Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > DVD Video > How badly is Dumbo truncated on DVD?

Reply
Thread Tools

How badly is Dumbo truncated on DVD?

 
 
H Markus Lang, hakuna matata
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-01-2004

I have been watching some Disney features on DVD (R2) with irritation.
It seems as if the image were framed incorrectly. Especially the Dance
of the Pink Elephants from "Dumbo" is IMO spoiled because too much of
the image is cut off frame.

See these screenshots:
<http://www.helsinki.fi/~mlang/kuvat/dumbo1.jpg>
<http://www.helsinki.fi/~mlang/kuvat/dumbo2.jpg>.

Shouldn't we see more of the feet of the pink elephants? I think I saw
more in an earlier presentation (either on VHS or in cinema).

Can anyone confirm or disconfirm my suspicions? Is the image the same in
Region-1 releases (NTSC) or in past VHS releases or film prints? Are
there any picture books on this movie?

Another issue is the "windowboxing" in Disney's "Mickey Mouse in Living
Colour, Vol. 1":
<http://www.helsinki.fi/~mlang/kuvat/hawai2.jpg>.

I calculated that in the PAL version, 20 % of the pixels are wasted over
the bars. Why is that done? How much is that waste ratio in the NTSC
version? Is "Mickey Mouse in Living Color, Vol. 2" windowboxed as well?

I discussed these issues in my letter to Disney:
<http://www.helsinki.fi/~mlang/disney.pdf> (7.5 MB)
<http://www.helsinki.fi/~mlang/shame/disney.html> (0.7 MB).

Comments?

------------------------------
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)
http://www.helsinki.fi/~mlang/

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Joshua Zyber
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-01-2004
"H Markus Lang, hakuna matata" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> I have been watching some Disney features on DVD (R2) with irritation.
> It seems as if the image were framed incorrectly. Especially the Dance
> of the Pink Elephants from "Dumbo" is IMO spoiled because too much of
> the image is cut off frame.
>
> See these screenshots:
> <http://www.helsinki.fi/~mlang/kuvat/dumbo1.jpg>
> <http://www.helsinki.fi/~mlang/kuvat/dumbo2.jpg>.
>
> Shouldn't we see more of the feet of the pink elephants? I think I saw
> more in an earlier presentation (either on VHS or in cinema).


Are those screen caps taken from your computer, or a camera pointed at
your TV? If the latter, it's probably your set's overscan cutting off
the image.

> Another issue is the "windowboxing" in Disney's "Mickey Mouse in

Living
> Colour, Vol. 1":
> <http://www.helsinki.fi/~mlang/kuvat/hawai2.jpg>.
>
> I calculated that in the PAL version, 20 % of the pixels are wasted

over
> the bars. Why is that done?


Windowboxing does not cover up picture content. The image is shunk down
and bars put on all sides to compensate for television overscan.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
H Markus Lang, hakuna matata
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-02-2004

Joshua Zyber wrote:

> Are those screen caps taken from your computer, or a camera pointed at
> your TV?


They are from a computer's DVD player, as one may deduce from the size
of the picture: 720 pixels 576 pixels = PAL format.

> If the latter, it's probably your set's overscan cutting off
> the image.


That has nothing to do with this.

>>I calculated that in the PAL version, 20 % of the pixels are wasted

>
> Windowboxing does not cover up picture content. The image is shunk down
> and bars put on all sides to compensate for television overscan.


But there is no such overscan in my TV - I have reduced it from the
service menu. Do people merrily lose 1/5 of their TV screen content?

Why isn't such windowboxing used in "The Chronological Donald", for
instance?

------------------------------
(E-Mail Removed)
http://www.helsinki.fi/~mlang/

 
Reply With Quote
 
Jay G
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-02-2004
H Markus Lang, hakuna matata <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Joshua Zyber wrote:
>> Windowboxing does not cover up picture content. The image is shunk
>> down and bars put on all sides to compensate for television
>> overscan.

>
> But there is no such overscan in my TV - I have reduced it from the
> service menu. Do people merrily lose 1/5 of their TV screen content?


For the most part, yes they do. Most people don't even know it's
missing.

> Why isn't such windowboxing used in "The Chronological Donald", for
> instance?


Because they're not consistant?

-Jay


 
Reply With Quote
 
GMAN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-03-2004
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, "H Markus Lang, hakuna matata" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>Joshua Zyber wrote:
>
>> Are those screen caps taken from your computer, or a camera pointed at
>> your TV?

>
>They are from a computer's DVD player, as one may deduce from the size
>of the picture: 720 pixels 576 pixels = PAL format.
>
> > If the latter, it's probably your set's overscan cutting off
>> the image.

>
>That has nothing to do with this.
>
>>>I calculated that in the PAL version, 20 % of the pixels are wasted

> >
>> Windowboxing does not cover up picture content. The image is shunk down
>> and bars put on all sides to compensate for television overscan.

>
>But there is no such overscan in my TV - I have reduced it from the
>service menu. Do people merrily lose 1/5 of their TV screen content?
>


Overscan was an original part of the technology way back when Philo T came up
with it.



>Why isn't such windowboxing used in "The Chronological Donald", for
>instance?
>
>------------------------------
>(E-Mail Removed)
>http://www.helsinki.fi/~mlang/
>

 
Reply With Quote
 
Bill
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-03-2004
In article <cemohk$els$(E-Mail Removed)>,
(E-Mail Removed) (GMAN) wrote:

> >But there is no such overscan in my TV - I have reduced it from the
> >service menu. Do people merrily lose 1/5 of their TV screen content?
> >

>
> Overscan was an original part of the technology way back when Philo T came up
> with it.


But early telecine operators added to it by splashing the picture over
the edges of the iconoscope, and that seems to have been the standard
ever since. Partly, I theorize, because at the beginning TV had only
really old movies to show, and there were few closeups, so zooming in
gave you a better look at people's faces on 10-inch screens.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Aaron J. Bossig
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-09-2004
Am I the only person who giggled at the subject line?



--

Aaron J. Bossig

http://www.GodsLabRat.com
http://www.Daily-Reviews.com
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: How include a large array? Edward A. Falk C Programming 1 04-04-2013 08:07 PM
ASP.NET architected by dumbo muppets John Rivers ASP .Net 13 08-26-2005 09:17 PM
advice on basic setup needed badly. jogdial@hotmail.com Cisco 1 05-09-2005 11:12 AM
Need help w/ Wireless Networking *BADLY* =?Utf-8?B?QmlnVEdhbWVz?= Wireless Networking 7 11-27-2004 03:41 AM
Dumbo question BernieH HTML 2 08-12-2004 10:42 AM



Advertisments