463 Il Generale della Rovere

[EddieLarkin]

The chair as well sits quite nicely in the bottom of the frame in the 1.66:1 cap. It looks quite odd cropped out in 1.85:1, even more so than the bed.

The fact you can see under the bed in the 1.37:1 also seems to throw something off. One AR was the right decision I think.

So even if you adjusted the framing upwards or downwards, you'd still end up with something that doesn't look quite right.

Actually, it appears Criterion have done precisely this, for some odd reason. I wanted to see how the whole scene played after this discussion, and noticed that the frame that you chose for the Arrow booklet is different on the Criterion Blu. Here it is, as it appears on the disc, albeit at 1.66:1 rather than with the small 16x9 pillar bars:

http://i.imgur.com/0KYiCLT.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The yellow lines are markers for 1.85:1. The top of the triangle survives intact, but Shelley Winters is ever so slightly cut now, so as you say, it doesn't look right regardless. I wonder if the whole of the Blu-ray is shifted upward compared to the Arrow, or just that scene?

[tag gallagher]

About making a 1.66 version from the 2K scan: people with more tech know-how than I may correct me, but I believe producers' morality is that cropping the 2K scan would result in a low resolution image (using just part of the frame), compared to the proper way of doing it, which was to have made an anamorphic scan directly from the print.

Evidently the new discs work from the same logic -- that it's not worth spending the money to do a proper scan, that it's not acceptable to give a lo-res solution either -- and so are most likely using the same video master as Criterion used (and as the Italian discs had used before Criterion). In the Italian 2-disc set, both the release and Venice editions are presented with optional English subtitles, 1.37.

[EddieLarkin]

The film has now been upgraded to Blu-ray in the U.S. and mainland Europe. The only significant market left is the U.K., where Arrow presumably have the rights. Perhaps the all new Arrow, if they were to upgrade their DVD would take into consideration Tag's comments here, and at the very least give us two aspect ratios, even if that does require the creation of a new master.

[MichaelB]

About making a 1.66 version from the 2K scan: people with more tech know-how than I may correct me, but I believe producers' morality is that cropping the 2K scan would result in a low resolution image (using just part of the frame), compared to the proper way of doing it, which was to have made an anamorphic scan directly from the print.

Lower-resolution, certainly, but not at all "low-resolution" in the sense that I'd understand the term. According to my rough calculations, if you cropped the image of the 2K master to 1.66:1, you'd still end up with a vertical resolution of about 892 pixels. Clearly, that's not as good as the full 1080 pixels that you get with 1080p, but it's nonetheless significantly ahead of a 720p image, and even that would still technically qualify as high-definition. Certainly, this would be far superior to an SD upscale.

What I might hesitate to do is offer the end result as the only version, but I wouldn't have a problem with offering it alongside a genuinely 1080p version of the 1.37:1 scan.

Incidentally, the term "anamorphic" is irrelevant when talking about high-definition material - the native aspect ratio of HD is 16:9. Although you're right that the best way of achieving full vertical resolution would be to return to the print.

(This is where 4K scans can be very useful - with On the Waterfront, Criterion could easily produce framings at 1.37:1, 1.66:1 and 1.85:1 with no loss of resolution, because the 1.37:1 master itself offered such high resolution to begin with. But of course 4K scanning and mastering is vastly more expensive, so that creates budgeting problems anyway.)

[EddieLarkin]

But if your 1.37:1 2K master already included the 16x9 pillar bars (I've no idea if it actually would at that stage), then your extraction of 1.66:1 from the 1.37:1 original would not be from a full 2K source. If the 1.37:1 master is (for the sake of argument) measured as 1920x1080 (thus, including pillar bars), then actual image area is only 1488x1080, and you would take your extraction from that. The total resolution for the 1.66:1 version then, would be 1488x896. But then wouldn't you need to upscale that back to around 1794x1080, plus smaller pillar bars, for a full 1920x1080 image? Since that is all the BD format will accept? What sort of effect would that have on the visual quality?

I'm unsure, but I think this is what Hammer did when they added a last minute 1.66:1 version to their Curse of Frankenstein Blu-ray, after getting lots of complaints when they announced it as 1.37:1 only. The result is not pretty, with a slight but noticeable downgrade in picture quality compared to the full frame version (not that that's particularly pretty anyway). Hopefully they didn't repeat the same process for their recent multiple AR release of The Mummy.

[MichaelB]

But if your 1.37:1 2K master already included the 16x9 pillar bars (I've no idea if it actually would at that stage), then your extraction of 1.66:1 from the 1.37:1 original would not be from a full 2K source. If the 1.37:1 master is (for the sake of argument) measured as 1920x1080 (thus, including pillar bars), then actual image area is only 1488x1080, and you would take your extraction from that. The total resolution for the 1.66:1 version then, would be 1488x896. But then wouldn't you need to upscale that back to around 1794x1080, plus smaller pillar bars, for a full 1920x1080 image? Since that is all the BD format will accept?

That is, essentially, what I just said.

What sort of effect would that have on the visual quality?

Very little, in truth, especially if it was upscaled by a professional encoder as opposed to your player or TV. But, as I said, I'd probably be inclined to include a genuinely 1080p transfer of the 1.37:1 version alongside it.

Redoing the transfer from scratch is usually not a financially realistic option with a film like this - or at least not without going into partnership with other labels and/or interested parties.

[EddieLarkin]

Yes, I was just unsure about the upscaling process. I'm sure someone like Dave Mackenzie could sort any issues it might pose. And of course, I wouldn't object at all to a 1.37:1 version as well, especially if it's going to look a little better. Preferably sans the windowboxing mind

[pro-bassoonist]

Thank you for your post Tag. I won't pretend that it doesn't feel nice to be partially vindicated, since I'm sure most here will take your opinion on the AR very seriously.

I am not entirely sure why you would feel partially vindicated. Tag only offered a different point of view. The point you were operating with earlier was that the only person that has been pleased with the presentation is Mr. Apra. So, I am going to post some facts here, since apparently this is what you were looking for in the first place, despite the fact that you have never seen the film or owned any home video releases (DVD/Blu-ray).

Fact 1: Mr. Apra is not the only person who was directly involved with the resto. The full announcement released by Raro/Minerva is below, including info for the exclusive director's cut.

The restoration of Il Generale Della Rovere was curated by Minerva/Raro Video and the National Cinematheque in collaboration with the National Museum of Cinema and the Historical Archive of Contemporary Arts of the Venice Biennale, for the one hundred year anniversary of Roberto Rossellini's birth. The film was remastered and restored in High Definition by the LVR laboratories in Rome under the technical supervision of Aldo Strappini (Raro Video) and Roberto Taruffi (National Film Archive), with the advice of Adriano Apra and with the contribution of Sergio Bruno.

Original director's cut version: This exclusive Director's Cut version of Il Generale Della Rovere was presented in 2001 by the National Film School and the National Film Archive on the basis of a positive safety print stored by the Historical Archive of Contemporary Arts at the Venice Biennale. This is the version of the film that was screened at the 20th Venice International Film Festival on August 31, 1959. This version is longer than the Theatrical version by a total of six minutes.

Fact 2: The resto was not a small project. In fact, the Minerva Group is one of a few very prominent institutions that was involved with it. So, this isn't a small job that was done only with DVD in mind. The resto was screened at the 63 edition of the Biennale. The parties that are behind it and promoted it are:

La Cineteca Nazionale, Rome, and Minerva/RaroVideo in collaboration with Il Museo Nazionale del Cinema, Turin, and La Biennale di Venezia.

Full program here:
http://www.close-up.it/mostra-internazi ... -programma" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Fact 3. Since Venice, the resto has been screened at numerous prestigious festivals and events, including recently at MoMA's 10TH ANNUAL INTERNATIONAL FESTIVAL OF FILM PRESERVATION - See more at: http://don411.com/entry/moma-s-10th-ann ... oqlXu.dpuf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

All in all, while some may think that it may feel like the film needs to be in 1.66:1, the various organizations and experts involved with the restoration of the film to me guarantee that the director's vision was respected, not the other way around.

Thanks.

[pro-bassoonist]

Are you suggesting that people randomly go around imdb and wikipedia and falsify aspect ratio information for the fun of it (other than people like yourself, I mean )?

And one more point.

I don't know if he is suggesting that, but this is indeed the case. In fact, it is not only the aspect ratios that are frequently wrong. There are entire listings of films that are completely wrong. This is especially true with various Eastern European and Asian films, though I can understand why.

Specifically as far as incorrect aspect ratio info is concerned, just last week/10 days ago I was contacted about one such example. This listing for Maniac Cop 3 was wrong. It had the original aspect ratio as 1.85:1, when it is in fact 2.39:1. (It is still wrong now as there is a pretty major difference between original 2.35:1 ratio and 2.39:1).

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0104808/?ref_=nv_sr_3" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Post:
http://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.php?p ... tcount=114" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thanks.

[EddieLarkin]

I'm aware that Tag only offered his own opinion; he said that himself. I felt vindicated regardless because his opinion commands great respect on these boards, and in this case it is in line with my own, precisely for the same reasons (reasons I was able to conclude almost immediately from studying the caps, as poor a substitute that is of viewing the film entire, in conjunction with consideration of the films production year).

As for your newly listed facts, I can only refer to my earlier comment regarding naivety. I'm sorry if you find that rude, it's just how I see it, there's no offence intended. A case of various cultural institutions, studios, historians, experts or other such important entities, doing everything they can to present a film in the wrong aspect ratio, is not something that is new to me.

In this case I may not have hard proof on the correct aspect ratio one way or the other, but I can provide examples of films that are unquestionably one ratio, yet were presented in a vastly different one for decades by people who should know better. I'm confident that Il Generale is also such a case. Consequently, your facts do not change my belief that this film is correct at 1.66:1.

[tag gallagher]

All in all, while some may think that it may feel like the film needs to be in 1.66:1, the various organizations and experts involved with the restoration of the film to me guarantee that the director's vision was respected, not the other way around.

Similar groupings of institutions occur on virtually every "restoration" to appear from Italy -- including that of INDIA, where the last two minutes have been amputated, and where the resulting abortion was also presented at the Venice Festival. To assume that various organizations and anointed experts guarantee respect for a director's vision is unwarranted.

[pro-bassoonist]

Sure, Tad. But to use the India case to produce a sweeping generalization about professionals and experts as well as institutions that become involved with such projects in Italy is just as unwarranted. Actually, it is unprofessional.

[tag gallagher]

pro-bassonist, I'm demonstrating that your sweeping generalization is unwarranted; I wasn't making one of my own.

[Yaanu]

Maybe that's why Criterion took their edition of the film off the market. Not because of a loss of rights, but because they're preparing a dual-presentation of the film similar to that of "On The Waterfront", presenting the film both in 1.37 and 1.66 ratios.

[TMDaines]

I doubt it somehow. There's not really any debate about the aspect ratio of the film apart from on these forums. It's not as if it has been seen as a hot issue for years with a label now having the chance to finally get it right.

[Saimo]

I am not going to give my guess on the subject, but I think some historical info may help to understand the 1.37:1 choice (right or wrong? I don't know). First of all, there would be nothing unusual in a 1959 Italian film shot in 1.37:1, just have a look at Monicelli's Big Deal on Madonna Street (1958) and Pasolini's Accattone (1961). Also consider that in the 50s many Italian films, when intended for widescreen, were directly masked during shooting or printing, not in projection, so a 1.37:1 positive for a widescreen film (like that preserved from Biennale for Il Generale) would be quite unlikely.

[EddieLarkin]

Also consider that in the 50s many Italian films, when intended for widescreen, were directly masked during filming or printing, not in projection, so a 1.37:1 positive for a widescreen film (like that preserved from Biennale for Il Generale) would be quite unlikely.

What leads you to think this? I find it hard to believe that the mid to late 50s Italian widescreen films would have been hard matted in camera, when surely so many venues in the country and elsewhere in Europe would have still had standard sized screens, meaning these films would have been unplayable in those theaters without the matting being projected. Even in the U.S. and U.K., hard matting did not seem to appear until the late 50s, and did not become a regular thing until well into the 60s, whilst soft matting even then still remained common.

As for Big Deal on Madonna Street, I'm aware there has been debate that it too is a widescreen film, but I personally have never looked into it. A quick look at Monicelli's filmography reveals he had already directed a number of widescreen films prior to Big Deal on Madonna Street, so I imagine this is indeed the case. Accattone I'm happy with at 1.37:1. Perhaps its AR has something to do with the fact it was the first foray into directing for a poet and novelist, and was shot, I imagine anyway, in non-professional conditions. A year later, Pasolini was composing his follow up at 1.85:1.

[Saimo]

What leads you to think this? I find it hard to believe that the mid to late 50s Italian widescreen films would have been hard matted in camera

Just ask Giuseppe Rotunno, who was a camera operator in the 50s and now works on restorations, or read Le notti bianche making-of book (Cappelli, 1957) or Pierluigi Muti's "Il mattatoio del panoramico" ("Cinema Nuovo", 15 dicember 1956). Of course, I am not saying that ALL widescreen films were hard mattered. I also heard from a lab technician that many widescreen Italian films (especially from 60s and 70s), when printed in 1.37:1, often have one single hard mattered shot, usually placed just after the credits, in order to help cinema projectionists choice the correct aspect ratio.

Accattone I'm happy with at 1.37:1. Perhaps its AR has something to do with the fact it was the first foray into directing for a poet and novelist, and was shot, I imagine anyway, in non-professional conditions.

You are completely wrong on the non-professional conditions.

[Saimo]

A quick look at Monicelli's filmography reveals he had already directed a number of widescreen films prior to Big Deal on Madonna Street, so I imagine this is indeed the case.

Not sure where you got your Monicelli filmography, but how you can easy detect on IMDb, his earlier films were 'Scope, not 1.85 or 1.66.

[EddieLarkin]

Not sure where you got your Monicelli filmography, but how you can easy detect on IMDb, his earlier films were 'Scope, not 1.85 or 1.66.

'Scope films count as widescreen, right? My point was only that a director that switches to 'Scope in the mid 50s, is probably more inclined to direct in a widescreen ratio when he's back to using spherical methods. Other than that I unfortunately have nothing else to offer on anything regarding Big Deal on Madonna Street.

You are completely wrong on the non-professional conditions.

I don't doubt that you're correct. I was only theorising. The fact remains that his debut was 1.37:1, whilst his follow up was 1.85:1, a ratio that had already been established in Italy prior to either of his films. Why do you think there is this divergence?

Just ask Giuseppe Rotunno, who was a camera operator in the 50s and now works on restorations, or read Le notti bianche making-of book (Cappelli, 1957) or Pierluigi Muti's "Il mattatoio del panoramico" ("Cinema Nuovo", 15 dicember 1956). Of course, I am not saying that ALL widescreen films were hard mattered. I also heard from a lab technician that many widescreen Italian films (especially from 60s and 70s), when printed in 1.37:1, often have one single hard mattered shot, usually placed just after the credits, in order to help cinema projectionists choice the correct aspect ratio.

Okay, but surely this only suggests that widescreen was more prevalent in Italy than you have previously suggested? If Le notti bianche is hard matted at 1.66:1, what did it play like in the remaining standard screen theaters? Did it play at all? Why hard matte a film at all unless penetration of widescreen in your country is far reaching? The whole point of soft matting was so that cinemas yet to make the change could still project the film with no problems. Hard matting became more common once consideration for those cinemas became less necessary.

[manicsounds]

I think the aspect ratio is not the problem with this Raro release. The bigger issue is the raggedy edges of the frame being visible, and the windowboxing.

[swo17]

Maybe that's why Criterion took their edition of the film off the market. Not because of a loss of rights, but because they're preparing a dual-presentation of the film similar to that of "On The Waterfront", presenting the film both in 1.37 and 1.66 ratios.

Are you calling Jon Mulvaney a liar?