PM
  #11  
Thread Starter
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 4,688
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Actually Josh,I do not mind any of the 'print flaws' in the transfer. The reason it needs a 16.9 enhanced presentation is for those with 16.9/WS sets. So the picture will actually show up properly,rather than small & heavily windowboxed in.

Thus if you have WS set, non-16.9 enhanced widescreen transfers are best left to viewing on 4.3 tvs to better view the picture rather than having to squint.
Julie Walker is offline  
Old 04-16-04 | 05:24 PM
  #12  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 10,521
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
From: Lower Beaver, Iowa
Re: Re: Re: Vertigo needs a new transfer!

Originally posted by Josh Z
Psycho needs a new 4:3 transfer!
What makes you say that? "Psycho" was released theatrically at 1.85:1.
Mr. Salty is offline  
Old 04-16-04 | 05:29 PM
  #13  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,331
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I love Vertigo. . .an anamorphic transfer would rule. I'd definitely repurchase once I got a 16:9 widescreen setup.
theneobez is offline  
Old 04-16-04 | 06:01 PM
  #14  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
From: Compton (Straight Outta)
Regarding Vertigo: the mono tracks could indeed have been included on the DVD and would have been had Robert Harris had his way, but Universal didn't want to do it "because it wasn't on the laserdisc" (see this interview for more details). In the same interview Harris defends the original decision to redo the foley work and says it was only arrived at after consultation with Patricia Hitchcock, a number of critics, and Hitchcock's producer, so it wasn't a decision made by the bean-counters.
Dan Average is offline  
Old 04-16-04 | 06:52 PM
  #15  
Senior Member
 
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 302
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I don't understand why they keep saying the old Vertigo soundtrack "mono sound elements were in unusable condition". What does this mean? I owned this movie before the 5.1 remix on VHS, from the Universal collection. The sound sounded fine to me! Why can't the same mono soundtrack used on the VHS be inserted as an alternate track on a new DVD release? I think it can easily be done, they just don't want to do it. More and more classic movies are being "distorted" by these new re-mixes, and the original soundtrack is being left out simply because they want to show off the ability to use 5.1 channels. This isn't true to the artist's original vision. A good example would be in the DVD version of JAWS. In the original version, when Roy Scheider fires the last bullet at the shark, we heard this really cool ricochet sound as it hit the air tank causing the explosion. In the DVD version, for whatever stupidity (probably a terrible interpretation by someone of what it should sound like), it sounds like glass breaking! Yup GLASS breaking! Oh man.
Cocopugg is offline  
Old 04-17-04 | 04:58 PM
  #16  
Suspended
 
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 4,533
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
From: You have moved into a dark place. It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
I'd double-dip for a nice 16:9 transfer of Vertigo-go.
jough is offline  
Old 04-17-04 | 05:55 PM
  #17  
Banned
 
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 6,154
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
From: "Sitting on a beach, earning 20%"
Originally posted by Cocopugg
I don't understand why they keep saying the old Vertigo soundtrack "mono sound elements were in unusable condition". What does this mean?
1. They could have included the original mono, as Rober Harris points out in the link above Universal didn't want to.

2. The truth is that when Robert Harris says the mono was "unusable" what he means is that it couldn't be used for what he wanted to do with it (ie. make use of the stereo recording of Herrmann's score). In audio mixing there are three tracks: Dialogue, music, and effects. At some point in the process music and effects are mixed down to one track and the dialogue remains as an individual track. This is done so that re-recorded dialogue in a another language can be mixed with the combined music/effects track in foriegn markets (aka dubbing). Frequently the music/effects composite is all that survives. Take a listen to the Criterion editions of Rebecca or Notorious or The Killers where, rather than having an isolated music track (which probably is lost), the DVD's have an isolated music and effects track.

When all you have is the music and effects mix down you can no longer seperate the two. If you wanted to lay in a recording of the soundtrack in stereo it is imposible to seperate and isolate the effects in order to mix them with your new music track.

When Harris and company decided to persue using the stereo recordings of the score they sealed their fate. They had no choice but to re-record the effects.

Hope that makes sense.

Last edited by Pants; 04-17-04 at 05:57 PM.
Pants is offline  
Old 04-18-04 | 08:52 AM
  #18  
DVD Talk Reviewer
 
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 3,364
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
From: NY
I never really had a problem with the version of Vertigo that I have. But, then again, I've never watched it on my surround sound system. Last time I watched Vertigo, I was listening to the movie through two speakers, my stereo speakers. So I didn't really have any complaints. I'm sure I'd see what some of you are saying here about the sound if I watched it again sometime soon. Taking your word for it, I can jump in to say that mono sound isn't necessarily bad. Mono sound can sound just fine as long as it was mostly intended to be that way. You'll notice that on a lot of even the old TV series, they have a lot of mono sound sets. Examples? The Flintstones being a great recent example. Show sounds pretty good for mono. I prefer older films in mono. It's weird when you have older movies that weren't really intended to have all these different channels of sound, remastered for a surround sound experience. It usually comes off cheap and not very impressive, therefore not very worth the money a company pours into projects like that. I wouldn't mind a mono Vertigo.... as far as picture quality? I don't remember having any qualms about that.
mzupeman2 is offline  
Old 04-19-04 | 11:02 AM
  #19  
Josh Z's Avatar
DVD Talk Legend
 
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 11,962
Received 350 Likes on 243 Posts
From: Boston
Re: Re: Re: Re: Vertigo needs a new transfer!

Originally posted by Mr. Salty
What makes you say that? "Psycho" was released theatrically at 1.85:1.
The movie was released in 1960, a time when there was still a lack of standardization in theater projection. Many movies were still being composed for 1.33:1. Depending on the theater where it played, it may have been projected at that ratio or matted down to widescreen.

Psycho was clearly composed for 1.33:1. The matting on the existing DVD crops off significant parts of the picture.
Josh Z is offline  
Old 04-19-04 | 11:09 AM
  #20  
Rypro 525's Avatar
DVD Talk Hero
 
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 28,263
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
From: a frikin hellhole
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Vertigo needs a new transfer!

Originally posted by Josh Z
The movie was released in 1960, a time when there was still a lack of standardization in theater projection. Many movies were still being composed for 1.33:1. Depending on the theater where it played, it may have been projected at that ratio or matted down to widescreen.

Psycho was clearly composed for 1.33:1. The matting on the existing DVD crops off significant parts of the picture.
yeah but there are sevreal mistakes in the full screen version that aren't in the wide version.
Rypro 525 is offline  
Old 04-19-04 | 01:49 PM
  #21  
Suspended
 
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 4,533
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
From: You have moved into a dark place. It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Vertigo needs a new transfer!

Originally posted by Josh Z
Psycho was clearly composed for 1.33:1. The matting on the existing DVD crops off significant parts of the picture.
Well, I guess you know better than Hitchcock, then. He talks about framing Psycho for widescreen in an interview with Truffaut.
jough is offline  
Old 04-20-04 | 12:09 AM
  #22  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 3,333
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
From: Astoria, NY, USA
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Vertigo needs a new transfer!

Originally posted by Josh Z
The movie was released in 1960, a time when there was still a lack of standardization in theater projection. Many movies were still being composed for 1.33:1. Depending on the theater where it played, it may have been projected at that ratio or matted down to widescreen.
Or, an alternative view of history:

1.66 became the standard in the early 50s, with its slight cropping of the Academy frame. But by the mid to late 50s, 1.85 was the norm and remains so to this day.
- Robert A. Harris, 8/12/02

Flat films from major studios weren't being done at 1.37:1 by 1960.

Psycho was clearly composed for 1.33:1. The matting on the existing DVD crops off significant parts of the picture.
Hitchcock shot Vertigo, North by Northwest, and others in VistaVision for widescreen projection long before he shot Psycho. VistaVision was designed as Paramount's horse in the widescreen race, to much fanfare. Do you think Hitchcock somehow missed out on that? VistaVision's negative had an AR with a maximum width of 1.5:1, thus making 1.37:1 composition impossible. Do you think he never noticed that during the 6 years between his first VistaVision film and 1960? Do you think Hitchcock was also asleep those 6 years and hadn't noticed that the standard projection for flat films had changed?

Preposterous.

By 1960, Hitchcock knew full well that major studios were having flat films shot for matted ARs. US theatrical projection had also been standardized to matting by that point. Hitchcock would've had no reason to be framing a film 1.37:1 by 1960, and if the best you've got is your subjective opinion on what counts as "significant," there's no reason to doubt the blatantly obvious history involved.

DJ

Last edited by djtoell; 04-20-04 at 12:20 AM.
djtoell is offline  
Old 04-20-04 | 12:16 AM
  #23  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,809
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
From: Carrollton, Ga
The best thing they could do would be to let Lowry Digital Images do a 4k scan of the film and then do a complete restoration. What they've been able to do with films like North By Northwest is nothing short of amazing.
Terrell is offline  
Old 04-20-04 | 12:49 AM
  #24  
Thread Starter
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 4,688
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
But doesn't Lowry only restore the films digitally,thus never touching the negative?

If so,the studios should do proper negative restoration before going to a digital transfer/remaster..whatever.

Otherwise while we may have great digital transgers,we are still losing the original negatives from which to make correct transfers hundreds of years from now!
Julie Walker is offline  
Old 04-20-04 | 12:58 AM
  #25  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,809
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
From: Carrollton, Ga
But doesn't Lowry only restore the films digitally,thus never touching the negative?
That's what I meant when I said a 4k scan. First, clean and restore the negative to remove as much imbedded emulsion and dirt as possible. Then send the film to Lowry and have them scan it thus creating 4k digital copies of the film. Then from that 4k digital copy, remove dirt and debris from the print, get rid of any jitter and flickering, then remove as much grain without affecting the image quality and intended look of the film.

By doing that, you've restored the negative and prepared an incredible transfer for the DVD release.
Terrell is offline  


Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.