463 Il Generale della Rovere

[Gregory]

Anyone who really cares about such things should have bought equipment with some kind of adjustable zoom or overscan, which is far from uncommon. Many displays also cause overscan that cannot be eliminated. So the only way to avoid losing part of the image in such cases is to windowbox the transfer or to show the full frame, with overscan then cropping off the edges. I have my projector set so there is no overscan, and if seeing the entire frame ever bothered me, I could easily change that setting. There's absolutely no way to make everyone happy with something like this, especially if someone who wants zoom/overscan has somehow failed to purchase the equipment that will allow them to adjust this to taste.

How about presenting the film the same way the vast majority of other films on Blu-ray are framed? i.e. correctly? You're acting like this sort of thing is common. Everyone would be satisfied with a film presented with framing for whatever the SMPTE standard is for the selected aspect ratio.

And acquiring a TV or BD player that allows 1x1 pixel mapping is far easier than one that can do all sorts of different levels of zooming. Even a $1000 Oppo player cannot get around Criterion's prevention of zooming their discs. And that's before we get into the fact you're giving up resolution for performing cropping you shouldn't have to be doing.

If it's framed "correctly" (according to your preference) then part of the picture would be lost on all TVs/displays that cannot be adjusted to eliminate overscan. Often when Criterion has revisited a title on a new release, they've add a little information around the edges compared to what was there before, and I don't remember any complaints about this. It really is impossible to make every single stickler happy, so Raro have erred on the side of showing a little extra, which in most cases will be overscanned away. They did it intentionally, and yet RAH seems persistent that this was some kind of accidental blunder, because apparently he needs that to support his review of the disc as a complete botch-job.
And yes, this kind of presentation is common, particularly in releases of silents but I've also seen it frequently in releases of films from the 1950s and '60s that are in Academy ratio.

[Zot!]

I can't believe some people are so terrified of a film frame.

But it's the same windowboxing that people have been complaining about for years with Criterion DVDs, it seems only fair to moan about this too. There is no reason to protect the frame this extensively, but certainly preferable to an overly cropped image.

[EddieLarkin]

They have decided to show everything, not a little extra. When a new modern transfer has more image area visible compared to previous ones, this is nearly always done without exposing the corners of the element and the camera aperture! It is very uncommon, actually, and is only more readily seen with silents because there was less standardisation before the 30s. Most everything in the sound era can be framed using an SMPTE test. Note how the 1.37:1 frame line is quite far removed from the very edges of the full image.

And of course part of the picture would be lost, as it's not supposed to be there. RAH made an apt comparison here. In his example, showing all of the available image area for The Godfather II would reveal set equipment in the far sides of the image. Raro have exposed all of the image area with Il Generale della Rovere, so presumably, you'd be happy with a similar presentation of The Godfather II? And us who would not should be happy to faff around looking for specialised Blu-ray players that allow us to crop the film so we can get it looking how the filmmakers intended? As I said before, a TV and BD player that allow 1x1 pixel mapping are far easier to come across, indeed, they are essentially the standard these days.

[TMDaines]

I can't believe some people are so terrified of a film frame.

But it's the same windowboxing that people have been complaining about for years with Criterion DVDs, it seems only fair to moan about this too. There is no reason to protect the frame this extensively, but certainly preferable to an overly cropped image.

Isn't most of Criterion's recent windowboxing digitally/artificially added? It's a bit different if so.

[Gregory]

And of course part of the picture would be lost, as it's not supposed to be there.

No, I'm pointing out that often part that is supposed to be there is lost. You're saying it should be framed "correctly" in telecine, but then in most cases more of the picture would be overscanned away, so if you had your way not all viewers would have a way to see everything that was supposed to be visible. This way, the only people who have anything to complain about are those who don't want to be able to see the outer limits of the frame (which, again, are visible in even in many discs of films after the silent era) but apparently didn't bother to buy equipment enabling them to zoom in slightly. Oh, but then there would be that oh-so-significant difference in resolution.

This is essentially the Criterion windowboxing argument all over again, i.e. not one I think is worth having, so I'll leave this latest tempest in a thimble to others. For the record, I was originally against Criterion's decision to windowbox because I believed that unavoidable overscan was becoming a thing of the past, but that has turned out to be untrue.

And us who would not should be happy to faff around looking for specialised Blu-ray players that allow us to crop the film so we can get it looking how the filmmakers intended?

It's usually done on the display, not the player. And it's not that specialized.

RAH made an apt comparison here. In his example, showing all of the available image area for The Godfather II would reveal set equipment in the far sides of the image. Raro have exposed all of the image area with Il Generale della Rovere, so presumably, you'd be happy with a similar presentation of The Godfather II?

It's a faulty comparison to Il Generale because the top Godfather image is in a completely different aspect ratio. And even there, RAH claims to prefer cropping Il Generale to 1.66. The Raro vs. Criterion framings of the film are nowhere near that drastic a difference.

[Zot!]

I can't believe some people are so terrified of a film frame.

But it's the same windowboxing that people have been complaining about for years with Criterion DVDs, it seems only fair to moan about this too. There is no reason to protect the frame this extensively, but certainly preferable to an overly cropped image.

Isn't most of Criterion's recent windowboxing digitally/artificially added? It's a bit different if so.

Why is it different if the film frame is exposed, or black is added, the resultant border effect is the same, and neither holds any picture information, yet eats resolution.

[EddieLarkin]

Greg, there's a reason why Criterion's windowboxing policy was only ever applied to their DVDs, never their Blu-rays. Your typical DVD viewer, at least a few years ago, was watching on a CRT screen, the vast majority of which have an ungodly amount of built in overscan. In those cases, protect for overscan all you like; I too was for Criterion's policy.

But your typical Blu-ray viewer is watching on a HDTV, and I'm sorry, but it is not the case at all that severe, built in overscan is the norm. I've never encountered an HDTV in fact that did not allow disabling of overscan in the set up menu. And I'm sure with the few budget models that do not allow for this, the overscanning is going to be pretty minimal.

And as TMDaines points out anyway, Criterion's method is nothing like Raro's. Criterion kept the visible image area to the accepted standard, and just added an artificial border. Raro have over exposed the image, which is the problem. Rounded corners and a dirty camera aperture are not something the director intended you to see.

And us who would not should be happy to faff around looking for specialised Blu-ray players that allow us to crop the film so we can get it looking how the filmmakers intended?

It's usually done on the display, not the player. And it's not that specialized.

Yes, standard overscanning is done on the display. But I can tell just by looking at the caps that the overscanning on my set would only hide some of the aperture, not the rounded corners. Again, overscan on HDTVs is minimal. But even if it was going to hide it successfully, we get into the loss of resolution argument again. That is why Criterion do not do this on their Blu-rays. They don't want you adding overscan to anything, because a Blu-ray is supposed to be in 1080p.

[tojoed]

Herr Schreck on rounded corners

[EddieLarkin]

Rounded corners are one thing, having the image in the middle of your TV surrounded by the camera aperture and some additional digital bordering is another. When I think of round corners on Blu-ray, I think of Kino's Scarlet Street, which looks fine.

And if you're going to show slightly more image than perhaps is necessary, it's better to do it for a film that is actually 1.37:1. Looking at the Raro caps, it becomes clear that RAH's views on the aspect ratio are more than likely correct as well.

[tojoed]

I thought it was instructive to show how a film lover thinks.

[tenia]

Looking at the Raro caps, it becomes clear that RAH's views on the aspect ratio are more than likely correct as well.

I'm now having more and more troubled with RAH BD reviews. He's the guy who gives 0.5 to a BD because being released like this, the frame borders are not clean, but he gave 5 to Criterion's Madame de BD (which he now has strongly edited to give 2.5, what a twist !).

While I can understand how not offering the usual 1.66 ratio might be a problem, I'm still having a huge problem with how this would lead to such a dreadful evaluation which seems like this BD is, basically, useless to get from a historical point of view (so, PQ aside).

It's not the first time I've read eagerly his very well informed reviews, but I feel more and more that he reviews these discs with a very weird scale fo what's an industrial catastrophe and what's not.

[EddieLarkin]

I don't think RAH strives for consistency in his ratings. Indeed, until recently, he never gave ratings (I think he only started because people were bugging him to do so). They're barely reviews, just literally a "few words about". I was perplexed at his views on Madame de as well, but looking at it from a "restoration expert" sort of POV, I understand completely his comments on Il Generale. As he says himself, he would be embarrassed to release a product like this, that it looks like someone has just scanned the element and then left it. No doubt presenting the film this way is completely contrary to his restoration ethic, and so a 0.5/5 is appropriate when you consider that's just his personal feeling. I don't think you can apply it to any real scale.

[CSM126]

Considering that Mr. Harris was happily crowing a month or two ago about how his restoration of Mad x4 World includes scenes where sprocket holes and aperture are visible (because "cinephiles don't mind sprocket holes", etc, etc), it seems kind of silly to complain about someone else leaving the aperture in the shot. Not that I think he's wrong, per se, it is, indeed, really ugly looking and I imagine I'd rate that transfer pretty low, too. But for him to say it is just hypocritical, unless he revises Mad World to not have the same thing going on in the added footage.

[EddieLarkin]

That's an interesting point, though I don't recall that specific quote, or confirmation that you would actually be seeing the sprocket holes on the transfer. If it is the case though, it's going to be for some shots, not the whole film, and is only because of the various challenges faced with the surviving elements of the additional footage. Some of it is going to be in black and white, some of it is going to lack audio, some of it is going to be audio only, and maybe some of it will show visible sprocket holes. I don't think it's a comparable situation.

[tenia]

I don't think RAH strives for consistency in his ratings. Indeed, until recently, he never gave ratings (I think he only started because people were bugging him to do so). They're barely reviews, just literally a "few words about". I was perplexed at his views on Madame de as well, but looking at it from a "restoration expert" sort of POV, I understand completely his comments on Il Generale. As he says himself, he would be embarrassed to release a product like this, that it looks like someone has just scanned the element and then left it. No doubt presenting the film this way is completely contrary to his restoration ethic, and so a 0.5/5 is appropriate when you consider that's just his personal feeling. I don't think you can apply it to any real scale.

I totally understand this point but you raised more precisely my issue : he's rating it this way because it's "completely contrary to his restoration ethic" where I would expect something much more objective from him.

[EddieLarkin]

Whilst I can understand your expectations, I don't think it's ever been the case he's been anything but subjective in his comments. He was seething after seeing the discs of My Fair Lady and Spartacus, surely in large part because of his personal involvement with the films.

[Moe Dickstein]

From what I know, RAH ratings are on a scale of what a disc is to what it could be. No rating will correspond to any other, because the rating is for what is possible to attain based on elements

[tenia]

From what I know, RAH ratings are on a scale of what a disc is to what it could be. No rating will correspond to any other, because the rating is for what is possible to attain based on elements

I might be misusing the word rating, but as a whole, I think it's a bit too strong to just say "I would be embarassed to release this as such" when it's only a question of whether or not you can live with rounded corners or not.

[Moe Dickstein]

I haven't seen the disc but it seemed like it was more than just that, it's also the wrong aspect ratio, and I think if you looked at the two images from the Godfather, you'll see his point.

[pro-bassoonist]

...it's also the wrong aspect ratio, and I think if you looked at the two images from the Godfather, you'll see his point.

It is not the wrong aspect ratio. And I absolutely cannot see his point.

[EddieLarkin]

It is not the wrong aspect ratio.

You say this, but offer no argument or evidence.

Era notte a Roma was released 10 months after Il Generale della Rovere, and has been presented at 1.66:1 on DVD, apparently something no one has had an issue with, so presumably it is correct.

You can also compare the Blu-ray.com caps of Il Generale with your own caps from the Bergman-Rossellini boxset. I'm sure the difference is obvious to you. In the former, there is headroom big enough to drive a truck through, and not a single cap is going to look problematic at 1.66:1. The latter, on the otherhand, would see not only actors scalps being sheared through, but their faces as well. Undoubtably, the earlier films are 1.37:1.

Considering this, what makes you so sure Il Generale is supposed to be 1.37:1 as well?

[pro-bassoonist]

What evidence have you presented, Eddie? Have you actually seen the film? Do you own any releases of it? If yes, what are these DVD releases that present the film in 1.66:1 ratio? Who has endorsed them?

Il Generale... actually happens to be one of my favorite films and I have owned multiple releases of it. In fact, long before Criterion released the film in North America I had the Minerva resto, which is indeed magnificent.

So, my first 'evidence' is... my multiple experiences with this film. And they are not limited only to DVD/Blu-ray releases.

Second, the lavish Italian DVD 'book release' (see below), which uses Minerva's resto, contains a pretty elaborate booklet with plenty of information about the film and its creator, as well as the reason why the film is presented in the 1.37:1 ratio. This entire booklet is also edited by Adriano Apra, whom I consider to be one of the ultimate experts on all things Rossellini.

Third, the aspect ratio of the Minerva resto was also respected for the Criterion release of Il Generale....

Lastly, I know why the film is presented as is on the Blu-ray. The overscanning issue was a concern for the Italian DVD release. Some very minor adjustments could have been made, but as far as I am concerned Raro's Blu-ray release is nowhere even close to being a disaster.

Really, to think that so many different institutions and knowledgeable people somehow got it wrong is pretty naive.

Of course, you are welcome to have a different opinion and disagree, but I think that there is plenty of evidence suggesting that people who know how this film should be presented are very familiar with Minerva's resto and find it to be more than satisfying. Take care









Uploaded with ImageShack.us

[EddieLarkin]

What evidence have you presented, Eddie? Have you actually seen the film? Do you own any releases of it? If yes, what are these DVD releases that present the film in 1.66:1 ratio? Who has endorsed them?

No, I have not seen the film. I was commenting only on your own screen caps and that of your colleague. When I mentioned a DVD release at 1.66:1, I was referring to Rossellini's follow up, Era notte a Roma. My point being that this film was made immediately after Il Generale, yet has apparently been accepted at 1.66:1. My question is, why did Rossellini switch to widescreen for this film, only months later?

So, my first 'evidence' is... my multiple experiences with this film. And they are not limited only to DVD/Blu-ray releases.

Well, RAH states he has had multiple experiences with this film beyond home video as well, and yet states he has only ever seen it at 1.66:1.

Second, the lavish Italian DVD 'book release' (see below), which uses Minerva's resto, contains a pretty elaborate booklet with plenty of information about the film and its creator, as well as the reason why the film is presented in the 1.37:1 ratio.

Thanks for the picture, I've read it. It offers no information as to why the decision was made to go 1.37:1 over widescreen, only the decision to over expose the element. RAH says their explanation makes absolutely no sense. If nothing else, on this point at least I have unwavering confidence in his assessment.

Third, the aspect ratio of the Minerva resto was also respected for the Criterion release of Il Generale....

They've got it wrong several times before, unfortunately.

Really, to think that so many different institutions and knowledgeable people somehow got it wrong is pretty naive.

Considering how similar institutions and knowledgeable people have behaved over aspect ratio debate, often leading to incorrect home video presentation, I'd say it is you who is being naive.

[pro-bassoonist]

No, I have not seen the film. I was commenting only on your own screen caps and that of your colleague.

Considering how similar institutions and knowledgeable people have behaved over aspect ratio debate, often leading to incorrect home video presentation, I'd say it is you who is being naive.

Let's leave it at that, then.

[EddieLarkin]

]

You know, after re-reading their blurb, and considering the image they've provided, I think this whole thing can be put to rest. I suggest you carefully go over the text as well Svet. For those who cannot see it, here are the relevant parts, emphasis mine:

The illustration below shows a frame taken from one of the opening scenes of General Della Rovere. The original frame shows the complete filmed image (you can also see the black line rounded off at the corners). The first white line delineates the area visible on your television set (although this area may vary slightly from one type of television set to another) if videorecorded with the full frame standard adopted for this DVD edition. (Only spectators viewing the video version of the film through a computer or in a video projection will see the whole image). As you can see, the image seen is slightly smaller than the complete image...Thus, what you see on the television set, with our full frame standard, is very similar to what you’ll see in a film projection.

The second white line delineates the image seen on your television set when the film is broadcasted on television or reproduced from traditional VHS or DVD editions employing the television standard. (In this case, spectators viewing the video version of the film through a computer or in a video projection will see the image contained within the first white line). It is obvious that this format generates a further, rather annoying, loss of image with respect to the image visible in a film projection.

Basically, they're saying the inner white line is the television standard, which loses essential information, whilst the outer white line is what they have opted for in this new edition. Except, they haven't. If they had, none of the rounded corners or camera aperture would be visible. Clearly, someone messed up at the telecine or transfer stage, and included everything. The explanation in the booklet directly contradicts what is on the disc. Indeed, the explanation is attributed to Adriano Apa, so I'm sure he is very disappointed with how Raro have ignored his instructions.

So RAH was right, this should be recalled.