22 of 23 people found the following review helpful
Lovely transfer on DVD!,
This review is from: The Music Lovers 1970 DVD (DVD)
Firstly when you get this DVD & read the back cover & it says 4:3, don't worry, that's wrong- it's in the original 2.40:1 anamorphic widescreen. The print is lovely but there are sadly no extras (-not even the trailer-) hence one star less for that. A classic.
Tracked by 4 customers
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-10 of 15 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 1 Jul 2011 19:43:17 BDT
Last edited by the author on 3 Jul 2011 15:18:36 BDT
Good point you made, and I believe this is a superb film.
But do you know why this version runs only 118 minutes, when the film should run 123 minutes? Is it cut?
In reply to an earlier post on 3 Jul 2011 05:09:54 BDT
[Deleted by the author on 3 Jul 2011 05:10:36 BDT]
In reply to an earlier post on 3 Jul 2011 05:13:44 BDT
The running time difference is probably because it's in PAL format, which runs at a slightly faster fps than the correct NTSC speed. Several minutes quicker for a 2-hour film sounds about right for a NTSC to PAL adjustment. Too bad about it being non-anamorphic, but still a must purchase! :-)
In reply to an earlier post on 3 Jul 2011 12:51:59 BDT
Last edited by the author on 3 Jul 2011 12:53:57 BDT
When a film is transferred from celluloid to DVD there's a RT difference of about 4% less due to the speed that a disc plays at so no worries!
In reply to an earlier post on 3 Jul 2011 15:17:09 BDT
Last edited by the author on 3 Jul 2011 15:58:10 BDT
I have to apologize -- I was wrong! It IS anamorphic. I didn't check it with the right tv/player.
And thanks for the helpful info.
By the way, I've been a big fan of this film here in the USA for decades, in spite of the embarrassingly idiotic reviews by stupid American critics. (I remember Pauline Kael put down the film for the actors having yellow teeth!!! ???? !!!!) It's one of the greatest bio-films ever made, a work of genius.
Another btw, I was so fortunate to finally get to meet Ken Russell (a hero of mine since seeing "Women in Love" when it came out) in Orlando, Florida last year when he attended a film festival here. In spite of his 'bad boy' image, he was sweet and wonderful, and so giving in answering questions. And I was so flattered he actually remembered my name when I ran into him at the festival a few days later. (The festival showed Russell's cut of "Crimes of Passion".)
A great cinema artist who deserves to be remembered for incredibly brave and accomplished work.
In reply to an earlier post on 3 Jul 2011 21:02:18 BDT
Okay, maybe I'm slightly naive here, but, if your explanation is correct (and I think you do know what you're talking about), why is it the packaging of the UK DVD say it's 118 minutes? Shouldn't it run in the UK in 123 minutes?
Thanks for you help.
In reply to an earlier post on 3 Jul 2011 21:14:23 BDT
Well, films on celluloid run 24 frames per second. When transferring a film to video using the PAL format (which is what the UK uses), it is slightly sped up to 25 frames per second because PAL can't do 24 fps. So practically every movie that's in PAL format will be slightly sped up (almost unnoticeable to the eye, but may be slightly noticeable to the ear as voices can sound just slightly faster). In any event, it will cause the running time overall to be shorter (about 4-5 minutes for a 2-hour film). in the US, we don't use PAL format, but NTSC which can handle 24 fps, so if the film were ever released here, it would run at the correct speed on video and be the correct 123 minutes. It's simply that PAL can't go at 24 fps for whatever reason. Hope all of that made sense.
In reply to an earlier post on 4 Jul 2011 01:27:36 BDT
Thank you so much for an enlightened explanation; after decades of film experience I've just learned something I had no idea about.
In reply to an earlier post on 21 Jul 2011 03:00:31 BDT
A. S. Potts says:
I'm afraid that a sleazemaniac's assertion that PAL can't do 24fps while NTSC can handle 24fps is a statement of utter nonsense.
The phrase 'PAL can't go at 24 fps' utterly meaningless and hilarious while comprehensively misrepresenting the complex technical process of transferring film images to two very different TV systems.
PAL 50Hz system has 50 video fields equivalent to 25 frames while the 60Hz NTSC system is equivalent to 29.97 frames.
To transfer 24fr films to PAL the a telecine machine runs the film at 25fps - resulting in the 4% speedup, as mentioned, but the shift in pitch of the sound is negligible. So 24 frames are spread over 25 frames for TV/DVD broadcast in countries with the PAL system.
The frame rate differential is far greater in countries using the NTSC system - 24frs have to be spread over 29.97 frames to transfer a film to the NTSC broadcast system - and consequently the process is that much more complicated. Firstly, the film is slowed down to 23.967 fps, and secondly, the film frames are spread over the video frames at a rate of 4 film frames to every 5 frames of 60Hz video in a telecine process called 3:2 Pulldown.
This process of stretching the frames from 24 to 29 can lead to poor quality in some NTSC DVDs because of a detrimental effect call combing which reduces the quality of the individual frames. I have a number of US import DVDs with this problem which does not occur in direct film to PAL transfers.
Anyway, both these film to broadcast systems transfers can cause differentials between the cinema release and the DVD timings, greater with PAL I believe, but these differences do not mean that the film has been cut or is a different version. A PAL transfer will be slightly faster [4%] so shorter in time and NTSC I think very slightly slower, so slightly longer in time.
In reply to an earlier post on 21 Jul 2011 04:11:38 BDT
Last edited by the author on 21 Jul 2011 04:29:40 BDT
Hey A.S., thanks for the very informative technical post. I'm the first to admit I'm not that technically savvy about the actual telecine procedures and how transfers are done in the lab, so sorry for being ignorant about that. However, in the end, it does come down to what the final product is, and PAL does run slightly faster in the end. NTSC transfers end up running closer to the actual projection speed of a film. Even you confirm this in your more knowledgeable technical explanation. I believe PAL is quite a bit better in resolution and so forth than NTSC, so I'll definitely give it that. I'm not trying to start a tech-war about what system is better.
I absolutely love THE MUSIC LOVERS and I just got this Region 2 PAL dvd imported to the US. I know this movie by heart and have seen it countless times, even seeing it (amazingly!) twice theatrically within the last two years, and I also have the widescreen US laserdisc. I'm pretty sure I will notice the slightly faster pitch on the PAL dvd just because it's one of my all-time favorite films and I've seen it so many times. I'm sure most viewers won't notice any problem whatsoever in the speed difference.