VHS version of a film longer than DVD one?

[torinfan]

I came across something rather unusual in my own collection - a VHS version of The Snows of Kilimanjaro that is 117 minutes long, and I have a DVD copy of the same film, but it is only 112 minutes long. I immediately recognized which scene is missing from the DVD version, where Gregory Peck is on a hunting trip in Africa.



Is this sort of thing unusual for DVD film releases? if not, what does it mean?

[will.15]

It might be because of what DVD version you have. That is one of the few major studio films from the 1950's that has apparently lapsed into the public domain because it is available from many non official sources. I have a DVD of it, too, in cheap packaging from a discount outlet and have seen it available from many other distributors of public domain films.



It might be from a version for television cut for commercials.

[GoggleboxUK]

VHS versions longer than DVD versions.....



Just about every pre-cert horror movie from the mid- 70s to early 80s released in the UK suffered from heavy editing to obtain a DVD release. Many still haven't caught up in the UK although worldwide there are versions available somewhere that have the same running time as their VHS counterparts.

[torinfan]

name='will.15']It might be because of what DVD version you have. That is one of the few major studio films from the 1950's that has apparently lapsed into the public domain because it is available from many non official sources. I have a DVD of it, too, in cheap packaging from a discount outlet and have seen it available from many other distributors of public domain films.



It might be from a version for television cut for commercials.

That's what I understand, this particular movie is in PD. I have the Cascadia Labs release.

name='GoggleboxUK']VHS versions longer than DVD versions.....



Just about every pre-cert horror movie from the mid- 70s to early 80s released in the UK suffered from heavy editing to obtain a DVD release. Many still haven't caught up in the UK although worldwide there are versions available somewhere that have the same running time as their VHS counterparts.

That's interesting, thanks!

[will.15]

The imbd has it at 114 minutes. Maybe you have a collectors item in the vhs.

[torinfan]

name='will.15']The imbd has it at 114 minutes. Maybe you have a collectors item in the vhs.

That is a possibility - my VHS copy is from Vintage Video, Inc.

[will.15]

It just occurred to me to look it up in my Halliwell book and its 117 minutes in there so the imdb has wrong information.

[Steve Crook]

name='will.15']It just occurred to me to look it up in my Halliwell book and its 117 minutes in there so the imdb has wrong information.

Or maybe it's Halliwell that is wrong?



The BBFC says that it was issued here in 1952 with a running time of 113m 18s

They also list a video versionm released in 2005, that runs at 116m 23s

The video versions released in 1989 & 2005 with a time of 109m 6s



So it seems to be one of those films with a variable length



Steve

[torinfan]

name='Steve Crook']Or maybe it's Halliwell that is wrong?



The BBFC says that it was issued here in 1952 with a running time of 113m 18s

They also list a video versionm released in 2005, that runs at 116m 23s

The video versions released in 1989 & 2005 with a time of 109m 6s



So it seems to be one of those films with a variable length



Steve

Now that info can be confusing!



At any rate, at least the VHS copy I have appears to be complete. I think.

[GoggleboxUK]

Does the hunting scene contain any animal cruelty? Some of the DPP39 films showed scenes where animals were killed and these scenes are those that are cut from UK/US DVD versions although Mexico, China and Scandinavia often aren't so concerned about little piggies being shot and have the full versions available.

[DaveK]

Don't forget that films are projected in the cinema ( and on U.S. TV) at 24 fps and Tx'd in Britain at 25 fps, so any timing taken from a UK TV Xfer would be one minute shorter for every 25 mins of original running time. This certainly wouldn't explain the 5 mins difference mentioned but it might go some way towards understanding why IMDB running times might not always appear to be correct.



Just a thought!

[Able Abel]

I have the Region 2 DVD of The Sun Also Rises issued by cinema club and lasting 125 minutes in length. When I saw this film on tv some years back, I could have sworn there was a brief shot in a jazz club featuring Tyrone Power, Ava Gardner, Juliette Greco and an actor who's name escapes me, all dancing side by side one another (but I can't remember which actress was partnered with which actor in the scene). The DVD didn't include this scene but I'm convinced it was there in the version broadcast on tv.

[GoggleboxUK]

name='DaveK']Don't forget that films are projected in the cinema ( and on U.S. TV) at 24 fps and Tx'd in Britain at 25 fps, so any timing taken from a UK TV Xfer would be one minute shorter for every 25 mins of original running time. This certainly wouldn't explain the 5 mins difference mentioned but it might go some way towards understanding why IMDB running times might not always appear to be correct.



Just a thought!

The number of frames per second doesn't increase the running time. A second is still a second no matter how many frames are packed into it.

[torinfan]

name='GoggleboxUK']Does the hunting scene contain any animal cruelty? Some of the DPP39 films showed scenes where animals were killed and these scenes are those that are cut from UK/US DVD versions although Mexico, China and Scandinavia often aren't so concerned about little piggies being shot and have the full versions available.

Gregory Peck, Ava Gardner, and Torin Thatcher are on a hunting trip in then-Tanganyika where they hunt rhinos. Gregory hands the rhino rifle to Ava, allowing her to take the first shot at the animal. I thought maybe this scene was cut because it shows a woman with a gun, hunting?

[DaveK]

name='GoggleboxUK']The number of frames per second doesn't increase the running time. A second is still a second no matter how many frames are packed into it.

If a film is shot at 24 frames per second and transmitted at 25 fps its resultant TV running time is reduced from the original cinema running time by 1/25th.

[Amethyst_Isle]

VHS versions longer than DVD versions.....



Not longer but The Eiger Sanction is shorter on tape (113mins) than DVD (123 min)



Firefox on UK tape runs 123 mins ( US runs 136 min on R1 DVD ONLY......R2 DVD is 123mins long ) 13 minutes cut out by Eastwood himself.



and also The Executioner's Song is shorter on tape and DVD compared to theTV version,a 135 minute so-called "director's cut" released on DVD in 2008 in the United States still has many of the nude scenes missing that were shown in Europe..

[GoggleboxUK]

name='DaveK']If a film is shot at 24 frames per second and transmitted at 25 fps its resultant TV running time is reduced from the original cinema running time by 1/25th.

Yes but why would a studio shoot a movie at 24 fps to be shown on TV or put on VHS/DVD at 25 fps? They wouldn't, they'd convert it.



You might as well say that if a movie has a running time on the box of 100 minutes and you pause it half way through to go to the toilet then the stated running time is wrong.

[rjd0309]

DaveK is correct. It's not the running time that is constant, it is the number of frames of film that is constant.



If you made a film, you probably shot at the standard film frame rate of 24 frames per second. So for a film just over 2 hours in length, you'll end up with about 200,000 frames of film. That remains constant.



The actual running time depends upon the rate at which these frames are displayed. There are several variables involved -- e.g., NTSC versus PAL -- any one of which will alter the running time.

[GoggleboxUK]

Oh Christ, I'm going to have to get technical in order to explain that a second only ever lasts a second no matter how many frames there are in it.....



There is a large difference in framerate between film, which runs at 24.0 frames per second, and the NTSC standard, which runs at approximately 29.97 frames per second.



Unlike the 576i video formats this difference cannot be overcome by a simple speed-up.



A complex process called "3:2 pulldown" is used. One film frame is transmitted for three video fields (1½ video frame times), and the next frame is transmitted for two video fields (one video frame time). Two 24 frame/s film frames are therefore transmitted in five 60 Hz video fields, for an average of 2½ video fields per film frame. The average frame rate is thus 60 / 2.5 = 24 frame/s, so the average film speed is exactly what it should be. There are drawbacks, however. Still-framing on playback can display a video frame with fields from two different film frames, so any motion between the frames will appear as a rapid back-and-forth flicker. There can also be noticeable jitter/"stutter" during slow camera pans (telecine judder).



To avoid 3:2 pulldown, film shot specifically for NTSC television is often taken at 30 frame/s.



For viewing native 576i material (such as European television series and some European movies) on NTSC equipment, a standards conversion has to take place. There are basically two ways to accomplish this.



* The framerate can be slowed from 25 to 23.976 frames per second (a slowdown of about 4%) to subsequently apply 3:2 pulldown.

* Interpolation of the contents of adjacent frames in order to produce new intermediate frames; unless highly sophisticated motion-sensing computer algorithms are applied, this introduces artifacts, and even the most modestly trained of eyes can quickly spot video that has been converted between formats.

[Lord Brett]

Er, that's fine, but differences in running time between the same film in PAL and NTSC formats is an extremely well known and obervable phenomenon.



Putting insulting graphics up and tryping 'Christ' isn't going to change a thing. Let's move on.