Jump to content


Photo

"Guns of Navarrone" aspect ration question.


  • Please log in to reply
16 replies to this topic

#1 George Ebersole

George Ebersole
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1497 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • San Francisco Bay Area

Posted 30 April 2017 - 05:51 AM

Both my DVD and Bluray copes of "The Guns of Navarrone", to me, don't look right.  The actors and overall image look somewhat round or squashed.  Notably David Niven, who has a very thin face, has a more full face here.  The same with all the other onscreen talent.

 

Has anyone else noticed this?  Or am I just imagining it?


  • 0


Support Cinematography.com and buy gear using our Amazon links!
PANASONIC LUMIX GH5 Body 4K Mirrorless Camera, 20.3 Megapixels, Dual I.S. 2.0, 4K 422 10-bit, Full Size HDMI Out, 3 Inch Touch LCD, DC-GH5KBODY (USA Black)

#2 Brian Drysdale

Brian Drysdale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4943 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 30 April 2017 - 05:59 AM

I don't have the "The Guns of Navarrone", it's in scope, how are you viewing it? Some DVDs are letterboxed, while others crop to 16:9..


  • 0

#3 Mark Dunn

Mark Dunn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2305 posts
  • Other
  • London

Posted 30 April 2017 - 06:08 AM

Cinemascope had a problem with varying squeeze ratio at different distances (mumps)- could that be it? One gets the impression that closeups were few in 'scope films for that reason. Panavision didn't suffer from it and it was taking over around that time, but TGON is specifically credited as Cinemascope on IMDB.


  • 0

#4 John Salim

John Salim
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Other
  • Essex, UK

Posted 30 April 2017 - 07:05 AM

I can't imagine 'TGON' was shot on older CinemaScope lenses ( with mumps ).

I'm sure it would have been Panavision cameras and lenses.

 

George's TV display settings must be wrong !

 

John S  :rolleyes:


  • 0

#5 John Holland

John Holland
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2231 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London England

Posted 30 April 2017 - 07:37 AM

I would say that in 1961 in the UK it would have been CinemaScope lenses . I have a DVD of "TGON" which looks fine as you say it must be a TV setting problem.


  • 0

#6 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19535 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 30 April 2017 - 09:27 AM

http://www.dvdbeaver...of_navarone.htm

 

The review mentions that the HD transfer reveals some "CinemaScope mumps" issues.

 

I've actually had that problem once on some modern anamorphic lenses.  The issue is that the degree of unsqueezing is always a consistent 2X by the projector or telecine, but the camera lens is not always doing a consist 2X squeeze.

 

"The Longest Day" (1962) is another movie made the next year that was still using Fox's CinemaScope lenses, not Panavision.  But as mentioned, the CinemaScope lenses of the late 1950's didn't suffer mumps as badly as the original ones, but it was still an issue now and then.


  • 0

#7 George Ebersole

George Ebersole
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1497 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • San Francisco Bay Area

Posted 30 April 2017 - 05:25 PM

Thank goodness, it's not my imagination.  IMDB, under the technical specs, says that the Japanese aspect ration was 2.21 to 1 verse the standard 2.35, and I thought maybe someone swapped out the wrong lens during the scan.

 

Anyway, it's actually annoying the more I view it.  I'm tempted to send an old fashioned letter to Universal, but it's not like they'd listen to me, and even if they did I doubt they'd correct the problem.

 

Oh well.


  • 0

#8 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19535 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 30 April 2017 - 05:27 PM

If the distortion is built into the CinemaScope lenses used then correcting it may be wrong.

2.21 : 1 would have been for a 70mm blow-up.
  • 0

#9 George Ebersole

George Ebersole
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1497 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • San Francisco Bay Area

Posted 30 April 2017 - 06:18 PM

But doesn't that assume that the distorting the image was intentional?  I can't see why they'd want to do that.  My sense is that it was simply overlooked.  And I seem to recall that broadcast prints had corrected images.  Maybe I'm not remembering that correctly.


  • 0

#10 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19535 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 30 April 2017 - 07:22 PM

No of course it wasn't intentional but why change something that is inherent to the original at the time it was made?
  • 0

#11 George Ebersole

George Ebersole
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1497 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • San Francisco Bay Area

Posted 30 April 2017 - 08:03 PM

No of course it wasn't intentional but why change something that is inherent to the original at the time it was made?

 

Good point.  The more I think about the more this is how I remember seeing it on TV during the 70s and 80s; the credits are shown letterboxed as per the DVD and bluray, but then the image is corrected (squeezed) after the opening plane crash sequence.  

 

As to why?  Well, ... I get the sense that the producers and crew overlooked it because perhaps they felt the director wanted this as some kind of artistic flare for the film, when I think in reality it was just a simple error during production.  So ... for dudes like me it's one of those "hey look, that's a mistake" kind of thing.  

 

I mean, it's not that big a deal, but one wonders if perhaps the production team (surviving members at least) wouldn't want it corrected.  

 

just me.

 

I guess maybe it's a non-issue for most people.


  • 0

#12 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19535 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 30 April 2017 - 11:45 PM

Maybe they would have but if the image is 2.35 and a little "fat", it would become less than 2.35 if squeezed a little and then purists would be wondering why this 1961 35mm CinemaScope movie wasn't being released in 2.35. Personally I think that if it's a flaw built into the lens, then now it's a historical artifact and should be left in. But I could be wrong, some video transfers do screw around with the squeeze ratio but most just do the standard 2X unsqueeze.
  • 0

#13 George Ebersole

George Ebersole
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1497 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • San Francisco Bay Area

Posted 01 May 2017 - 05:59 AM

Yeah, I guess I can see that.  

 

Heh, it's like Jason Robards saying "The stivil population" in "Tora Tora Tora" instead of "civil population".  You wonder if they can go back and loop it with the correct word.  Sure, they could fake his voice, but ... well, it's like a flaw that people know is there.  

 

Whatever.  It's not my movie.

 

*EDIT*

 

p.s. I tweaked the aspect ratio on the playback software, and it looks better to me.  Just an FYI.


  • 0

#14 Jarin Blaschke

Jarin Blaschke
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 238 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 04 May 2017 - 02:43 PM

In my tests I've found very visible squeeze differences between a primo anamorphic and an E Series anamorphic lens. The E Series definitely rendered the face wider in a medium shot. With such differences between lenses of the same manufacturer between the 80s and 90s, visible in a medium shot, imagine differences between different manufacturers 30 years prior when comparing close-ups.

J
  • 0

#15 George Ebersole

George Ebersole
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1497 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • San Francisco Bay Area

Posted 06 May 2017 - 10:51 PM

In my tests I've found very visible squeeze differences between a primo anamorphic and an E Series anamorphic lens. The E Series definitely rendered the face wider in a medium shot. With such differences between lenses of the same manufacturer between the 80s and 90s, visible in a medium shot, imagine differences between different manufacturers 30 years prior when comparing close-ups.

J

 

What's interesting is that after I eyeballed the aspect ratio with the software to correct the image in playback, some of the exteriors looked squeezed.  Which, to me at least, says that they were possibly using more than one type of lens..  So yeah, in retrospect the differences are certainly magnified.


  • 0

#16 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19535 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 06 May 2017 - 11:21 PM

The "mumps" problem where faces looked fat only happened as the lens focused closer and caused less than a 2X squeeze, but because the unsqueeze later was a consistent 2X expansion, the result was a fatter face. But wider shots where the lens was focused deeper wouldn't have had this problem.
  • 0

#17 George Ebersole

George Ebersole
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1497 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • San Francisco Bay Area

Posted 08 May 2017 - 04:18 AM

The "mumps" problem where faces looked fat only happened as the lens focused closer and caused less than a 2X squeeze, but because the unsqueeze later was a consistent 2X expansion, the result was a fatter face. But wider shots where the lens was focused deeper wouldn't have had this problem.

 

I'll have to play it back again.  I think I may have been to focused on the edges of the screen and not really looking at the "meat" of the image.


  • 0



Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Tai Audio

Rig Wheels Passport

FJS International, LLC

Visual Products

Ritter Battery

Paralinx LLC

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Abel Cine

Metropolis Post

Aerial Filmworks

The Slider

Glidecam

CineTape

Willys Widgets

Technodolly

rebotnix Technologies

CineLab

Paralinx LLC

Technodolly

Tai Audio

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Abel Cine

Aerial Filmworks

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Glidecam

rebotnix Technologies

Metropolis Post

Rig Wheels Passport

CineLab

CineTape

Ritter Battery

Willys Widgets

FJS International, LLC

Visual Products

The Slider