Indeed they would be ashamed, but not for the reason you suggest. Being that these Marx Bros. comedies were products of the '20s and '30s their original aspect ratio was Academy Format (1:1.37). Television was given a 1:1.33 aspect ratio to duplicate the then existing theatrical aspect ratios. Widescreen formats were not commonly used until the early '50s. Pick them up and enjoy.
Cheers,
Hodge **
[/QUOTE]
You know, Hodge, that’s why I posted that little anecdote. Sorta poking fun at myself for being caught up in the whole new medium and its possibilities, and forgetting that the film experience has changed considerably over the years. I should have remembered that the original aspect ratio was perfectly suited to a TV screen.
I suppose what I should have said is: Separating the stereo channels in the soundtrack simply takes what is already there (dialog, sound effects, and music), in the chronological sequence corresponding to the original theatrical release, and repositions the various elements to better correspond with our stereophonic hearing. Which makes it a little more difficult to compare to re-editing the entire film.
I don’t think I’m ever going to understand your (and Zebra’s) point of view. You’re watching a digital representation of an analog medium, on a cathode ray tube instead of a screen, at a tiny fraction of its original size, and something as insignificant as stereo separation bothers you. The scale of your comparisons (re-editing the film, for instance) seems disproportionate to the subject at hand; increasing the clarity of the sound.
I’m still interested in hearing whether you can tell the difference between a stereo-remixed, Dolby 5.1 surround soundtrack pumped through a mono speaker, and the original monaural soundtrack. I know that the colorization process changes the color values of the original black and white films considerably, so that the films look wrong even on black and white television, but from my experience, telling the difference between the soundtracks would be close to impossible. So why include a mono soundtrack, when more commentary, special features and trailers can be included?
Setting my TV for mono sound and leaving the stero off is not really a problem.
My real problem is people who say [snooty voice]It must be widescreen and don’t even say the ‘C’ word.[/snooty voice] don’t even think about sound being important.
I would be happier is the default sound was the same as the original presentation and if you wanted ‘new’ sound you pressed your menu key and went to the sound set up and chose a new one.
Of course I get my biggest kicks from DVD by watching everything in French.
**
After re-reading your comments, I can see that they were somewhat tongue-in-cheek. Hope I didn’t sound too pedantic. In fact, I also have a DVD problem and am working on getting help before my credit cards explode. And smokers think their addiction is expensive. Sheesh.
**
As I admitted a couple of posts ago, there is a large compromise involved in watching videos at home but why compromise on a mono track when you don’t have to? Also, you seem to be falsely equating re-mixing with increasing the clarity of the sound. I’ve no problem with restoring and re-mastering a mono track to improve clarity. Creating stereo separation, however, changes the nature of the soundtrack.
**
Well, like Zebra, I set my system for mono and admit that it is no great hardship to do so. Also, I can’t hear a difference (except for friggin’ Jaws).
**
This has got me thinking. I’m going to do a little research and see if I can come up with any figures about the relative sizes of different tracks. It’s my understanding that mono tracks are significantly smaller than stereo, 5.1 and DTS tracks. I admit that I love extras too but I still think they should be of secondary concern to the proper presentation of the movie itself.
To summarize my opinion: If a movie was originally released in mono, it should be presented as such on the DVD (with creamy DD5.1 goodness as an option). Firstly, this respects the original filmmakers who did the best they could with the tools they had, and secondly, to better place the movie in its proper historical context.
Since it looks like neither of us is going to change our minds, I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree mrvisible. Besides, anybody who likes the Marx Bros. can’t be all bad! If you’re also a fan of Buster Keaton, I just picked up a copy of The General. A great movie and the transfer is spectacular.
Okay, here’s quote from the DVD FAQ under Sect. 3.3-DVD Technical Details
“A DVD-Video disc containing mostly audio can play for 13 hours (24 hours with dual layers) using 48/16 PCM (slightly better than CD quality). It can play 160 hours of audio (or a whopping 295 hours with dual layers) using Dolby Digital 64 kbps compression of monophonic audio, which is perfect for audio books.”
Italics mine. This would seem to indicate that a mono track would take up negligable space. There’s a wealth of other technical data at this FAQ, much of it way over my head.
Sometimes I think I have a DVD problem (running at over 130 now), but then I read about folks who are in the thousands and I feel a bit better.
As for the OP, I think I agree that a mono soundtrack should be an option. But, I do not necessarily agree that taking a mono soundtrack and making it surround is a problem.