463 Il Generale della Rovere

[pro-bassoonist]

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...

Your detective work, without actually having seen the film, really does not prove any of the points you are trying to make.

I made it very clear earlier that the text is from the DVD booklet and the top paragraph, which you did not quote, makes it very clear what the intent is behind the DVD presentation: to eliminate the discrepancy presented during the overscanning. I am unsure why you had to reread the text and then go and speculate that your opinion is somehow validated.

So, the extra 'space', approximately 15%, which on the DVD is compensated for you, is what you are now getting on the Blu-ray. It is plainly stated there. And no, it is not a disaster. And the earlier note about the aspect ratio is very clear as it refers to "films shot om the traditional 4:3 aspect ratio (also known as the 1.37:1 or Academy ratio)." Obviously, the technical text that follows with the illustration addresses the current presentation and the type of discrepancies you get. There is no need to clarify why the film isn't in 1.66:1, 2.35:1, or whatever other ratio you might think of.

As I said earlier, let's leave it at that.

[EddieLarkin]

Yeah, except Raro posted the same explanation, sans image, on their Facebook after RAH made his comments, clearly implying it is relevant to the BD transfer as well.

As I quoted, Apra makes clear that the outer white line is what you would see during original run projection. The outer white is clearly what he wants viewers to be seeing, not anything beyond it. He even points out that the camera aperture can only be seen during the video transfer stage!

[TMDaines]

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.

My point wasn't in support of Criterion's practice; it was intended to be the opposite. I hate windowboxing, especially if it's been artificially introduced for a DVD/Blu-ray presentation. I don't deny that Raro could have tightened this image up, but the rounded corners don't make this transfer the disaster that one forum wishes to make it out that it is.

I have no idea where this discussion over Il generale's aspect ratio has come from.

Edit: Correcting typo.

[EddieLarkin]

This debate has gone beyond both the relevance of windowboxing, and the earlier aspect ratio discussion. As my last two posts explain, Raro have tried to justify their presentation using an explanation that is in direct contradiction to it. Either they're unaware of the contradiction, or the extreme boxing was not intended. If it's the former, I do not see how anyone can support a decision by them that is in contradiction with the previously celebrated Rossellini historian. If it's the latter, a recall and replacement is completely appropriate.

[MichaelB]

It certainly sounds to me that the person who wrote the booklet piece about the aspect ratios hadn't actually seen what was going to be released first-hand - which, to be fair, isn't remotely unusual. In fact, in my experience it's very rare indeed for booklet contributors to get to see the final encode - I generally write my own such pieces on the basis of low-bitrate DVD-R encodes with timecode burned onto the image, or sometimes just the older DVD release.

But the producer really should have made sure that the explanation in the booklet was actually matched by the contents of the disc - as the long-suffering designers I've worked with over the years will readily confirm, I'm always tweaking things right up to the last minute to make sure that everything's consistent across the board, usually because I myself don't get to see the final encode (i.e. the exact video file that will end up on the disc) until a very very late stage indeed. (Just to give a recent example, I saw the final encode of Arrow's The Long Goodbye about ten days ago).

What seems to have happened in this case is that the scan involved the entire negative area, which is common practice in my experience and also a thoroughly good thing (because it makes later tweaking much easier), provided whoever's doing the encode knows that this has happened and can compensate accordingly by framing the image correctly. It looks to me as though that this crucial last stage didn't happen, although why it wasn't spotted in QC is a complete mystery, as the framing is just about the first thing that should have been checked.

[EddieLarkin]

To be clear, the information in the booklet was written for a different release of the same restoration (and I believe all previous DVD releases presented the film in a way that matched this explanation). Why Raro had it on hand to post on their Facebook I don't know, perhaps they just copied it word for word out of the booklet. But if they're under the impression it explains why their presentation looks the way it does, they're mistaken. So it's possible the extreme boxing is just a genuine mistake on Raro's part. But if it was intentional, then I wouldn't be surprised if Adriano Apra would feel the same way that RAH does about this presentation, since he specifically points out that the edge of the element is not supposed to be seen in projection.

[swo17]

I don't understand how someone can get this worked up over a transfer they haven't seen for a film they haven't seen either. For some perspective, watch this new release back to back with the DNRd mess that is Raro's Blu-ray of Conversation Piece and then tell me which is unwatchable.

[EddieLarkin]

I wouldn't say I'm worked up over the transfer. Maybe a little worked up over the indifference found here, over something that I feel is a valid criticism of the disc. Or the indifference over the fact Raro have tried to counter Harris' points with an explanation that only supports what he's saying.

Nor have I said the film is unwatchable in this state. Since Il Generale is a film I have a great interest in seeing (along with the rest of Rossellini's filmography), and since it's doubtful that a superior release will be forthcoming any time soon, I'll almost certainly be buying this in the future. I in fact do have the ability to zoom and crop any disc how I like, so other than the unfortunate loss of resolution, any issues of camera aperture or aspect ratio I can fix myself.

[TMDaines]

I don't understand how someone can get this worked up over a transfer they haven't seen for a film they haven't seen either. For some perspective, watch this new release back to back with the DNRd mess that is Raro's Blu-ray of Conversation Piece and then tell me which is unwatchable.

I've just replaced mine with the new French Blu-ray! That disc is by far the worst Blu-ray I've ever seen, yet it somehow got pretty good reviews across the board (which probably tells you something about how pointless this discussion is, given it's in part based on a few exaggerated marks from a third party).

[tenia]

I don't understand how someone can get this worked up over a transfer they haven't seen for a film they haven't seen either. For some perspective, watch this new release back to back with the DNRd mess that is Raro's Blu-ray of Conversation Piece and then tell me which is unwatchable.

That's the type of perspective I was discussing about "being embarrassed by releasing this". I'm not saying that the Generale Raro BD is flawless, and I can certainly understand how someone could find this overscan + rounded corners AR being unfaithful to the movie, but I do feel it's far from being a reason to simply dismiss the release as RAH did.

[Moe Dickstein]

I think they are assuming that the TV will overscan to the correct image, though on modern sets without overscan this assumption falls apart. therein lies the rub

[knives]

That's slightly a myth though as its been proven time (and again) on this site many modern teevees still have overscan. Whether the overscan is that extreme is an entirely different issue, but saying in a blanket statement that overscan is a thing of the past is a factoid.

[acroyear]

I didn't discover Criterion until shortly before Blu's were introduced as a format option, and this movie is one of only 3 DVDs I have of theirs. At least I can exhale now from waiting for an upgrade from them. Absolutely love this movie and will be holding tight to it until someone does right on its presentation.

[Zot!]

That's slightly a myth though as its been proven time (and again) on this site many modern teevees still have overscan. Whether the overscan is that extreme is an entirely different issue, but saying in a blanket statement that overscan is a thing of the past is a factoid.

But that's a terrible argument. Then all the BDs out there currently without windowboxing are a mistake? No, we can assume that TVs that overscan today are either doing it to an inconsequential degree, or should be considered faulty. BDs should not allow for overscan. It's backwards.

[EddieLarkin]

When Criterion upgraded Ivan's Childhood this year, they simply used the same transfer that appeared on their DVD. Except for one difference: they removed the rather extreme window boxing, which I know many will have been upset about when the DVD was originally released. If Criterion had upgraded Ivan's Childhood but retained the same windowboxing, I very much doubt the Blu-ray would have received the same acclaim from these quarters as it did.

But this is precisely what has happened with Il Generale. I've only just learnt that the old Minerva disc featured the same extreme windowboxing as well, and Raro have taken that DVD transfer and left the windowboxing in. The windowboxing was arguably relevant in the DVD era, but unlike Criterion, Raro seem to be unaware how inappropriate it is in the Blu-ray era.

[EddieLarkin]

That's slightly a myth though as its been proven time (and again) on this site many modern teevees still have overscan. Whether the overscan is that extreme is an entirely different issue, but saying in a blanket statement that overscan is a thing of the past is a factoid.

I've said it before, but allow me to clarify:

ALL HDTVs have overscan. It is an essential function which does serve a purpose; I use mine quite often. Practically all HDTVs have it set to on by default, which is unfortunate. But also, the vast majority of HDTVs allow you to turn it off in the settings menu, thus allowing a full 1920x1080 picture. Consequently, windowboxing Blu-rays is pointless and completely unacceptable; far more unacceptable than it was already considered in the DVD era.

So yes, it is a thing of the past. If someone happens to have an old budget HDTV that has overscan that cannot be disabled, then they should consider a new TV. The one they have is a piece of rubbish, and is not conforming to the standards of the vast majority of other HDTVs.

[pro-bassoonist]

To be clear, the information in the booklet was written for a different release of the same restoration (and I believe all previous DVD releases presented the film in a way that matched this explanation). Why Raro had it on hand to post on their Facebook I don't know...

Because contrary to what you stated here, the text very clearly refers to the aspect ratio of the presentation. Which was indeed questioned. I am unsure why this still isn't clear to you. Raro's Blu-ray release uses as a foundation Minerva's resto (from the DVD release).

Second, this new argument about the additional 'space'/windowboxing practice really should not be a point that you address with the aspect ratio at all because in the very first post I left with the photos of Minerva's DVD release I own I said: "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.". As it was an issue during the DVD era, overscanning is very much a non-factor now and one can easily adjust for it. In other words, there is no need for all the drama that you wish to attach to it.

Third, a pretty good number of Blue Underground's Blu-ray releases of Italian films still use window-boxed transfers. I have not seen any outrage there. I've also seen a few other European releases that could easily be placed in the same group. But regardless, as far as I am concerned it is not a serious issue because even a lot of modern TV sets can compensate for overscanning.

To sum it all up, your initial question was about the aspect ratio of the film, not the extra 'space', which was addressed. You have not really offered one valid counter argument explaining why Raro, Criterion, Arrow Academy, and all the other parties that have had their hands on this film got it 'wrong' by respecting the aspect ratio of the Minerva resto.

[EddieLarkin]

Second, this new argument about the additional 'space'/windowboxing practice really should not be a point that you address with the aspect ratio at all because in the very first post I left with the photos of Minerva's DVD release I own I said: "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.". As it was an issue during the DVD era, overscanning is very much a non-factor now and one can easily adjust for it. In other words, there is no need for all the drama that you wish to attach to it.

These are two separate discussions, which I feel I've successfully kept separate. If you want to bring it back around to the aspect ratio, that's fine, but I see no problem with debating this issues separately. For the record, one cannot adjust for overscanning without losing resolution. Which wasn't such an issue in the DVD era since resolution wasn't exactly the selling point with that format. With Blu-ray, it is.

Third, a pretty good number of Blue Underground's Blu-ray releases of Italian films still use window-boxed transfers. I have not seen any outrage there. I've also seen a few other European releases that could easily be placed in the same group. But regardless, as far as I am concerned it is not a serious issue because even a lot of modern TV sets can compensate for overscanning.

That's not windowboxing, it's simply missing information. You can see this by comparing the BU and Arrow versions of Zombie. Windowboxing is supposed to preserve more image info, not remove it. Criterion's Harakiri suffers from the same problem, and many people here recommended the MoC disc over it because it did not have this missing space.

To sum it all up, your initial question was about the aspect ratio of the film, not the extra 'space', which was addressed. You have not really offered one valid counter argument explaining why Raro, Criterion, Arrow Academy, and all the other parties that have had their hands on this film got it 'wrong' by respecting the aspect ratio of the Minerva resto.

If the aspect ratio is 1.66:1, then obviously it's Minerva that have got it wrong. Even if Raro, Criterion or Arrow were aware that it should be widescreen, I doubt they'd even be allowed to manipulate the transfer provided to them from Minerva to such a degree. So I'm not trying to hold them accountable. I'm simply trying to establish some facts. Neither of us have really brought hard evidence to the table; you have suggested it is 1.37:1 because Adriano Apra says so, and because historically you've always seen it that way. I have suggested it is 1.66:1 because RAH has historically always seen it that way, that as far as we know Rossellini was working in widescreen at the time, and that it appears to matte fine to 1.66:1 in comparison to Rossellini's earlier, undoubtedly 1.37:1 films.

Hopefully something more concrete can be uncovered.

[MichaelB]

If the aspect ratio is 1.66:1, then obviously it's Minerva that have got it wrong. Even if Raro, Criterion or Arrow were aware that it should be widescreen, I doubt they'd even be allowed to manipulate the transfer provided to them from Minerva to such a degree.

I didn't work on this particular release, but none of the Arrow Academy titles I've worked on have specified a contractually-mandated aspect ratio.

In fact, we even debated presenting The Night of the Hunter in multiple aspect ratios before our research eliminated 1.37:1 and 1.85:1 as plausible possibilities (in other words, we're talking 1.66:1 or 1.75:1, which is too hair-splitting to justify going to a second disc), and there's a distinct possibility that there may be an actual multiple aspect ratio Arrow Academy release in the not too distant future.

So the restrictions are more practical than contractual.

[EddieLarkin]

That's really interesting Michael. I'm not going to draw you into a debate you don't want to have, especially when the difference between such ratios is minimal, but what were the reasons for nixing 1.85:1 for Hunter? I've seen scans of trades that recommended that ratio during its original run, is all. And what led you to conclude 1.75:1 as a possibility?

It's really great to hear Arrow considering multiple ARs even when its just over different widescreen ones!

[MichaelB]

It may have been shown in 1.85:1 in some cinemas, but it's obviously too tight (crucial compositions like the point of the triangle in the famous shot of Robert Mitchum towering over Shelley Winters in the bed are noticeably cropped), and therefore clearly not what was intended.

Robert Gitt, who carried out the UCLA restoration, says that the film as a whole really only works in either 1.66:1 or 1.75:1, and it's clear if you examine individual shots that 1.66:1 was what Stanley Cortez was primarily composing for. The evidence of my own eyes also supports Gitt's view (as does the decision made by Criterion), and so it was clear that 1.66:1 should be the primary aspect ratio. Including a second 1.75:1 version would have demanded a second disc (with over four hours of HD material on disc one, there'd be no room otherwise), and I just couldn't see the point of whacking up the budget over something that 99% of people simply wouldn't care about.

[TMDaines]

If the aspect ratio is 1.66:1, then obviously it's Minerva that have got it wrong. Even if Raro, Criterion or Arrow were aware that it should be widescreen, I doubt they'd even be allowed to manipulate the transfer provided to them from Minerva to such a degree. So I'm not trying to hold them accountable. I'm simply trying to establish some facts. Neither of us have really brought hard evidence to the table; you have suggested it is 1.37:1 because Adriano Apra says so, and because historically you've always seen it that way. I have suggested it is 1.66:1 because RAH has historically always seen it that way, that as far as we know Rossellini was working in widescreen at the time, and that it appears to matte fine to 1.66:1 in comparison to Rossellini's earlier, undoubtedly 1.37:1 films.

Hopefully something more concrete can be uncovered.

What evidence have you got for Il generale Della Rovere being 1.66:1?

I have read this thread in its entirety and seemingly you're going off the basis that someone else said so, and the fact that you can crop some screengrabs from 1.37:1 and it doesn't look wrong? People could go into any of hundreds of threads for films on this forum and make an unsubstantiated argument on the same lines. The burden of proof is on yourself to support your argument and you're providing absolutely nothing.

[EddieLarkin]

It may have been shown in 1.85:1 in some cinemas, but it's obviously too tight (crucial compositions like the point of the triangle in the famous shot of Robert Mitchum towering over Shelley Winters in the bed are noticeably cropped), and therefore clearly not what was intended.

Robert Gitt, who carried out the UCLA restoration, says that the film as a whole really only works in either 1.66:1 or 1.75:1, and it's clear if you examine individual shots that 1.66:1 was what Stanley Cortez was primarily composing for. The evidence of my own eyes also supports Gitt's view (as does the decision made by Criterion), and so it was clear that 1.66:1 should be the primary aspect ratio. Including a second 1.75:1 version would have demanded a second disc (with over four hours of HD material on disc one, there'd be no room otherwise), and I just couldn't see the point of whacking up the budget over something that 99% of people simply wouldn't care about.

There is a sensible argument anyway for 1.66:1, from a documentation perspective. 1.66:1 was UA's house ratio when they switched to widescreen in '53, and they ditched this for 1.85:1, like all other studios a year or two later. But the exact switch over point is unclear, and Hunter may be a film that got caught in between. UA may have recommended 1.66:1 during production, and then changed to 1.85:1 once it hit cinemas. I personally wouldn't even bother with multiple ARs when one is unsure between 1.66:1 and 1.85:1. Better to go with the taller ratio and risk too much image rather than too little.

What evidence have you got for Il generale della Rovere being 1.66:1?

I have read this thread in its entirety and seemingly you're going off the basis that someone else said so, and the fact that you can crop some screengrabs from 1.37:1 and it doesn't look wrong? People could go into any of hundreds of threads for films on this forum and make an unsubstantiated argument on the same lines. The burden of proof is on yourself to support your argument and you're providing absolutely nothing.

I acknowledged this in the post you quoted. And I agree the onus is on me in this argument. If I can, I'll provide something more concrete when I have it. But that doesn't mean the film IS 1.37:1, just because it has been released that way on home video.

[TMDaines]

As an attempt to actually bring some evidence to the table, and to counteract the argument that Italian films of this vintage couldn't possibly be 1.37:1, the following from 1959 are (available in this format): Arrangiatevi!, Un maledetto imbroglio, Vento del Sud, Nel blu dipinto di blu, Poveri milionari, Cerasella, Esterina and Estate violenta. Even Rossellini's India documentary from the same year is.

I'm struggling to find anything from 1960 though.

[EddieLarkin]

As an attempt to actually bring some evidence to the table, and to counteract the argument that Italian films of this vintage couldn't possibly be 1.37:1, the following from 1959 are (to the best of my knowledge): Arrangiatevi!, Un maledetto imbroglio, Vento del Sud, Nel blu dipinto di blu, Poveri milionari, Cerasella, Esterina and Estate violenta. Even Rossellini's India documentary from the same year is.

No one is arguing that Italian films from this period couldn't possibly be 1.37:1. And if you consider the above as evidence, then why isn't the fact Rossellini's very next film, made only months later, has been released in 1.66:1 also evidence?