20,000 Leagues Under The Sea masked

Discussion in 'DVD' started by RolandL, May 22, 2003.

  1. RolandL

    RolandL Producer

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    3,536
    Likes Received:
    912
    Location:
    Cromwell, CT
    Real Name:
    Roland Lataille
    My DVD copy of 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea came in the mail yesterday from Amazon.com. Everything about it (the picture, sound and extras) are wonderful so, I thought I would do an A/B comparison to the laser disc.

    The opening titles on the laser disc were a bit to the left but on the DVD they are properly centered. Comparing the aspect ratio - 2.35:1 on the laser disc, 2.45:1 on the DVD. I thought because of this I would be seeing slighty more of the film frame on the DVD. But no, all they did was crop the top, bottom and right of the film. You are seeing more on the laser disc than on the DVD.
     
  2. Rob T

    Rob T Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2001
    Messages:
    1,987
    Likes Received:
    0
    the AR on the DVD is 2.55:1 which is the correct AR! [​IMG]
     
  3. Patrick McCart

    Patrick McCart Lead Actor

    Joined:
    May 16, 2001
    Messages:
    7,549
    Likes Received:
    179
    Location:
    Georgia (the state)
    Real Name:
    Patrick McCart
    Well, masking would differ depending if the print was magnetic (which would mean 2.55:1) or optical (2.35:1)
     
  4. Craig Robertson

    Craig Robertson Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    May 12, 1999
    Messages:
    982
    Likes Received:
    0
    the specs on the box claim an original theatrical AR of 2.55:1.
     
  5. Mike_S

    Mike_S Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2000
    Messages:
    176
    Likes Received:
    0
    Roland, I also have the Disney Archive Collection laserdisc.
    Have you noticed that the laserdisc has a slightly 'squashed' image top to bottom? The characters in the film had a slightly 'fat' look to them. It didn't seem to affect Peter Lorre as much. As someone in the Ron Epstein review thread pointed out, how did Disney allow such an obvious flaw to get into the market with the (then) quite expensive LD? I've purchased the new DVD of this title and although I have not yet had a chance to view it, all reports indicate it's a stellar transfer of a great movie. Cheers.

    -Mike
     
  6. Rain

    Rain Producer

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2001
    Messages:
    5,015
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  7. Joe Caps

    Joe Caps Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2000
    Messages:
    1,977
    Likes Received:
    47
    That distortion was not in the film, but in the bad laserdisc transfer. "Fat" transfers are a [rpb;e, fpr amy film. The DVD of Far and away has been transferreed fat all the way through. The laser looks much better.
     
  8. TedD

    TedD Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2001
    Messages:
    698
    Likes Received:
    0
    There are many MGM LD's that were transferred "skinny", as well. Actually this is simply the result of not applying the same magnification to the vertical and horizontal dimensions. The "skinny" MGM LD's were an early form of anamorphic transfer, although the techs that transferred them didn't realize it.

    What they were doing was minimizing the black bars by slightly stretching the height.

    The MGM LD's in question were anywhere from 2.05:1 to 2.25:1 and could be restored to the correct AR simply by reducing the height.

    Early CinemaScope had a problem with anamorphic distortion caused by the camera lenses, which often results in a "fat" area in the center of the screen (sometimes referred to as the "CinemaScope mumps").

    Anyhow, I digress. My point is that the home video versions have had variations from the proper proportions for years.

    If you have an HTPC and Zoom Player or TheaterTek for DVD, and D-Scaler for LD, it's a non-issue and easily correctable with the zoom and blanking contols.

    Ted
     
  9. DeeF

    DeeF Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2002
    Messages:
    1,683
    Likes Received:
    11
    The actors in this movie look "fat" to my eyes, on the DVD. The AR is clearly not 2.55:1, but something less wide (I have The King And I and How To Marry A Millionaire, for comparison).

    Overall, I found this disk very pleasing, but the 'scope problems are apparent. I don't know if this is how it looked originally or not.
     
  10. Ken_McAlinden

    Ken_McAlinden Producer
    Reviewer

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2001
    Messages:
    6,187
    Likes Received:
    72
    Location:
    Livonia, MI USA
    Real Name:
    Kenneth McAlinden
    Well, if the distortion is non-uniform, i.e. it is more noticeable in the center of the frame, then it is probably a Cinemascope artifact (this was a fairly early Cinemascope film). If it is the same problem everywhere in the frame, then it is a problem with the transfer. If it is a problem everywhere and it is worse in the center, then it is both.

    Regards,
     
  11. Steve Schaffer

    Steve Schaffer Producer

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 1999
    Messages:
    3,756
    Likes Received:
    1
    The effect does seem more pronounced in the center of the frame, less so on the sides. I've seen a similar effect on several 50s and even 60s films.

    Cleopatra, for example, has a bit of convex curvature on vertical lines toward the edges of the image.
     
  12. Brian Lawrence

    Brian Lawrence Producer

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 1998
    Messages:
    3,634
    Likes Received:
    0
    Real Name:
    Brian
     
  13. oscar_merkx

    oscar_merkx Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2002
    Messages:
    7,626
    Likes Received:
    1
    I am waiting for my copy to arrive tomorrow or the day after and have fun watching this for the first time

    [​IMG]
     
  14. Gordon McMurphy

    Gordon McMurphy Producer

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2002
    Messages:
    3,530
    Likes Received:
    0
  15. soop.spoon

    soop.spoon Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 1998
    Messages:
    757
    Likes Received:
    1
    Similar "far actor" comments were made when the Journey To The Center Of The Earth DVD was released. Did these two movies use the same photographic processes?
     
  16. Rain

    Rain Producer

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2001
    Messages:
    5,015
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  17. GerardoHP

    GerardoHP Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2001
    Messages:
    703
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Los Angeles, California
    Real Name:
    Gerardo Paron
    Yes, except that by the time JTTCOTE was produced, Fox was using improved Bausch & Lomb optics that were not available when Leagues was shot.

    I have seen Leagues many times in the theater and always felt the picture looked fat. I haven't seen this DVD yet but I wouldn't be surprised if the distortions are the ones that are inherent to early CinemaScope optics.
     
  18. Craig Robertson

    Craig Robertson Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    May 12, 1999
    Messages:
    982
    Likes Received:
    0
    i watched Leagues last night and there are some scenes, especially early on, where it the actors look noticeably "fat". i only noticed since i've read this thread prior to viewing and was looking for it. the degree of distortion is right at the point that you may or may not notice.
     
  19. RolandL

    RolandL Producer

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    3,536
    Likes Received:
    912
    Location:
    Cromwell, CT
    Real Name:
    Roland Lataille
    Comparison of Marty's picture

    [​IMG]

    and the DVD

    [​IMG]

    Looks like the DVD has more picture info on the left but less on the right. Also a little is trimmed from the bottom.
     
  20. RolandL

    RolandL Producer

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    3,536
    Likes Received:
    912
    Location:
    Cromwell, CT
    Real Name:
    Roland Lataille
    Sorry for the jpg typo:

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     

Share This Page