Kiss Me Kate replacement discs (1 Viewer)

[Bill Burns]

One thing further that might clear this up a bit: when shooting RA but exposing FA (when balancing for RA), one could presumably balance both simply by framing the RA in the center of the FA -- and then printing it to the far right to accomodate the soundtrack. This removes the necessity of shooting anything off-balance, and as with many obvious, simple solutions, eluded me at first. It doesn't address whether extractions for theatrical presentation are taken from RA or FA, though, as explored above.

Ah, and Peter just posted as I typed this up. Thanks for that info, Peter. As to the UE of T2: I have the old DVD-18 I bought when it was first released, but I've only watched it once. If you know off-hand, does that material demonstrate where Hughes would have "found" extra screen info to the left of his frame? I'm wondering if varying productions might not make individual extraction decisions for their 'Scope 2.40:1 frames. One film might extract the 2.40:1 frame from the FA, optically reduce it to fit within RA, and then anamorphically encode it for the theatrical print, whereas another might skip the reduction step and simply take their extraction from RA.

I'm brainstorming about this, obviously, as I'm eager to meaningfully relate the varying statements I've encountered about Super35 to one another -- and my apologies as we drift further to the periphery of Kate, of course! But ironing out Super35 and FA photography in general should be of use in better appreciating the merits of home video transfers from these formats (I'll throw in one more Super35 comment I've run across for digestion: in his commentary for Ronin, the late great John Frankenheimer said that Super35 has a "hard top" allowing for the opening of his frame to the bottom ... he's obviously not talking about a simple center extraction, where both the top and bottom of the frame would be open, so perhaps they shot to balance the frame at the top of the negative? That seems unlikely; another possibility is that he allowed booms and other production junk into the frame above, necessitating a hard matte when they took their extraction).

The matter remains convoluted. But continued thanks to all for their input. Here's another question: Peter says that Super35 is rarely if ever used for flat prints to theatres in RA reduction (designed for flat matting to say 1.66:1 or 1.85:1). Is there a technical reason for this? I'd assume optically reducing Super35 in extraction for 'Scope printing is fundamentally similar to reducing a flat FA frame to RA for flat printing? Since flat Panavision uses spherical lenses I'd presume are not necessarily any different from the spherical lenses used on FA photography (the only difference being in the amount of light they allow to pass through to the negative, i.e. the aperture?*), is there a technical obstacle to photographing FA for the increased image detail Robert Harris mentions when reducing for flat printing?

* One last thing: a couple of months ago, on another thread, we got into apertures, and another member said that the aperture of a camera is set when it's manufactured and cannot be changed. Is this the case? Somewhere (I don't know where) it seems I've read of multiple apertures in use for multiple photographic needs (night photography versus daytime photography, indoor versus outdoor, etc.). Is there a camera or lens aperture that one adjusts, but a negative aperture that remains constant? Or does the term "aperture" apply solely to the amount of image appearing on the negative (the dimensions of that image), a measure which never changes (at least within a single camera) during a production? Such info is valuable to prospective filmmakers, of course, but moreover for us film fans who'd like to know just what directors and cinematographers mean when they discuss these decision-making processes in relation to a film's production.

If there's a simple answer to any of the above (or a complicated one -- goodness knows I never shy away from complexity! ), I'm eager to find it. Thanks again.

 

[BrianP]

Bumping thread. How much longer until the corrected version is released, and when will Warner's start making plans for those of us wanting to exchange discs.

 

[Joe Caps]

To Robert Harris -
Half a Sixpence has been announced for DVD here by Martin Blythe . Release date is April 6. I can't wait.

 

[Doug Bull]

Surely this would be a great opportunity for Warners to include with the reframed and edited flat Kate,( with apologies to miss Grayson) either the full 3D version, or at the very least, 3D highlights as an extra.

I for one would forgo returning the current DVD and would be more than willing to purchase, even at a premium, the new release, if it had actual 3D material (including glasses) as an extra.
If Kate, because of the color, does not suit the simple red and blue/green anaglyph system, then why not include one of the old MGM Pete Smith anaglyph 3D shorts as an example of 3D for those that have never seen it.
Certainly the inferior anaglyph paper glasses would be by far the cheapest solution for Warners.

Any others agree?


"Half a Sixpence" - Is fabulous news, and in Stereo as well.

 

[Peter Kline]

I don't believe a polarized version would play well on television. It requires two images of equal brightness (two projectors were originally used in the theatres) and a television would be too dim. I know a sequential version could be made but that would, I understand, require an adapter and special glasses that would bring the price up to at least $150US?? just for the equipment I'm sure Bob Furmanek could enlighten us.

 

[Bill Burns]

The most sensible course would be for WB (and the other studios holding 3-D product) to either a) require fans to purchase their own set of glasses and synch box, from whatever resource they prefer (they should all work, from what I've read at the links below, so long as they are field sequential systems, though I presume build quality may be an issue for frequent use), or b) offer a viewing system themselves, separate from the films, and include 2-D versions on each of the releases for those who do not wish to buy the separate viewing system (which is also what they should do under option "a", of course). Patrick McCart suggested a specialty box of several field sequential 3-D films with 3-D alone, available only as a box for fans, and I think this would be a very workable option "c", should the studios fear that the average consumer would be confused by a 3-D option on the standard release (no more likely than widescreen confusion, I say, but ... there ya' have it). Many possibilities -- it only remains for the studios to rise to the occasion.*

The details of field sequential viewing you'll find in exhaustive detail here, where Slingshot's viewing system is discussed (again, all field sequential releases should work just fine with all field sequential viewing systems, though I only say that from gathered knowledge and reports at these links, not from personal experience, as I have yet to buy a field sequential system**) ...

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htfo...threadid=70448

... and also here ...

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htfo...hreadid=153988

While I made an exception for House of Wax due solely to the inclusion of Mystery of the Wax Museum, I've said it before and I'll gladly say it again: altering 3-D to 2-D is not dissimilar to issuing large format in reduction, or, to my mind, even to MAR releases, as you are removing a measure of the intended visual frame from the viewing experience (apparent depth). I will not buy 3-D product as 2-D alone, but I would gladly buy a viewing system and 3-D re-releases of House of Wax, Kiss Me Kate, next year's Dial M for Murder (if it arrives in 2-D only, that is; I hold out a sliver of hope WB will reconsider their policies before its release and include a field sequential 3-D option), Universal films such as It Came From Outer Space and The Creature from the Black Lagoon, etc.. Until these are issued in 3-D, and excepting only House of Wax as explained above, I won't be buying them. The Hitchcock/Grace Kelly fan in me is particularly saddened at that prospect, but ... I only buy films to recreate the native, intended theatrical experience. If a release doesn't do that (in the case of 2-D, recreating only a secondary theatrical experience, not unlike reduction showings of large format films), I'll wait until they find their proper 3-D releases.

As established in this thread and elsewhere, others don't feel as strongly about it. But I stand firm in my perspective -- you just don't needlessly alter the visual or sonic characteristics/parameters of a film's intended presentation format. Period. DVD can reproduce field sequential 3-D, and so it should do so for films made as such. If you alter the film from its intended or most-native presentation, you lose at least one sale, and I like to think many sales would be gained by the inclusion of such an option, particularly if well-promoted ("in standard 2-D AND spectacular stereoscopic 3-D! (special viewing equipment required, see back of box for details)").

* It should be noted that certain television types/projector types may be incompatable with field sequential; it seems it must be viewed as an interlaced signal, and displays/players with undefeatable progressive scan may not work properly or at all with the system. See the above links for further details.

** Such a purchase will come the moment a major studio embraces field sequential product.

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

I will not buy 3-D product as 2-D alone, but I would gladly buy a viewing system and 3-D re-releases of House of Wax, Kiss Me Kate, next year's Dial M for Murder (if it arrives in 2-D only, that is; I hold out a sliver of hope WB will reconsider their policies before its release and include a field sequential 3-D option), Universal films such as It Came From Outer Space and The Creature from the Black Lagoon, etc..

Those of you in the New York / New Jersey area will be able to see all 5 of those films in genuine dual-projection polarized 3-D (not the inferior anaglyph red & blue system) at the historic Lafayette Theatre in Suffern, NY, the weekend of February 27-28-29, 2004! The event is called "3 Days of 3-D" and five more features will be announced later this week, as well as a number of rare 3-D short subjects! Watch for more details here: Big Screen Classics and in the "Movies" section of the HTF by the end of this week!

 

[GregK]

For me the "ideal" 3-D DVD release would be a 2-disc set.

.Disc #1 would have the feature film flat (2-D) along with special features. (Like what is available now for: It Came from Outer Space, Creature from the Black Lagoon, Kate, House of Wax, Friday III, etc etc, which are ALL single DVD releases..)

.Disc #2 would include two 3-D versions the film. This second disc could be a typical dual layer disc or a "flipper", both of which are more than capable of holding two versions of a typical 1950's or 1980's feature length film with little or no compression artifacts.

One version would be anaglyph 3-D and include a couple of red & blue glasses. This way the DVD is '3-D ready' out of the box for everyone, and is compatible with all progressive scan sets, as well as plasma and LCD displays. ..It would not be as sharp nor provide a 3-D experience like that of the field-sequential 3-D format, but again, it would be viewable in 3-D by all.

The second version would be in the superior field-sequential 3-D version, which would provide a cleaner 3-D experience far superior to anaglyph and offer full undistorted color. For those who opt to purchase LCS glasses or already own LCS 3-D glasses, this would obviously be the preferred version. For those consumers who have display devices that cannot interpolate the field-sequential 3-D video correctly to progressive, they can either watch the anaglyph version *or* watch the field-sequential version on a smaller NTSC interlaced set. I think it's a safe bet to say most HDTV owners still own a 2nd interlaced set somewhere in the house. (Note that most progressive scan CRTs, LCOS and DLP displays have the potential to show interlaced 3-D properly, it just depends on how the progressive scan conversion is performed. Some "video" pro-scan conversion mode options do pure interpolation, which is the key.)

So consumers would have a choice of watching a 3-D feature flat, or in anaglyph or field-sequential 3-D, all depending on their preferences or given set-up.

This approach seems logical, and would provide wider con$umer appeal for a given title, which means it will probably never be implemented. :wink:

 

[Doug Bull]

Unfortunately it would have to be a costs versus volume of sales thing for Warners.

I would think that sales would be very limited on any polarized or sequential release.
Even with the inclusion of the very simplest and cheapest red/blue glasses, it's probably unlikely that Warners would show any profit.

We can all beg, hope and dream otherwise though.

 

[Rain]

For those of us who have not yet picked up Kiss Me Kate on DVD, but plan to, how will we be able to distinguish the first pressing from the second?

 

[Dan Rudolph]

How would you even make a polarized version? TVs have no control over polarization. Field-sequential is the onyl way to go.