Warner's Kiss Me Kate Mis-Framed (1 Viewer)

[Bob Furmanek]

Bill, the color process has nothing to do with the composition of the film. It would only affect the visual quality and reproduction of the color.

3-D films were photographed with two cameras, and the lenses are positioned approximately 2-1/2 inches apart, roughly the same distance between two eyes. The differences in the left/right elements is very subtle, and can only be detected on close inspection. Normal telecine transfers can be made from these materials that would have no significant difference between either left or right eye.

The problem with KMK was an excessive manipulation of the image. On close examination, it seems that the image was altered with panning and other unnecessary changes within the frame. Hopefully, these alterations were not made to House of Wax.

Bob

 

[Bill Burns]

Thanks, Bob. I couldn't see how Ansco played a part. What you've said is more or less as I thought -- but were the earlier posts about jumping from the left to right eye negatives and back again in error, then? KMK's faults have nothing to do with this, but rather with intentional frame manipulation? WB must have known exactly what they were doing if this is the case, whereas going back and forth between negatives without concern for how this shifts compositions (subtly) might better qualify as an accidental error.

It doesn't sound like we'll get a final "official" answer on Kate, but I hope the matter is addressed (and put to rest if nothing of the sort is present) on House of Wax. I'm very interested in knowing, but the matter is just academic for me, because I want them both in 3D, and won't be happy with either until they are. But enough on that. Hopefully Dial M for Murder will hold a few surprises in 2004 (keeping my fingers crossed).

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Apparently, they also jumped back and forth on KMK, sometimes within the same shot. The way you can tell the difference is a very slight change in background image position. For instance, an object in the background will shift ever so slightly to either the left or right of a foreground object when the image switches sides. As an example, Look at a view-master image. Close one eye and look at the picture, and then do the same with the other eye. Notice the slight variations between foreground and background objects? That is the exact same difference that you will see between left/right elements on a 3-D film. It's very subtle, and should not present any problems in transferring an element of a 3-D film to video. If it is necessary to switch between left and right sides (due to film damage) then it should only be done at a scene change.

The problem with KMK was the use of an element which is roughly 10% off-center. (The original camera negatives were photographed full-frame, and re-positioned optically by Technicolor for printing in 1953.) This optical correction was not done on the new elements, so everything is shifted to the right, cutting off the left side of the image. This is not speculative on my part, but is information obtained from a knowledgeable individual within the companies film/preservation division.

This will not be a problem with House of Wax, because that film was photographed in the standard 1.37 aperture area of the picture negative. However, let's hope that it didn't get manipulated by some over-anxious telecine engineer.

Bob

 

[Bill Burns]

Thanks again, Bob. I remain a bit puzzled, though. Bear with me (this may have been ironed out earlier in the thread, which I've read in its entirety, believe it or not, but it's too long to cross-reference at the moment): did Ansco or Technicolor process Kiss Me Kate? You're saying Technicolor, but Patrick suggested (or am I reading his post wrongly?) Ansco. Are the two system somehow conjoined? I believe they're separate and unique color systems, but that's strictly circumstantial knowledge gathered hereabouts and in other reading.

Also, I can't quite pin down how Technicolor's repositioning of the frame would affect the new transfer of Kiss Me Kate. I see only one way this could have happened .... Either the new transfer uses a Technicolor print (already repositioned), or it returns to the original negative. Was the film shot with the expectation that the elements would be repositioned?

Well, first off: is this a three-strip Technicolor production? If not, I see no reason for the repositioning. If so, are all three-strip Technicolor prints repositioned in this way? If they are ... then I assume the film would be shot with the expectation of this repositioning, and thus compositions would be intentionally out of balance by the requisite 10%. Is this correct? Is three strip shot at Academy or silent aperture? If it was shot 1.37:1, and it's three strip ... well, let me be clear here in my question: the negative itself, if balanced and Academy Aperture, would present a negative that was balanced to those seeking to make this new transfer. If the film were shot silent aperture (was this done for three-strip? Is this what you mean by "full" aperture?), and again balanced when shot, it would still be balanced for anyone returning to that negative. Of course, if the film were shot in silent aperture and then matted down and repositioned for Academy Aperture projection by Technicolor (thus allowing them to offset the frame while maintaining a balanced final print), then the print they created would, as said, be balanced.

At no time, so far as I can see, is an element out of balance. The original negative is balanced (if it's silent aperture, {edit: though it could be intentionally unbalanced more than is already necessary for full aperture photography destined for sound printing if Technicolor for some reason required this, but I get into this further in a later post, specifically as to why, when all Super35/full aperture film must be unbalanced to transfer properly, this film posed any special problem for WB or Technicolor}) and the final print is balanced (but repositioned -- and since a repositioning of this by Technicolor is only possible if the film was shot silent aperture, I reckon I've answered my own question about that).

Okay, to be clear once again: it was shot full aperture (silent aperture, Super35); it was repositioned and printed, balanced, by Technicolor to Academy Aperture. So the original negative, and all Technicolor prints, are balanced ({edit: Nope, I mispoke: the original negative is unbalanced in the same way all full aperture is unbalanced for sound printing ... again, more on this in a later post; it's easy to drift into very minute detail, but sometimes that's neccesary for a clear picture of events}). Why, then, is the transfer unbalanced? If they used the negative, it's no different than modern Super35 in its aperture and balance, and if they used a Technicolor print, it's balanced. The only way I see for an element to be out of balance is if the film was shot that way, and thus the original negative is out of balance, something Technicolor rectified in their printing (i.e. it was shot at full aperture with the expectation that Technicolor would reposition it). Where am I going wrong here? A negative at full aperture {edit: either balanced or unbalanced in the way all full aperture photography is unbalanced, and therefore familiar to WB as such, as they've dealt countless times with modern Super35}, repositioned to a balanced print at Academy Aperture, is never alien to modern eyes.

So ... hmmm ... is that the case? Did they shoot, unbalanced, at full aperture? WB then returns to that negative, somehow doesn't notice that shots are all off center, and transfers it to tape and then to disc? This would lose info from one side uniformly, as you say, but I was under the impression some shots lost info on one side while others lost picture info on the other, in addition to the foreground background shifts you mention?

Again, this is all academic, but I'd like to know just what happened and what to look for on future films that might suffer the problem. If the big issues here have nothing to do with the field sequential system (only the foreground background shifts you mention), and instead find their blame in something Technicolor did with all its prints, then this could potentially prove to be a problem with all Technicolor films. It's odd it should only crop up on this 3D picture, given the number of Technicolor transfers WB has brought to disc already.

Anyway, any further details along these lines would be much appreciated. Sorry for the edits here -- I'm trying to make myself as clear as possible and correct any errors and typos I catch in my reasoning.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

No, it was photographed on Ansco color stock, but the release prints were made by Technicolor. (It was not filmed in three-strip Technicolor.) The reason the film was photographed full-frame was because of the design of MGM's 3-D camera rig, it had nothing to do with the stock. Optical manipulation was not unusual in 3-D printing back in the 1950's. Many times, the lab had to correct slight vertical problems that were due to incorrect photography. This off-center issue is unique to 3-D, and does not apply to Technicolor films in general.

The reason that KMK is off-center now is because they transferred to video from an element which was made from the camera negatives, and was not optically adjusted. They only re-positioned the main and end titles.

Yes, the film was photographed with the knowledge that it would be re-positioned for printing. In an earlier post, the director states that KMK was photographed for presentation in various aspect ratios, ranging from 1.37 to 1.85.

Since the DVD was released, an engineer friend has done extensive scene-to-scene comparisons with an older video transfer which was made from an original optically-corrected print. In addition to clipping off the left side, this new transfer pans, zooms and manipulates the image any number of ways. In other words, it's a terribly altered image that bears no similarity to the way in which the film was originally composed and released.

Bob

 

[Bill Burns]

Excellent. Many thanks, Bob. I believe that answers all of my questions ... well, one nagging one: if this is an issue with 3D "correction," and also an expectation for Technicolor printing (was House of Wax shown exclusively in Warnercolor, or were Technicolor prints made and/or allowed for in shooting?), it has the potential to plague any 3D film made during the period, particularly any that was made with the expectation of Technicolor printing (either limited or wide). Correct? It's an issue, apart from the panning and manipulation, for which one should be on the lookout with other 3D films of the era (even those that did not print to Technicolor would presumably correct for the same 3D photography errors).

Of course, as you've said, the frame manipulation (panning, etc.) is a far more dicey issue, because it suggests willful alteration of the compositions by the studio, the transfer house, or both. This, too, is something for which to watch on future releases, 3D or otherwise. But what, if any, justification would there be for such manipulation in the case of Kate? Surely it wasn't done without some cause? I'm of the opinion that no "cause" (frame damage, splice lines, etc.) is sufficient to knowingly alter original frame compositions beyond what would have been matted in theatrical projection, and I'm sure, from their track record, that WB embraces such fidelity ... making Kate all the more puzzling, and my eye all the more eager to see how well House of Wax has been handled).

 

[Bill Burns]

In an earlier post, the director states that KMK was photographed for presentation in various aspect ratios, ranging from 1.37 to 1.85.

Oh, I just caught this -- I think you mean Robert Harris? George Sidney is no longer with us, and I don't believe he was ever a member. With all of my typos, I'm one to talk, I know, but this put a smile on my face. If only George were around ....

 

[Jeff Joseph]

And just a final note:

Both Kiss Me Kate and House of Wax will be screened... in 35mm double interlock... at the 3-D Film Expo in September. This is the way to see both films.

33 Features and 21 shorts!

http://www.3dfilmfest.com

Thanks,

Jeff

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Bill, why there was so much unnecessary tampering on the KMK transfer is anybodies guess!

House of Wax was only printed on Eastman color stock. I'm not aware of other 3-D films from that period which were photographed full-aperture. Therefore, this off-center issue may only be a problem with the two films photographed with the MGM rig: Kiss Me Kate and Arena.

There were a number of different camera rigs utilized on the nearly 60 3-D features in 1953/54 (Natural Vision, Norling, Technicolor, Stereo-Cine, Dunning plus just about every studio had their own design) but the MGM one is a real oddity. It may have something to do with the fact that the camera dated back to the late thirties/early forties, where it was used to film the Pete Smith MOS short "Third-Dimensional Murder." (The Audioscopics shorts were filmed with the Norling rig.)

Bob

 

[Bob Furmanek]

No, I mean Kiss Me Kate's director George Sidney. (As far as I know, Robert Harris has never directed a 3-D film.)

If you go back earlier in this thread, there are quotes from an interview done with Mr. Sidney when KMK was first released. I would believe his comments, as far as the intended aspect ratio is concerned.

Bob

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Anybody have the latest from WB about the "issue" and how they might address it (or why they did what they did)?

 

[Bill Burns]

No, I mean Kiss Me Kate's director George Sidney. (As far as I know, Robert Harris has never directed a 3-D film.)

If you go back earlier in this thread, there are quotes from an interview done with Mr. Sidney when KMK was first released.

Just ribbin' ya' a bit. "in an earlier post, the director states ..." made it sound as if the director had posted the comment. Heh. All well and good. I haven't checked the post, but Mr. Harris seemed a likely source for the quote, as I believe he made a similar comment about Shane on another thread. I'll read back through this one and see who actually posted it.

Such an aspect ratio range would affect top and/or bottom framing, of course, not framing to the left or right. Incidentally, is Joe Caps -- way back on page 1 -- correct in saying the transfer is, in fact, missing chunks from both the left and right (when compared with the laser)? And one last question: why, on a single negative color stock (two negatives for the 3D process) does Technicolor, but no other color system, find it necessary to reposition the frame? Silent (full) aperture exposure of the film gives you quite a bit more surface area than Academy Aperture exposure, especially to the left (where the sound information covers part of the film on prints). Any production that shoots Super35 (full aperture) would, presumably, have to position their shots to allow for this sound information on prints (most or all theatrical Super35 today, of course, extracts 1.85:1 or 2.40:1 from the 1.33:1 exposure, thus eliminating quite a bit of top and/or bottom info as well, usually top, to my understanding). Is the full aperture exposure, thus, to blame, or specifically Technicolor? And if it was shot full aperture because it was to be processed by Technicolor (thus allowing for both the soundtrack on prints of the film and any Technicolor processing issues, balancing shots accordingly, which is to say, favoring the right of the frame), why doesn't other Technicolor processing suffer this problem when one returns to the original negative?

I see two options: you either shoot full aperture off balance, to allow for the soundtrack and matting down to Academy Aperture in projection, or you shoot full aperture (Super35, silent) properly balanced and then cut (matte) quite a bit to the right of the frame during printing to rebalance the shot after a soundtrack is added (top and bottom are matted as well, of course, as appropriate). Either way, you'll want to avoid putting anything important to the far left of the frame. This would have to be done on all full aperture sound films, 3D or otherwise. Many early films, in particular, were shot full aperture but then married after the fact to synchronized music tracks and/or select dialogue tracks. For these films to present themselves in proper balance, one must either return to the original negative or, if using a print, matte the right (unless this was already done as a hard matte during printing) and then the top and bottom to return the film to its original x axis/y axis balance.

My point is that Warners should have known the negative was out of balance if it was shot Super35 with an allowance for the soundtrack. I don't understand what Technicolor has to do with it, necessarily, because that offset for the soundtrack cannot be skirted. If Technicolor further offsets it after the soundtrack is accounted for ... why is this not necessary for other Technicolor productions? I assumed, in three-strip processing, there might be some necessary offset as the negatives are combined (I don't know why this might be the case, but it seemed possible); but I don't see any need for it in single negative systems (and of course the full range of visual information is recorded here to two separate negatives, but the idea remains the same). Why offset? 3D photography errors exclusive to the MGM camera seems ... a strange possibility. If the camera is shooting full aperture, the optics for this were set in stone long before George Sidney even began directing films. Exposing two negatives simultaneously dates back to two-strip Technicolor (which I understand, in some systems, also exposed two sides of a double emulsion negative simultaneously, but that's beside the point). The engineering hurdles just shouldn't have been all that tricky. If it's a problem somehow inherent in 3D photography, why does it only crop up in MGM's camera system?

But most directly: Super35 requires the offset for a soundtrack, so where, exactly, does Technicolor come in?

But let me rephrase in more detail: as I've just said, all Super35 must be offset for a soundtrack (unless you're just using an extraction from the frame, such as Academy Ratio, but this is a form of offsetting, because you're matting the film down to Academy, which eliminates a big chunk of space on the left for the soundtrack) if a soundtrack is to be present on prints, so all films shot in Super35 ("full" aperture or silent aperture) must be framed accordingly. Warners must know this; they must have handled scads of Super35 pictures over the years. When they took the full aperture negative from the cans and looked at it, the fact that it was full aperture would presumably be recorded, but aside from this, just looking at the frame would demonstrate that shots favored the right.

I'm still at a loss to understand how this happens accidentally if it's strictly a question of transferring the negative. Why aren't all WB supervised Super35 productions showing up with these problems? And if optical correction of the frame, aside from the soundtrack, is necessary to account for photographic errors on a 3D production more prominently than on a standard 2D production, why doesn't this problem surface in other 3D camera systems? MGM's may have only been used twice (I wouldn't know), but if the full aperture optical recording is essentially the same as any other full aperture optical recording, the fact that other 3D system used Academy Aperture (do I have that right from your post, Bob?) shouldn't play a role.

I'm fascinated by this, but at the end of the day the only nagging concern is: will they fix the trouble? That's what I'm sure most folks reading the thread would like to know. That and why additional panning and manipulation was introduced even after the offset trouble. For me, though, the "how and why" of "how and why it happened" remains just as interesting is the "will" of "will they fix it," in part because it illustrates just what might crop up on future transfers, and how best to spot the trouble.

Thanks again for the information.

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

I'm not aware of other 3-D films from that period which were photographed full-aperture. Therefore, this off-center issue may only be a problem with the two films photographed with the MGM rig: Kiss Me Kate and Arena.

Obviously, MGM used a non-standard camera for their 3D films, which would necessitate the lab (Technicolor or whomever) to optically center the image. This was done correctly for the original theatrical 3D release (and, presumably, the flat release as well). Fast-forward 50 years and Warner, who now owns the film, transfers a newly-created, improperly done, element to DVD. An error that should be corrected, pure and simple.

Frankly, I think you're looking too deeply here.

 

[Damin J Toell]

There was no such thing as Super35 when Kiss Me Kate was made.

Well, the process we call Super35 wasn't around, but the aperture referred to now as being the S35 aperture was.

DJ

 

[Bill Burns]

Exactly so, Damin. I thought I made this clear, Peter, but perhaps not:

I see two options: you either shoot full aperture off balance, to allow for the soundtrack and matting down to Academy Aperture in projection, or you shoot full aperture (Super35, silent) properly balanced and then cut (matte) quite a bit to the right of the frame during printing to rebalance the shot after a soundtrack is added (top and bottom are matted as well, of course, as appropriate).

These questions aren't too deep (they ramble, as I often do in the absence of terrific amounts of free time for proofreading , in working through the details of a complex issue, sometimes into areas where I've flubbed my facts, but when it's all ironed out the questions themselves are worthwhile) -- all Super35/silent/full aperture film has to be recentered for the soundtrack on a sound print. It has nothing to do with Technicolor. This is why I'd like to discover where Technicolor's specific 3D or full aperture processing comes into the loop as a reason behind WB's error (do they further reorient the frame, or are we really talking about the matting necessary for all Super35/silent/full aperture that carries a soundtrack?). If the offset under discussion is, in fact, due to the soundtrack on full aperture film, WB's experience with modern Super35 should have made the need for repositioning clear, and I again do not see where Technicolor fits into the problem (do they further reposition the frame after it's repositioned for the soundtrack? I originally failed to recollect the need for the soundtrack repositioning when discussing full aperture, which seems like just what we're discussing here as "Technicolor repositioning" now that it occures to me, but if the soundtrack repositioning requirement for full aperture is the problem, there's no reason I see why WB wouldn't know this and take care of it -- again, all full aperture photography has to be so repositioned if it's to carry a soundtrack).

Anyway, my previous post (excluding the earlier ones, which rambled a bit into a few dead ends) phrases the issue as best I see it (or rather the questions I continue to ask). I'm just repeating myself here (more rambling ).

WB hasn't issued an official reaction, so this is speculation, but for me it's worthwhile as such, for reasons detailed earlier (if we can discover exactly what went wrong, we, as consumers, and the studio, as a provider, can both better gaurd against it in the future, and at the same time we can avoid any improper censure of the studio on this release if the problem was for some reason difficult to predict prior to the new transfer, or if the transfer house is at fault and the studio entirely in the right).

Thanks again to Bob and all who have been puzzling through this since the beginning of the thread.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Once again, this film was photographed with an unusual 3-D camera rig. The optical corrections were made by Technicolor from the Ansco elements for printing in 1953. Original 3-D left/right prints and flat prints were centered on the frame for the original theatrical presentation. This optical fix is done because of the unusual camera rig; it has nothing to do with the Technicolor process.

Jump ahead 40 some years, and you have a new element being made from the camera negatives. The image is roughly 10% off center, but a decision is made NOT to correct the entire film for the new element; only the main and end titles. (Cost is a major factor in making this decision.) That new element is pulled from the vault for video transfer. The telecine engineer has no idea that the film is off-center, and does all sorts of pans and zooms to transfer it to video. That is what gets released onto DVD.

It's wrong, and does not represent the film as it was seen theatrically in 1953. In a nutshell, that's what happened, and I don't know an easier way to explain it.

Bob

 

[Peter Kline]

Bob,

Finally! A short and concise answer as to what went wrong. It's really very simple, isn't it? Now if WB understands what happened and thinks KMK deserves a remastering then they'll do it. I suspect that the title has not sold particularly well and they will not do anything further on it. (Just my opinion of course).


Peter

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Peter, unfortunately, you're probably correct.

By the way, I just saw the new dual-strip Polaroid 3-D print in New York. It's stunning, and I strongly urge anybody in the Hollywood area to check it out on September 13 at the World 3-D Film Expo. You won't be disappointed!

Bob

 

[Bill Burns]

Thanks for the summary, Bob -- but there's still an issue here I'm trying to get at. If it's of no interest to others (it's clearly of no interest to Peter ) then I'll let it drop, but it's valid and remains a point of confusion for me:

1. All full aperture photography (which records to the same surface area as Super35, and thus can be thought of interchangeably with that or the "silent" 35mm aperture) would be off balance if transfered unadjusted from the negative to a sound print, except those early titles which were filmed without preparation for the soundtrack (anyone who filmed Super35 balanced today would require prints to zoom into the image to rebalance them*, thus compromising image detail and grain structure; it would be silly to do that, so I presume that all Super35 shoots off balance -- shoots for the Academy portion of the frame, in other words). I had overlooked this in my earlier posts, which is why I'd suggest ignoring them, because without this in sight my reasoning lead down a few dead ends. There's a soundtrack occupying a chunk of the left portion of any full aperture frame printed for sound. If the shot is balanced in negative, once the soundtrack is put into place, it's unbalanced. Thus you either readjust after the fact (I believe Shepard may have done this for the Image edition of City Lights, whereas Universal did not readjust for their edition of Dracula, to name two examples of full aperture films married after the fact to soundtracks), or you shoot off balance in the first place (frame for Academy Aperture, in other words, or whatever portion of an Academy frame you'll use in the event of a 1.85:1 or 2.40:1 extraction) and simply print the image area unadjusted, with the soundtrack covering the left and thus "rebalancing" the shot from its unbalanced negative.

This makes it all fairly clear with an illustration: http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articl...ris081202.html, and yes, that's by Robert Harris for anyone who thinks I'm just whistlin' Dixie about all of this.

Thus, any full aperture film has to be "adjusted": either when shot, or when printed, to allow for the soundtrack.

I hope that's clear. I have a bit more time tonight, so I trust this isn't needlessly convoluted. Now, if all full aperture film has to be readjusted, as just explained, and if that readjustment amounts to something like 10% (it look like roughly 10% from the illustration), something doesn't add up. Kiss Me Kate was shot full aperture. If the necessary adjustment is 10%, then it must be an adjustment, more or less, for the soundtrack.

And if that's the case, it's an adjustment WB has made hundreds, perhaps thousands, of times when handling modern Super35 stock. So ignorance couldn't stand as an excuse for the error.

You get at an important thought, though, Bob: it may have simply been a financial decision. I'm not sure why treating the film as all Super35 must be treated would be notably more costly than transferring it directly (it must be taken to a positive element for transfer, I believe, and when making that positive element, is it really a cost issue to reposition the frame as it would be repositioned for prints?), and if panning and other manipulation was going to be applied after the fact, I'm again unsure why this would be cheaper than simply orienting the frame properly in the first place (i.e. transferring the Academy Aperture portion of it, rather than the entire Super35 negative).

2. Now, with the above again explained as simply as I can put it without leaving out relevant detail, where does this leave us? Why, with another question! Ha. This one follows from the above: after the soundtrack adjustment is made for full aperture photography, is additional adjustment necessary for the 3D system? Or are we mixing apples and oranges here? All 3D films are shot that the two frames ("eyes") may be combined, and that combined image represents the "intended" framing. But given that we're transferring the film in 2D, from a single "eye" at a time, do we need to adjust still more than we already have for the soundtrack (which, again, looks like around 10% by Mr. Harris' illustration).

3. Most importantly: Kiss Me Kate has come and gone. What's done is done. But if the soundtrack is at least in part to blame here, and WB should and does know better than to print full aperture films intended for sound prints without allowing for the soundtrack, is this a fate that might befall other films, 3D and 2D? Other full aperture sound films, in other words.

4. If the answer to #3 is "possibly," then we need to look at House of Wax when it comes out and gauge the framing against earlier prints (or home video transfers if none of us have access to 2D prints). Bob, you said earlier that MGM's camera and the House of Wax "Natural Vision" camera housing are very similar. How similar? Was House of Wax shot full aperture? If it was, and if any adjustment necessary beyond the sound adjustment applies to it as well (the sound adjustment must apply if it is full aperture), then, as I said long ago (now ), it will behoove reviewers to be aware of the problem on Kiss Me Kate and ensure it is not present on House of Wax before recommending the film to customers.

Is that clear, everyone? I hope so, as I know I was quite convoluted earlier (again, I'd overlooked an obvious fact that changes the nature of this issue). Simple answers are always heartening, because they make a matter seem easily solved, but simple answers don't always cover the issue. I want very much to cover this issue, because I want for the feedback here to be of use to those judging future releases, and even to studio folk who might read it and take away useful cautions for the future. My continued thanks to Bob Furmanek for his efforts to explore the matter thoroughly. And I promise, with definite answers to the above, I'm satisfied (hey, as I've said, for me this is academic, because I won't be happy until they're presented in 3D).

* A mathematical truth, but a compositional falsehood. Sometimes I overlook the simplist facts; my apologies. All this time I've been visualizing the "re-balancing" of a left-cropped full aperture frame by chopping off a bit of the right, but that's a mathematical balance (the same amount of physical space to the left of center as to the right of center), not a compositional balance (any screen objects that lean left because of the soundtrack will continue to occupy the left of the screen no matter how much of the right one crops, obviously). Duh! Pardon while I dunk my head in a sink of cold water. Again, I'm sorry I overlooked this obvious fact (and the necessary unbalancing of frames in Super35 mentioned earlier), as together they've made my posts almost impenetrable, and here my questions remain relatively direct. This also affects my comments about City Lights here and on another thread -- David Shepard probably centered his image on the screen, but only cropped the left portion occupied by the soundtrack, thus making it appear that image had been cropped from both sides. The size of the black bars to the left and right seemed excessive for this conclusion, but I'm sure I had this wrong earlier. Sorry once again. Where's an editor when I need one?

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

It is of interest to me, that's why I tried to clear it up a couple of posts above. Bob, of course, did a better job of it , as expected.

Reading slightly between Bob's lines, I would guess with certainty that it *was* a financial decision to use the element that had not been optically corrected other than the titles. This probably means that they didn't want to go back again to the camera neg and make a new transfer. Why they didn't simply use one of the newly-done left and right elements (which, presumably, are correct) is a mystery. But it's certainly a mistake they need to acknowledge and correct.

There should be no need to worry about this same situation for House of Wax since, as Bob noted, it was photographed in the standard 1.37 aperture and needed no optical centering of the sort that KMK needed. But that doesn't mean the transfer will be correct since a technician could still zoom in or do other alterations to the image for whatever reason. So you are correct, Bill, that we need to check it out thoroughly (though, having just seen it in double-system 3D, I don't really want to watch a flat DVD right away )

My answer to your query # 3

Most importantly: Kiss Me Kate has come and gone. What's done is done. But if the soundtrack is at least in part to blame here, and WB should and does know better than to print full aperture films intended for sound prints without allowing for the soundtrack, is this a fate that might befall other films, 3D and 2D? Other full aperture sound films, in other words.

is that there can always be mistakes made. If the studio record-keeping doesn't note certain things that must be done to a negative (such as darkening a day-for-night scene), there's always a chance for a mistake. That's why they should try to use reference prints from the original release where possible. Check out the supplement on the Criterion Spartacus where Robert Harris shows the film clips they used (from Kubrick's print, I think) to balance the color.

Pete