The Bird with the Crystal Plumage – The Archive Conversation

[Djangooo]

Originally Posted by Der Spieler

Most ridiculous thing though is trying to pass a cropped ratio as a special feature, sugar-coating it with a mention of "the original DP's vision" and so on. Who are you trying to kid?

Worst decision Arrow has ever taken.

That's a point, I never noticed that. It's REALLY not fair to put "Director of Photography, Vittorio Storaro’s original 2:1 Univisium aspect ratio" on the box. Original in what way exactly?

[bgart13]

Something occurred to me with this -- was BIRD shot anamorphic or was the image cropped when projected? If the latter, this silly Universum thing would be passable. Otherwise, nah.

[springjack]

After reading some reports on DVDBeaver, Mr. Storaro chose 2.00:1 (18:9) as a standart format for two reasons...

1) Because he thinks that all (his) films should replicate the aspect ratio of the Leonardo Da Vinci painting "The Last Supper".

2) He does not think that DVD has enough resolution to properly represent a format higher than 2.00:1.

The answers on DVDBeaver were...
Well, regarding point 1, Leonardo Da Vinci's The Last Supper is not 2.00:1.
The painting measures 460×880 centimeters (15 ft×29 ft) which is 1.91:1, actually closer to 1.85 than it is to 2.0.

Regarding point number 2, does Blu-ray have enough resolution to properly support the original format?

[ecc]

Originally Posted by bgart13

Something occurred to me with this -- was BIRD shot anamorphic or was the image cropped when projected? If the latter, this silly Universum thing would be passable. Otherwise, nah.

BIRD was shot in 2-perf Techniscope (well, Cromoscope since it wasn't processed initially by Technicolor). I believe both the Blue Underground and newer Storaro transfer both used the 2-perf negative rather than one of the anamorphic intermediate elements for the telecine.

[Pete]

Originally Posted by Jonny

The Platinum Media DVD is 2.35:1 (16:9 enhanced), whereas the VCI DVD is 2.35:1 with no 16:9 enhancment.

Not sure which is the poundland one but you can pick either up for about a quid online.

EDIT: Beat me to it!

I have the first Platinum edition and it's 1.85:1 (16/9).

[BAKA]

Originally Posted by Der Spieler

Frankly, and I'll know I'll probably get banned for saying this, but we're talking about the same company who released THE BEYOND with a B&W intro. So I wouldn't be too sure about them "knowing what they're getting".

I think that's a little harsh, Arrow have addressed this, and there is a returns programme in place. It does seem to be taking sometime, but eventually things will be corrected.

Originally Posted by Der Spieler

I'd prefer none at all. What's the point in releasing a half-assed version of the movie? Argento is a visual director to say the least. Putting out a cropped version of his movie is nothing short of disrespectful. Plus you're actually contributing to Storaro's egotrip.

But I very much agree with you here. The fact they listened to fans with The Beyond release makes me ever so slightly hopeful that they will put this release off and attempt to negotiate or source an alternative.

[Daemonia]

It's been said that Arrow didn't/don't have access to the BU transfer - is there a reason for this?

[Rhodes]

i agree it's really a bit much trying to pass off this defect as a special feature. i don't get what arrow are playing at here, surely they must have known there would be a backlash? i understand it's not all their fault but they could at least lay their cards on the table instead of trying to pass off a real serious problem as a special feature.

[Almar@Cult Labs]

Originally Posted by Rhodes

i agree it's really a bit much trying to pass off this defect as a special feature. i don't get what arrow are playing at here, surely they must have known there would be a backlash? i understand it's not all their fault but they could at least lay their cards on the table instead of trying to pass off a real serious problem as a special feature.

I'm not sure I understand - there's no passing off a defect as a special feature - indeed it is very much cards on the table - that's the master that's available and in advance it's been confirmed what it is so people can make an informed choice. The film business is very weird and archaic - you buy your rights, then you discover what you're getting.

[Rhodes]

to quote the announcement...

"SPECIAL FEATURES:

- Brand new High Definition restoration of the film from the original negative presented in Director of Photography, Vittorio Storaro’s original 2:1 Univisium aspect ratio"

to me that is passing off a defect as a special feature, but we can agree to disagree.
like i said i understand it's not arrow's fault, but i agree with whoever said that passing it off as a special feature is a bit much.
i also said i'd still be buying it, so i think it's fair to voice my opinion. i'm not an arrow hater i'm an arrow lover, but when they start claiming an inferior print of a film as a special feature i think this needs to be addressed.
instead of listing it as a special feature i would have preferred something along the lines of 'we're very sorry but this is the only print we could get'
that's all.