ROBIN HOOD -- Cropping Full-Frame Films for the Widescreen Future (1 Viewer)

[JimTravis]

Jack:

There is no widescreen version of 101 Dalmatians (at least, not one available on home video). The last theatrical issue windowboxed the image to preserve the 4:3 aspect ratio, rather than cut off the top and bottom.

Stephen:

The last theatrical rerelease may have been windowboxed in a CYA move by Disney suits (read: Michael Eisner) who have no clue what the correct AR was supposed to be.

Well, say what you want about Eisner, it was under Eisner that Pinocchio, Snow White, and Fantasia were released "windowboxed" in theaters, windowboxed in the print so that theaters would have no choice but to screen it in the correct aspect ratio. It was under Eisner that the 1982 digital recording of Fantasia was tossed in favor of the original soundtrack. It was under Eisner that we saw restored uncut versions of "The Happiest Millionaire", "Bedknobs and Broomsticks", "Treasure Island", etc. It was under Eisner that great LD box sets of Tron, Saludos Amigos, and the black and white Mickey shorts were produced. The WDT line - including the war cartoons - happened under Eisner. Eisner is often painted as the devil when he did in fact greenlight some great things at the Mouse House. Simply because the 4x3 theatrical issue of 101 Dalmatians happened under his watch doesn't preclude the possibility that Gumbo is right, and that animation at Disney continued to be produced in a square aspect ratio which was cropped for theatrical screenings.

Not to doubt you, especially since I didn't get the chance to see F2K in IMAX, but are you sure the AR for the IMAX release was 4:3?

Well, it was "full frame IMAX", whatever that is. Beauty and the Beast was 1.66:1 so as not to compromise the OAR image, but F2K was DEFINITELY "full frame" 4:3. There was no difference in aspect ratio between "The Sorcerer's Apprentice" and the other sequences. The whole thing was 4x3. The IMAX version compromised the sides of F2K's 1.85 frame to "fill the whole screen".

It's true. Go look it up.

 

[JimTravis]

I think I have a solution!

Anyone with the widescreen "Frank and Ollie" DVD should notice this...

On the "Frank and Ollie" DVD...the footage from THE JUNGLE BOOK and THE SWORD IN THE STONE is....(wait for it)...

WINDOWBOXED in the 1.85:1 frame!

So is the footage from ROBIN HOOD.

There is no footage from SLEEPING BEAUTY, the only Walt-era animated feature produced exclusively in widescreen (Technirama 70, if I remember correctly).

Gumbo is right. These films were shot 4:3 and cropped for original theatrical issue.

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

The contention is that they were shot 4:3 and composed knowing full well that they would be cropped for theatrical release. The more restrictive widescreen ratio would therefore dictate the compositions.

For the specific case of the Frank & Ollie DVD, the hitch is that they likely would have used available video masters for these clips, and there were never any made in widescreen at the time.

Regards,

 

[JimTravis]

The contention is that they were shot 4:3 and composed knowing full well that they would be cropped for theatrical release. The more restrictive widescreen ratio would therefore dictate the compositions.

Except that in Robin Hood, 101 Dalamatians, Jungle Book, and Sword in the Stone, animation extends all the way to the top of the frame. Why spend the money inking, painting and animating something you don't intend to show?

For the specific case of the Frank & Ollie DVD, the hitch is that they likely would have used available video masters for these clips, and there were never any made in widescreen at the time.

Or they were shown in their correct aspect ratio, and there ARE NO WIDESCREEN clips for these movies outside of Tramp and Sleeping Beauty. Why windowbox the clips to begin with, unless to show them in their OAR?

 

[Robert Harris]

You "spend the money inking, painting and animating" for television.

RAH

 

[Robert Harris]

The dimensions of the IMAX frame are 2.772" x 2.072"

RAH

 

[ChristopherDAC]

Refer to earlier posts in this thread. To an extent, you're looking at "protected for TV" material, just as with live-action features. More than that, though, because of the way cel animation is produced, the boundaries of the film frame are never those of the animation cel. Often, the cels (especially those known as "gadgets") are moved around on the animation stand, and the camera is moved around over the cels (especially backgrounds). Thus, there is more inking and painting done than shows up in the final feature, even in an Academy Ratio production.

 

[Douglas Monce]

Just because there is information above and below the open matte line doesn't mean it was intended to be seen in the theatrical release. Almost EVERY movie shot 1.85 has a full 1.33 image if you put a 1.33 aperture plate in the projector. (unless its shot with a hard matte)

Now clearly Disney (a studio that was very much invested in Television unlike most other studios at the time) was protecting for future use on TV. Remember these films were made at a time when no one had even heard of letterboxing, and TV stations wouldn't even think about showing a movie with black bars on the top and bottom.

Some of you may be old enough to remember the days when CinemaScope title sequences were shown with out the anamorphic lens on TV. Lots of tall skinny people.

The point being, yes a film like 101 Dalmatians CAN be shown open matte. Is it the best way to see it? Clearly not.

Doug

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

Just about every non-scope Disney film produced today is protected for 1.66:1. The animation extends beyond the theatrical 1.85:1 frame into the 1.66:1 frame. Sometimes they are released on DVD windowboxed to 1.66:1 (usually slightly wider), and sometimes they are letterboxed to 1.85:1. You could ask the same question about this analogous practice, and I think the answer remains the same as stated by others above.

Regards,

 

[Patrick McCart]

There was also some concern over the Peanuts theatrical features Paramount released earlier this year. A Boy Named Charlie Brown had credits windowboxed to about 1.50:1, thus this somehow meant the film is misframed. It turns out the entire film fit snugly within 1.75:1, even if there were tight shots. The credits were 1.75:1-safe throughout.

Even CGI films often have extra picture. Shrek's 35mm prints were hard-matted to 1.66:1. If you see the pan & scan version on DVD, you can see that there's some extra vertical picture compared to the widescreen version. Of course, at the expense of cropping the sides a bit...

 

[Lyle_JP]

Doug,

In 101 Dalmatians last theatrical re-release, the prints were actually scope with a 1.33:1 image in the middle of the frame and black on both sides. This was done to force every cinema to show it in 1.33, regardless of what plates or lenses they had.

Clearly, if it was important enough to Disney to print the film in such an unconventional way to preserve the 1.33:1 aspect ratio, then there at least a few important people over at Disney who disagree with you.

-Lyle J.P.

EDIT: I see this was already covered a bit above, but let me expand on it a bit. They also re-released Jungle Book in the 90s, but took a radically different tack: They hard matted the film prints to 1.85:1. The reason they did this (and didn't give theaters the option of showing it open matte) was because some obvious vertical pan 'n' scanning had been done to the picture to frame it for 1.85. Given that the cropping had to be tailored for each shot, rather than letting it lie in the center, proves beyond a doubt that Jungle Book, and likely 101 Dalmatians since it was older, were never composed to be 1.85 "safe".

 

[ChristopherDAC]

As I recall, that's not unheard of with films intended for widescreen projection ; I suppose it's generally handled by hard-matting the release prints, and moving the original element around in the printing stage. It doesn't prove that the film wasn't intended to be shown at that ratio, just that the photography didn't keep the wide image in the centre of the aperture all the time. I don't know what the motive would be, except perhaps if it is done with an eye to improving the appearance of open-matte TV showings (perhaps the cel image area doesn't extend far enough in one direction or the other to be quite TV-safe).

I read a review of PROJECT A-KO which indicates that the 1.66 theatrical framing (on the US LD) moves up and down with respect to the open-matte Japanese LD, but I've never done the comparison. One copy is enough for me.

 

[Douglas Monce]

Lyle,

Just because the studio does something like that doesn't mean it is correct. I think we have all heard the horror stories of Gone with the Wind being cropped to 2.20 for a 70mm blow up by MGM.

Actually The Jungle Book was originally released in 1967 and would have been intended to be a 1.66 or a 1.85 film. 101 Dalmatians was 1961 and again at that point very few theaters in the United States would have been able to show an academy aperture 1.33 film. I believe it was Robert Harris who stated earlier in this thread that all Disney films after Peter Pan in 1953 would have been composed with a wide screen format in mind.

Again I can tell you if I'm shooting a scene 1.85 open matte, I'm filling the whole 1.85 frame. Protecting the 1.33 area is strictly a compromise. I would never shoot a scene with that much head room on purpose unless I was going for some kind of effect. Now I'm not doing this just on a whim, these are classic rules of composition. Of course the rules can be broken, but typically they are only broken to create some kind of psychological effect on the viewer.

Doug

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

I have watched "101 Dalmations" at around 1.78:1 and it looks uncormfortably tight in more than a few sequences. "The Jungle Book" actually looked about right to my eyes. I think people on both sides of the argument are using words like "never" "Beyond a boubt" and "obviously" a bit to loosely in this thread. "The Jungle Book" was likely layed out to look right at around 1.66:1. Since very few theaters would be able to show a film at this ratio anymore, they probably had to shift some frames for a wide re-release at 1.85:1.

Regards,

 

[Douglas Monce]

Ken,

I find a lot of MODERN movies to be uncomfortably tight, but I guess that is becoming style. Whole scenes shot in massive eyebrow to chin closeups. That too, I suppose, is the influence of television.

Doug

 

[Mike Frezon]

And, Sergio Leone!

 

[Douglas Monce]

Mike,

Great example! But the difference is Leone didn't do it in every shot, so when he did do it, it was kind of shocking. He wasn't afraid to cut from a HUGE close-up to an extreme wide shot with tiny figures in the frame. Cool stuff!

Doug

 

[ChristopherDAC]

I've also noticed that recent films often use a very shallow depth of focus, which might have something to do with shooting in low light with a wide aperture. In any case, I don't like it, and I don't like the general "blurriness" which seems to be common these days. I couldn't see much of anything in Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow, despite watching it twice in the theatre. I'd be inclined to call those mistakes, but they seem to be deliberate choices ; tight-tight framing isn't necessarily an indicator of something wrong, either.

 

[Douglas Monce]

I think Sky Captain's look was completely intended. The whole thing has a soft focus look. I found it interesting, but not the way I would have shot it.

I do like shallow depth of field in close up shots so the subject pops off the screen. But then there is also the school of though, probably popularized by Top Gun, where you shoot everything with lenses somewhere around 200mm. Everything gets that compressed look. Now I like that look, but not for the whole movie!

Doug

 

[Ira Siegel]

If it's due to the influence of television, then it must be the 16:9 televisions. Original Academy Ratio and 4:3 ratio televisions allow for actors to act with more than their eyebrows and mouths while not getting a lot of peripherals getting into the sides of the image composition.