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

[Randy A Salas]

Yup, looks like we've been had at the telecine again.

The LD: http://webpages.charter.net/tvdias/KMK_LD.JPG

The DVD: http://webpages.charter.net/tvdias/KMK_DVD.JPG

Oh, the horror of it all!

What!? How can that second image be a screen capture from the DVD? That image is widescreen (about 1.66:1). The DVD is 1.37:1. The web-site image has been cropped.

Also, those LD and DVD images are clearly not the same frame--not very useful for a comparison.

Here is an accurate DVD screen capture of the exact-same frame from the laserdisc (assuming the first image is an accurate representation of the LD).

 

[GerardoHP]

I think the image that purports to be from the DVD is zoomed in (cropped by the 16x9 screen). If so, it still gives you a good idea of how much the new DVD is missing from the sides.

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

Can someone with the DVD grab a screen shot of the main title?

 

[TedD]

(assuming the first image is an accurate representation of the LD).

Randy, sorry if the example I chose doesn't meet your exacting standards, but after watching both versions, it is truly representative of the differences. Both screenshots were taken with a digital camera since screen captures from LD are very difficult to do and the amount of horizontal information in both photos is 100% accurate!

As a matter of fact, you'll notice that I specifically cropped the jpegs to allow a little bit of the dark area around the screen to remain to eliminate any possible questions.

I wonder what your official WB source has to say, now? Are you going to print a retraction? There is no way the 35mm negative had enough additional area on the sides to allow THAT much of the frame to be considered "more picture area than was intended for theatrical release".

As far as the main title, the fact that it is windowboxed on the DVD leads me to believe that a comparison would not be valid since the DVD image has already been modified from the original film frame.

Ted

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

Thanks for the explanation, Ted. I'll probably just get this as part of the Cole Porter box set and hope that they do a better transfer someday.

 

[Patrick McCart]

Ted, your DVD capture is approx. 1.63:1 and the LD capture is approx. 1.78:1. Why didn't you capture photos revealing 100% of the frame?

I've seen the LD transfer on TCM and it's clearly around 1.66:1 and the DVD transfer obviously has to be 1.33:1.

 

[Robert Harris]

Ah... the fun of creating transfers from oddball elements.

I believe that Mr. Price's comments are totally accurate and should be accepted as such.

35mm release prints and intermediates would have been created in two totally different ways for this production.

The original dye transfer prints would have been struck from matrices created by Technicolor in 1953 which would have cropped the image slghtly on all sides.

Since this was a two camera production the edges of the left eye and right eye frames would have EACH contained some additionial information irrelevant to the other, and which should have been cropped for projection and proper overlay of the image.

The element which would have been created for the old laserdisc would most like have been printed from either the original negative or from an intermediate positive and would not have been cropped in proper preparation of 3-D projection. What this means is that the original dye transfer prints would have been cropped even more than for a standard production.

Therefore, when Mr. Price comments that the framing which has been prepared for this DVD release replicates the framing of the original dye transfer studio print, this all makes perfect sense.

During the preparation of Technicolor printing matrices, the frames of all productions were optically cropped as a slight field enlargement to avoid photographing in dirt and dust particles which might have:

A. Been photographed on the original negative as part of production photography.

B. Attached themselves to the optical printer within the aperture of the original negative.

In short, it gave you a clean frame line.

Because of this, which is specific not only to Technicolor dye transfer, but to many optical printers, both "Vertigo" and My Fair Lady expose more information on our contact created prints than was ever seen in dye transfer.

I cannot speak to the positioning of the main title sequence which may well have been from a separate element.

RAH

 

[Thomas T]

Thank you, Mr. Harris. I can now purchase the Kiss Me Kate DVD with a clear conscience and retire my "wide screen" laser disc. Though I'm sure there are some who will never be convinced that this is not some dastardly Warners plot, your expertise in the area makes it the final word for me.

 

[Greg_M]

If all this is true, then why would WB give us the original theatrical OAR when it is over cropped to begin with?

With many WB releases the trend seems to be to expose more of the image. Plus the film looks better with more of the image shown.

This seems to have been a bad call on Warners part, especially since they have released full screen (Pan and Scan) versions of their films. In this case, showing the entire image would conform to the open mat on the Pan and Scan "Willy Wonka" DVD.

Presenting "Kiss Me Kate" in it's current transfer is ridiculous.


Thomas: Before you retire your laserdisc, view the DVD. The Laserdisc has much better framing. The DVD is distracting to watch, since hands and feet and characters disappear from the shot where as on the laserdisc they do not.

And this is NOT the way many audiences saw "Kiss Me Kate" if more than half the prints went out in 3-D. More of the image was shown in the theaters in the 3-D version. Only the flat versions were cropped. So you are buying a flat presentation of a 3-D film with an over cropped image.


:star: And Though I respect Mr. Harris and appreciate his fine work, he didn't mention ever viewing the DVD. His reply may be correct in theory, but seeing is believing and I would think Mr. Harris would agree the image is not as pleasing on the current transfer.

 

[Roger Rollins]

Thank you, Mr. Harris. I can now purchase the Kiss Me Kate DVD with a clear conscience and retire my "wide screen" laser disc. Though I'm sure there are some who will never be convinced that this is not some dastardly Warners plot, your expertise in the area makes it the final word for me.

I echo Thomas T.'s wise comments and also express gratitude to Mr. Harris clarification on this issue. It once again proves how fortunate HTF forum members are to have his generous contributions here to set the record straight.
Ned Price's earlier comments explaining that previous transfers reflected imagery not meant to be seen either in theatrical projection or on video, seem to have been ignored. Hopefully now with Mr. Harris' confirmation that the framing on the current DVD is indeed ACCURATE, this issue will be resolved.


And to Greg M., Mr. Harris most certainly did see the KISS ME KATE DVD, and praised it within his most recent column found on THE DIGITAL BITS.

 

[Greg_M]

Well Mr. Harris has spoken, so I guess it's as good as "God". Everyone run out and buy the DVD - today.

It doesn't change my opinion on how terrible the transfer looks. And I can not seriously recommend to anyone to purchase this title with this transfer.

I, have spoken.

 

[David Lambert]

I, for one, am purchasing it.

 

[TedD]

Thank you, Mr. Harris. I can now purchase the Kiss Me Kate DVD with a clear conscience and retire my "wide screen" laser disc. Though I'm sure there are some who will never be convinced that this is not some dastardly Warners plot, your expertise in the area makes it the final word for me.

Much as I respect Mr Harris, we can all make mistakes, and I believe that he and WB have made one here.

I'm not sure why I spent the whole of Sunday morning doing this, but here are exhibits A-X:

The format is simple: the top part of the image is a capture of the DVD. The bottom part is a capture of the LD. The DVD capture was taken from WinDVD, the LD from DScaler. The images are aligned in the vertical plane to accurately show where the cropping has taken place.

The Main Title:
http://webpages.charter.net/tvdias/cap01c.jpg

Looks pretty OK, except for a sight crop of the titles giving us a hair less image on both sides and more on the top and bottom.

Opening shot in the apartment:
http://webpages.charter.net/tvdias/cap03c.jpg
Where's the left side of the image? Now I see why some might be complaining about off center composition.

More selected exhibits:

http://webpages.charter.net/tvdias/cap04c.jpg
Where's the right side? Can anyone spell Pan and Scan?

http://webpages.charter.net/tvdias/cap05c.jpg
Left side MIA.

http://webpages.charter.net/tvdias/cap06c.jpg
Ditto.

http://webpages.charter.net/tvdias/cap07c.jpg
Oops, this time they got both sides.

http://webpages.charter.net/tvdias/cap08c.jpg
Ditto.

http://webpages.charter.net/tvdias/cap09c.jpg
Ditto.

http://webpages.charter.net/tvdias/cap10c.jpg
Ditto + a zoom-in to boot

http://webpages.charter.net/tvdias/cap12c.jpg
What can I say?

http://webpages.charter.net/tvdias/cap13c.jpg
Sigh

http://webpages.charter.net/tvdias/cap17c.jpg
Oh, goodie, they gave us more screen area on the titles.
If you are wondering where the cue mark disappeared to on the DVD, they simply replaced the four frames containing the cue mark with the previous four frames. In addition, the location of the cue mark well within the 1.85:1 aperture on the screen is a dead givaway that this title was intended for projection at 1.85:1.

I tried to match the frames as closely as possible, however since DVD only allows the capture of I-frames, it is not perfect.

And that is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Now I am going to watch some OAR movies.

Ted

 

[Robert Harris]

deleted. duplicate post.

 

[Robert Harris]

I did view the DVD and found it to look much like the original prints, one of which I was able to examine several years ago.

As I recall it had a "cramped" look, which would lead me to believe that one of these original prints was used as reference.

There is a judgment call here. If one is overseeing a transfer, should more of the image area be exposed than was originally or should the transfer attempt to replicate the original positioning of the film?

The answer may well be that in this instance, having access to the entire area of the original negative, that it might have better been re-positioned for home video. That said, one cannot fault Mr. Price for taking the time and trouble to seek out reference and to follow it precisely.

Those who have viewed the disc will note that the main titles have been windowboxed to preserve all of the information...

and that even though windowboxed, that information is tight.

Knowing the potential problems with Ansco film elements, I'm much less concerned with the finite specifics of framing and more with the quality of the image, which again replicates the original.

Whatever the viewable area on the DVD, it still has more information than was seen in most theatres, with their varying angles of projection and misc. shortcomings, such as inverted keystoning and mis-cropping.

My advice would be to thank Warner for a fine job and very well-priced DVD at a street price of under $15.

If one wishes to view this film properly, it should best be done in 3-D in a theatre with a silver screen.

 

[TedD]

Mr Harris, have you looked at the screenshots in my previous post?

In addition to the apparent Pan & Scan that was performed, you will notice that there is very little additional headroom in most shots on the DVD. Certainly not enough to account for a 1.85 to a 1.33 reframing. This and the fact that I had to scale some of the DVD screenshots by as much as 25% reduction to match the LD captures tells me that the telecine operator used as much as a 25% zoom on some of the shots.

It's almost like he/she was composing it for use on a 19" TV rather than a good sized projection setup.

Just another reason why professional monitors with small screens have no place in a telecine bay as a reference to how the DVD will ultimately look in an HT.

Ted

 

[Peter Kline]

Ok, You've all made your points. Now let me enjoy my dvd of
"ISS ME KATE"

 

[Robert Harris]

TedD has taken the time to post some very representative screen captures.

I'm seeing two things.

1. The "wide-screen" laserdisc seems to have included the area which would have been hidden by the soundtrack as many shots seem to be open to the left.

2. I'm not aware of which eye was used for this transfer, or a combination of both to get the cleanest footage.

I'll repeat one point which I offered earlier.

I would suggest that those of you who have some experience in photgraphy relate this to parallax. As each camera was exposing a different image, each image had to be cropped to conform to the other in final printing.

Meaning that the central area of both formed the unified real estate which was the image to be found on the original prints, which had to be projected one upon the other in virutal registration.

In the majority of the examples offered, I'm seeing dead picture area on the sides. As to both balance of image and impact to the eye, inclusive of the image directing the eye to the frame postionwise, I would suggest looking at image number 13.

The widescreen version of this shot is both unbalanced left to right, and also draws the eye away from the leads and towards the figure to the left background. This is wrong.

Photographically, the newer image is the better composed.

This film, and many 3-D titles like it are examples of productions in which OAR is not photographed, but derived and extracted.

For futher discussion see Paramount's The Parallax View.

RAH

 

[TedD]

RAH:

Both eyes were used, in some cases there is a transition between the two in the middle of a scene. See Chapter 21.

I positioned the DVD image to maintain its relationship to the LD image to show that the cropping for the DVD is at least semi-random, with cropping done both on the right and left or both.

I am glad to have the DVD, the image quality and sound are excellent.

But I just wish that the telecine transfer wasn't so drastically zoomed in....

Ted

 

[Patrick McCart]

I don't get it. People get worked up over a DVD not showing an image like the original theatrical version...yet when a DVD DOES like in this case, it's wrong.

Having the correct AR sometimes means you crop part of the image.