The Secret Of NIMH in W-I-D-E-S-C-R-E-E-N

[Monterey Jack]

I finally managed to snag a Cyber Home multi-region player today, and was finally able to watch my region 4 copy of my favorite movie, The Secret Of NIMH, for the first time in theatrical 1:85 widescreen! While the print used is somewhat grainier than the U.S. MGM disc, the new aspect ratio gives the film the extra "oomph" it's always lacked (although a smidgen of visual information is lost at the top and/or bottom in some shots). Radical!


Oh, and I put up some screencaps for anyone who wants to take a look (I already unloaded the U.S. disc, otherwise I would have done some comparison shots).

Enjoy!

[orf]

I want that disc SO BAD. That movie is my favorite animated movie of all time, so it's a definite buy for me.
*saves money so he can buy it and watch it on his DVD-ROM*

[Ravenous]

The Secret Of NIMH? I cant imagine why anyone would want to own that movie! I think Id choose a root canal above watching that.

[brian]

Originally posted by Ravenous
The Secret Of NIMH? I cant imagine why anyone would want to own that movie! I think Id choose a root canal above watching that.

Then please pass upon replying to the topic, rather than thread-crapping. Thanks

[Ravenous]

Where are you when Jack does the same?

[BubbleGumUK]

I'll grab some similar frames from the reg 1 disc when I get in tonight, unless someone does it first.

BTW, how do you get to print pictures within the message here itself, rather than a link to a download pic? (And apologies if this is a really, really, really dumb question).

[chlngr1970]

Is the R4 disc NTSC or PAL? or something other than NTSC?

j

[sub780lime]

i get so tired of this crap. some of the greatest films of all time can only be found in widescreen in a different region, and than the print isnt as good and your stuck with a stupid compromise that is so unnecessary, just give me widescreen region 1


sorry for the rant

[Monterey Jack]

Originally posted by chlngr1970
Is the R4 disc NTSC or PAL? or something other than NTSC?

It's in PAL format according to the box. Another thing: the running time of the disc is about 79 minutes, while the U.S. disc clocks in at about 86 minutes! I think that the film was actually time-compressed, as the score sounded somewhat screwy. Godammit.

Oh, and BubbleGumUK, if you could somehow post those U.S. full-frame images next to my widescreen caps in this thread, I'd be grateful.

[brian]

Originally posted by Monterey Jack
It's in PAL format according to the box. Another thing: the running time of the disc is about 79 minutes, while the U.S. disc clocks in at about 86 minutes! I think that the film was actually time-compressed, as the score sounded somewhat screwy. Godammit.

Most (if not all) movies in PAL format play a tiny bit faster. It ends up raising the pitch of the audio, and results in the time loss you described.

[SilentBob]

Originally posted by brian
Most (if not all) movies in PAL format play a tiny bit faster. It ends up raising the pitch of the audio, and results in the time loss you described.

Yeah i believe the PAL dvd's run at 25 fps compare to 24 here in Region 1. This was brought up a few times when Harry Potter was released last year.

[BubbleGumUK]

This is the reason that I only buy region one or NTSC discs.

Basically, film runs at 24fps. NTSC video runs at 30fps. A video frame is made up of two video "fields". Two fields make up each frame, so NTSC adds an extra field after every other frame. Over one second, these extra fields (12 in all) make up 6 actual frames, making the difference between film's 24 and NYSC's 30fps.

This is what gives NTSC a "film look" when titles are transferred to video, while not actually changing the film's length. With PAL, which runs at 25fps, the difference is one frame, so the technical guys seem to think no-one will notice if they just run the film one frame faster to make the change from 24 to 25fps.

What this does is have the effect, as you noticed, of speeding up the film. It's not really "time compressed", but over time, each second loses a frame. After 24 seconds, you've actually lost a second of time. Over an hour, this equates to two minutes. An average film loses from 4 - 6 minutes during its length.

What is also annoying is that the audio gets raised by one musical key. I've heard the PAL versions of Beauty And The Beast and others, where Gaston isn't anywhere as intimidating and Belle sounds like a child. The scores to films are affected as well of course, so the music you heard in the theater and also perhaps on an audio CD will not match the PAL version in pitch or time. Being a part-time composer, this is most frustrating!

Also, coming to picture quaility, NTSC reproduces film much more faithfully. There has been a general feeling that NTSC stands for Never The Same Color Twice, due to the unstability of the crhoma elements in the images. I think NTSC actually does a great job of making sure the film is displayed as it was shot/graded, whereas PAL images are continuously murky, with the over use of gamma, making blacks (and anything approaching black) dissapear into a colourless void. This almost certainly always results in a "video-processed" look. True, wth 625 lins of resolution, it should beat NTSC's 525, but if you do have a chance for a comparison you'll see what I mean.

I'd take depth of image, correct audio pitch and proper timing over an extra few lines of resolution which results in a murky picture anytime. Out of over 350 DVDs (and around150 lasers) only three or four are PAL/region 2, and usually because the title is not available in NTSC.

Hope this has been of use!! I'll try and get those pics up soon!

[airjosh]

i checked out the pics. I would love to have a R1 release of this in widescreen. Have you done any comparisons to the full screen? I am curious how much gets chopped.

[rainrain]

I have been trying and searching on how to make screen captures on my computer via the DVD-rom player. I play DVD's on my PC but just can't figure it out. It is probably so obvious. I have tried finding info in the Interactual DVD player and in Windows Media Player.

I know I am overlooking something or not doing the search correctly in the "help" sections (which often suck)

Any help would be appreciated,
Jeremy G.

[BubbleGumUK]

Okay, this is how I thought it would be.

I wrote to Don Bluth ages ago about what was the correct ratio for NIMH and An American Tail. He replied and told me that it had been shot so as to accommodate later TV screenings if the theatrical release had done poorly. This bears up when you see thse captures.

In relation to Monterey Jack's screenshots, it is obvious that NIMH was shot at roughly 1.33:1 and cropped in theaters and the widescreen DVD to 1.85:1.

Why this is done in animation is beyond me, as why spend time wasting talent and money animating stuff that wouldn't normally be shown? If they hard matted animated films then the animators would be able to spend more time on the on-screen shots and the widescreen print would be the preffered choice.

As it is with NIMH, it is "open matte", with the tiniest little sliver of pic info missing on the right had side only (and we're talking overscan line-type width here).

So I'd prefer to stay with my region 1 disc and blow it up to fill my 16x9 display. That way, I'm getting OAR, perfect audio pitch and a decent picture transfer, rather than the murky PAL pic with the badly sped-up soundtrack.

Anyway check for yourselves - here's Monteray Jack's page again:
Jack's Screenshots

[BubbleGumUK]

"Step inside, but keep your hands to yourself! I'm right in the middle of something important." ~ "I understand." ~ "Oh, do you?"

[BubbleGumUK]

"Three weeks. He cannot be moved for at least three weeks." ~ "But Moving Day is nearly here!"

[BubbleGumUK]

"The shrew means well. She only wants to help."

[BubbleGumUK]

"How beautiful!" ~ "Ma'am?" ~ "Oh, the lights! They're quite lovely!"

[BubbleGumUK]

"The Plan is folly! A doddering old fool's fantasy."

[BubbleGumUK]

"A sparkly! You're wearing a sparkly!"

[BubbleGumUK]

"I've learned this much: Take what you can, when you can!" ~ "Then you've learned nothing!"

[BubbleGumUK]

"Look mommy, another turkey!" / End Credits

[BubbleGumUK]

As you can see, it's pretty tightly framed anyway, and I think the cropping does affect some of the close up shots.

What do you guys think?

[Monterey Jack]

I still think there's a smidgen more picture information on the sides in the widescreen version. Is it at all possible for someone to post both widescreen and full-screen caps in the same post for a direct comparison?


And even sans a widescreen transfer (assuming that the film was animated in the "Academy" 1:33 ratio, hard to believe for any post-1950 theatrical movie), this film deserves some special edition content, such as a commentary by Bluth and Gary Goldman.

[airjosh]

Originally posted by BubbleGumUK
As you can see, it's pretty tightly framed anyway, and I think the cropping does affect some of the close up shots.

What do you guys think?

That is what I thought when I first looked at the screenshots. There is a substantial amount of picture lost in the widescreen crop. I would rather lose a half inch on the side then a few inches vertically.

I am not left wanting a widescreen anymore. With the full screen version you get to see more of the artwork. quite a bit different then in cropped film.

I would however like a SE

[Nexus 6]

This being an MGM title, if a special edition was ever produced, they would most likely include both widescreen and fullscreen transfers. I agree with Monterey, though; a NIMH SE would be terrific. I hope they eventually get around to it.

[BubbleGumUK]

Originally posted by Monterey Jack
Even sans a widescreen transfer (assuming that the film was animated in the "Academy" 1:33 ratio, hard to believe for any post-1950 theatrical movie)...

Quite a few Disney's were animated 1.33:1 before going to 1.66:1 after 1950.

Also, Bluth did specify that it was animated for 1.33:1 so that it could later be sold to video and TV. Remember, he made this at a time when animation wasn't so hip and video was just taking off. A costly flop would have been easier to recoup profits on TV and home video.

In a couple of shots, thes is actually a little MORE info on the left hand side, but at the end of the day, the WS framing is the FS framing cropped, as Bluth stated to me in his reply.

While looking for these frames, I did notice a little extra head-room than was needed, but on the whole, this seems to have been framed for 1.33:1 with the knowledge that it would be cropped.

Both are actually correct. The WS frame does recreate the theatrical frame, but the FS frame is what it was composed for. An SE would be great, but in the meantime the full-screen is the way to go, and we can always blow up the pic to fit the 16x9 display if we want to see the theatrical frame.