Warner Archive Discussion Thread (FEEDBACK) (1 Viewer)

[MichaelEl]

Originally Posted by Mike_Richardson /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to say -- my copy fills the 16:9 frame, is in 2.35 and looks well composed, if a bit aged. The edges even have that Cinemascope "curvature", which signals to me it's not being cropped.

Again, the image is compressed vertically; i.e., it should be taller than it is for the given width. Whether the original AR of this transfer was 1.85:1 or 2:1 or something else, I don't know exactly, but it clearly wasn't as wide as 2.4:1 (listed on the case) or 2.35:1. Look at some closeups and you should be able to see that heads are too short. This effect will of course be more noticeable on a larger screen.
Now that I think about it, the problem might not actually be with the AR of the transfer. It could be that whoever mastered the disc simply didn't convert from square pixels (what a computer monitor uses) to rectangular pixels (NTSC format). This could easily account for the distortion I'm seeing. In any case, I've tried this disc on two different TV/player setups and the image clearly doesn't look right.
Edited by MichaelEl - 8/15/2009 at 06:55 pm GMT

 

[mdnitoil]

Originally Posted by Thomas T /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Michael's problem with SHE and my problem with STORY OF MANKIND, while others have no problem with the same titles, indicate the problem lies perhaps with the person who is doing the actual encoding of the DVD. Since these are manufactured on demand, it's obviously not always the same person who is doing the encoding and transferring. While it would seem logical for all titles to be transferred from the same source material, doesn't this make sense? How else to explain someone getting a perfect disc and others getting a mis-transferred print?

The encoding and transferring is actually only done once. The files that comprise the disc are created and then burned onto a DVD. They simply store the files for a given movie on a bunch of fileservers and burn them onto a new disc as demand warrants. While they may yet go back and create new files to correct some sort of error, in general all the copies of Story of Mankind should be the same.

 

[Chuck Pennington]

I have some discs that do not play properly on a friend's VCR/DVD combo players. I don't have any of those kinds of players myself, but I checked the settings on his (he has two different brands of such players) and they were all set properly for 4x3 letterbox (not 4x3 pan/scan) for his 4x3 television, yet the 16x9 menus were always cropped on the sides and for some reason the highlights on the buttons disappeared, making navigation difficult. It was as if these players weren't reading the specs on the discs properly or something. I authored them myself in DVD Studio Pro with the proper flags, and on my 3 DVD players and Blu-Ray player the discs auto-format perfectly according to whatever settings for which I have the players set.
I think the problems a few of the people on here have had with titles is due to the settings on their DVD player and/or television, or the capability of those units to perhaps misread or misinterpret flags on the discs when set for "auto" or some such similar setting. I work with customers who have similar problems with their satellite receivers and find, with troubleshooting, the problems are with the settings and/or capabilities of their equipment. There is no other explanation for why two people have had problems with two specific titles and many other people have the exact same discs with no problems whatsoever.

Originally Posted by Thomas T /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Michael's problem with SHE and my problem with STORY OF MANKIND, while others have no problem with the same titles, indicate the problem lies perhaps with the person who is doing the actual encoding of the DVD. Since these are manufactured on demand, it's obviously not always the same person who is doing the encoding and transferring. While it would seem logical for all titles to be transferred from the same source material, doesn't this make sense? How else to explain someone getting a perfect disc and others getting a mis-transferred print?

 

[JeffMc]

The SHE disc looks absolutely perfect aspect-ratio size on my two set-ups. It's in 2.35:1 and not squeezed or compressed at all. Heads and people aren't squished and everything looks just like it's supposed to look. There is no cropping gouing on, either. And there are the usual small black bars on the top and bottom of the screen. Something must just not be reading it right on your set-ups or your settings are set wrong - or maybe my settings are set wrong and thus I get the correct aspect ratio by accident. /img/vbsmilies/htf/smile.gif"> Anyway, the disc looks perfect as far as aspect ratio goes. As far as the film itself, it looks a bit bland, but acceptable. The movie itself has always been somewhat of a stinker, but I'm a sucker for Hammer (and Ursula, of course).

Originally Posted by MichaelEl

 

[MichaelEl]

Quote:Originally Posted by JeffMc /img/forum/go_quote.gif">
Something must just not be reading it right on your set-ups or your settings are set wrong - or maybe my settings are set wrong and thus I get the correct aspect ratio by accident. [/url] https://static.hometheaterforum.com/imgrepo/thumbs/b/b7/SHE_2.png/1000x500px-LL-SHE_2.png">

 

[Thomas T]

Chuck, I have a massive DVD library and have never encountered this kind of problem before STORY OF MANKIND. Why would it suddenly not be able to "read" the disc when properly set at the 4x3 letterbox on a standard TV it is able to read similar Archive (and non Archive titles)? As I said, it looks perfect (and unsqueezed) when played on my wide screen portable DVD. Still curious however how Jobia's 16x9 widescreen displays no black bars on the side of a 1.33 aspect ratio.

We'll see what happens when I get the replacement disc.

 

[Chuck Pennington]

How, you ask? Well, I outlined above how some players misread (or don't read at all) the flags on discs to present them properly. By your own admission your portable player presents the film properly, so wouldn't that indicate a problem with your equipment or settings? Have you tried the 4x3 pan/scan option on your DVD player? Try changing the setting to that and playing the disc and see if you get a different result.

Originally Posted by Thomas T /img/forum/go_quote.gif

Chuck, I have a massive DVD library and have never encountered this kind of problem before STORY OF MANKIND. Why would it suddenly not be able to "read" the disc when properly set at the 4x3 letterbox on a standard TV it is able to read similar Archive (and non Archive titles)? As I said, it looks perfect (and unsqueezed) when played on my wide screen portable DVD. Still curious however how Jobia's 16x9 widescreen displays no black bars on the side of a 1.33 aspect ratio. We'll see what happens when I get the replacement disc.

 

[mdnitoil]

Originally Posted by MichaelEl /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I don't think there's anything wrong with any of my TV set-ups or the various media players on my Mac. The image is distorted on all of them - the effect almost looks like panoramic view on my HDTV when viewing 4x3 content. I know anamorphic lenses sometimes had distortion at the edges, but this is almost like the movie was filmed through a fisheye lens. The screencaps below are an accurate reflection of what I'm seeing on my TV and my Mac:
Edited by MichaelEl - 8/16/2009 at 01:32 am GMT

Huh. Kinda looks like some of those Shaw Brothers films except everyone knew they had crap lenses. Love the curved doors on the second cap!

 

[greylocke5]

I just noticed that BAD RONALD and THE FOX have been added to the pre-order titles.

 

[Bob Cashill]

A Mondo Esoterica review of SHE (a different version) mentions the distortion problem (under "Visuals"):

mondo-esoterica.net/She.html: "The cheap widescreen lenses used on this film mean that the edges of the picture are slightly distorted throughout, this dates from the original print and is not a problem with the disc."

 

[Thomas T]

Chuck, I tried STORY OF MANKIND on 4x3 letterbox, pan and scan and 16x9 widescreen and it plays squeezed on all three modes.

 

[MichaelEl]

Originally Posted by Bob Cashill /img/forum/go_quote.gif">
A Mondo Esoterica review of SHE (a different version) mentions the distortion problem (under "Visuals"):

 

[ahollis]

Originally Posted by Thomas T /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Chuck, I tried STORY OF MANKIND on 4x3 letterbox, pan and scan and 16x9 widescreen and it plays squeezed on all three modes.

At first I also had problems with Story Of Mankind looking squeezed in 4X3. When I changed it to 16X9 widescreen it is perfect. The aspect ratio was wider than 1.33, but not as wide as 1.66 and had black bars on the side. I know that it was released in 1957 so the ratio should be 1.66, I believe, but I have heard that it was filmed much earlier and I ponder the question that was it filmed in 1.33 and the made to fit a wider width for release.
Edited by ahollis - 8/16/2009 at 01:36 pm GMT

 

[Corey]

For goodness sake, won't they won't package the Gable/Turner and Gable/Crawford pairings together and make a Gable set with

-Too Hot to Handle
-Strange Interlude
-Men In White
-Idiot's Delight
-Cain and Mabel

I also wish they would package the previously released Joan Crawford films together:

-Mannequin
-This Woman Is Dangerous
-When Ladies Meet
-The Shining Hour
-Goodbye, My Fancy
-Ice Follies of 1939


Edited by Corey - 8/16/2009 at 07:47 pm GMT

 

[Jobla]

Thomas, I'm not trying to make this more confusing than it is. I did see the black bars on the sides (THE STORY OF MANKIND) in the Wide/Full mode on my widescreen 16X9 Sony TV. However, in zoom or wide zoon, the image fills the screen. I've loaned the disc to a friend, so I'm unable at present to check it again.

My original comment was that the opening credits seem too close to the extreme right edge of the image, hence my theorizing that the film should have been matted to 1:66-1.

I'm not certain that a replacement copy would appear any different, but I look forward to your report.
Edited by Jobla - 8/18/2009 at 06:29 am GMT

 

[Thomas T]

Ah, zooming in on the image to eliminate the black bars ... well that explains it. If I have the same problem, then clearly it's my player that is unable to "read" the disc properly. I'll just have to watch it on my portable DVD player until I get a new DVD player.

 

[Mike_Richardson]

Originally Posted by Bob Cashill /forum/thread/283916/warner-archive-discussion-thread/2550#post_3596321
A Mondo Esoterica review of SHE (a different version) mentions the distortion problem (under "Visuals"):

mondo-esoterica.net/She.html: "The cheap widescreen lenses used on this film mean that the edges of the picture are slightly distorted throughout, this dates from the original print and is not a problem with the disc."

I'd agree with that assessment. It looks like some other less-than-blockbuster Scope movies from the era to me with the curved screen on the edges. Compositionally it looks fine, short of a full restoration I can't imagine it looking much better than this.

 

[bgart13]

Something interesting regarding URGH! being released by WB Archives...
Last week I emailed Jim Skafish to see if he knew about WB's release of URGH!, in which he and his band appeared. Today, he emailed me a link to his blog and an article he wrote on this. Turns out, he didn't know (as I expected). However, neither did Miles Copeland...
Read his blog for more information regarding his involvement with the film, thoughts on the dvd-r release and his wishes for an official non-dvd-r release. And, make sure to read the feedback comments and Jim's responses for more info.
http://skafishblog.skafish.com/2009/08/15/urgh-a-music-war-re-released-sort-of%e2%80%a6/
Essentially, this title may raise questions about the legalities of the WB Archives and its future, I think. I have wondered if everyone involved with the movies have been getting compensated, and if not, how WB was getting around it all.

 

[Van594]

I can't imagine it would have an effect on any of the older movies as the artists involved have no real rights to that. I'm not sure about the type of movie URGH is with the music rights.

 

[GregoryMesh]

2 more future Archives titles I discovered while looking around:
Hot Millions (1968)
Not with My Wife, You Don't! (1966)