Premium Member George Ebersole Posted April 30, 2017 Premium Member Share Posted April 30, 2017 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Drysdale Posted April 30, 2017 Share Posted April 30, 2017 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.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Dunn Posted April 30, 2017 Share Posted April 30, 2017 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Salim Posted April 30, 2017 Share Posted April 30, 2017 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: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Holland Posted April 30, 2017 Share Posted April 30, 2017 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted April 30, 2017 Premium Member Share Posted April 30, 2017 http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDReviews49/guns_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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member George Ebersole Posted April 30, 2017 Author Premium Member Share Posted April 30, 2017 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted April 30, 2017 Premium Member Share Posted April 30, 2017 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member George Ebersole Posted April 30, 2017 Author Premium Member Share Posted April 30, 2017 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted May 1, 2017 Premium Member Share Posted May 1, 2017 No of course it wasn't intentional but why change something that is inherent to the original at the time it was made? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member George Ebersole Posted May 1, 2017 Author Premium Member Share Posted May 1, 2017 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted May 1, 2017 Premium Member Share Posted May 1, 2017 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member George Ebersole Posted May 1, 2017 Author Premium Member Share Posted May 1, 2017 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarin Blaschke Posted May 4, 2017 Share Posted May 4, 2017 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member George Ebersole Posted May 7, 2017 Author Premium Member Share Posted May 7, 2017 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted May 7, 2017 Premium Member Share Posted May 7, 2017 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member George Ebersole Posted May 8, 2017 Author Premium Member Share Posted May 8, 2017 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now