Jump to content



Sign up for a free account!

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests to win things like this Logitech Harmony Ultimate Remote and you won't get the popup ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

Photo

HURRY SUNDOWN - distorted DVD image


  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
6 replies to this topic

#1 of 7 Chuck Pennington

Chuck Pennington

    Supporting Actor

  • 829 posts
  • Join Date: May 11 2001

Posted May 30 2011 - 03:19 PM

I'm so glad that an anamorphic widescreen HURRY SUNDOWN has been released so that I could retire my awful pan/scan copy recorded off of Encore from 15 years ago. However, it sure seems someone dropped the ball on the mastering.


The print used has some problems, including some color fringing usually seen when Technicolor matricies don't line up. It only affects some individual scenes and sometimes just a few shots here and there. Below are some examples.


Posted Image
Posted Image


And then the image suddenly cuts to this:


Posted Image


And do the images above look "squished" to you? They certainly do to me, as if the transfer provided wasn't in the 2.35:1 ratio and it was distorted so that the aspect ratio would be more mathematically correct even if the image is now wrecked. I don't remember this distortion in the pan/scan master, and I now wish I hadn't thrown it out so I could post comparison pics.


I took it upon myself to make a correction to crop 24 lines above and below the image to get an image that appears far more correct when displayed in 16x9 format. Below are comparison pics. You be the judge - Olive Films DVD is first, followed by my alteration. I got as close to the exact frame as I could in this comparison. Again, I'm not saying mine is optimal or correct - I didn't want to go too far and have everyone appear squeezed - but I feel certain that the Olive Films DVD release is certainly NOT correct.



Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image





#2 of 7 ShowsOn

ShowsOn

    Second Unit

  • 251 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 21 2011

Posted May 30 2011 - 05:46 PM

Thanks very much for this; you've just saved me a bunch of money. To me your 'corrected' versions look much better. The actors' faces look seriously fattened in the uncorrected versions. This is a Panavision film, so there is no reason why actor's faces should be so distorted like they were in 1950s CinemaScope films. The shot with Burgess Meredith looks particularly bad.


Keep in mind that it isn't uncommon for the background in Panavision films to appear squeezed, because the lenses worked by accurately squeezing the plane that is sharply focused (usually an actor who is closer to the foreground), but your images show that even sharply focused planes look stretched.


If you are able to find a scene with a circular object, such as a wheel or perhaps a circular clock, that is positioned directly in front of the camera you may be able to provide a more definitive comparison, but from what you have shown me this is a bad transfer, so I won't buy this disc. Hopefully Skidoo isn't stuffed up in this way.



#3 of 7 Thomas T

Thomas T

    Screenwriter

  • 2,109 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 30 2001

Posted May 30 2011 - 06:32 PM

I'll have to disagree with Simon. The Olive version looks much better. In the shots provided by Chuck, everyone's faces looks unnaturally elongated as if there were an invisible wire attached to the top of their heads and someone was pulling hard thus stretching their faces vertically. Plus the color looks more vibrant in the Olive screen shots.



#4 of 7 Chuck Pennington

Chuck Pennington

    Supporting Actor

  • 829 posts
  • Join Date: May 11 2001

Posted May 31 2011 - 01:05 AM

Ignore the slight difference in color, density and sharpness - do you seriously not see how the imagine is squished on the Olive Films DVD? Regardless of the source Paramount provided, this is something they could've corrected. Even the DVDBeaver.com review picked up on it:


"There is some horizontal stretching on the 2.35:1 Panavision aspect ratio."


I'd love some explanation from Olive Films. I'll keep searching for my pan/scan copy  - and yes, I know it isn't definitive, but if people don't look squished on it, well that means something, wouldn't it?

Originally Posted by Thomas T 

I'll have to disagree with Simon. The Olive version looks much better. In the shots provided by Chuck, everyone's faces looks unnaturally elongated as if there were an invisible wire attached to the top of their heads and someone was pulling hard thus stretching their faces vertically. Plus the color looks more vibrant in the Olive screen shots.






#5 of 7 kagemusha98

kagemusha98

    Second Unit

  • 267 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 12 2009

Posted May 31 2011 - 01:51 AM

Wow!  Thanks...I was wondering why the faces are all distorted and fatter.  It does look awful.....and I sure wish Olive could correct the probelm!



#6 of 7 Cassy_w

Cassy_w

    Second Unit

  • 459 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 02 2003

Posted June 07 2011 - 08:58 AM

Good grief. Talk about flattened. Nice spot, Chuck.

Death to PG-13! And now death to DVNR too!!

#7 of 7 Richard--W

Richard--W

    Producer

  • 3,527 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 20 2004

Posted July 03 2011 - 04:36 AM

It looks like something Alpha or VCI would have done because they don't know any better. Sometimes. Has Olive or Paramount taken any action to correct the problem? Issued a public statement, perhaps? I'd rather buy my copy from Chuck Pennington.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users