AmityBoatTours

while i liked the other cover art, that had been posted before, this new cover art is very cool indeed. I liked the other cover art, I LOVE this new cover art.

Jason Bovberg

I don't think this news is being talked about amidst all the cover-art talk, so I thought I'd post this and see what the opinions are here at the Talk. Jeffrey Wells is upset that the new Blu-ray doesn't offer (even as an option) the film's original 1.37:1 framing. Check out the screen caps here.

tylergfoster

According to another writer named Moises Chiullan (@moiseschiu on Twitter), it's the same deal with Touch of Evil, apparently. I wasn't even aware. I agree with Wells, it sucks. However, I have huge doubts Universal will ever try and fix it.

zombeaner

Open matte does not necessarily mean OAR. It is the same fight people have been having about Kubrick's films being "protected" for TV viewing. We'll never know the real answer because both guys are dead.

Solid Snake

look...OAR to me is whatever was put out in theaters by the director's intentions. If it's Full Frame..fine, I'll only accept it cuz that's the way it was made based on time frame or intention of. For other films if they open up the frame for the most part i'm ok cuz I'm getting more. W/ this...I'm not. I'm losing what Hitch wanted to me to see. Which is sad, I want what Hitch had.

Josh Z

Psycho was released in 1960. The transition away from 1.37:1 to 1.85:1 as the new "flat" theatrical standard had already occurred by that point. Although some legacy theaters may have projected it full frame, Hitchcock would have shot the film knowing that most would screen it at 1.85:1. He had shot a number of movies in widescreen before Psycho.

zombeaner

That's what I'm sayin'. This was a good 5 years past the transition.

bboisvert

No -- you're looking for a laserdisc at that point. I had (have? I'd need to look in the closet) a CAV Discovision that's full-screen. And I know they did at least one other before the deluxe LD that was 1.33 as well.

The matted version is the right way to watch it. I've seen this movie hundreds of times... it's matted.

Kory

I read that there's an open-matte VHS copy.

tylergfoster

It's kinda OT but what about Touch of Evil?

Mr. Cinema

Here's an early review: http://hcc.techradar.com/playback/bl...eview-05-08-10

The audio includes the original mono in DTS-HD as well. Looks great.

Eddie W

Oh. My. God. That's looks even better than I could've hoped. Can't wait to check out this new 5.1 track, though I'm glad they included mono in lossless.

Solid Snake

Holy shit. THAT is A LOT better than what I could ever imagine it to look like. Jesus titty fucking Christ...wow. Just...fucking wow.

zombeaner

I may have to import this, I was planning to wait, but Psycho is my favorite movie ever.

Vipper II

I ordered my copy from DVD.CO.UK and it shipped yesterday. Based on experience with that company, I should have it in hand by Saturday. I'm stoked.

TomOpus

Spoiler alert!

ctyankee

It's disappointing about the OAR. Let's face it - wide-screen TVs are the reason for this decision not what Hitchcock wanted.

And there is no way that Hitchcock wanted this:

Solid Snake

I prefer OAR honestly....while the image looks amazing. Hitch didn't want his image like that I'm assuming.

GenPion

This isn't in the OAR? Seriously?!

What about the DVD included in the Masterpiece Collection? That's the only version I've seen, other than an old VHS tape many a year ago...

Bob_Bobbson

Wait wait wait...

All of a sudden people want open matte instead of the ratio that it was shown in theaters with at the time of release, was the theater standard at the time Hitch filmed it, and has been the accepted format for all previous DVDs?

Strevlac

Huh? This movie was released in 1960. 1:85 or close to it was how it was projected in theaters. That's how it was presented on DVD and that's how it should be presented on bluray. Movies shot with spherical lenses are all "protected" for the 1:85 frame. Do we want to open up all the mattes on spherically shot movies now? 'Cause that's a LOT of movies.

zombeaner

We've been through this already...

HITCHCOCK: Open Matte Psycho?

It was not intended to be open matte.

Josh Z

This really can't be said enough. Psycho was released in 1960. The standard for "flat" projection had long since transitioned to 1.85:1 by that time. Hitchcock had already shot a number of movies for widescreen by then, including North by Northwest, Vertigo, and Rear Window. He composed Psycho knowing that it would be projected at 1.85:1.

People just assume that 4:3 is that OAR for Psycho because they grew up watching it that way on television broadcast. But that doesn't make it correct.

ctyankee

Intent means more than some prevailing 'standard' of the day. Show me a wide-screen shot from Vertigo where one movie star is staring at another star where the other star's eyes are not in the picture. Additionally, Hitchcock was strongly considering Psycho to be a straight to TV film. Certainly that wasn't the case for the other movies you mentions so why is it so baffling that he would compose it (versus protect it) for the small screen?

Bob_Bobbson

Yes, before he could get Paramount to agree to produce it, that was an option he discussed. When they did decide to do the film, it's intention was to be a theatrical release. He did use the crew from the Alfred Hitchcock presents TV show on the movie (to save money), but it was a theatrical film when they made it. I can find no references to Hitch shooting this as a TV movie (save for your post and another on this same forum that says he protected for TV but meant for it to be 1.85:1 theatrically). If you have one I'll be happy to read it and then eat my shoe.

As for the eye-line thing...that one shot with the top of Anthony Perkin's head chopped off. Janet Leigh is the focus of the shot. Did you know how long the shot lasts? About as long as it takes her to say her lines. Then it cuts to another shot, a close up of her, framed perfectly in the 1.85:1 frame. In fact, that cap is half of the conversation she has with Norman Bates. Her shots are framed that way, his are framed differently. All medium shots and other various shots in the scene are obviously composed for 1.85:1. In fact, if shown open matte, all the medium shots would have about a 1 1/2 - 2 Feet of head room. I wonder why that blog didn't post any shots of those.