20,000 Leagues Under The Sea masked (1 Viewer)

[RolandL]

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.

 

[Rob T]

the AR on the DVD is 2.55:1 which is the correct AR!

 

[Patrick McCart]

Well, masking would differ depending if the print was magnetic (which would mean 2.55:1) or optical (2.35:1)

 

[Craig Robertson]

the specs on the box claim an original theatrical AR of 2.55:1.

 

[Mike_S]

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

 

[Rain]

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.

This is par for the course with CinemaScope films. You will always notice this type of distortion to some degree.

 

[Joe Caps]

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.

 

[TedD]

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

 

[DeeF]

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.

 

[Ken_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,

 

[Steve Schaffer]

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.

 

[Brian Lawrence]

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).

The ratio on the dvd measures exactly 2.55

 

[oscar_merkx]

I am waiting for my copy to arrive tomorrow or the day after and have fun watching this for the first time

 

[Gordon McMurphy]

http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/wide.../leagues-r.jpg

I might compare this with the DVD later.


Gordy

 

[soop.spoon]

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?

 

[Rain]

Did these two movies use the same photographic processes?

Yes. CinemaScope.

 

[GerardoHP]

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.

 

[Craig Robertson]

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.

 

[RolandL]

Comparison of Marty's picture



and the DVD



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

 

[RolandL]

Sorry for the jpg typo: