Criterion: Cropping & Original Aspect Ratios

[denti alligator]

Why do so many Criterions have a problem with cropping? Why would those responsible for transferring these films allow portions of the image to be cut off?

There seems to be a total disregard for the impact of cropping 5-8% off the sides of a print. I've noticed this in the best theatres in New York City, of all places, where films are consistently projected so that part of the image falls off of the screen. So frustrating, even in places like the Film Forum (for the recent Naruse festival, for example). I just don't understand why this happens.

Gary at dvdbeaver speculates:

The complaint with the Criterion will be their own framing of Bresson's image. There appears to be haphazard and inconsistent cropping of the image mostly on the top and right edge. For years I have stated that this MUST be an occurrence of the Criterion digitization/restoration process but I have no conclusive evidence to support my theory. It happens on virtually all Criterion DVDs that we compare - it is probably a combination of zooming and slight pan + scanning.

Is this theory tenable? Any others?

[bunuelian]

Slight zooming does seem evident, but P&S also? Accusing CC of P&S is like accusing a Bishop of having sex with little boys . . . do we need to set up commissions? Codes of silence?

[Gregory]

This is a serious problem that does impact the compositions at times, even more so when it is further compounded by TV overscan. I don't have overscan to worry about, so I try not to let the cropping prevent me from enjoying what Criterion does. However, their cropping was one of the factors that led me to buy MoC's Onibaba release when I already own the Criterion. I also sold my copies of Sanjuro, Yojimbo, and a few others when I realized how egregious the cropping on those titles was. If they're not reissued in superior editions I'll probably buy them from some other region.
One of the most frustrating things is Criterion's unwillingness to recognize this ongoing problem. When Onibaba came out I e-mailed Jon Mulvaney, listing several examples and asking politely for an explanation. I received a reply saying they had no idea what cropping or missing information I was talking about and could I please explain further what I meant. I wrote back providing further detail, citing for example the shot in Notorious where the side of Ingrid Bergman's is cut off in their transfer but not in Anchor Bay's (see here.)
I received no reply whatsoever to my follow-up.

[Andre Jurieu]

There seems to be a total disregard for the impact of cropping 5-8% off the sides of a print. I've noticed this in the best theatres in New York City, of all places, where films are consistently projected so that part of the image falls off of the screen. So frustrating, even in places like the Film Forum (for the recent Naruse festival, for example). I just don't understand why this happens.

I'm no expert on this, but based on what I've read, I do believe that in some cases that 5-8% (I have no idea how that percentage was estimated) that falls outside the screen in theatres is actually not supposed to be projected onto the screen. I'm sure sometimes the operators frame incorrectly (hence we see boom-microphones above actor's heads), but usually the extra portions on the sides aren't actually required to be part of the image on screen. This appears to be the general practice, because I've constantly noticed this happen ever since I was a child.

[denti alligator]

So then who's to decide how much of the original negative is supposed to be seen? This may be why there are discrepancies between DVD editions of some of our favorite films. Maybe Criterion's cropping is in some cases not cropping--maybe the other DVDs someone like Gary is comparing them to show too much of the image. But how is one to know? I guess we decide in terms of what looks good, right? I mean, Ingrid Bergman's head should be there in its interity.

[Tribe]

I'm no expert on this, but based on what I've read, I do believe that in some cases that 5-8% (I have no idea how that percentage was estimated) that falls outside the screen in theatres is actually not supposed to be projected onto the screen. I'm sure sometimes the operators frame incorrectly (hence we see boom-microphones above actor's heads), but usually the extra portions on the sides aren't actually required to be part of the image on screen. This appears to be the general practice, because I've constantly noticed this happen ever since I was a child.

I've always wondered about this myself. Yet, I still hear the often times self-righteous cries regarding how Criterion crops the image (not in this thread, mind you...). Still, isn't it the nature of the medium that not every last bit of image captured on film is going to be actually seen?

[Andre Jurieu]

So then who's to decide how much of the original negative is supposed to be seen?

Well, I assume that for the purposes of screening within a theatre, most filmmakers are cognizant of the slight amount of their image that will be missed and the construct their images accordingly. When I worked in LA at a studio (sorry if that sounds retardedly pompous), I remember when we used to screen early prints/versions of films, the projectionists would usually take care to frame according to the director's specifications, and the director was often in attendance in order to make sure things went OK. I never ever saw any director complain about the slight portion missing from the image on the sides, which was usually projected onto curtains, or the bottom/top of the screen. I'm sure some would just blame this on Hollywood directors being ignorant, but it was fairly consistent and there were a few experienced directors in attendance that I'm sure understood the technical aspects of projection better than anyone else in the room.

In terms of DVD, I don't know if that many directors are aware of issues such as overscan and DVD cropping, so I'm unsure whether the missing 5-8% meets with their own expectations. I guess like any other decision within a corporation, we are at the mercy of the knowledge of the person who is responsible for such quality control issues, and I'd hope the director was involved and made aware of such issues.

This may be why there are discrepancies between DVD editions of some of our favorite films. Maybe Criterion's cropping is in some cases not cropping--maybe the other DVDs someone like Gary is comparing them to show too much of the image. But how is one to know? I guess we decide in terms of what looks good, right? I mean, Ingrid Bergman's head should be there in its interity.

Yet, I still hear the often times self-righteous cries regarding how Criterion crops the image...

I'm certainly not as qualified to speak about this as Gary, considering I haven't devoted my life to determining such issues. Speaking for myself, I guess it just simply comes down to your conception of what is correct. Some people take a hard line on the issue and claim every portion of the image is important, and that 5% is vital to the experience of the film. I'm a bit more lenient on the issue considering it's so subjective.

To make such a judgement, I'd first have to watch the film in the theatre and trust that it is being shown exactly to specifications, including color balance and aspect ratio. That's not always a good leap of faith - I watched Last Days in 1:85 with all the heads chopped off right above the mouth, which was obviously incorrect. Then of course, I'd have to watch the DVD, and trust my own memory of the experience in the theatre. I'm willing to bet my memory for new releases is pretty decent since the time in between theatrical and DVD releases is just a few months, but I don't think I'm going to be trusting my memory when I'm older and have to remember a film from my teens, especialy for color.

Of course, I'm one of those people that doesn't see what the point is to fussing about the conversion from 1:85 to 1:78 or from 1:37 to 1:33, since I firmly believe directors probably didn't construct their images so that they would be so largely dependent upon the missing 3-4% on the edges of their composition. A complete head versus one where a small portion of the very top is missing, isn't that big a deal to me considering I'm fairly certain the point the director was making is to show a close-up of a face, and that he/she understands my eyes generally focus upon the large objects that dominate the screen and usually tend to gaze upon the center of the screen immediately, until something of note happens on the sides to catch my attention.

Still, isn't it the nature of the medium that not every last bit of image captured on film is going to be actually seen?

I would say "yes", though I'm certain others disagree with me and will rake me over the coals momentarily.

And with that, I've broken my own rule never to discuss aspect ratios on this board. I'm slightly disgusted with myself right now.

[Gregory]

Excuse me for putting it so bluntly but....so freaking what? We are talking about 5-8% and what was "cropped" wasn't that big of a problem anyway. I can understand if we are talking about Pan&Scan and 1/3 of the image is being cut out, but we are talking about 1/20. That's like going to get change for a dollar and getting mad that you only got back $0.95. I realize that we are talking about very important movies that we all hold in great regard, but it's not like a whole person was cropped out of a scene, just three inches of Ingrid Bergman's shoulder (her very sexy shoulder).

Anyone who looks at the captures I linked to can see it's not three inches of her shoulder, it's her entire shoulder and a few inches of her head -- and then possibly more with overscan. Why would it have to be a whole person's body cropped out to be important? No one is saying it's of earth-shaking importance, but it is a problem that affects the composition of the photography as can be very clearly demonstrated in not all but some cases of this. Integrity of composition is something your change analogy does not allow. It matters to some of us, and if it matters less to you that's no reason to shut down the discussion.
But to use your own analogy -- if one proprietor is short changing people by 5 to 8 cents on the dollar, it's not the end of the world for the customer, but with a lot of purchases it begins to add up. If it happens noticeably more at one shop it's worth asking why, even if the proprietor will not admit it's happening. As with color balance issues (is that another subject some here feel disgusted with discussing?) the regularity of the slight overcropping is something that's slightly baffling from a company that devotes such unparalleled attention to quality in other areas.
I agree that it can sometimes be difficult to know exactly how to determine the correct frame, but I would much rather have a little too much than too little, especially taking overscan into account. I don't think there's anything wrong with the way most other companies decide this issue. If the theatrical aspect ratio is preserved I've never had a problem with too much information in the frame.

[Narshty]

Anyone who looks at the captures I linked to can see it's not three inches of her shoulder, it's her entire shoulder and a few inches of her head -- and then possibly more with overscan. Why would it have to be a whole person's body cropped out to be important?

Criterion/Disney's Notorious restoration was made up of "the original 35mm nitrate camera negative, a 35mm nitrate fine-grain master, and a 35mm nitrate copyright print". It's entirely possible one of the latter two source elements had picture information missing (it's certainly not only during the transfer stage that cropping can occur, but analogue optical printing of film elements too). It might well explain why there's less on the left hand side in some frames but not others. Just a thought.

[glueman]

Excuse me for putting it so bluntly but....so freaking what? We are talking about 5-8% and what was "cropped" wasn't that big of a problem anyway. I can understand if we are talking about Pan&Scan and 1/3 of the image is being cut out, but we are talking about 1/20. That's like going to get change for a dollar and getting mad that you only got back $0.95. I realize that we are talking about very important movies that we all hold in great regard, but it's not like a whole person was cropped out of a scene, just three inches of Ingrid Bergman's shoulder (her very sexy shoulder).

The importance of mise-en-scene to auteur criticism demands that a 'republished' film reflect the 'author's' original 'publication' - a comparison would be a new edition of, say, Finnegans Wake with 'only' one freaking word in twenty missing. (This post would be more evidently pretentious if I could get the freaking italics to work.)

[Andre Jurieu]

Anyone who looks at the captures I linked to can see it's not three inches of her shoulder, it's her entire shoulder and a few inches of her head -- and then possibly more with overscan.

Yes, we can clearly see that it is her entire shoulder and a few inches of her head... and I still don't believe it compromises Hitchcock's overall vision, or hinders what Hitchcock was intending to convey within the scene. I do know that Ingrid Bergman is on the right side of the composition and driving a car while talking to Grant. Bergman missing her shoulder and a slight portion of her head does not significantly alter the meaning of the scene. If someone were honestly to declare that Hitchcock is trying to tell us Alicia is incomplete in comparison to Devlin based upon this single frame, it would be a rather dubious claim, and I would certainly require some better evidence than saying that the missing shoulder implies Alicia is deficient in some way. If the potential overscan were to cut Bergman out of the scene completely, then we would have a serious problem.

Why would it have to be a whole person's body cropped out to be important?

Well, (this is probably going to sound rather stupid/rude) because an entire character would be missing from the scene and we would only hear her voice during the conversation. Our focus would be entirely upon Devlin and we wouldn't be able to see the expression on Bergman's face during the conversation, which Hitchcock presumably did want us to see. Instead of an equality within the discourse, we would be solely focused upon Devlin, and this sort of implies that he deserves a greater portion of our attention, while Alicia matters less.

No one is saying it's of earth-shaking importance, but it is a problem that affects the composition of the photography as can be very clearly demonstrated in not all but some cases of this.

It most certainly does affect the composition of the photography, but that effect is minimal, and does not hinder the meaning of the scene. If we look at all the other Notorious screen captures at DVDBeaver I doubt any have been violated to such a degree that they decimate Hitchcock's intentions, so I can't really claim the missing portion greatly affects the quality of the film.

As with color balance issues (is that another subject some here feel disgusted with discussing?)

Well, my "disgusted with myself" comment was a bit of an exaggeration, but actually, yes, I'm kind of hesitant to discuss color balance on DVDs because I find it to be just as subjective, and it's a topic that very difficult to establish any concrete proof at times, and sometimes just comes down to viewer preference.

... but I would much rather have a little too much than too little, especially taking overscan into account.

Yeah, I agree with you as a consumer, but this gets into some form of "cinematic ethics" where we have to figure out if it's just as perverse to show what the artist didn't intend to display as it is to remove a portion of what the artist did intend to display. Either decision affects the composition. It's a can of worms that might not be very pleasant.

The importance of mise-en-scene to auteur criticism demands that a 'republished' film reflect the 'author's' original 'publication' - a comparison would be a new edition of, say, Finnegans Wake with 'only' one freaking word in twenty missing.

In this analogy, wouldn't one freaking word in twenty missing be akin to one freaking frame in twenty missing, which I assume would be better suited as an analogy to PAL-to-NTSC conversion? Now that, I may consider a slight violation of the auteurs intentions. This is getting weird.

[Tribe]

The importance of mise-en-scene to auteur criticism demands that a 'republished' film reflect the 'author's' original 'publication'

I think it was made somewhat clear that creators anticipate that not every bit of image captured on film is intended to be seen. The relationship of mise-en-scene to auteur theory has nothing to do with what's being talked about.

[GringoTex]

Well, I assume that for the purposes of screening within a theatre, most filmmakers are cognizant of the slight amount of their image that will be missed and the construct their images accordingly.

Andre nails it here. As a former film society programmer, I've orchestrated probably a hundred screenings with filmmaker in attendance. They include Fuller, Nykvist, Linklater, Tarantino, Soderbergh, Araki, Egoyan, and the list goes on. I always invited them up to the projection booth to set the the correct framing and not a one ever accepted. The common response was: "just try to center it on the opening credits and everything else will be fine." These guys make their films without thinking about a 5% crop because they know there is no universal standard for framing. They were all much more concerned about proper focus, a bright projection bulb, and the sound system.

Digital projection allows for a universal framing where a 5% cropping may indeed make a difference, and some of today's filmmakers may demand such accuarcy. But this is new technology. The obsession of many DVD-philes about cropping strikes me as a something of a fetish.

I love DVD Beaver and contribute money to it (as you all should), but I disagree with Gary's emphasis on cropping. I'm much more interested in his comments on progressive transfers, image cleaness, etc.

[Gregory]

These guys make their films without thinking about a 5% crop because they know their is no universal standard for framing. They were all much more concerned about proper focus, a bright projection bulb, and the sound system.

There are many cases (e.g. Contempt) where a director will put an important person or object at the outer edge of the frame, which can be (and has been) lost with insufficient attention to projection or in this case transfer. Still, your argument and Andre's is convincing because there is a danger of purism or fetishism where one might hold things like framing to a degree of significance beyond what anyone who made the film held them. Still, I think there are many cases where it's possible to pay too little attention to this issue and it's a question many of us and those who work for Criterion etc. would do well to address. Of course the directors of these films have far too much on their minds to bother with such relatively trivial matters!

[Andre Jurieu]

Thanks Langlois.

Other than the idea of whether or not the composition is adversely effected by the missing portion (and I agree with Gregory that it does have an effect occasionally), I guess what I'm trying to say is that we might want to consider the fact that what we think is 94-96% of the frame on a DVD might actually be 100% of what actually appeared on the screen in the theatre since the "missing" 4-6% was never actually projected onto the screen.

[glueman]

The importance of mise-en-scene to auteur criticism demands that a 'republished' film reflect the 'author's' original 'publication'

I think it was made somewhat clear that creators anticipate that not every bit of image captured on film is intended to be seen. The relationship of mise-en-scene to auteur theory has nothing to do with what's being talked about.

It's probably fair to say that underlying this discussion - and where my point is relevant - is the notion of artistic intention, and how importantly this figures in one's appreciation of a film - whose intention, the ways it can be manifested, understood, arbitrated, compromised, &c.

Criterion are usually explicit in noting the film source of their DVD product, and the technical means used to transfer sound and vision - but say nothing about other interventions with regard to ‘cropping', colouring, contrast, audio - which some might regard as being, potentially, significant 'artistically'. If one is so minded - and some are - then as davidhare says, there's a LOT of work here. (On the other hand, there's always bluff insouciance.)

[jcelwin]

I wrote quite a while ago (in a thread with the same name, I think) that I thought criterion did too much cropping. The response then a lot more defensive for criterion. Also, I think that while most reviewers (dvdbeaver) don't suggest it is a horrible (in most cases) thing, it is pointed out a lot more frequently which is good for buyers.

Criterion seem to always crop their images, which I would rather they didn't. Overscan can be a problem for a lot of people. Also, when compared to other dvd versions we can see the difference, but these often also have slight cropping.

While a small amount of cropping is not usually too much of a problem, discs like 'In the mood for love' with severe cropping have ruined compositions.

I also suggested in the pickpocket thread that 'It seems that many companies crop even more of the image (from another side) to bring it back to the 'correct aspect ratio'. I would rather they leave it a bit out without destroying more of the composition.'

[skuhn8]

Actually, I think DVDBeaver is quite critical (and rightly so) of the cropping. Well, it doesn't actually bother me too much but I'm glad we have some watchdogs on the trail, as the question inevitably arises: why? I mean, if there's some damage around the frame--fine. But otherwise, just leave it in. It seems to me that the cropping can only be intentional and I'm not sure they that is. But otherwise, I'm failry lax when it comes to 1.78 versus 1.85. Just would prefer to have it OAR when possible.

[denti alligator]

but I'm glad we have some watchdogs on the trail, as the question inevitably arises: why?

That's why I started this thread. I'm not sure how much closer we are to answering this question.

A) Does Criterion make the conscious decision to crop, knowing that 5-8% is usually lost in projection?
B) Does the cropping result from technicalities of digital transfer (Gary's theory)--that is, Criterion would like to include more image, but can't?
C) Is the cropping in the negative Criterion is using (what Narshty suggested)?

(And what do we know anyway. We can only speculate, right?)

[mbalson]

At any rate it's really annoying and if they can get everything else right why is this such a constant problem? Other companies are releasing the same films showing more picture information, so why couldn't Criterion?
It just seems to go against everything they try to accomplish.

[Theodore R. Stockton]

I just skimmed through this thread so this may have been pointed out but from the captures it is apparent the Criterion version has less image on the right side but it is also just as apparent that the Anchor Bay is missing the same amoumt from the left side. I don't know how to do this but if you were to put the two pictures ontop of each other it seems that it would need to be slightly matted on the top and bottom to show all the picture present in the images.

[zedz]

I'm pretty laissez-faire with the cropping issue, but I think it is useful to document instances where significant information is lost from the transfer (or lost through overscan, as in Contempt).

On the other hand, I can fully understand Gregory's frustration that Criterion don't want to talk about it. If there's a technical issue that leads to this, or if they are carefully presenting what they have determined is the original theatrical framing (cropping and all), then they should be willing to explain this and defend their choices.

[Gregory]

I was not necessarily saying the Criterion Contempt was too tightly framed. I meant that in many some previous releases Bardot had been cut out of the scene we're discussing. With overscan the Criterion release also may be a problem for some. However, while it would be nice if Criterion took overscan into account in deciding whether to err on the side of too much information or too little, I don't think merely the overscan issue itself makes Criterion blameworthy. It is, after all, a display problem. According to David Lynch, the vast majority of people have their TV sets on too bright a setting because that's how they come out of the factory. If this is true, it wouldn't make sense for DVD companies to produce dimmer transfers to make up for this.
EDIT: On second thought, this is not the best analogy because in the case of brightness, those with their settings adjusted properly would have to deal with a too-dim transfer. In the case of framing, those without overscan would suffer no ill effects even if Criterion erred on the side of too much information rather than too little, which is precisely what they ought to do.

[mbalson]

Anyone wanting to compare how Criterion stacks up against other companies should check out this link

Though, skimming through DVDBeaver comparisons alone shows that the cropping is an occasional problem.

Right or wrong, perhaps Criterion crops certain shots or entire transfers to remove this sort of stuff:



This capture is from The Passion of Joan of Arc and I think it would have been very wrong to crop the image to remove the damage. To achieve this the amount that would need to be cropped is very similar to the amount cropped from the current release of The Flowers of St. Francis.

[Gregory]

But wouldn't Gary Tooze's statement that cropping is evident on virtually all Criterion releases they compare suppest that it isn't merely something Criterion does in cases of print damage?