Q re: BEATLES films aspect ratios (1 Viewer)

[Stephen_J_H]

Agreed. I have a few non-anamorphic 1.66:1 discs and besides not taking full advantage of the resolution available on DVD, these discs are a pain to zoom on my 16:9 display, since there's no variable zoom setting that would allow me to maintain all of the height of the image on either my player or my display.

 

[Derek Miner]

You don't see it in the old 4:3 release, either.

See: YouTube - Yellow Submarine Part 1 @ 4:48

And at 9:15, compare the credit screen to the capture earlier!

 

[Joseph Bolus]

Derek,

Thanks for that link ... I *never* suspected that it would be possible to find large segments of the old 4:3 VHS presentation of "Yellow Submarine" up on YouTube!

And ... After closely examining that opening segment, I'm finally satisfied that 1.66:1 is the proper AR for this title. There is definitely more information available on the sides of the DVD presentation while the top and bottom are cut off in the same places on both the 1.66:1 and 4:3 versions.

Thanks again!

 

[Joseph Bolus]

Actually, I'm taking back what I just stated in the prior post!!

After looking a little more closely at the 4:3 "Yellow Submarine" transfer, it's now apparent that the 1.66:1 DVD transfer provides more information on the sides, *but* the 4:3 transfer provides more information (in some cases a *lot* more) on the top and bottom. So now I'm *thoroughly* confused!!

Here, take a look at these identical frames:

1.66:1 from the DVD:


4:3 from YouTube (derived from the VHS release?) :

 

[Derek Miner]

Why wouldn't an animated film in a flat aspect ratio be subject to exactly the same process as a live action film? Namely, filmed open matte but intended to be masked in theatrical presentation?

 

[Brian Borst]

It happened/still happens with animated films. The Disney films of the 60's and 70's for instance. Even the CAPS ones were matted to some extent (from 1.66:1 to 1.85:1 for theaters). And when the movies were put on dvd, some folks cried foul when it had the theatrical aspect ratio, thus where matted. Some forget having OAR doesn't necessarily mean getting the most image.

 

[ChristopherDAC]

If you watch a lot of animated films, as I do, & study the animation process, as I have, you will discover some interesting things. One of them is that cels are often painted out beyond the intended frame line, & giving the the director flexibility in choosing which parts of the cels will be visible during the filming process. As a result, for example, a 4:3 transfer of a film intended for a wider ratio may have "information" not visible in the theatrical ratio, but that does not make it more correct. An extreme case which I have seen is the "open-matted" version of an animated film in which the edges of "gadgets" (overlay sub-cels for moving sections) & background artwork are visible — I believe the US-release LaserDisc of Robot Carnival does this in places.

 

[Brian Borst]

And there are some people out there who would like to see this entire animated picture, even though some of it was never meant to be seen.

 

[Patrick McCart]

In the case of the 1960-1983 Disney features, I can understand it since they're generally made safe for open matte or matted.

At least more noble than the creeps who go with open matte for nudity.

 

[lukejosephchung]

It wasn't the case for Disney's "Lady And The Tramp", which was shot both in 1:33 and 2:55 to 1 Cinemascope!

 

[Brian Borst]

No, I meant the regular made in and for 1.33:1 movies (it probably happened on the other films as well). Anyway, these images show what I mean. That animators have to draw more than can be seen can happen. But some want to see the entire frame, while this clearly isn't meant to be seen. Check out the last example, it show one dwarf not completely drawn, that's obviously not meant to be seen.