The Bird with the Crystal Plumage – The Archive Conversation

[Paul@TheOverlook]

Originally Posted by buggenhagen

Does anyone know why Storaro is always involved in the remastering process and Argento is not involved? Is this the norm? I would have thought that unless they were specifically asked to be involved then the DOP's input would be less important than the director. Did Arrow have a choice in the matter or does buying the rights necessitate Storaro's approval? I read elsewhere that Storaro has creative control over home video transfers written into some of his contracts but with The Bird With The Crystal Plumage being shot in 1969 I don't imagine that such a clause would exist for this film. With Apocalypse Now being released in 2.35:1 for the first time recently was he overruled in this case (either by Coppola or the studio) or was he just ignored?

A lot of transfers are supervised by DoPs rather than filmmakers. I'd imagine it's probably a lot easier for a DoP to oversee a transfer and advise how it should look, from scene to scene, as he/she was responsible for creating the composition in the first place. A filmmaker knows what they want, the DoP understands what needs to be done to achieve it. That's my understanding of it.

[Paul@TheOverlook]

Originally Posted by Nosferatu@Cult Labs

I'd love to be the voice of information but, quite frankly, I just don't have the answers to those queries.

In terms of Storaro's wish that the DVD be designed to fit a widescreen television, has anyone else seen that massive LCD/plasma (I forget which) that isn't your traditional widescreen, but is actually 2.35:1 so you can watch those CinemaScope and Panavision films without the black bars at the top and bottom of the screen?

A TV with that ratio is completely preposterous and most definitely a gimmick on the part of its manufacturer. Watching 1.78:1 ratio material on that set would result in vertical black bars at the sides of the image!

Storaro’s 2:1:1 cheat was introduced before 16/9 TVs when 4:3 was the norm. Back then a 2:1:1 compromise was perfectly acceptable because letterboxing wasn’t the standard for home video, pan and scan was. In this day and age of 16/9 displays his compromise is an outmoded concept.

[trench]

Originally Posted by Nosferatu@Cult Labs

I'd love to be the voice of information but, quite frankly, I just don't have the answers to those queries.

In terms of Storaro's wish that the DVD be designed to fit a widescreen television, has anyone else seen that massive LCD/plasma (I forget which) that isn't your traditional widescreen, but is actually 2.35:1 so you can watch those CinemaScope and Panavision films without the black bars at the top and bottom of the screen?

When I worked selling televisions our shop had one of these. A 56" Philips with a 2.35:1 ratio screen and two-channel Ambi-Light. It was a ridiculous price, and even when the price was slashed to half-price to get rid of it, it was still a ridiculous price!

We had a look at some movies on it (Suspiria, Once Upon A Time In The West) and yeah, they looked quite good filling the whole screen, but it wasn't spectacular. The black bars at the top and bottom of a 2.35:1 framed movie doesn't bother me in the slightest. And as Paul noted above, everything else you watched on it was pillar-boxed. The picture quality wasn't so hot on that screen either. Worthless and gimmicky.

[Djangooo]

Originally Posted by trench

When I worked selling televisions our shop had one of these. A 56" Philips with a 2.35:1 ratio screen and two-channel Ambi-Light. It was a ridiculous price, and even when the price was slashed to half-price to get rid of it, it was still a ridiculous price!

We had a look at some movies on it (Suspiria, Once Upon A Time In The West) and yeah, they looked quite good filling the whole screen, but it wasn't spectacular. The black bars at the top and bottom of a 2.35:1 framed movie doesn't bother me in the slightest. And as Paul noted above, everything else you watched on it was pillar-boxed. The picture quality wasn't so hot on that screen either. Worthless and gimmicky.

Ugly, ugly tvs. Imagine watching Universal horror films on a tv that wide!

As for how Storaro will reframe the film, I watched my Blue Underground disc today and there are scenes where Musante is on the extreme left on the frame as he is unknowingly followed by someone on the extreme right. There's no way to reframe those shots, and if either character is cut out the scene will become as nonsensical as the Deep Red 'statue talk' was in the VHS days.

[doolahrock]

Originally Posted by Paul@Lovelockandload

A lot of transfers are supervised by DoPs rather than filmmakers. I'd imagine it's probably a lot easier for a DoP to oversee a transfer and advise how it should look, from scene to scene, as he/she was responsible for creating the composition in the first place. A filmmaker knows what they want, the DoP understands what needs to be done to achieve it. That's my understanding of it.

That's the way I see it. The director has an a firm idea of how they would like it to look and the DoP translates that to the screen.

I'm going to give this release the benefit of the doubt at the moment until the reviews come out. If the framing results in people being cut in half or that kind of nonsense, then I wont entertain it. But the cropping example given in that link posted by Jonnny doesn't look bad. Lets be honest, if you didn't have the comparison, would you have noticed?

[springjack]

Ok, here´s the real comparison of how "Bird" stands before and after this aspect ratio issue.

The screenshot below is comprised of my BU DVD and a review from the French (Wild Side) DVD.

BU DVD:


Wild Side DVD:


The review of the French DVD states the following:
"So we will proceed in chronological order, beginning with the first film directed by Argento, first in his Animal Trilogy, called "The Bird With The Crystal Plumage". And we start very bad for an independent and absurd reason. Responsible for this technical fiasco is Vittorio Storaro, Director of Photography of the film, that made us suffer for years with Apocalypse Now, decided as he explains in an interview on the extras, crop movie from 2.35 to 2.1 for aesthetic reasons to convert the image to the small screen. To listen to his pompous and almost mystical explanation could almost believe it was in good faith but when viewing the film the result is catastrophic. Composition loses much scope because unnecessary cropping, unpublished until now for this movie. All existing editions respected the aspect ration. Worse yet, beyond the crop, there´s an unjustified impression of seeing an 4/3 image in zooming effect, with details and colors suffering greatly. Despite his talent, this type of megalomaniac move destroys much of the composition work of Argento. How has this escaped Argento and the various technicians who viewed the result remains a great mystery. In any case, avoid this edition at any costs. The best version of the bird... remains for now the U.S."

[doolahrock]

Originally Posted by springjack

How has this escaped Argento and the various technicians who viewed the result remains a great mystery.

This actually takes me back to an Argento retrospective at the NFT some years back (14 or 15 years I think.....feeling old now). At the end of the of the shindig was a showing of his new film, Stendhal Syndrome and Argento was in attendance for a Q and A at the end. One member of the audience asked about the aspect ratio of the film and why it wasn't 2.35:1 or similar. Argento responded by saying he always shoots his films in the widest possible aspect. Cue much confusion from the from the chap who asked the question.

I was only about 18 at the time and was still a few years off truly appreciating aspect ratios. It's only in recent times this has come back to me and stood out as pretty bizarre as Stendhal (from memory) is 1.66:1.

I've a feeling we may not be hearing anything about this from Argento himself. I could be wrong but I would be surprised.

Still, managed to get an autograph after the film although by the time I got to the front of the line the marker pen had run out and Argento had to use a biro Asia was also there and a friend and I hear met her very briefly in the bar before the film. Cue much teenage stumbling over words

[ecc]

Originally Posted by doolahrock

I was only about 18 at the time and was still a few years off truly appreciating aspect ratios. It's only in recent times this has come back to me and stood out as pretty bizarre as Stendhal (from memory) is 1.66:1.

I think Giuseppe Rotunno is more responsible for the 1.66:1 ratio and other camera choices of STENDHAL (I recall reading that Argento had initially planned to do something creative with Anna's POV during her "syndrome" states). I seem to recall reading or hearing that Sergio Stivaletti had a hard time working with Rotunno when it came to the photographing the material meant for CGI augmentation.

That said, I like the aspect ratio and it can be well-employed (check out several of Claude Chabrol's films - some of which have been ruined by 1.78:1 reframing). I was not initially impressed with the photography of THE STENDHAL SYNDROME, but I've grown to appreciate it.

[springjack]

Originally Posted by doolahrock

This actually takes me back to an Argento retrospective at the NFT some years back (14 or 15 years I think.....feeling old now). At the end of the of the shindig was a showing of his new film, Stendhal Syndrome and Argento was in attendance for a Q and A at the end. One member of the audience asked about the aspect ratio of the film and why it wasn't 2.35:1 or similar. Argento responded by saying he always shoots his films in the widest possible aspect. Cue much confusion from the from the chap who asked the question.

I was only about 18 at the time and was still a few years off truly appreciating aspect ratios. It's only in recent times this has come back to me and stood out as pretty bizarre as Stendhal (from memory) is 1.66:1.

I've a feeling we may not be hearing anything about this from Argento himself. I could be wrong but I would be surprised.

Still, managed to get an autograph after the film although by the time I got to the front of the line the marker pen had run out and Argento had to use a biro Asia was also there and a friend and I hear met her very briefly in the bar before the film. Cue much teenage stumbling over words

Originally Posted by ecc

I think Giuseppe Rotunno is more responsible for the 1.66:1 ratio and other camera choices of STENDHAL (I recall reading that Argento had initially planned to do something creative with Anna's POV during her "syndrome" states). I seem to recall reading or hearing that Sergio Stivaletti had a hard time working with Rotunno when it came to the photographing the material meant for CGI augmentation.

That said, I like the aspect ratio and it can be well-employed (check out several of Claude Chabrol's films - some of which have been ruined by 1.78:1 reframing). I was not initially impressed with the photography of THE STENDHAL SYNDROME, but I've grown to appreciate it.

I read on an interview that one of the reason for such a close scope was to give the intention of chautrophobia.

[longtom]

Are Arrow really going to release this in 2:1

I wasn't planning to buy it as I already have the Blue Underground disc in the correct ratio but now I'm really glad.

What with this and The Beyond cock up I think its time to cancel all Arrow pre-orders and take each title on its own after the reviews appear.

Personally I would have expected the director approved ratio of the last 40 years to be the obvious choice .

If the DOP needs a job I'm sure ITV would welcome him