How badly is Dumbo truncated on DVD?

Discussion in 'DVD Video' started by H Markus Lang, hakuna matata, Aug 1, 2004.

  1. 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.helsinki.fi/~mlang/
    H Markus Lang, hakuna matata, Aug 1, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. H Markus Lang, hakuna matata

    Joshua Zyber Guest

    "H Markus Lang, hakuna matata" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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.
    Joshua Zyber, Aug 1, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. 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?

    ------------------------------

    http://www.helsinki.fi/~mlang/
    H Markus Lang, hakuna matata, Aug 2, 2004
    #3
  4. H Markus Lang, hakuna matata

    Jay G Guest

    H Markus Lang, hakuna matata <> 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
    Jay G, Aug 3, 2004
    #4
  5. H Markus Lang, hakuna matata

    GMAN Guest

    In article <>, "H Markus Lang, hakuna matata" <> 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?
    >
    >------------------------------
    >
    >http://www.helsinki.fi/~mlang/
    >
    GMAN, Aug 3, 2004
    #5
  6. H Markus Lang, hakuna matata

    Bill Guest

    In article <cemohk$els$>,
    (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.
    Bill, Aug 3, 2004
    #6
  7. Aaron J. Bossig, Aug 9, 2004
    #7
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Sens Fan Happy In Ohio

    Restoring Truncated Long File Names

    Sens Fan Happy In Ohio, Aug 7, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    675
    Sens Fan Happy In Ohio
    Aug 8, 2004
  2. Cubzilla

    Nero backitup truncated file names

    Cubzilla, Dec 17, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    681
    Cubzilla
    Dec 17, 2004
  3. Blobbi

    Truncated start menu.

    Blobbi, Jul 28, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    562
    Toolman Tim
    Jul 28, 2005
  4. Film Buff
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    674
    Alpha
    Apr 11, 2005
  5. Replies:
    4
    Views:
    3,381
Loading...

Share This Page