comment #1

Rich S. says ...

Not precisely on topic, but this whole aspect ratio thing is beginning to piss me off. At the dawn of the flatscreen era, you could always tell when a new owner had messed with the picture to fill the screen. Now, sometimes when I turn on the HD version of a cable channel, it's clear that the cable station itself is doing it, presumably to cut costs and not have black bars showing on the sides. It's embarrassing.

It's all really simple. Just show the film in the aspect ratio in which it was shot. If that requires black bars on the top and bottom or sides, so be it. I'm not a grain monk, by any means, but this aspect ratio thing really gets me going.

comment #2

crazynine says ...

I have the precise opposite opinion as Rich. I could give a dang if it's stretched or distorted on cable. Doesn't matter if it's a sitcom, and if it's a movie, I'm already sacrificing something by watching it at home on cable.

Now, when I fire up the DVD or BD, I'll accept whatever the natural aspect ratio is.

But channel surfing? Do I *really* need the black bars around Jersey Shore to appreciate its art?

comment #3

John M says ...

"Do I *really* need the black bars around Jersey Shore to appreciate its art?"

Wha? Isn't Jersey Shore already shot in HD? There wouldn't be black bars anyway.

I can't say I agree with crazynine at all. I really don't think Seinfeld is helped by squeezing it, making George and Kramer and Elaine wider and shorter.

comment #4

drbob says ...

I'm with Rich on this one. I pay extra each month for HD service. Why do cable channels (I'm looking at you HBO) show their HD movies in a modified pan and scan version (i.e. widescreen movies are chopped down to the 16:9 ratio). If I have HD I want the full movie even if that means black bars.

comment #5

Fortunesfool says ...

Fail

comment #6

Deathtongue_Groupie says ...

Hate to invalidate Chinaski's opinion of me with my very next posting, but I'm sorta with Jeff on this one: either make it what was the most common aspect ration during it's release in '60 or gives us the option to choose. It's a black & white film, so it's not like they can't stick both versions on the disc.

comment #7

George Prager says ...

It's distracting when they pull this shit. It's what makes the TOUCH OF EVIL DVD problematic.

P.S. Which TV show was the first to imitate the pan and scan look so it looked like a movie? This goes back to the 90s, but I've noticed that Friday Night Lights (Abercrombie and Fitch: The TV Show) does it.

comment #8

TL says ...

"Some people don't like to hear this, but Alfred Hitchcock protected this 1960 classic so it could be shown in theatres and on TV with a 1.37 to 1 aspect ratio. On top of which many theatres back then were using 1.66 to 1 aperture plates so don't tell me."

Out of curiosity, what's your source for both of these statements? Hitchcock obviously protected the full frame on Psycho, but that doesn't lead to the conclusion that he intended it to be projected full frame. I've only ever seen it projected at 1.85 (and at theaters perfectly capable of projecting 1.33 when the film calls for it). Furthermore, to the best of my knowledge, 1.66 was never a common aspect ratio in American theaters.

comment #9

larry braverman says ...

Apparently Gus Van Sant remembers the original cans labeled 1.75:1:

http://labyrinth.net.au/~muffin/news-home_c.html

Screen grab comparisons (scroll down a bit):

http://www.hitchcockwiki.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=406

comment #10

Jeffrey Wells says ...

Wells to TL: I love it, I love it, I love it. You pretend as if 1.37 to 1 aspect ratios were barely in the consciousness of filmmakers back then, and that 1.66 to 1 aspect ratios (which were COMMONLY used to frame '50s and '60s black-and-white movies on laser discs issued in the '90s) were almost too exotic to even be considered. What foolery....what horseshit! Psycho was shown on the tube at least 17 or 18 thousand times in the'70s, '80s and '90s in a 1.37 aspect ratio, and was mastered for VHS and laser discs at 1.37 to 1 or (I'm not sure) 1.66 to 1. But this 1.85 aspect ratio crap is strictly about conforming the film to the requirements of high-def plasmas and LCD screens, and that's all it is. Yes, the film is watchable at this aspect ratio -- it doesn't ruin it. But the film breathes more when the images are taller and boxier, and I resent having to watch it with the tops and bottoms cut off.

comment #11

Bob Hightower says ...

Once when I watched PSYCHO on LA TV, I was surprised to see Janet Leigh's fully exposed breasts clearly visible at the bottom of the frame in some shots in the shower sequence. The framing was different from all the other prints I'd seen.

comment #12

Carlos a. González says ...

Jeff, a bit out-of-topic: Criterion just announced titles that are effectively out-of-print immediately (until supplies last):

"Dear Criterion collectors,

The following titles are going out of print effective June 30:

Billy Liar
Bob le flambeur
Diary of A Chambermaid
The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie
Kind Hearts and Coronets
The Man Who Fell to Earth (DVD and Blu-ray editions)
The Milky Way
The Phantom of Liberty
That Obscure Object of Desire
Touchez pas au grisbi
A Woman Is a Woman

We will be selling copies only while supplies last, so order yours soon. As ever, we will try to relicense the films so that they can rejoin the collection sometime in the future."

Five Bun~uel titles... ouch.

comment #13

larry braverman says ...

What's puzzling is that 16x9 TVs are actually 1.78:1, so your argument that the "1.85:1 aspect ratio crap is strictly about conforming the film to the requirement of high-def plasmas and LCD screens" doesn't make sense.

comment #14

TL says ...

"You pretend as if 1.37 to 1 aspect ratios were barely in the consciousness of filmmakers back then, and that 1.66 to 1 aspect ratios ... were almost too exotic to even be considered."

No, I didn't. I made two statements: (a) That Hitch protected the full frame does not necessarily mean he intended for it to be projected full frame; and (b) American theaters (theaters, Jeffrey, theaters!) did not commonly use 1.66.

Psycho was never released in a widescreen laserdisc. Universal supposedly was prepping a "Signature Series" LD, but LD went the way of the dodo before they released it.

And, Jeff, I asked about your sources not to be an asshole, but because I really want to know. If I recall correctly, when the video is opened up to 1.33, you can see hard mattes during the shower sequence, which leads me to believe that a wide presentation was intended. But if you have some information beyond what you think looks right, by all means share it.

comment #15

TL says ...

italics off....

comment #16

crazynine says ...

John M-- my LCD, like many, has dynamic stretch. The only time I notice it is if I keep my eyes on the very edges of the screen, which I don't, given not many TV producers block their scenes to use up all of the screen (center action, even in the olden TV days). Nothing is lost, not even up top.

And you're right, Jersey Shore is in HD, I was just pulling something out of the air. But my beloved Seinfeld reruns aren't, and I've never once looked at the screen and noticed enough squishing of anyone to even have the thought cross my mind.

If I'm watching something that is shot with an aspect ratio in mind, yes, I'm no ignorant monster, I'll tweak the settings. But daily viewing? Life is too short.

comment #17

John Cocktosten says ...

This is sheer incompetence, nothing more. I wonder if they include the legally-required copyright notice that states that the movie has been altered from its original format? If not, you could get a recall and hopefully force a proper Blu-Ray.

comment #18

reverent and free says ...

It seems pretty simple: if you have a standard set then you'll be happy to have your screen filled, if you have an HDTV then you can just switch the ratio with your remote. Easy. What's the problem?

comment #19

lawnorder says ...

Just because a director protects for 1.37, does not mean that he intends for his film to be shown in that ratio. He's trying to protect himself from getting ass-fucked by the networks (and home video releases) and to keep booms out of frame on TV open matte presentations. But any real director worth their salt composes for the aspect ratio they're projecting in - otherwise you compromise both experiences. Directors like William Friedkin refused to shoot in widescreen for many years, because they knew their films would be screwed over on TV and home video, before laser disc brought about correct aspect ratio releases. Kubrick had the same issues. The filmmakers with balls, use the widescreen frame with total disregard for the Elois pan and scan crowd. Let them suffer their talking noses on the edge of frame, or splitting a wide two shot into two shitty mediums. This conversation always comes up with CHARLEY VARRICK and it's complete bullshit that Siegel intended for the film to be composed for 1.37 - he PROTECTED for 1.37 for the reasons above, but that was not his preferred choice of presentation.

comment #20

larry braverman says ...

"It seems pretty simple: if you have a standard set then you'll be happy to have your screen filled, if you have an HDTV then you can just switch the ratio with your remote. Easy. What's the problem?"

The problem is no one would buy a Bluray to play on a standard set. That makes zero sense.

And switching the ratio on your HDTV has nothing to do with the native aspect ratio on the disc. All you're doing is stretching, cropping, or blowing up the image.

Some of you guys have no idea what you're talking about.

comment #21

BadHatHarry says ...

TL, you are 100% correct. I've seen Psycho in a telecine bay and seen the hard mattes in the shower scene. Hitch (like Kubrick with The Shining) knew the real world theatrical aspect ratio would be 1:85, no matter what instructions he sent to projectionists. He also knew the film would have a life on TV, so both ratios were protected. I'd prefer to have both versions available, but Jeff just doesn't know what he's talking about.

comment #22

Jeffrey Wells says ...

Wells to Bad-Hat Harry: I don't know what I'm talking about? You need to get slapped around. Look at the stills above. Are you looking at them? Now, listen to me carefully. Ready? I'm saying that the taller boxier framings -- the ones with height -- are preferable to the 1.85/16 x 9 wide angle crops that lop stuff off. How is it exactly does stating a preference for the boxier framings (which anyone who understands anything about visual balance and the completeness of visual information would prefer as well) indicate that I don't know what I'm talking about? People like you are infuriating.

comment #23

Jeffmc2000 says ...

1:66 seems about right to me. It was a very common format in the '60's. Almost all non-Cinemascope European movies used it---the first three Bonds for example. The 1:85 framing has always looked wrong, and you can't tell me that those shots that cut off the top of the Bates house were meant to be shown that way.

comment #24

C.C. Baxter says ...

Bad Hat Harry is right, Jeff. I'm afraid that you don't know what you're talking about. Or, more accurately, you know just enough to be dangerous.

Do you realize that about 55% of movies made over the last fifty years have been shot this way. This is nothing unusual or specific to Psycho. It is open matte photography. Just about every 1.85/1.78 film that you own on DVD and Blu-ray has more picture information at the top and bottom of the frame that is hidden by the mattes. That doesn't mean that the information was intended to be shown. This film, like most other open matte films, was composed with the 1.85 ratio in mind, and protected for 1.33. Period. It's okay that you *prefer* the unmatted framing. There are a couple of films where I feel the same way (the aforementioned Touch of Evil for example). Just because you prefer it doesn't mean it's correct though. If Universal was to inexplicably release this unmatted, you would see all the real cinephiles up in arms.

comment #25

Jeffrey Wells says ...

Wells to C.C. Baxter: You're blah-blahing. One gander at those framing examples above tells anyone that the film was clearly NOT shot with a 1.85 ratio in mind. Obviously...are you blind? The 1.85 cropping of that shot with Janet Leigh tallking to Tony Perkins is better with Perkins' head cut off? You're insane. You and all the batshit "cinephiles" who would be "up in arms," you say, if the Psycho Bluray was to go with the 1.37 aspect ratio....out of your fucking minds. It's better to use the cropped 1.85 image of Leigh and John Gavin in the hotel room ratehr than show the walls and the bottom of her slip and a little more of the bed that Gavin is resting on? Guys in white coats should be coming after you with fish nets.

comment #26

BadHatHarry says ...

Well Jeff, I'm sorry to infuriate you, but the fact remains that you are talking about your preference vs. actual reality, which ironically enough is the same kind of thinking that led to pan and scan in the first place (ie: I want my TV frame full, not how the film was intended).

To say Hitchock intended a 1.66 frame is simply ignorant, so we'll dismiss that out of hand.

To say he preferred a 1.37 may or may not be true, we would have to take his word for it and as far as I know he never made that clear. But what is not open for question is that 1.85 was the dominant reality in flat theatrical projection in 1960, and 1.85 is how he knew most audiences would see it.

As I said, I wish we had both versions on the Blu-Ray, since both were protected for by Hitch. But dude, your preference is not objective truth.

comment #27

Jeffrey Wells says ...

Objective truth? You want objective truth? I'll give you objective truth. You and C.C. Baxter are profound expressions of the truism that "there are none so blind as those who will not see."

Psycho is watchable with a 1.85 to 1 cropping, yes, but the somewhat higher, boxier framings are far more elegant, inclusive, well-balanced -- they provide agreeable breathing space to the characters and compositions. My eyes know when they're seeing a shot that has been too severely cropped, and almost every time I see an older film protected for 1.37 or 1.66 that's been cropped to 1.85 those bells start going off....ding-ding-ding-dig-ding! I know, it I know it, I know it, I know it.

In a 1982 phone interview Francis Coppola told me he didn't like 1.85 croppings either. We were discussing his insisting to exhibitors that One From The Heart should be projected at 1.33 or 1.37. At one point he drifted from the subject of his own film for a second and said that 1.85 croppings began as "an exhibitor scam" to create an illusion of a widescreen image that you couldn't see on your TV at home. And, he said, this scam began to take hold, in his view, sometime in the mid to late '60s.

Today's scam is more like a corporate fascist order from on high -- all older non-Scope movies shot from '53 onward must conform to the widescreen aspect ratios of today's plasma/LCD flatscreens. 1.85 croppings, in other words, are enforcing an Orwellian mandate of accommodating all non-Scope films to today's widescreen high-def flatscreens -- end of story, end of discussion, class over.

Higher framings were the rule during the VHS days to accommodate boxier TV screens of the day. Different ratio, exact same rationale -- i.e., serve the dominant or prevailing film-viewing technology and not the films. It's not about how good the film looks on its own terms, but about whether it conforms to the TV screen that everyone is watching it on. The cart before the horse.

Given this thunderingly obvious fact, the people arguing that the 1.85 cropping is the proper way to show and see Psycho are...well, I just have to step back and ask myself what they're on? What is keeping these people from grasping this elementary simple-dick visual concept? If I wanted to be snide and insensitive I would call them seig-heil goose-steppers chanting the prevailing corporate sentiment of our movie-watching times -- i.e., all non-Scope/Panavision films shot from '53 or '54 onward must adhere to the 1.85/16 x 9 mandate.

Well, many if not most non-Scope films of the '50s and '60s and '70s, even, look nice and proper and head-roomy and visually agreeable with 1.37 or 1.66 croppings. I love the way Full Metal Jacket and The Shining looked with higher, boxier 1.37 framings. I've seen Elia Kazan 's A Face in the Crowd ('57) with 1.37 and 1.85 croppings, and it definitely looks better at 1.37. Arthur Hiller's The Hospital looks much better at 1.37, and anyone looking at the most recent DVD with a 1.85 cropping will notice a scene in a parking lot in which most of George C. Scott's head is bluntly chopped off. The 1.85 brain police will tell you that's a good thing. Dr. Strangelove, same deal -- nice breathing room & much more elegantly framed at 1.37. On The Waterfront looks best at 1.66 or 1.37 also -- a 1.85 cropping when the Bluray finally comes out would be vandalism, pure and simple.

Scores of these '50s and '60s films used to be issued with 1.66 croppings in the '80s and 90s on VHS and then on '90s laser discs. I still own quite a few of these. Are the 1.85 goose-steppers going to come back and tell me I'm wrong about that? That my laser disc of John Frankenheimer's The Train doesn't use 1.66 croppings?

This really and truly is like living inside Sam Fuller's Shock Corridor or begging to be calmly and considerately listened to like Olivia De Havilland does in The Snake Pit. Where is Leo Genn? Another analogy is that I feel like Napoleon Wilson and that African-American cop beating back the gang-bangers during the finale of John Carpenter's Assault on Precinct 13.

comment #28

C.C. Baxter says ...

This thread at Home Theater Forum discusses the aspect ratio. It is pointed out that the paperwork from the processing lab specifies 1.85. The 1.85 hard mattes used in the shower scene are discussed as well.

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/forum/thread/300511/ushe-announcement-psycho-blu-ray#post_3690780

comment #29

larry braverman says ...

Unfortunately, I'm not sure Jeff realizes that he's not always right.

comment #30

Chumley says ...

There's a disgusting amount of spamming going on in these threads lately.

I highly doubt-- this being the internet and all-- that the frame captures from someone off of Wikipedia is the end all/be all.

If the frame were any lower in that first shot you provided from the site, we'd be seeing Ms. Leigh crotch-level. I don't think I'm off in saying that a reveal that like would not be okay, for the time.

I understand that you, Jeffrey, want Blu Ray to be the end-all-be-all of the home theater format but the nasty fact is.... it'll never be perfect. Just come to terms with that.

It will never be the first, or second, time you saw the film in a theater. There's always an outsider stepping in these days to misinterpret.

comment #31

Gordn27 says ...

"The 1.85 cropping of that shot with Janet Leigh tallking to Tony Perkins is better with Perkins' head cut off?"

It's not the only shot in the scene, it's just one of the singles favoring her, and that's the only one where there's even a case for the full frame (entirely out of context like this).

But the headroom on all of those fullframe ones is pretty crazy. Rather than just comparing two prints, why not compare it to other Hitchcock movies? Does the massive headroom serve a narrative purpose? Is that something he does a lot that I've never noticed?

I mean, listen, I know how you feel. I like the tall frames in 'The Shining' myself. But I can no longer argue that it's even debatable what Kubrick shot it for, because of the images of his actual editing bay. It sounds like the evidence for Hitchcock is similarly strong.

Also, here's a link to what are supposed to be the original storyboards Bass prepared for Hitchcock for the shower scene, and they're clearly 1.85
http://faculty.cua.edu/johnsong/hitchcock/storyboards/psycho/b-shower-c.jpg%2Bstoryboard%2Bhitchcock%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26tbs%3Disch:1

comment #32

Gordn27 says ...

Dammit, that link didn't work!

http://faculty.cua.edu/johnsong/hitchcock/storyboards/psycho/sb-boards.html

comment #33

C.C. Baxter says ...

"Scores of these '50s and '60s films used to be issued with 1.66 croppings in the '90s on VHS and then laser disc -- are the goose-steppers going to come back and tell me I'm wrong about that? That my laser disc of John Frankenheimer's The Train doesn't use 1.66 croppings?"

Yes, your laserdisc of The Train is framed a 1.66. The DVD is framed at 1.66 too. From the late 50s through the 60s, it was somewhat common (especially at United Artists) for cinematographers to hard matte images at 1.66 in order to get lights closer to the actors without worrying about them being exposed by incompetent projectionists. In the U.S., these prints were mostly still screened at 1.85.

I don't think that anybody is denying that 1.66 was a fairly common European aspect ratio at one time, or that UA matted at 1.66 in camera for a while. They are specifically saying that Psycho was not among these films, and there was no evidence to support that it was ever intended to be projected at anything other than 1.85.

It is also fair to say that many people often find Academy ratio more aesthetically pleasing. Coppola obviously shot One from the heart... at 1.37, and I have only seen it projected that way and released that way on DVD. You won't catch him removing the mattes from The Godfather and releasing it at 1.37 though, even though it would be more "head-roomy." It was intended to be shown at 1.85.

I'm still not sure what The Train or One from the heart... have to do with Psycho though. Every film has an intended theatrical aspect ratio, and all empirical evidence points to that being 1.85 for Psycho.

comment #34

Robert Harris says ...

Beginning with Rear Window, which was begun in late 1953, the intended projection aspect ratio was 1.66:1.

1955's To Catch a Thief and everything thereafter was set up for projection at 1.85:1. The Vista productions cannot be run any more open, ie higher.

The majority of the Universal projects from the 1960s (post-Psycho) were generally shot Super 35, with a wide-screen image extracted in post and printed via dye transfer.

comment #35

Robert Harris says ...

Beginning with Rear Window, which was begun in late 1953, the intended projection aspect ratio was 1.66:1.

1955's To Catch a Thief and everything thereafter was set up for projection at 1.85:1. The Vista productions cannot be run any more open, ie higher.

The majority of the Universal projects from the 1960s (post-Psycho) were generally shot Super 35, with a wide-screen image extracted in post and printed via dye transfer.

comment #36

C.C. Baxter says ...

^ Wasn't Super 35 invented in 1982? RAH, can you site specific 1960s Uni films that were shot with a Super-35 like process?

comment #37

reverent and free says ...

BadHatHarry, you're wrong about Kubrick. To his dying day (which was during the age of DVDs) he insisted on full screen presentations of his work on home video. He was also on the record saying he preferred height to width.

comment #38

Gordn27 says ...

rev - that's overly simplified; the truth is, because '2001' was botched by pan-and-scan, he shot the rest of his films with fullscreen in mind. (Though 'Clockwork Orange', the preferred is 1.66.) But there is evidence for several of the films that he was focused on 1.85 primarily, because theatrical mattered to him. And there is no actual Kubrick quote about 'height' that I can find (I used to believe that too, until somebody told me to provide the quote and I couldn't find it anywhere). At the end of his life, when DVD was hitting, and letterboxing was becoming widespread, Kubrick had spent years working on 'Eyes Wide Shut'. He never had the real chance to come out on one side or the other as far as DVDs go, but much of his position was based on how people watched films. If how people watched films changed (as it has; that is, the TV shape), he would've probably changed.

comment #39

Robert Harris says ...

C.C. Baxter says ...

"Wasn't Super 35 invented in 1982? RAH, can you site specific 1960s Uni films that were shot with a Super-35 like process?"

S35 is basically the old silent format, using all of the real estate between the perfs. The majority, if not all, of the early to mid-1960s Hitchcock productions were set up to allow an extracted image via optically created matrices, thereby yielding a slightly less grainy, and slightly more highly resolved image.

Whether one extracts a 1.85 or a 2.35 image is irrelevant.

comment #40

dota2 says ...

dome ip cameras