Touch of Evil soft picture? (1 Viewer)

[richardWI]

I don't want to beat a dead horse here, so I will drop this after this:

LOL! you must have missed the 7 pages of argument devoted to the new Halloween transfer!

I'll rent the dvd and make some screengrabs of it and my laserdisc this weekend. I don't have a webpage so I'll have to set one up.

 

[Damin J Toell]

All of Welles previous movies were 1.33 or 1.37 and he never complained about the aspect ratio or the contrast in the memo, yet those changes were made.

Perhaps he never complained about the AR in his memo because it was presently at 1.85:1 during the screening he saw, and this was his intended AR.

DJ

 

[Richard Carnahan]

Any major-studio release by 1958 would have been designed to be shown in widescreen. Welles would have had no say in the matter, one way or the other.
And if you watch the old fullscreen laserdisc of TOUCH OF EVIL, during the opening credits the image is clearly cropped on the sides.
The DVD is presented as the film should be, and it looks pretty damn good to these eyes.

 

[richardWI]

Well my attempts at screengrabs (first time I've ever attempted it) aren't going too well.

Caveat: The screengrabs of the DVD using powerdvd introduce a slight squeezing distortion. And the transfer of an analogue Laserdisc signal to AVI to screengrab also degrades the quality of that image, giving it a more washed out look. This screws up my contrast argument and makes comparisons in this medium more difficult. The softness of the DVD image on a TV screen also cannot be represented properly here.

LD:

DVD:


But you CAN see how much top and bottom is lost. Even some of the sides is cropped. This isn't a matter of getting a wider film with more information on the sides on the DVD. You're actually getting less width. (The cropping of every shot was done long after Welles was dead.)

Orson loved low angle shots and high ceilings. Citizen Kane and The Trial illustrate how much he loved wide angle lens distortions, making the backgrounds looming and intimidating. That effect is minimized on the DVD:

LD:

DVD:


The loss of vertical information can also minimize Welles' strong angular composition look at what happens to the diagonal thrust:

LD:

DVD:


The DVD is LESS picture blown up to a wider area, which explains the softness of image complaint.

If the movie was INTENDED to be shown 1.85, shouldn't the DVD have more vertical information?

LD:

DVD:

 

[Patrick McCart]

If the movie was INTENDED to be shown 1.85, shouldn't the DVD have more vertical information?

Most 1.85:1 films shot on normal 35mm are shot at 1.37:1 and later matted to 1.85:1 in projection.

To present the widescreen ratio, the picture is matted on the top and bottom.

In 1958, it's possible that Universal didn't have their B&W logo composed for 1.85:1 yet.

 

[richardWI]

Most 1.85:1 films shot on normal 35mm are shot at 1.37:1 and later matted to 1.85:1 in projection. To present the widescreen ratio, the picture is matted on the top and bottom.

Okay, I can buy that. Problem is, the sides are also cropped on the DVD.

 

[Patrick McCart]

Okay, I can buy that. Problem is, the sides are also cropped on the DVD.

I see a tiny bit in two of the captures and more in another... however, you can't really judge this with two video transfer.

What if the LD transfer was not framed correctly?

 

[Richard Carnahan]

My DVD of TOE looks far sharper and has much better contrast than what you screengrabs show.

 

[Damin J Toell]

(The cropping of every shot was done long after Welles was dead.)

No, the cropping of every shot was done in 1958 upon its original theatrical release, which was certainly within Mr. Welles's lifetime. This is, as Patrick explains, how the 1.85:1 AR is generally achieved. Indeed, it was most assuredly done by Welles himself and his talented DP, Russell Metty, whenever they looked at the 1.85:1 framed image through the ground glass of the cameras during shooting.

DJ