|
|
 |
10-17-2005, 07:34 PM
|
#1 of 16 
|
|
Ira Siegel
Member
Location: Los Angeles
Join Date: Nov 2004
Local Time: 02:31 PM
Local Date: 10-13-2008
Posts: 154
|
Looking at Gary Tooze's DVDBeaver site, and of course comparing my double-dipped copies of some films, I've noticed that with new restorations there appears to be significantly different cropping of the films notwithstanding identical nominal aspect ratios. For example, with the recently restored Casablanca, a significant portion of the right side of the image is cropped and sometimes important information is missing (e.g., Rick's signing a check early in the movie that is supposed to say December 2, 1941 so that we know the USA is not yet in the war (sure we know soon enough), but in the restored verson the 41 is completely chopped off). Now with the Hitchcock Masterpiece Collection, the "new" version of Rear Window is cropped differently from the version from about 2001 (or is it 2003?).
Anyone know why do we end up with different croppings?
|
|
|
|
10-17-2005, 08:17 PM
|
#2 of 16
|
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2000
Local Time: 05:31 PM
Local Date: 10-13-2008
Posts: 2,777
|
I was wondering the same thing. It seems that this happens on a lot of titles (particularly WB, I have noticed.)
|
|
|
|
10-17-2005, 09:16 PM
|
#3 of 16
|
|
Member
Join Date: Mar 2001
Local Time: 09:31 PM
Local Date: 10-13-2008
Posts: 787
|
I noticed the same thing with "Casablanca" -- actually, the '41 isn't completely chopped off if you watch it on a PC (without overscan); you get the 4, but not the 1.
As to why this happens, I dunno... anything from a mistake in framing (happens more than we'd like to think), to trying to hide damage at the edge of the frame.
|
|
|
|
|
10-17-2005, 09:46 PM
|
#4 of 16
|
|
Patrick J. McCart
Member
Location: Decatur, GA, USA
Join Date: May 2001
Local Time: 05:31 PM
Local Date: 10-13-2008
Posts: 7,495
|
It may just be a change in framing.
The earlier DVD of Casablanca may have been framed to expose more of the frame, while the SE may have used the SMPTE (basically, official standards) framing for Academy Ratio films.
I think a lot of people become too obsessed with cropping. More image in any ratio doesn't always mean it's correct. Even with Ben-Hur, they opened up the height that's always supposed to be seen, but also opens up the width all the way to 2.76:1. The film was always meant to be seen at 2.55:1, so a lot of resolution was wasted on parts of the frame that no one would have seen in the theater.
www.widescreenmuseum.com can explain things pretty well... and everything on the site is extremely accurate.
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
10-17-2005, 11:30 PM
|
#5 of 16
|
|
Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Local Time: 02:31 PM
Local Date: 10-13-2008
Posts: 800
|
But why wouldn't the complete date on the check be intended to be seen?
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
10-17-2005, 11:42 PM
|
#6 of 16
|
|
Ira Siegel
Member
Location: Los Angeles
Join Date: Nov 2004
Local Time: 02:31 PM
Local Date: 10-13-2008
Posts: 154
|
Thanks, Patrick, for the reference to the Widescreen Museum.
I think the "Curator" there disagrees with your point about caring to much about cropping. He says,
Quote:
| "If there's one thing that people seem interested in it's the aspect ratio of a video transfer. If it's not the same ratio as originally presented in theatres then there are screams to high heaven that the DVD buying audience is being screwed. Frankly, the Curator finds most of these vocal types to be completely clueless. As stated in a number of other locations on this web site, an aspect ratio is a shape, it is not an assurance of content. Many films have been transferred at a correct aspect ratio but not using the prescribed aperture dimensions resulting in cropping of significant areas of the image." |
So, what is going on with the framing? As noted above, "mis-framing" (or cropping) resulted in significant lost information in Casablanca, by way of example. (Jeffrey, it is my understanding that the full date was intended to be seen.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10-18-2005, 01:40 AM
|
#7 of 16
|
|
Patrick J. McCart
Member
Location: Decatur, GA, USA
Join Date: May 2001
Local Time: 05:31 PM
Local Date: 10-13-2008
Posts: 7,495
|
Just looking at DVDBeaver's captures... you can hardly see the date in the old DVD. This is a brief close-up of a check, so I really doubt the date was that crucial, anyways.
Quote:
|
So that there is no misunderstanding, in connection with Ben Hur, the height did not result in what the Curator thought was an overly wide image. The same frame height is shown having four alternate widths.
|
No, but all previous transfers cropped the top and bottom of the frame, which is incorrect for the format (the result of using an improperly made reduction). The new DVD finally has the right vertical information, but didn't need to be any wider than 2.55:1.
We're only basing what is correct framing by comparing DVD's, so there's no indication of which is right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10-18-2005, 01:57 AM
|
#8 of 16
|
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2000
Local Time: 05:31 PM
Local Date: 10-13-2008
Posts: 2,777
|
Patrick,
Do you think the new framings are more in line with what was actually projected, rather than what the frame area was (Ben-Hur not withstanding)? In other words, the new dvds are framed in the appropriate Academy format.
|
|
|
|
|
10-18-2005, 09:01 AM
|
|
