Hard Day's Night looks 185:1 (1 Viewer)

[Jonathan W]

I've searched the various threads on A Hard Day's Night and no one appears to be challenging the claim that this film is being presented by Miramax in 166:1. On my television, it is clearly cropped further than the slight amount you get with 166:1. It is much closer to 178:1, if not 185:1.

I don't have any problem with the picture as it is, but it is clearly not presented in 166:1.

 

[Gordon McMurphy]

Typical phoney "1.66:1 anamorphic" lies from a distributor. Most 1.66:1/16x9 transfers are, in actuality, between 1.78 and 1.85:1. The new Horror Of Dracula DVD is approximately 1.78:1 anamorphic. It is a 1.37:1/1.66:1 open-matte negative, but, for the most part, the 1.78:1 framing is superb - only lanky Lee at 6' 4" gave the telecineste a bit of trouble, but it looks fab. :frowning: Unlike some of the scenes in Hard Day's. Not to worry though. Still a spiffingly good transfer!
Mr Kite

 

[Bryan Tuck]

It may be cropped, but remember, many times, an anamorphic 1.66:1 transfer may look like 1.78:1 because of overscan.

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

Jonathan and Gordon: A Hard Day's night IS a 1.66 anamorphic transfer - viewing it on a PC DVD player shows vertical bars on the left and right side. The PowerDVD software puts up a 1.78 frame, so anything OTHER than a 1.78 transfer will show bars on either the top & bottom or left & right.

No worries, it's 1.66

 

[Ted Todorov]

People really need to face up to the reality of overscan...

I can't believe that the Malata (& Panasonic RP-91????) are the only DVD players that allow you to zoom out and counteract overscan. This should really become a standard feature of DVD players. I have seen too many posts accusing Criterion at al. of not having true 1.66:1 transfers, all because of overscan.

Ted

 

[Michael St. Clair]

Scaling in the player to correct overscan reduces resolution and creates (subtle) artifacts. Far better to fix your set.

But even if you are at just 5% or less, you are probably seeing a better framing than was in 95% of the theaters, so relax!

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

On my television

The three most important words in the whole post.

It is 1.66:1 windowboxed in a 1.78:1 frame. Height will be the same as the 1.78:1 frame. Black bars amounting to about 3.4% of the width on each side will make it less wide. If your overscan is more than 3.4%, you will not be able to see the bars.

Regards,

 

[Ted Todorov]

Scaling in the player to correct overscan reduces resolution and creates (subtle) artifacts. Far better to fix your set.

I totally agree. The problem is, that with a lot of TVs, that is very difficult to do without professional help. And even with professional help, it isn't clear to me how the geometry problems on my TV (a 30" multi-standard 16:9 Sony) could be fixed:
There are but one set of parameters for PAL and NTSC, but the picutre is off in different directions for each standard. If you fix one, the other gets worse. Same deal for 4:3 vs. anamorphic ("wide") mode: there is no overscan in 4:3, but plenty of overscan in "wide" -- go figure, and go try fixing it.
I had a long discussion in a Criterion forum with some guy who was claiming that his TV had 0% overscan and that a 1.66:1 disk was really 1.78:1. I finally got him to admit that in 16:9 mode his TV had massive oversan -- it had been calibrated all right, but for 4:3 only...
The player correction OTOH is so simple, even I can do it I wish TV geometry could be made perfect, but, at least on some models, it remains just a wish.
And yes, you are totally right about movie theater matting -- even ones that REALLY, REALLY care about getting it right, still screw up from time to time.
Ted

 

[DavidBL]

I can't believe that the Malata (& Panasonic RP-91????) are the only DVD players that allow you to zoom out and counteract overscan.

My Toshiba SD-4205 can do this. On my 27" TV, I usually don't do it on 2.35:1 films, but sometimes I will for 1.85, 1.66., and 1.33.

David

 

[Gordon McMurphy]

How do you correct overscan to 0% on certain DVD players? Is it via the option screens? I have always thought that transfers should have borders at the sides to prevent loss of picture when the TV overscans.
There's that shot in 2001 on the Moon Base where the spherical spacecraft is lowered into the stunning. vast underground area and there are those matted-in screens on the left of the frame - there are 3 of them, but most TVs overscan away 1 all of one screen and half of another - it looks awful and has always bothered me. I can see the full framing on my PC, but I want to see it on by tube, dammit!
Gord