Problematic Transfers: COMEDY OF TERRORS / EVENING OF EDGAR ALLAN POE (1 Viewer)

[Scott Calvert]

Jeff, thank you for going into a problem that plagues many unsuspecting viewers. Alas, I view my dvds on an analogue direct-view set.

As for Mr. Baker's credit, here's what I see:


While the reality is less severe than I remembered, it still seems to me that this is a very tightly cropped film. Some of these images are during closeup with a lot of movement, but they still look a bit awkward all the same. I'll leave it for others to decide if they think this might look better at 1.66:1.

I have not cropped the images in any way:

 

[Scott Calvert]

 

[Jeff Krispow]

Scott…

I know you think there is something very wrong with the framing on this DVD, and I appreciate that you have taken to time to do screen grabs as proof of this. However, I'm sorry to say that these images don't prove a thing — in fact, upon close examination, they do exactly the opposite… they prove the film was shot and framed in a competent manner.

When I first saw these grabs, I was shocked… the framing Scott was experienced was indeed poor if this is what he was seeing. I was saying to myself that the framing definitely should be opened up a bit more. EXCEPT — this was not the way the film looked when I viewed it. So with this knowledge in mind, I set of to do a comparison of Scott's frame grabs and my copy of the DVD.

And the easiest way to do it was to grab my laptop and run The Vampire Lovers side-by-side next to these images so I could make a direct comparison. Since no timecodes were given, I had to match up all the frames "visually." And what I discovered was very, very interesting and surprising.

First, some direct observations on a few of the initial images:

Screen Grab #1 — The Vampire in the Shroud is caught in the middle of moving towards camera. She is moving all over the place in this seque, and pops out of frame slightly for a few frames.

Screen Grab #2 – Framed correctly; there's nothing wrong with this shot.

Screen Grab #3 – This grab was taken just as the actor is quickly RISING from a seated position — and the camera rises with the actor to keep him in frame as best possible. His hair pops out of the frame for 1s, which is all the time it takes for the camera to frame him perfectly once again. Again, this was a very fast moving shot with the camera and actor moving from a low seated position suddenly up to full standing height.

Screen Grab #4 — Ingrid Pitt holding onto the girl's face. The very top of Ingrid's hair is out of frame for ~4s. The shot has her sitting on the bed, with the girl lying down on it (but propped up with a pillow). Ingrid then bends over her, kisses her and lays her head on her breast. There is some minor camera movement in this shot to keep what they wanted in frame. This was supposed to be a fairly close intimate shot of the two of them — and it captures the scene beautifully. And besides, Ingrid has HUGE hair, and so what if it's purposely out of frame for 4 seconds — that's the set-up and cinematography for this one shot.

Screen Grab #5 & 6 — Oh, give me a break. This actress was lying down in bed, having her vampire nightmare. And suddenly, she wakes up screaming and JUMPS UP IN HER BED! She is fully in motion for the entire shot… and so is the camera, which moves in an attempt to keep her framed in a partial CLOSE-UP. She is out of frame for a few frames, because she has JUMPED UP slightly past where the camera position was, but everything is framed properly again almost immediately!

… … … … …
… … … … …
… … … … …

And the rest go on, and on, and on, in exactly the same manner. I did go ahead and compare the rest of them, but that's it, there is absolutely no point in my continuing to comment on the individual images. Simply take a comment from one of them and paste it on any other screen grab.
All I can say is that these screen grabs are highly misleading — this is not how these individual scenes look when you are watching the actual film.

(FYI, these screens clock in at a 1.77:1, so there is some minor overscan going on with Scott's setup. My own sample frames measure out at exactly 1.83:1.)

It's obvious that the sole purpose of these screen grabs was to go through the film and pick out every instance where a facial-part went out of frame — except that 99% of the time the actor and/or camera were in in fast motion. The actor suddenly stood up, walked in through the door, ran into frame, suddenly bent down, jumped, etc. And the camera was moving as well, keeping the intended shot framed as best possible considering the "action" going on. These few frames are absolutely not representative of the framing in the sequences they were grabbed from — there are but a few "out-of-frame" images plucked from the middle.

This would be like me sitting in a chair for 30 seconds, just looking straight on at a camera, not moving. Except that halfway through I quickly jerked upwards in the chair for a split second, And then I continued on just staring at the camera, unmoving. If a screen grab was taken of me when I jerked upward, there would be 5 or so frames where my head would be partially out of frame. And that could easily look like a framing issue, either with the camera, cinematography, or transfer after the fact… none of which is correct. It was just me in motion for a few frames, nothing more. If the entire shot or sequence was viewed, it would be instantly noticeable that the out-of-frame screen grab taken of me was not reprentative of the overall sequence or intended framing.

Of course these screen grabs make the entire film look like it was either a) poorly shot, or b) over-cropped by the studio. That was the intention, was it not? However, anyway who watches the film — or compares a single "bad" frame to it's moving counterpart during the actual scene — proves only that the filmmakers were skilled technicians in their craft. They knew exactly what they were shooting, and how they wanted their shots. And that the DVD is properly framed at 1.85:1 as intended (it should never be presented at 1.66:1).

In fact, using this screen-grabbing theory, I could go through every film ever made and pull out hundreds of similar shots. Why? Because it happens constantly… actors in fast motion tend to occasionally pop out of frame for a split-second while the camera plays catch up. The actors have blocked out their moves, and the camera operator knows which moves to make as well, but it's not always simple process to line up properly (if I remember correctly, a 180 lb. actor can suddenly stand upright much quicker than it takes to move, say, a 500lb bulky camera.) And if it doesn't match up the way it was intended to, then another take was done until it was satisfactory.

There is also this little things called "artistic merit"… "composition"… "set-ups"… "ideas"… "imagination"… The director, cinematographer, and the rest of the crew all work together to create this story, one of which is made up of hundreds of different shots. There's your establishing shots (aka wide shot), medium shot, a close-up, an extreme close-up,a two shot, a three shot, an over- the-shoulder, and many others, but these are the basics. And with all these different types of possible shots, the filmmakers can relay to the audience different feelings, moods, ideas, actions, and so forth. However, what was being proposed here was for everyone to be well within the framing at all times (that's called a "long shot") — but that is NOT how this film was created. And frankly, I can't even imagine how boring a film would be if it was filled with nothing but continual establishing shots.

Mini Camera Lesson 101 (mode on)


Here are some examples of standard camera shots and their framing that might explain things betters:

[c]
Wide Shot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Medium Shot

Closeup Shot . . . . . . . . . . . . Extreme Closeup Shot[/c]

As you can see, in the "wide shot," everybody is fully in frame. Then you have your "medium shot," where the subject is mostly in frame from the waist up.

And then we get to the "close up" shot — which is used frequently throughout The Vampire Lovers. As you can easily see, the subjects hair, head and other upper-region body parts tend to drift off screen a bit. This is to give us a feeling of intimacy with the subject or material. This is a standard shot, used by every filmmakers out there, including Roy Ward Baker. You know those shots where Ingrid Pitt's hair is partially off-screen (be it a few frames or a few minutes) — that's the way these close-up shots are supposed to look! And at least half of those other Vampire Lovers screen grabs were also standard close-up shots.

The other half of those screen grabs were textbook examples of "extreme close up" shots, where your face (or other object) appears fully onscreen. However, that does not necessarily mean the subject's head is perfectly framed… it often is the opposite, with much of the area surrounding the face, and sometimes the face itself, disappear of the sides if the frame.

These aren't shots I'm making up; these are the standard camera shots that have been in used since the very beginning.

Mini Camera Lesson 101 (mode off)
Preach Mode (mode on)


And that about sums up everything for me. I hope that the camera shot explaination proved enlightening for people.

I apologize here for the somewhat harsh nature of my posting, so please nobody take it personally, that's not my intention. This is simply my response to the information as it was presented. As a professional in the industry, and a film fan personally, I appreciate it when movie information is presented in a factual manner — but if something is wrong, I will step in and try to help out. There was this quote I read the other day that I'd like to use again:

"I can't stand misinformation being spread on the 'net. There's enough out there already."

Very true. Which is why I'm hoping that this whole Vampire Lovers framing issue/argument stops here — it is no longer credible in any form. We have been told to believe that each of these individual scenes are horribly misframed, when in fact they are but a few errant frames among thousands. The entire film looks perfect during playback, and there are no problems whatsoever with the image or framing. The film underwent a major full restoration, and is presented properly on this DVD — at its intended 1.85:1 aspect ratio — and fans of the film should not hesitate to pick it up.

I sincerely hope that this answers all questions regarding the framing of The Vampire Lovers film and DVD — this should be considered the last word on the subject. Frankly, I've said all that I will say about this issue, and shall not comment upon it further.

Adios, Amigos!

 

[Scott Calvert]

Thanks for the lesson Jeff. In my defense, I did say that some of those shots were during closeup with a lot of movement.

The thing is, this film is chock full of lopped off heads and chins, framing where one actor is extremely high in the frame while the opposite actor is extremely low in the frame, extreme closeups, etc. For every grab I did there were several other instances I could have used. I just got tired of grabbing and re-sizing in photoshop, as I did this very late last night.

Keep in mind I'm not arguing the intended aspect ratio anymore. You and Alan have firmly established that the film was intended to be screened at 1.85:1. I just wanted to show instances where, taken with other facts (Hammer film, British studio, British crew, etc.) one can understand how another would argue this film to be shown at 1.66:1.

Long story short...it's pretty easy to mistake this as a 1.66 film. My bad

 

[Mark Zimmer]

Since this seems to have become the catchall thread for the recent MGM horror releases, a question re Tomb of Ligeia:

Is the Elizabeth Shepherd who plays Rowena/Ligeia the same Elizabeth Shepherd who was originally cast as Emma Peel in The Avengers? That would have been interesting, though she's no Diana Rigg. I see a certain resemblance between the actresses so I suspect that if this is her, the producers had a certain 'look' in mind.

 

[Jeff Krispow]

Scott,

Re: the "shots were during closeup with a lot of movement":

Whoops, sorry about that… partially my mistake.

I wrote that all up when you originally posted your pictures. At that time, you hadn't yet added in any of the text, it was "photos only," but I did refresh it a couple of times to make sure that was everything. And since there was no explanation that there were "in motion" shots, I really believed there was something sneaky go on here (nyeh ha ha!). Except that you did indeed modify your posting about 40 min. later to include your text explanation, which I didn't see until this morning. My bad for not checking it again just before I plopped up my own posting.

I do fully understand how this might be mistaken for a 1.66:1 film, I really do, especially when you are judging it solely upon it's British origins and the general output from Hammer. But the times changed, and the "blanket" ratio of 1.66:1 was no longer applicable in the industry over there.

It's just that you keep saying you realize this now, and aren't disputing the aspect ratio, but then come back to demonstrate "how another would argue this film to be shown at 1.66:1" — this time with all the photo examples. True, the film IS full of lopped-off heads and chins, and strange framings… but only within a few random "in-motion" frames during the middle of a long sequence, which is hardly an example of improper shots. And the remainding shots in the film are completely proper examples of shooting in close-up and extreme close-ups. It doesn't mean anything other than what it is, a film that just happens to be photographed in a specific manner.

Some directors compose their shots with both a matte image and the full frame in mind, some don't. Either way, the camera's viewfinder will show (and record onto film) a larger area of the scene than will appear in the final product. Both the director and camera operator knows exactly the frame boundaries of the scene they are filming, because ground glass frame markings etched into the viewfinder shows them the exact theatrical aspect ratio (in this case 1.85:1). It's very precise, and not a guessing game where they film something full frame image and then hope it later mattes off properly if they're lucky.

As an example, here's the 1.85:1 frame mask for a 35mm Arriflex — as is seen through the viewfinder:



As you can see, this glass plate is marked off with lines denoted the entire visible 1.37:1 area and the intended 1.85:1 theatrical framing. Although the entire frame is exposed, it's only the footage in the rectangular area that matters to the director and cinematographer. Everything else is essentially considered garbage, never to be seen by the moviegoing public (which is why in many unmatted films you'll see cables on the floors, lights, microphones, etc.) The production could just have easily gone with a hard-matted image.

Sure, you theoretically could open up the matte to 1.66:1 to show a bit more picture information, but only at the cost of sacrificing compositional integrity. It's a fairly big leap between 1.85:1 and 1.66:1 — this would increase the visible image height by ~12%, which is hardly a few extra lines of resolution. Extreme close-ups would turn into standard close-ups. Standard close-ups would now turn into medium shots. Then the medium shots would… yup, you guessed it, turn into wide shots. And the final result would be a film that looks and plays in a manner never intended by the filmmakers. If you've ever seen the "full frame" version of the film, it has waaaaay too much dead space at the top and bottom of the frame, and nearly all composition is changed or destroyed. However, there's always the open matte VHS copy, which you could pick up and matte off yourself to 1.66:1 should you so desire…

Ah well, I guess that be it… really… no more… I have nothing else to add… ack…

 

[Gordon McMurphy]

MGM's transfer of The Masque Of The Red Death was made from a new interpositive made from the original camera negative, which is in surprisingly great shape, apparently.

The cropping on Horror Of Dracula is indeed not that bad - after you eliminate overscan to 2-3%.


Gordy

 

[Bill Burns]

Any word on The Haunted Palace/Tower of London?

 

[Gordon McMurphy]

Haunted Palace looks great. It was a revelation to finally see it in scope; there are some great shots in the film. Uncle Vincent seems to have had a lot of fun making this one!

Tower Of London, although non-anamorphic (1.66:1), looks very good.

Neither film appears to be edited.


Gordy

 

[Bill Burns]

Well, at least they're unedited! Thanks -- sounds like a good disc (... non-16x9 1.66:1 ... grumble grumble ... when will it end? ... grumble grumble ...). I'd been looking forward to Comedy of Terrors, but not with an unapproved edit (this came up with MGM on one or two of the Bonds, as well, as I recall).

 

[Mark Zimmer]

So still no word from MGM on a fix for this?:frowning:

 

[Douglas R]

Is the Elizabeth Shepherd who plays Rowena/Ligeia the same Elizabeth Shepherd who was originally cast as Emma Peel in The Avengers? That would have been interesting, though she's no Diana Rigg. I see a certain resemblance between the actresses so I suspect that if this is her, the producers had a certain 'look' in mind.

Yes it's the same person and very lovely she is too! Roger Corman refers to her originally being cast in The Avengers, in his commentary track.

 

[BarryS]

I picked up The Comedy of Terrors/The Raven last week. I'm a fan of Vincent Price, but I had never seen either of the films. I've only watched Comedy of Terrors so far, but I loved it. Great comedy with delicious performances from the excellent cast. I especially loved the antics of Price and Peter Lorre as a team. It's too bad about the missing footage during the coffin gag. I thought it was kind of jarring but I understood what happened, regardless. I look forward to seeing The Raven.

I'm interested in the DVD of The Abominable Dr. Phibes. The disc has been out for a while and I was wondering if there were any possibility of a future double-feature release featuring the film and its sequel Dr. Phibes Rises Again. Both films are sold seperately, but a double feature disc would be most welcome, particularly since there are no extras on either disc. I should just buy them seperately because that will probably never happen, right?

I'm getting spoiled by these inexpensive double-feature DVDs, such as The Fly/Return of the Fly.

 

[Gordon McMurphy]

Barry, the transfer on The Abominable Dr. Phibes is superb. The transfer on Dr. Phibes Rises Again isn't quite as good, but is still better than I expected. I love those two films - heh, I love all Price films! Theatre Of Blood is a masterpiece of black comedy/horror.

A double-pack of the Phibes films would indeed by a good idea. As would an anamorphic reissue of The Pit And The Pendulum - so weird why they didn't encode for 16x9 on that one, as they did for House Of Usher.

I can't wait to see what gems will be released in the next batch of Midnite Movies!


Gordy

 

[Mattias_ka]

Did MGM re-issue The Comedy of Terrors? I still have two LD's of that one.

About Vampire lovers, I have NOT compared the 1.85:1 DVD to a 1.66:1 version, or my open matte LD. But like had been said before, just because the ratio is correct, it do not always means that the composing is right. The transfer could have been somewhat zoomed in before the matting.

 

[Jeffrey Nelson]

I wish they'd reissue MASQUE OF THE RED DEATH as well, and reinstate the missing bits that are intact in the LD, which I'm holding onto until the fix the DVD.

 

[Jeffrey Nelson]

I wish they'd reissue MASQUE OF THE RED DEATH as well, and reinstate the missing bits that are intact in the LD, which I'm holding onto until the fix the DVD.

 

[Mattias_ka]

I have that also!

 

[Mattias_ka]

Just watched CoT and is it "only" when they are trown backward that are missing? This
[url=https://static.hometheaterforum.com/imgrepo/a/a6/htf_imgcache_2833.jpeg] [/url]

I just love this scene later on:

[url=https://static.hometheaterforum.com/imgrepo/c/c1/htf_imgcache_2834.jpeg] [/url]

Great little movie.