Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Schindler's List coming to DVD

This is topic Schindler's List coming to DVD in forum The Afterlife at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=12;t=000232

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 12-09-2003, 12:35 PM:

It was just announced from MCA that "Schindler's List" will be released on DVD on March 9th. 2004. It will be available in an Widescreen and Full Screen Versions and a Special Collector's Box Edition.

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 12-09-2003, 12:47 PM:

Any idea why it has taken so long? It was available on Laserdisc years ago.

Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 12-09-2003, 01:45 PM:

Fool screen edition??? Why not put out a colorized version while they're at it??

Posted by Rich Ferrando (Member # 2056) on 12-09-2003, 04:39 PM:

Full-screen editions will probably remain until everybody in the world has 16:9 televisions, unfortunately. Since "Schindler's" was shot 1.33 and cropped on projection, you're "technically" getting more image, but... who cares??!!! I want to see it the way it was in theatres! The way it's SUPPOSED to be!

Kind of like how there's no Widescreen DVD releases of "The Sting" or "The Secret of NIMH." Fullscreen DVD, yes. Widescreen, no - and no plans to release them either.

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 12-09-2003, 10:05 PM:

It was filmed 1.85 not 1.33

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-10-2003, 01:19 AM:

I wonder if the DVD will feature a DTS track, or perhaps even be retooled to have a EX 5.1 or ES 6.1 discrete track. The question is raised since "E.T." got the DD-EX treatment. The movie broke a long running string of Best Picture Oscar winners featuring a Dolby-branded audio track on the film print (the release print had DTS timecode and the "DTS Stereo" optical track.

Anyone remember those ads from Dolby that ran in magazines like Premiere that listed Best Picture or Best Sound winners starting with "Star Wars"?

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 12-10-2003, 03:50 AM:

I don't know about the actual prints, but on the trailer there were two (I think) scenes which were hard-matted, but the others were all printed full frame. I don't know why, not digital, as far as I know.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 12-10-2003, 11:11 AM:

quote:
Since "Schindler's" was shot 1.33 and cropped on projection, you're "technically" getting more image...

Unless they started with the already cropped 1:1.85 frame and then panned and scanned that to Academy, in which case you're technically getting one hell of a lot less (relative to the camera aperture).

quote:
...but the others were all printed full frame. I don't know why, not digital, as far as I know.

Studio cameras don't have aperture plates in them like projectors do and will therefore expose a full-height frame. Release prints are generally made from an internegative by continuous contact printing, which cannot apply a hard matte. Unless a previous generation (e.g. cut camera neg to interpos, or interpos to interneg) was step printed, the full height frame would survive being printed through all four generations from o-neg to release print, leaving the projector's aperture plate as the last line of defence against showing part of the frame which the cinematographer doesn't want the audience to see.

Personally I think they should step contact print from camera neg to interpos with a mask of the correct ratio, as that would eliminate any possibility of a projection cock-up. Given that the source and destination film stocks are still being placed in physical contact with each other, I can't see that this would have any adverse effect on image quality, but there must be some reason why this isn't normally done.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 12-10-2003, 11:49 AM:

Leo wrote:

quote:
Personally I think they should step contact print from camera neg to interpos with a mask of the correct ratio, as that would eliminate any possibility of a projection cock-up.

A hard matte would normally be added at the master positive to duplicate negative printing stage by using a pin-registered step (optical or contact) printer with the appropriate aperture. Step printing the camera negative would result in CLEAR framelines in the final print. Standard SMPTE 195 recommends that a full frame aperture be used in the camera, and the hard matte be introduced during duplication (Annex A.4 and A.5).

Optimum steadiness and sharpness requires printing the short pitch (BH-1866) camera negative onto long pitch (DH-1870) intermediate film on a continuous contact printer to make the master positive. The long pitch master positive would then be printed on a pin-registered step printer to make a short pitch (BH-1866) duplicate negative. The short pitch duplicate negative can then be printed to long pitch (KS-1870) print film on a high speed continuous contact printer to make the release prints. Printing short pitch originals to short pitch raw stock on a continuous contact printer results in printer slippage and possible unsteadiness and loss of sharpness.

If "digital intermediate" is used, the full length duplicate negatives would be made on short pitch (BH-1866) stock.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 12-10-2003, 01:53 PM:

quote:
Step printing the camera negative would result in CLEAR framelines in the final print.

Which is why I'd introduce the matte at that stage. If the wrong plate and/or lens was used in projection, the blaring white light above and below the picture would alert even the most technophobic customer to the fact that something was wrong, and thereby shame the theatre into getting it right.

Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 12-10-2003, 03:27 PM:

The black-and-white scenes were shot hard-matted. Only the color footage at the beginning and end was shot 'full frame'.

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 12-10-2003, 04:15 PM:

I did run the film, just one show, but I don't remember if the print was hard matted. The trailer, at least the print of it that I had was all black and white, on Agfa black and white stock, and all but two, or possibly three, shots were full frame. Those few shots were very tightly hard-matted, with the image extending only slightly beyond a 1.85 aperture. That was what seemed odd to me, that a few shots should be hard-matted, when the rest were not.

Posted by Rich Ferrando (Member # 2056) on 12-11-2003, 12:58 AM:

Perhaps they mixed-and-matched the two, because several years ago I witnessed a comparison of a few scenes between the widescreen and full-frame VHS versions of the film (from someone who was complaining about the widescreen version just being a "cropped" copy of the full-frame version) and the widescreen version was cropped in those scenes. If I'm not mistaken one of the comparisons was with the scene where Ralph Fiennes is being driven down the street in a convertible with the top down in the winter. The full-frame version was definitely not panned and scanned in that case.

I could be remembering this wrong - it has been several years - but I'm fairly sure that this is the case, at least in the few portions being compared. Is it possible that the VHS transfers were made from a print prior to being hard-matted, or that the transfer was a mish-mash of full frame and hard matte?

quote:
That was what seemed odd to me, that a few shots should be hard-matted, when the rest were not.

We had a similar situation recently with a trailer for "The Cooler." We were playing it in front of "Elephant," which was 1.33, and most of the trailer was hard matted, but about 1/4 of it (including the MPAA Green Preview header) was full-frame. My only guess to the reason for this was that they hard-matted certain portions to cover up something, like a visible boom in the shot, just for situations where the trailer might be projected with a 1.33 or 1.66 lens - but didn't matte the whole thing because of time constraints maybe? I don't know what the situation was that garnered only matting part of it, but it was very weird to see that matting pop on and off during the trailer.

Incidentally, the Landmark "Cooler Sweepstakes" trailer was fully hard-matted. Very weird.

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 12-11-2003, 04:21 AM:

huh. we also played the cooler trailer in front of elephant, but i don't remember that happening. i guess i never sat through the whole thing on that print. between that and the landmark promo version i'm getting pretty sick of it.

carl

Posted by Tao Yue (Member # 836) on 12-11-2003, 10:53 AM:

Leo wrote:

quote:
Which is why I'd introduce the matte at that stage. If the wrong plate and/or lens was used in projection, the blaring white light above and below the picture would alert even the most technophobic customer to the fact that something was wrong, and thereby shame the theatre into getting it right.

What would that do to, say, 1.75 hard mattes? Wouldn't be able to run with 1.66 plates anymore, since the clear framelines will show through even on masking. Very annoying for dark scenes, and sometimes you don't have the luxury of cutting a new plate before the show.

Clear framelines on intended-aspect-ratio hard mattes reduce the freedom to improvise in unusual or nonideal situations. In-camera mattes don't have clear framelines anyway (unless you step-print those to get a clear frameline?).

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 12-11-2003, 11:07 AM:

The other concern I would have with clear "hard matte" framelines would be added optical flare if some light piped through the clear film into the lens. In other words, even if you framed perfectly and didn't show the clear frameline, you might see some light "sneak" into the optical system, especially in dark scenes.

I do agree with Leo that misframing with clear hard matte framelines would be obvious to anyone. [Eek!]

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 12-11-2003, 11:21 AM:

quote:
Clear framelines on intended-aspect-ratio hard mattes reduce the freedom to improvise in unusual or nonideal situations.

It also reduces the onscreen constrast caused by extra light getting through the clear frame lines and making its way aound the aperture plate... especially when using new high quality lenses.

edit: Looks like John beat me to it. [Smile]

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 12-11-2003, 01:32 PM:

quote:
We had a similar situation recently with a trailer for "The Cooler." We were playing it in front of "Elephant," which was 1.33, and most of the trailer was hard matted, but about 1/4 of it (including the MPAA Green Preview header) was full-frame. My only guess to the reason for this was that they hard-matted certain portions to cover up something, like a visible boom in the shot, just for situations where the trailer might be projected with a 1.33 or 1.66 lens - but didn't matte the whole thing because of time constraints maybe? I don't know what the situation was that garnered only matting part of it, but it was very weird to see that matting pop on and off during the trailer.

Wasn't The Cooler shot in Super 35 and released with scope prints? As for the visible hard mattes in the trailer, it is possible the film was shot with multiple cameras with some but not all using a hard matte during photography.

I once worked at a theatre where every screen in the complex was set up differently. For example, one auditorium in particular had a screen with a ratio closer to 1.66:1 than 1.85:1, without any moveable masking. So any time a 1.85:1 hard matted print (trailer or feature) would be screened, even perfect framing would reveal the matte to the viewer.

Most of the release prints I can recall handling that were hard matted seemed to be matted in the 1.66:1 to 1.75:1 range, but every now and then something around 1.85:1 would surface (like Dick Tracy and The Naked Gun). I begged for these not to be shown on the 1.66:1 screen, but the managers wouldn't listen.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 12-11-2003, 01:52 PM:

Annex A.4 of standard SMPTE 195 specifies that a print with a hard matte should have an image height of at least 0.505 inches (12.83mm) for all Style A prints having an aspect ratio of 1.66:1 or greater. It also specifies "the framelines on the print shall essentially be opaque".

Posted by Rich Ferrando (Member # 2056) on 12-11-2003, 03:07 PM:

quote:
Wasn't The Cooler shot in Super 35 and released with scope prints?

I don't know - we haven't gotten the print of the film yet (next week, I believe), but the scope prints of the trailer are 1.85 with that extra black on both sides. Same with the Sweepstakes trailer.

Posted by Charles Everett (Member # 889) on 12-11-2003, 05:10 PM:

quote:
Fool screen edition??? Why not put out a colorized version while they're at it??

Maybe we can get Ted Turner to help out with the colorized edition. [Big Grin]

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 12-11-2003, 06:33 PM:

my flaky memory is that the scope cooler trailer uses the full scope frame. could be wrong. the imdb says it's a scope film. also says it was edited to avoid an nc-17 rating. (die, valenti, die!) maybe that consisted in changing it to scope to frame out people's "naughty bits".

carl

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 12-11-2003, 07:15 PM:

quote:
the imdb says it's a scope film.also says it was edited to avoid an nc-17 rating. (die, valenti, die!) maybe that consisted in changing it to scope to frame out people's "naughty bits".

The IMDB, in typical fashion with technical data, is incorrect. The Cooler has been listed for months as a scope release (from Super 35 origination) in the "CinemaScope and other Widescreen Processes Filmography" -- which I compile and maintain -- on Widescreen Review's subscriber-based Web site. As well, ICG magazine identified it as a Super 35 production with scope composition in a recent article.

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 12-12-2003, 07:03 PM:

but so then the imdb was right in this instance. the bit about changing formats was just tongue-in-cheek speculation on my part.

carl

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 12-15-2003, 11:18 PM:

quote:
but so then the imdb was right in this instance.

No, the IMDB is not correct in this instance since they listed the cinematographic process as "Panavision," implying anamorphic origination. (It has been established already that The Cooler was not shot in anamorphic.)

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 12-16-2003, 01:51 AM:

John, what's a Style A print?

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 12-16-2003, 03:10 PM:

From standard SMPTE 195:

"Style A: General theatrical release prints commonly referred to as nonanamorphic or wide screen".

"Style B: Theatrical release prints with an anamorphic image"

"Style C: Classic theatrical prints" ("Academy" aperture)

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 01-02-2004, 01:25 PM:

quote:
It was just announced from [Universal] that "Schindler's List" will be released on DVD on March 9th, 2004. It will be available in Widescreen and Full Screen Versions and a Special Collector's Box Edition.

quote:
I wonder if the DVD will feature a DTS track, or perhaps even be retooled to have a EX 5.1 or ES 6.1 discrete track.

The latest info I have is that the DVDs will feature both Dolby Digital and DTS tracks (standard 5.1, not retooled for EX or 6.1 DTS-ES).

The basic editions have a $26.98 SRP. I'm not sure yet what extra material will be included in the $79.98 gift set version.