Warner's Kiss Me Kate Mis-Framed

Discussion in 'DVD' started by Greg_M, Apr 22, 2003.

  1. Greg_M

    Greg_M Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2000
    Messages:
    1,193
    Likes Received:
    0
    The New Warner DVD of "Kiss Me Kate" claims to be the OAR in Full Screen. The last laserdisc release was letterboxed. I thought they just masked off the top and bottom but there is more information on the sides - a lot more. Some of the top and bottom were trimmed but not by much, it's too bad since the new DVD looks a bit crowded.

    Don't understand what happened since the DVD was produced by the same guys who worked for MGM. So they know about the letterboxed version. I believe that version had a 1:78 Aspect ratio.

    Why not release the letterboxed version?

    Those looking to upgrade beware.
     
  2. Patrick McCart

    Patrick McCart Lead Actor

    Joined:
    May 16, 2001
    Messages:
    7,525
    Likes Received:
    126
    Location:
    Alpharetta, GA, USA
    Real Name:
    Patrick McCart
    NaturalVision films were made for 1.33:1, so it must have been a mistake on the LD.

    This film was released before MGM put out a widescreen film so far.
     
  3. Greg_M

    Greg_M Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2000
    Messages:
    1,193
    Likes Received:
    0
    It may have been a mistake, but there is more side information in a direct comparison. Framing actually looks better on the LD though the DVD has more stability in the colors. Wouldn't have bought it if I knew.
     
  4. Jesse Skeen

    Jesse Skeen Producer

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 1999
    Messages:
    4,284
    Likes Received:
    195
    Half the movie is missing- a whole eye's view worth!
     
  5. Greg_M

    Greg_M Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2000
    Messages:
    1,193
    Likes Received:
    0
    Half the movie is not missing, but 2 - 4 inches on my 35 " set. Maybe 20%


    The framing is all off, and the film doesn't look right. Wish I could return the Disc.[​IMG]
     
  6. Joe Caps

    Joe Caps Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2000
    Messages:
    1,977
    Likes Received:
    47
    Ann Miller was on TCM last year talking about the filming of this movie. She said the film was shot twice - once for 3d and once for the regular cameras. Greg is right - there is plenty missing on both sides of this transfer. Why did they do this?
     
  7. Greg_M

    Greg_M Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2000
    Messages:
    1,193
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have A/B the DVD with the laserdisc, there are characters missing from some of the shots on the DVD. Some how I doubt this is the OAR from 1953. After all widescreen films were in release by this time (The Robe) I had read "KMK" was film to be masked for a wider screen (But not the sides!) "KMK" was also one of the first MGM films to feature Stereo Sound.

    The laserdisc has much better framing. Someone screwed up.[​IMG]
     
  8. Patrick McCart

    Patrick McCart Lead Actor

    Joined:
    May 16, 2001
    Messages:
    7,525
    Likes Received:
    126
    Location:
    Alpharetta, GA, USA
    Real Name:
    Patrick McCart
    If it was filmed twice, that COULD mean the version on DVD comes from the flat version while the LD came from one of the two strips.

    Or vice versa.

    Add: never mind then (not filmed twice)


    Is this with no overscan?
     
  9. Greg_M

    Greg_M Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2000
    Messages:
    1,193
    Likes Received:
    0
    Doubtful since the 3-D version wouldn't have been used for the laser release.

    My set is adjusted for overscan. Plus, I can see the opening credits are window boxed with wider bands on the top and bottom than on either of the sides.

    I though it didn't look right so I got out the old laserdisc and was correct.



    On the other hand, "Silk Stockings" looks very good. The color is back and the framing while tight (some feet get cut off, unusal in a Fred Astaire film) it seems to match the framing on the old Laserdisc. Get this one, skip "Kiss Me Kate"
     
  10. Peter Kline

    Peter Kline Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 1999
    Messages:
    2,409
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ann Miller is mistaken, the movie was only filmed once.
     
  11. Peter Apruzzese

    Peter Apruzzese Producer

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 1999
    Messages:
    3,281
    Likes Received:
    769
    Real Name:
    Peter Apruzzese
     
  12. Greg_M

    Greg_M Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2000
    Messages:
    1,193
    Likes Received:
    0
    Even if they used the 3-D version left or right - wouldn't one side have more information then another? On the laserdisc both sides have more information.
     
  13. Patrick McCart

    Patrick McCart Lead Actor

    Joined:
    May 16, 2001
    Messages:
    7,525
    Likes Received:
    126
    Location:
    Alpharetta, GA, USA
    Real Name:
    Patrick McCart
    Could someone post screen shots comparing the LD with the DVD?
     
  14. Peter Apruzzese

    Peter Apruzzese Producer

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 1999
    Messages:
    3,281
    Likes Received:
    769
    Real Name:
    Peter Apruzzese
     
  15. Greg_M

    Greg_M Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2000
    Messages:
    1,193
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have no idea how to post screen shots from a laser disc.[​IMG]

    Sorry Dave, don't have a digital camera, maybe some one else will post a screen shot.
     
  16. David Lambert

    David Lambert Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2001
    Messages:
    11,386
    Likes Received:
    38
    Got a digital camera? You can take pics of the screen; that would at least be a start.
     
  17. ScottR

    ScottR Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2000
    Messages:
    2,650
    Likes Received:
    0
    I've noticed a lot of Warner Bros. dvds that are more heavily cropped than their ld counterparts:

    J.F.K.
    Singin' in the Rain
    Doctor Zhivago

    ...to name a few.
     
  18. Roger Rollins

    Roger Rollins Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2001
    Messages:
    931
    Likes Received:
    0
    The aspect ratio of this film was 1.37:1 when shot, and released in its 3-D version. The letterboxed laserdisc did not reflect the intended aspect ratio when filmed.

    This film was NOT shot twice, although it's understandable that the legend could be remembered that way by the participants.

    I looked at the new DVD, and I think it's terrific. It is a bit more tightly framed on one side than the 1991 LD that I have, but has more information on the other side than that LD.

    It's a great movie, and a great DVD. It looks terrific and sounds wonderful. It is also presented in the aspect ratio the director intended. Bravo to WB.

    I have purchased the other Porter titles but haven't had a chance to pop 'em in yet. HIGH SOCIETY is next!
     
  19. GerardoHP

    GerardoHP Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2001
    Messages:
    704
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Los Angeles, California
    Real Name:
    Gerardo Paron
    I just bought 4 of the Cole Porter titles that came out today. My first impression on KISS ME KATE was that it was waaay too tight, and that the color (I think it was Ansco) looks a bit washed out at times. On the other hand, I'm way too picky about these things, so there you have it. STOCKINGS and HIGH SOCIETY look and sound terrific. I have the LD of STOCKINGS, which was very good, and the anamorphic DVD is a remarkable improvement over it if only in terms of the transfer. BROADWAY has more scratches than I would wish to find on it but the contrast and sharpness are great.
     
  20. Greg_M

    Greg_M Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2000
    Messages:
    1,193
    Likes Received:
    0
    Quote:
    "I looked at the new DVD, and I think it's terrific. It is a bit more tightly framed on one side than the 1991 LD that I have, but has more information on the other side than that LD."

    Rodger,
    I don't what laserdisc you are looking at, but MGM released a letterboxed version in the late 90's and there is more side information on BOTH sides. Your tv is probably over scanning on one side.

    Quote: : "It is also presented in the aspect ratio the director intended."

    I doubt very much that this is the correct OAR. Why would there be more information on another release if the film was shot 1:1.37. If that is the case there is more information missing from the top and bottom of the DVD too, since that much is missing from the sides.

    And no, the laserdisc didn't represent the intended aspect ratio, because the top and bottom were cropped (But the sides did remain)

    Quote: "Bravo to WB. "
    It's hard to believe you like this transfer.
     

Share This Page