Beatles "Help!" - aspect ratio discussion......

Rather than clutter up the other thread with this very specific subject I figure it's better to have a separate thread.....

Am I correct in assuming that the MPI VHS and DVD are full-frame tranfers from the 35mm negative (or copy thereof)?

If so, then I really hope the new DVD includes a full-frame transfer - anyone know if that is planned? A presentation hard-matted to 1.66:1 or 1.75:1 or whatever will be interesting to see but it's not as if the full-frame prints have anything unwanted in the image so it would be a shame to loose that option.

If the new DVD set has this film only presented hard-matted I'll need to hang on to my MPI DVD for the full-frame experience........

 

The other thread had some comparison screen caps of the trailer versus the MPI DVD. The new transfer reveals more information on the sides. I can say from personally comparing the MPI DVD to the Criterion laserdisc that both versions have similar framing. Until we see the letterboxed version, I wouldn't want to guarantee that the old transfers show all the information on the original negative, but it's likely.

 

Yes, they are full-frame transfers.

The trailer being shown at the Beatles website is cropped, which suggests the new DVD will be cropped as well. Research done by Jeff Joseph indicates that the "correct" theatrical aspect ratio for the films was 1.75:1, so rather than make both full-frame and widescreen versions available, it's likely we'll only get widescreen. Hang on to your original DVD!

Derek

 

That's the best advice. Hang onto the old MPI DVD's. I've held onto all of the old MPI DVD's, all of which I believe are out of print at this point, including "The Making of A Hard Day's Night." The only Beatles MPI DVD that may not have anything worth keeping is their original DVD issue of "The Beatles' First U.S. Visit", and, if it's ever reissued, "Magical Mystery Tour."

I certainly hope that when/if we get new DVD's of "Magical Mystery Tour" and "Let It Be", that they are not cropped for widescreen. There would be absolutely no reason to have "MMT" in widescreen, as it was a TV special. "Let It Be" could be a bit more sketchy, as the full screen 16mm film was blown up to 35mm and cropped for widescreen exhibition (and this blown-up, cropped version was then panned-and-scanned for the crummy existing out of print laserdisc, VHS, Beta, and CED). Even a cropped-for-widescreen DVD of "Let It Be" will be an improvement over past home video issues if they use the original 16mm elements. But as it was shot for possible TV airing, and the framing is often claustrophobic enough as is in the original full screen footage (much more so on the cropped, blown up, panned-and-scanned home video versions), a full screen version would be the right way to do it. This is my big apprehension about even getting excited about Apple every finally putting out the "Let It Be" DVD: I have a strong suspicion they will crop it for widescreen. (One would think that the use of the restored/remastered 16mm film in the "Anthology" in full screen would suggest the same thing would happen with the eventual LIB DVD, but that was probably included in full screen there because the entire documentary was full screen; they also used full screen versions of all of the other Beatles films in the "Anthology").

I agree that the new "Help" DVD will likely be widescreen, with no alternate full screen version. (Interestingly, it appears that the second disc in the set won't be exactly jam-packed full of extras; they probably could have made the second disc a dual-layered disc with both the extras and the full screen version). I think we'll be lucky to even see the original mono soundtrack on the upcoming DVD. Have the detailed specs of the audio tracks been released for the new "Help" DVD?

Even if the widescreen framing is the correct ratio in terms of how "Help" was supposed to be exhibited, I don't think there's anything wrong with also offering the full screen version as an alternate way of viewing the film, a way that perhaps will show more information on the top and bottom than was intended with widescreen exhibition. But I don't think we'll get the full screen version on DVD again, so if you have the MPI DVD, hold onto it. When the new set comes out, just pretend you have a 3-disc set that includes the uncropped full screen version!

 

I recall reading an interview with d.p. David Watkin where he said he preferred open matte 1.37 framing for HELP!. However that's a 40+ year old memory and I can't guarantee its accuracy.

 

...and that's a bad thing?

 

I think the laserdisc transfer looks a bit better than the one used for the MPI DVD. Just a matter of colors having faded, really. The transfer done for laserdisc was done using a brand new print. Then I guess they used the same print for the DVD transfer only it had faded and aged a little bit. Not too drastically, but just enough for it to be noticable.

 

Indeed it is - have you seen "Help!" in full-frame?

Some films are actually better shown un-cropped if they were shot in non-anamorphic 35mm. "A Hard Day's Night" is another one that is better full-frame to me.

The only time a "full-frame" presentation is definitely not desirable is if it is made by loosing the sides of a widescreen image. If a "full-frame" presentation is jsut showing you the whole frame that was origiannly shot then it can be preferable to a widescreen presentation cropped from that full-frame image.

Of course, often you have things like boom microphones etc in the frame that are meant to be matted and in those cases the matting is preferable but in the case of a film like "Help!" where there is no indication that the extremeties of the full-frame were't treated as geniunely useful film area then I like to be able to see the full-frame!

 

The question still remains: if you have a film with a full-frame presentation that doesn't have any errors that deserve to be matted (ex. the not-so-pantsless John Cleese in "A Fish Called Wanda") or visible boom mics, but the director WANTED a widescreen ratio for the film, does the truly anal-retentive fan want ALL of the image, or what the director wanted?

 

According to Matt Hurwitz on Abbyrd's Beatles Page the new Help is 1.66:1.

 

Yes, it most certainly is (especially if you have a full-frame tv)! If you compare how "A Hard Day's Night" looks between the full-frame and "widescreen" versions, it's troubling how much important stuff is cropped in widescreen (like people's heads for example). It makes me question if the cinematographer actually shot it "protected" for widescreen, or a decision was made by the studio to crop it for theatrical distribution. If someone has contact info for Director Richard Lester, please pass along to me and I'll try and contact him to find out if what's out there is really what was intended.

Derek

 

It is interesting that this keeps getting brought up. When I ran a 35mm print of AHDN, I had none of the issues expressed by those who complained about the framing on the DVD, which leads me to believe that these were gaffes during the telecine session and do not actually reflect the look of the film being shown wide-screen.

I'm pretty sure this rarely happens. There's no way the studio execs weren't keeping with the times. In 1964, almost NO ONE was composing a theatrical film for the Academy ratio.

 

Ach, some of these arguements hurt my brain - if it was supposed to be widescreen theatrically, as envisioned by the director, then it should be widescreen on DVD, period. Open matte causes more problems than it solves - besides corrupting the filmmaker's vision, it often lets things like boom mikes drift into the frame.

Again, some may argue that maybe it was supposed to be open matte, but in 1964? No way. By the mid-sixties, everything was firmly within the realm of widescreen. If it's ever been released open matte, it was released wrong.

 

As mentioned in another post, the DVD was a transfer from the Paul Rutan restoration, a different element altogether from the one used for the laserdisc. I did read somewhere that the new DVD is from a good condition interpositive element discovered after the old DVD was released, so it will look different as well.

 

I would rather see what the director intended. I don't care if there was more stuff exposed on the negative, because if you saw the film in a theater, you wouldn't see that stuff anyway. In addition, when a "widescreen" image is composed in the center of a 1.33 full frame, this creates a lot of extra headroom that makes an un-altered direct transfer of the full frame visually awkward. This is why you will find that most full-frame transfers for home video are nowhere near a direct transfer of the original frame. The image is constantly being shifted to "fix" the composition.

I have heard many arguments about the presentation of 'A Hard Day's Night' in widescreen. I've seen three screen captures that are quite persuasive to this argument - the scene of Ringo entering the second-hand store, a scene where Shake's head is cropped and part of the scene where the young boy is talking to Ringo on the riverbank. In the first case, I don't agree that seeing the whole sign is important to the scene, but the other two cases are persuasive. BUT, I've seen this film projected at 1.85 (more than the DVD's 1.66) at least three times, and I did not discover ANY other scenes in the film that suffer because of it. So there are two, possibly three, bad shots in a low-budget film. It's a good start, but I don't think it's enough to say conclusively that 1.66 isn't a valid aspect ratio.

 

Who said it did??

It's important for many standard TV viewers for their TV screen to be filled. (Now that I think about it, many widescreen owners won't watch standard aspect ratio programs without zooming them to "fit" their screen.)

I don't mind watching letterboxed films on my standard TV if they were legitimate widescreen, but these were shot full-frame. This is not a case of where the film has mikes or booms in the shot because it was always intended to be cropped. It appears to me to be a decision made by the studio for distribution. IIRC, the prints were hard-matted at the lab with an instruction on the leader to project at 1.75:1.

Also, a DVD presentation at 1.66:1 is not "correct" for film whose theatrical ratio was 1.75:1. The only reason "A Hard Day's Night" was released by Miramax on DVD in widescreen was they wanted to please the widescreen TV owners, and were too cheap to make the full-frame version available on home video as well. I find it interesting to note that Cinemax ran the Miramax version in full-frame on their standard def channel, and the widescreen version on their HD channel.

The best alternative would be for their either to be two separate sets available, or make both versions available in one set.

Derek

 

That is NOT the usual reason why a full-frame image is adjusted in a telecine. It's adjusted because the 1.37 motion picture frame doesn't fit neatly onto the 1.33 TV frame. Unless you windowbox the image, the entire frame will not fit.

As far as the director's or cinematographer's original intent - at the moment we have exactly zero concrete evidence of what they intended. That's why I suggested trying to contact Richard Lester...

Derek

 

I think the fact that "RUN AT 1.75:1" is printed into the leader is fairly conclusive of their intentions. Plus, if it looks like it and smells like it at 1.75, it's it.

I'm not saying that Lester's answer won't be correct, but asking someone about a film they made 45 years ago doesn't help, either. When interviewing people, I have enough trouble getting information about things that happened one year ago and frequently there are conflicting reports.

A lot of cinephiles make much ado about aspect ratios. Many of these people have never touched a frame of film in their life. It's not rocket science. It's quite easy to spot a film that was composed for Academy being run incorrectly widescreen.

 

I don't really care if the full-frame presentation of Help! is "wrong" with regard to how the film was presented in theatres - it's great in full-frame! It seems obvious to me that the director/cinematographer were working with an Academy ratio approach to composition alongside any widescreen ideas. Lester has made enough Academy ratio films to know what he is doing and it shows in A Hard Day's Night and Help!.

As I write this I've popped the MPI DVD in the player and every scene would be worse if it was matted at 1.75:1 - no way am I ever getting rid of this disc!

All I ask of the producers of this new DVD set is for the option to have both a presentation that matches the original theatrical ratio and the full-frame presentation - both taken from the best film elements available.

Is that really too much to ask?

 

It's always nice to agree.

 

Sorry, but that's only proof of how the studio released it, not what was intended by the director or DP. Studios don't always do what the director wants. I'd be curious to see if anyone can turn up that interview with the "Help!" DP who prefered open matte...

Derek

 

OK, I guess I'd did imply that when I didn't really mean it quite that way. Sorry, my bad.

These films need both full-frame and widescreen releases (as well as a mono soundtrack as a option). I'm not convinced that "A Hard Day's Night" was composed for widescreen. The compositions do not appear correct to me if that's what was intended.

Derek