quote: Stephen Furley

---

So what exactly are these tracks? are they traditional mono tracks, or Dolby SR, or 'A' type, where both trcks contain identical modulation? How should they be played, Academy filter in or out, Dolby NR on or off, centre caannel only, with decoder in, so there is some leakage of signal into L and R, or same signal sent to all three channels? Does this apply to all of his films?

---

quote: Mathew Molloy

---

Woody Allen's films are mono - but are to be played with appropriate Dolby noise reduction when applicable.

---

quote: Mathew Molloy

---

Don't forget that at one time Lucas (that crazy ol' coot) felt the Mono mix of the original release of Star Wars was the superior mix.

---

quote:

---

Variations in the soundtrack presentations of “Star Wars” can be traced to the multiple mixes that were prepared to accommodate the different formats in which the movie would be released:

1) 35mm stereo (optical, two-track/four-channel)
2) 35mm stereo (magnetic, four-track)
3) 70mm stereo (magnetic, six-track)
4) 35mm mono (optical)

The sound editing and re-recording team began by preparing a four-track master mix (Left-Center-Right-Surround) which would serve as the basis for both the 35mm and 70mm stereo versions. First, the master mix was dubbed to a matrix-encoded two-track Lt-Rt (Left total-Right total) printmaster for use in creating the 35mm Dolby Stereo prints. Then, the same four-track master, with some enhancements added, was used to create the six-track version. In comparison to the 35mm Dolby Stereo version, the Six-Track Dolby Stereo version during playback offered discrete channels, greater clarity, superior dynamic range, and two extra channels for special low-frequency enhancement, in what the Dolby folks affectionately called “baby boom.” After completing the multichannel versions, the soundtrack crew created another English-language mix: a monaural mix. This would be included on prints destined for theatres not equipped with a stereophonic sound system and for versions prepared for ancillary markets. The mono prints were put into circulation upon the wide national break in June 1977.

Although the 35mm Dolby Stereo process is mono-compatible, at the time those involved with the new technology were, for both technical and aesthetic reasons, concerned about the effectiveness of mono playback from a stereo-encoded print. For similar reasons, a decision was made not to create the mono master by means of dubbing the stereo master and folding the multiple tracks into one. Instead, a new dedicated mono mix was created.

With each subsequent mix, the filmmakers seized opportunities to revise and enhance selected portions of the soundtrack where they had felt rushed or shortchanged creatively. Sound Designer Ben Burtt recalls: “Because we were always trying to make the film better and better and fix things that were not right, there were some sweetener tracks added; things like different C-3PO or Stormtrooper lines [‘Close the blast doors’], additional sound effects, or some different ADR [the dialogue of Aunt Beru].” Knowing that multiple mixes were made containing subtle yet detectable differences help explain conflicting memories of moviegoers who remember hearing a certain sound effect or line of dialogue in one presentation but not in another.

It may be difficult to comprehend today as most major film releases on DVD sport a 5.1-channel digital soundtrack, but at the time, not knowing what the future would hold in terms of widespread adoption of multichannel sound in movie theatres and in homes, some members of the production felt the mono mix represented the definitive soundtrack of “Star Wars.” They felt that the stereo version was a novelty that selected audiences would be treated to only during a brief theatrical run. “George put a lot of effort in that mono mix,” Burtt remembers. “And he even said several times, ‘Well, this is the real mix. This is the definitive mix of the film.’ He paid more attention to it because he felt it was more important archivally.”

---

quote: Frank Angel

---

Mono compatible maybe, i.e., both Lt and Rt being folded together by virtue of the single pickup cell, but certainly not NR encoded compatible, in that they could be played on equipment with no compensating A decoding. At the time I was working in a recording studio and let me tell you, playing back a tape with recorded with Dolby A encoded NR without the corresponding NR decoding, well, even to a partially deaf person, it is anything but compatable.

---

quote: Brad Miller

---

Yes, Woody Allen is fucked in the head in regards to audio.

---

quote: Ron Curran

---

Leo, I never got the opportunity to see the 70mm restoration of Vertigo but I thought it had a stereo track. Damn! A mono track would be an insult to Bernard.

---

For the 1997 restoration, the entire audio was remixed. Three-track audio elements from the music sessions were used, some Foley was entirely rerecorded, and dialogue and other parts were lifted from a variety of surviving elements.

Nothing like the resulting 5.1 mix was ever shown when the film was originally released, which is a controversial aspect of that restoration. Those who support it (Robert Harris, who did the restoration, occasionally posts here and so I hope I'm summarising the argument accurately!) claim that it's making the film accessible to a new generation of audiences, that the music recordings used are original and that the restoration wouldn't have been economically viable without the end result being stereo. They'd also add that the original mono mix has been preserved, and is therefore available for researchers or purists to hear if they want to (though I'd have liked to see it included on the DVD release, etc.).

Those who have a problem with it argue that the new mix is radically different from the version that was originally shown, that Hitchcock wouldn't have wanted it and that in effect, we're seeing a fundamentally different film.
 

---

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 08-21-2006, 05:34 AM:
 
Putting both an original mono track and a re-mixed stereo one on a DVD seems to be quite rare; I've only got one, 'A Clocktower Orange' I don't know why it's not done more often; a mono AC-3, or MPEG layer 2, track doesn't use a great deal of data, and there's often enough space on the diskc that it could have been done. The mono track on ACO does seem to sound better on my mono television than the stereo one (in mono).

The 70mm release of 'Vertigo' was DTS, wasn't it, so it would be possible to play either version with any print, if suitable discs were made available. The problem with doing that at a cinema is, of course, that whichever version you play there will be some of the audience who will not like it.
 

---

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 08-21-2006, 09:46 AM:
 
Leo, VERTIGO's original mono track is finally available on the disc in the Alfred Hitchcock: The Masterpiece Collection box set
 

---

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 08-21-2006, 09:54 AM:
 
The other major criticism of the Harris version of Vertigo is that they hard matted the prints (and DVD's) to 1.85, thereby making it impossible for those theatres that could, to play it in the proper aspect ratio of 1.66.
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 08-21-2006, 10:12 AM:
 
And THAT makes no sense at all (I run lots of foreign prints that are 1.66 and I have really become a fan of the 1.66 format). To purposely hard-matte at 1.85 seems arbitary and unnessary. But I am also a major fan of Robert Harris without whom we would be deprived of so many classics -- there must have been a rational for the 1.85 choice; it would be interesting to hear it.

As for the stereo remix, if the stereo music tracks exist, I can hardly see how using them could negatively impact the experience. Foley manipulations, additions, localization, I could see how perhaps that could color the experience, but with due respect to Mr. Hitchcock, these changes certainly couldn't be construed to make it a different movie. Wind in stereo as opposed to wind coming from a single center point surely isn't going to make the film less tense; localizing footsteps to match the screen image isn't going to change the feel of a scene significantly. Sometimes purists need to get a freakin grip.
 

---

Posted by Ron Curran (Member # 3631) on 08-21-2006, 06:36 PM:
 
Mitchell, according to the American Widescreen Museum, VistaVision aspect ratio was formally 1.85, though 1.66 was acceptable, as that was the popular European ratio.
 

---

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 08-21-2006, 07:45 PM:
 
This may explain the UKs and Europe's 1.66 obsession. Then again probably not

When I worked in London years ago I was supried that 1.66 was often bigger than 1.85 due to 70mm being the biggest screen ratio. Ie movable top and side masking. so that 1.66 used the same lens as 1.85. only different apature plate and top masking up. Here in Australia the few cinemas capable, tend to have a different lens, smaller image with common hight.

What is the usual for 1.66 presentation in America? Is the UK any different now?
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 08-21-2006, 11:06 PM:
 

quote:

---

The other major criticism of the Harris version of Vertigo is that they hard matted the prints to 1.85

---

quote:

---

To purposely hard-matte at 1.85 seems arbitary and unnessary. there must have been a rational for the 1.85 choice

---

quote: Michael Coate

---

The answer to the former question is simple since the restoration work was done in 65mm and so the 35mm prints were reductions from that.

---

quote: Ron Curran

---

according to the American Widescreen Museum, VistaVision aspect ratio was formally 1.85, though 1.66 was acceptable

---

quote: Stephen Furley

---

a 65mm frame doesn't have an AR of 1.85, does it?

---

quote: Michael Coate

---

In addition to the new stereo tracks, didn't you tell me the Kubrick Estate asked that you project all of the flat films during the retrospective at 1.75:1?

---

Before Hollywood latched on to cropped wide screen at 1.85, many resisted the move because of the degredation it intaled and there was a good five to ten years where 1.85 was not king....not the only cropped ratio out there. Spherical cropped wide screen was quite variable, with the existing theatre geography playing a lot more of a role in the screen aspect ratio than the intention of the filmmaker. And everyone recognized this.

Disney technicians in particular rightfully thought that the decreased rez due to the extra magnification of cropped 1.85 and the smaller film geography being used to say nothing of the loss of light, held that that much cropping was just unacceptable and they held out for 1.75/1, so 1.75 wasn't at all some freakish odd ratio. It was around for quite some time in that transition period. And of course the European cinematographers thought that even 1.75 was to big of a concession to reduced quality; they just stayed with 1.66 even to the present.

And don't be fooled even by people who should know better who talk about those title from the 60s as all being 1.85 when indeed not all were. As an example, Miramax was forever claiming that their imports like CINEMA PARADISO were 1.85. WRONG! Yah, maybe when the prints got to the USA, Miramax had the SUBTITLES etched so that they wouldn't drop out if the film were projected 1.85, and they would list the title as 1/85 -- yeah, the SUBTITLES, but the IMAGE sure as hell wasn't. Anyone with with half a brain could see that at 1.85 heads were being cut off. Even the IMDB and the studios own claims on the liner notes are often wrong, claiming 1.85 when at the time of the release, the film was released with a maximim crop stated (usually 1.85:1 or even 2:1), and a minimum crop stated (usually 5:1 or 1.66:1). Those were printed right on the reel bands. So my point is, there was a long period, nearly a decade I would say, where first run, flagship theatres were running films what they called wide screen but at 1.75 or 1.66:1 and now those same films are claimed to be 1.85:1 (usually by people too young to know anything other than 'scope and the flat, and were someone told them that flat is 1.85:1.

And an ironic note, Disney, the company that stood up for holding out for quality, has now done complete reversal -- Disney actually releases their classics doing all kinds of shenannegans. I wanted to play CINDERELLA and all they would give me was one of those vertically scanned prints where they have a hard matted 1.85 image of the original 1/37, and they frame the image up and down as need be, i.e., the vertical equivalent of Pan & Scan. WHAT A FREAKIN ABORTION. Walt would be turning over in his chryonics tank. We begged and pleaded saying we were completely equipped to play it correctly full-frame 1.37 AS IT WAS SHOT, but nope -- it was their scanned afterbirth that was all they would send us -- so much for the integrity of a "timeless Disney classic."

And how's this for bizarre: When they released BEAUTY AND THE BEAST, it also was hard matted at 1.85. OK I thought, it's a modern title, they obviously filmed it at 1.85. Oh contraire.....what they ACTUALLY did was, they shot it full frame at 1.37 for the all important HOME VIDEO/TV/CABLE/BROADCAST TV release. But then what to do for the theatres? For us they simply did some truly severe cropping of what obvously was a full frame original (you can see the original 1.37 verson on Laserdisc), and then again did that vertically SCANNED thing to keep stuff in frame. Unfortunately there is lots of fast movement and it become painfully obvious that there was no way to keep what needed to be seen in frame. The result of this Scanned and "Tilted" process was a theatrical release where shot after shot looked and felt disturbingly chlostrophobic; you always feel like something is not where but is just out of frame. In the 1.37 video version however, it looked demonstrably better....it had the "feel" of a well composed film.

So here is Disney favoring the video release over the theatrical. They decided to make the video look right over what is shown in the theatres; I guess it's the sign of the times -- they must think they know where their bread is buttered.

If it were the other way around, i.e., if they had designed the shots for 1.85 but shot if full frame, then the VIDEO would have looked wrong, with too much headroom and "feet room," but no -- it was the 1.85 theatrical that had heads obviously cut off and chins dropping below the screen all through the film. Just play them both together and you will see what I mean. And if they knew damn well that film design was to make the 1.37 look "right," then at least strike a few full frame prints so the specialty houses like ours could play it correctly.


[ 08-25-2006, 05:03 PM: Message edited by: Frank Angel ]
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 08-25-2006, 11:10 AM:
 
I donated a pamphlet "A Statement from Paramount About VistaVision" to Marty Hart's "American Widescreen Museum":

http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/vvbook.htm

Lot of discussion about aspect ratio:

quote:

---

VistaVision is a FLEXIBLE SYSTEM and it is a COMPATIBLE SYSTEM. As explained later in this booklet, the picture can play in any aspect ratio from 1.33/1 through 1.66/1, 1.85/1 up to 2/1. It plays best in ratios close to 1.85/1. There is one point on which Paramount is emphatic. Paramount pictures are not to be played in an aspect ratio greater than 2/1.

---

quote:

---

The finders on the VistaVision cameras carry a hairline framing marking in the aspect ratio of 1.66/1. There will also be a frame line marking for the 1.33/1 aspect ratio. The cameramen are instructed to compose for a loose (meaning adequate head-room) 1.66/1 picture. A picture composed in this way will play equally good at 1.85/1, it will play very satisfactorily at 2/1 and it can be played at the old standard of 1.33/1.

---

quote:

---

As a further recommendation in this regard, it is our belief that in the very large theaters they should install screens capable of accepting the aspect ratio of 1.85/1, unless the sight line for seats at the back of the main floor is limited by a low hanging balcony. In this case the theater may elect to install a screen in the ratio of 2/1. This is the only limitation that should force the theater into an aspect ratio as high as 2/1. In theaters where the screen width is limited to under 30 feet, and where there is adequate height, we recommend a screen aspect ratio of 1 66/1, reducing the height only when necessary for good viewing.

One of the objectives of VistaVision is to FILL THE SCREEN. VistaVision is a flexible system and allows adequate latitude for filling the screen. In the preceding paragraphs we have named specific aspect ratios. However, the theaters should vary from these defined ratios as required to fill the screen.

---

quote:

---

With respect to the sub-title foreign release, it is the writer's earnest recommendation that all theaters that exhibit sub-titled pictures use an aspect ratio of 1.66/1 or 1.33/1. Wherever possible, they should avoid 1.85/1 and 2/1.

---