laureatedvd.com

[Colin]

Ken,

Why was Charade not released as an Anamorphic DVD? I bought this and was looking forward to it as it said widescreen on the cover. Like this website, the cover notes explain anamorphic and I really was expecting to see this fill the screen on my new widescreen TV. What I get is a small letterboxed picture in the middle of the screen, which (by your own literature) loses 33% of the vertical resolution. I really notice the drop in resolution when I zoom into the picture to fill the screen. As DVD is in it's infancy I shall not be wasting any more of my money on non-anamorphic discs (except where the film was originally shot in a 4:3 ratio) no matter how much I want to see the film. One day all widescreen DVDs will be anamorphic, why wait? - do it now!

[Ken Barnes]

Dear Colin,
Thanks for getting in touch. I fully appreciate everything you say about mastering in anamorphic. Had CHARADE been shot in 2.35:1 we would have mastered it anamorphically. But the aspect ratio being 1.85:1 offered a picture that is very nearly suitable to the average 16.9 wide screen that it was decided to master it in its original form.

I have a 52" Pioneer widescreen and I find that CHARADE performs well in the Cinema Wide mode with just minor black bars top and bottom. Putting it into 4.3 and then zooming in is one way of filling the screen but, of course, you're bound to lose quality and height.

While I know your opinion is very sincerely registered, I can only express regret that we have failed you in this instance. But we get so many requests urging us to respect the original aspects of films - and that's why we made this decision.

However - and this is where I hope you will feel appeased - we have decided that all future 2.35 widescreen releases will be mastered anamorphically. 1.85:1 releases will be enhanced for 16.9 The point being that nothing will be lost in terms of picture and people like yourself will be catered for at the same time. So I hope you'll stay with the Laureate Collection. In our next batch of releases, we are doing the first widescreen version of the 1954 SUDDENLY starring Frank Sinatra.This will come in 16.9 which should be perfect for your purposes.

I do thank you for your support and I trust you will continue to enjoy CHARADE for the many pleasures it offers.

Your opinion is valuable to us - so if you have any further comments or requests, please don't hesitate to get in touch.

Kind regards
Ken Barnes

I'm happy to tell you that CHARADE has performed very successfully and, while we've had a couple of complaints about the presentation, by and large everyone seems delighted that we did it.

[Colin]

Hi Ken,
I just re-read the web-site's technical page and your previous reply and I am still a little puzzled.
Could you explain the difference between 'anamorphic' (which I understand) and 'enhanced for widescreen TV' (which I thought was the same thing) with regards to storing the picture on a DVD. I was under the impression that currently DVD players can only output a 4:3 picture (whether it's contents are anamorphic, letterboxed or full frame) and that it is the TV's job to zoom in or horizontally stretch the picture as the viewer sees fit.
I applaud your decision to produce films in their original aspect ratio, the days of pan and scan are hopefully over for good.

regards,
Colin.

[Ken Barnes]

Hello, Colin,

You are right - anamorphic & 16.9 enhanced are the same thing. It was my choice of phrases that confused you. But it's not true that all DVD players output nothing but a 4.3 image ( most players offer a choice of aspect ratios - check your manual and you may find a page devoted to this feature ). All widescreen TVs - more of which are being sold these days - offer a choice of screen preferences such as Cinema Wide - Natural Wide - 4.3 Normal ( with bars down each side ) - Full ( which I don't like at all ) and Zoom ( Auto On or Auto Off ). If your TV is set to AUTO ON, it will make the choice for you and it can be frustrating to see the screen change shape at will. If you must use the Zoom, I would suggest you keep it in the AUTO OFF position.

But, as I said before, CHARADE performs fine on my set in the Cinema Wide position. If you have an equivalent setting on your Widescreen TV perhaps you would like to try this and let me know the outcome.

I hope this goes some way towards solving your problem.
Best wishes. Ken B.

[Colin]

Hi Ken,

You asked me to let you know what I found, so here goes...

This Charade DVD is a non-anamorphic disc and is a 16:9 letterboxed version i.e. it is stored on the disc as a 4:3 picture with black bars top and bottom. Several web site reviews and friends players (some expensive) confirm this. So it is not enhanced for widescreen TVs (sadly) and also means that some horizontal resolution is lost when viewing full-screen on a widescreen TV. Although you say it performs fine, I like to think of non-anamorphic discs as mono records in an age of stereo. Were an anamorphic version available it would certainly be my choice. Though the picture is better than the VHS widescreen it could be even better still.

Secondly, any film filmed in a 16:9 ratio or above (i.e. 1.78, 1.85, 2.35 etc.) will benefit from being transferred onto DVD in an anamorphic manner. There will be 33% more horizontal resolution on a widescreen TV. Those viewing on a 4:3 TV set will have their DVD player set accordingly and will see a widescreen image with black bars top and bottom. Several years from now the 4:3 set will be phased out as BBC and ITV move over to digital transmission and widescreen broadcasting, so I don't see the sense in catering for today's lowest technology with a format that will last a lifetime. After all, nobody produces a mono DVD from a stereo source just because people might still be using mono 4:3 TV sets.

Interestingly enough, My Fair Lady (an anamorphic DVD) has a much finer TV image despite its higher picture ratio, around 2.20:1 (I realise it was a 70mm negative). Another 1.85:1 film, Get Carter, was recently released as an anamorphic widescreen disc and I must say that compared to Charade its picture quality is fantastic (I am talking about TV picture quality here, as I realise there will be differences in the prints and negatives).

So having looked at the numerous versions on DVD of this film, why has it only ever been released as pan and scan, and letterboxed ? Does it actually cost extra to produce an anamorphic disc ? I wish I knew, it's a good film and deserves better.
Ken, I hope you will reconsider and extend your anamorphic policy to any 1.78 and 1.85 films you acquire. Congratulations on this worthwhile endeavour, I hope you continue to release more of my favourite films.

[Ken Barnes]

Hi, Colin,
Thanks for your last e-mail - and my apologies for not replying sooner. Right now, I'm up to my eyes in production work - we're doing some mini-documentaries to go along with our next batch of releases and this has kept me busy non-stop for the last ten days.

Firstly, let me say right away that your point about doing all widescreen pictures in anamorphic( regardless of aspect ratio variations )is the most sensible criticism I have ever received.

Our first batch of releases taught us several lessons - and from now on, we are going to offer only the best possible prints. If the quality falls below a certain level, we will not release the film. In the case of CHARADE, we used an original 1963 release print which we all felt was in pretty good shape. If the DVD version seems a little over-enhanced at times, this is entirely my fault. The 38 year-old picture had faded somewhat and, not having access to the negative, I wanted to bring out the full colour of Audrey Hepburn's costumes and to get the best from Charles Lang's photography. The cost of bringing these colours to their full value does tend to create a small amount of "aliasing" - noticeable only on things like car-trims and window frames. By and large,however, I think we gave you the best possible rendering of this fine film - something which, I'm sure has met with the approval of the thousands of people who have bought it.

Anyway, you may rest assured that we will do our very best in the future to satisfy your requirements. As you must know by now, your opinion is of great value to us and is much appreciated.

Thanks, Colin, for your custom and for your kind interest.

Regards
Ken Barnes