-

Jump to content



Photo

Warner's Kiss Me Kate Mis-Framed


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
268 replies to this topic

#1 of 269 OFFLINE   Greg_M

Greg_M

    Screenwriter

  • 1,193 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 23 2000

Posted April 22 2003 - 12:43 PM

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 of 269 OFFLINE   Patrick McCart

Patrick McCart

    Lead Actor

  • 7,471 posts
  • Join Date: May 16 2001
  • Real Name:Patrick McCart
  • LocationAlpharetta, GA, USA

Posted April 22 2003 - 12:48 PM

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 of 269 OFFLINE   Greg_M

Greg_M

    Screenwriter

  • 1,193 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 23 2000

Posted April 22 2003 - 12:55 PM

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 of 269 OFFLINE   Jesse Skeen

Jesse Skeen

    Producer

  • 4,021 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 24 1999

Posted April 22 2003 - 01:04 PM

Half the movie is missing- a whole eye's view worth!
Home video oddities, old commercials and other junk: http://www.youtube.com/user/eyeh8nbc

#5 of 269 OFFLINE   Greg_M

Greg_M

    Screenwriter

  • 1,193 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 23 2000

Posted April 22 2003 - 01:21 PM

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.Posted Image

#6 of 269 OFFLINE   Joe Caps

Joe Caps

    Screenwriter

  • 1,933 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 10 2000

Posted April 22 2003 - 01:48 PM

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 of 269 OFFLINE   Greg_M

Greg_M

    Screenwriter

  • 1,193 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 23 2000

Posted April 22 2003 - 01:54 PM

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.Posted Image

#8 of 269 OFFLINE   Patrick McCart

Patrick McCart

    Lead Actor

  • 7,471 posts
  • Join Date: May 16 2001
  • Real Name:Patrick McCart
  • LocationAlpharetta, GA, USA

Posted April 22 2003 - 01:54 PM

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 of 269 OFFLINE   Greg_M

Greg_M

    Screenwriter

  • 1,193 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 23 2000

Posted April 22 2003 - 02:00 PM

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 of 269 OFFLINE   Peter Kline

Peter Kline

    Screenwriter

  • 2,409 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 09 1999

Posted April 22 2003 - 02:08 PM

Ann Miller is mistaken, the movie was only filmed once.

#11 of 269 OFFLINE   Peter Apruzzese

Peter Apruzzese

    Screenwriter

  • 2,614 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 20 1999
  • Real Name:Peter Apruzzese

Posted April 22 2003 - 02:32 PM

Quote:
Doubtful since the 3-D version wouldn't have been used for the laser release.
No, they would have used either the left-eye or the right-eye print.
"What we're fighting for, in the end...we're fighting for each other." - Col. Joshua Chamberlain in "Gettysburg"

 


#12 of 269 OFFLINE   Greg_M

Greg_M

    Screenwriter

  • 1,193 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 23 2000

Posted April 22 2003 - 02:36 PM

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 of 269 OFFLINE   Patrick McCart

Patrick McCart

    Lead Actor

  • 7,471 posts
  • Join Date: May 16 2001
  • Real Name:Patrick McCart
  • LocationAlpharetta, GA, USA

Posted April 22 2003 - 02:41 PM

Could someone post screen shots comparing the LD with the DVD?

#14 of 269 OFFLINE   Peter Apruzzese

Peter Apruzzese

    Screenwriter

  • 2,614 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 20 1999
  • Real Name:Peter Apruzzese

Posted April 22 2003 - 02:42 PM

Quote:
Even if they used the 3-D version left or right - wouldn't one side have more information then another?
Very slightly, but not enough to cause what you're describing.

Any way you can post some screen shots between the laser and the DVD so we can see how much it's off?
"What we're fighting for, in the end...we're fighting for each other." - Col. Joshua Chamberlain in "Gettysburg"

 


#15 of 269 OFFLINE   Greg_M

Greg_M

    Screenwriter

  • 1,193 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 23 2000

Posted April 22 2003 - 02:45 PM

I have no idea how to post screen shots from a laser disc.Posted Image

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

#16 of 269 OFFLINE   David Lambert

David Lambert

    Executive Producer

  • 11,386 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 03 2001

Posted April 22 2003 - 02:49 PM

Got a digital camera? You can take pics of the screen; that would at least be a start.
DAVE/Memphis, TN

...Want to see your favorite show on DVD?

#17 of 269 OFFLINE   ScottR

ScottR

    Screenwriter

  • 2,650 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 01 2000

Posted April 22 2003 - 03:37 PM

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 of 269 OFFLINE   Roger Rollins

Roger Rollins

    Supporting Actor

  • 931 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 19 2001

Posted April 22 2003 - 03:39 PM

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 of 269 OFFLINE   GerardoHP

GerardoHP

    Supporting Actor

  • 696 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 10 2001
  • Real Name:Gerardo Paron
  • LocationLos Angeles, California

Posted April 22 2003 - 05:24 PM

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.
Gerardo

#20 of 269 OFFLINE   Greg_M

Greg_M

    Screenwriter

  • 1,193 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 23 2000

Posted April 22 2003 - 06:19 PM

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.





Forum Nav Content I Follow