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

[Robert Harris]

Thanks to Bob Furanek for his post.

I've spoken with someone who has an original 1953 print, which I'll have for examination mid-week and will attempt to post a few frame scans.

I'm told that it is not 1.37, but rather is formatted with a slight hard matte. 1.55, 1.66? Remains to be seen.

As they say, the thick plottens.

 

[GerardoHP]

Perhaps something like the widescreen version TCM regularly shows? We'll see...

 

[TedD]

Roland, do you have a any kind of video capture card in your PC? I used DScaler and a Holo3D card to do the LD captures I posted earlier.

Ted

 

[Bob Furmanek]

For the record, KMK was the one and only feature that was photographed with MGM's own studio-built 3-D camera rig. Their one other stereoscopic feature (ARENA) was photographed with an older rig that dated back to the late 30's/early 40's. It had previously been used to film the Pete Smith short THIRD DIMENSIONAL MURDER.

I believe this was the only 3-D camera rig which photographed the image full aperture. This was probably done to allow for optical re-positioning. It made sense in 1953, but has obviously created havoc with modern remastering!

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Ted,

Thanks for all your excellent work preparing those screen-captures for our benefit.

BRAVO!

As you say, this isn't an AR issue...it's how one acheives that AR from the film-print.

I'm with you...there's *significant* L/R information in the LD version that seems substantial and part of the "composition"...not just "extra" area that was intended to be masked (to my eye). I too am anxious to hear the results from those who are doing research right now.

Even if some theaters had "over" matted this presentation theatrically...just looking at the framing on the LD seems so much more natural and less cramped.

Too bad that even if WB had released this 1.66:1 it *still* wouldn't have been 16x9 :frowning:

But putting this into a larger perspective...

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

No argument here!

 

[Steve Phillips]

I've got a headache, and I haven't even been wearing 3-D glasses!

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Steve, it's really quite simple:

1. MGM photographed this film with a full aperture 3-D camera, exposing the entire width of the frame area from left to right.

2. The original release prints were optically centered by Technicolor, and could be projected in several aspect ratios as wide as 1.85, as well as dual-strip 3-D.

3. The newest preservation master from these original elements, as well as the newly made studio print, are not optically corrected.

4. These off-center elements were utilized as reference for the new DVD.

The composition is screwed up, as those frame grabs indicate. Believe me, that is not the way the film was originally presented!

 

[Mark Zimmer]

I don't know; looking at those screengrabs, the DVD seems to be less off-balance than the LD (though #12 seems to be an exception). I fear this is a question that may not have an authoritative answer since there are so many theatrical versions floating around. :frowning:


But this wouldn't be the first time a studio tried to pass off a zoomed picture as OAR, though that most often happens with a letterbox (zoomboxing).

 

[Robert Harris]

To update:

I have spoken with a studio rep who takes great pride in things being done properly and giving the public proper product for their purchases.

References will be rechecked. I will have an original print in my office on Wednesday.

Knowing that this was a semi-experimental process, I will state that anything is possible, inclusive of a one-off test print which may have somehow gotten vaulted and then used as "reference."

A projection print was produced several years ago by direct contact with the left side covered by optical audio. I have been advised that the new transfer was created from full frame interpositives with shots cutting back and forth between left and right eye as was necessitated by quality.

I would suggest that this thread by put on hold until I am able to examine the original print on Wednesday; ascertain that it actually IS an original print from 1953 and then find out where we are. The only thing that I can assure HTF at this point is that no one at Warner has any intention of hiding anything.

If the print is original, I will attempt to scan a few frames and post either here or on Bits.

Until Wednesday.

RAH

 

[Joe Caps]

Lets add more wood to the pile - does anyone have any of the old full screen laserdiscs of Kiss Me Kate - especially the one labeled Technicolor Restoration- I wonder how much picture THAT lasershows compared to the new DVD?

 

[Greg_M]

Quote - "The only thing that I can assure HTF at this point is that no one at Warner has any intention of hiding anything."


I for one, am in no way suggesting Warner intentionally mis-framed the film. I'm sure they did what they believed was correct, maybe not knowing all the facts. I am just trying to point out that the film doesn't look properly framed and others have also commented. Though the DVD should be corrected on future pressings and those wanting to exchange it should be able to.

Over all Warner Bros. does an exceptional job mastering their DVD's.

 

[Damin J Toell]

Me thinks Warners is just covering up

DJ

 

[Greg_M]

Damin,

I didn't think Warner EVER intentionally mis-framed the film. At first I DID believed they may have been covering up when the framing issue was 1st brought to their attention. But in light of all the information posted to this sight, it's most likely they honestly did believe they had the correct ratio and were not trying to cover up. Especially since no one knows for sure yet what the correct AR is.

Greg

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Wouldn't you want to frame it in the aspect ratio that the director originally intended? Check the earlier post for his direct quote. Of course, that would mean 3 different versions. Never mind.

Although, according to MGM, the recommended ratio was 1.75. This information is from Boxoffice, which was the industry bible at that time.

 

[Greg_M]

Let's all attack Greg since he's the one who can fix the transfer.

 

[Conrad_SSS]

I have an MGM 1953-54 Exhibitor's release schedule. For EVERY feature, short, or cartoon, except those filmed in CinemaScope it says "Can be projected at any ratio up to 1.75:1".

This was applied to many feature films obviously filmed in
Academy ratio, including KATE.

 

[PatrickL]

I would suggest that this thread be put on hold until I am able to examine the original print on Wednesday

I think that's an awfully good idea.

In the meantime I want to thank not only Greg, for starting this thread, but also the many who've contributed valuable information to it.

Thanks especially to Mr. Harris, for taking the time to investigate this further.

 

[TedD]

Lets add more wood to the pile - does anyone have any of the old full screen laserdiscs of Kiss Me Kate - especially the one labeled Technicolor Restoration- I wonder how much picture THAT lasershows compared to the new DVD?

Let's do, Joe. Your wish is my command (Not really, but I thought it would be educational)

Same format DVD on the top, full screen LD on the bottom:

http://webpages.charter.net/tvdias/cap01p.jpg
http://webpages.charter.net/tvdias/cap03p.jpg
http://webpages.charter.net/tvdias/cap04p.jpg
http://webpages.charter.net/tvdias/cap05p.jpg
http://webpages.charter.net/tvdias/cap06p.jpg
http://webpages.charter.net/tvdias/cap07p.jpg
http://webpages.charter.net/tvdias/cap10p.jpg
http://webpages.charter.net/tvdias/cap12p.jpg
http://webpages.charter.net/tvdias/cap13p.jpg
http://webpages.charter.net/tvdias/cap17p.jpg

Not frame perfect matchs with the previous set but close enough.

You can draw your own conclusions

Ted

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Conrad, that is true about the widescreen recommendations from MGM. While it certainly would not apply to earlier productions, remember that KATE was photographed for widescreen presentation by the Director and DP.

Utilizing the original full academy aperture element, 1.75 is the ratio in which this film should be mastered.

Of course, it really should be in 3-D (and I don't mean red/blue anaglyph) but that's a whole different set of problems!

Bob

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Not frame perfect matchs with the previous set but close enough.

You can draw your own conclusions

Yet again Ted provides some substantive contribution to the discussion. The rest of us "babbling" HTFrs should take a lesson at his real-world examples!

Ted, those screen caps are quite curious. Interesting how some LD frames do have more L/R info...some have more vertical info...and then some have *less* info than the DVD. Almost as if the images were being framed like some people plant daffodill bulbs...just toss them up in the air and let them land where they may!