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

[ScottR]

Such a shame :frowning:

 

[Rob_Ray]

The cropping was done in 1954 to make the entire film safe for 1.66 projection in the new widescreen era. There were about a dozen long shots which were reframed for optimal 1.66:1 projection. It's those shots that are lost. On DVD the reframed shots are reframed again for optimal 1.33 TV dimensions.

To my knowledge, the 70mm blowup did not touch the archival source material. As an example, the sweeping title card was replaced by by a static one for 70mm prints and I haven't seen that alteration in over thirty years.

 

[Christian Preischl]

For what it's worth: The upcoming Jungle Book Platinum Edition (release: 10/2/07) will present the film in approx. 1.75:1. (Source: DVD Active, check the "Technical Specifications" box in the trade ad.)

 

[Chuck Pennington]

Here is a scan from the original theatrical pressbook of ROBIN HOOD distributed to theaters showing the film in 1973.

 

[Chuck Pennington]

And here I posted a scan from THE SWORD IN THE STONE pressbook (scroll down to the bottom to see it):

Click here

 

[GuruAskew]

The first time I realized this would be a problem was when Fox started releasing "The X-Files" in widescreen.

Granted, that's not a case of a cropped show. Fox mandated that they make the 16x9 switch for the '97-98 season (season 2 of "Millennium" aired simultaneously and that's when they made the switch too) but there are numerous examples of open-matte gaffes throughout both shows.

The shows themselves weren't composed for widescreen (except for "Triangle") but everyone acted like it was great news. It was at that moment I realized that there would be a whole new bunch of people who wanted their screens to be filled, only this time they were home theater enthusiasts.

It's definitely a double-standard. I've seen people who would bite the head off of a fullscreen-loving "Joe Sixpack" who will admit to watching 4x3 content stretched or cropped on their 16x9 displays.

 

[Mike Frezon]

Chuck: Thanks for the Robin Hood and Sword in the Stone info. It's wonderful to have them accounted for, finally.

Are we complete on this info now? Jungle Book, etc.?

 

[Chuck Pennington]

I don't have THE JUNGLE BOOK pressbook, but it stands to reason that it is probably intended for 1.75:1 also as the film before it and the two after it are 1.75:1.

A HUNDRED AND ONE DALMATIANS I'd love to find out about, but I think an original pressbook for it would be too pricey.

I guess the argument that these films weren't intended to be seen at 1.75:1 is silenced now, huh? Now whether they are correctly framed on the DVDs is another issue, but they were meant to be 1.75:1.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

And the only way we're going to be able to answer that is to get our grubby mitts on a release print or two, do some scans and compare, right?

 

[Stephen_J_H]

Not to pour salt into old wounds, but I saw Fantasia in theatres when it was rereleased in 1990, and the only prints that were windowboxed were the 70mm ones. The 35mm print that played at my local theatre was cropped to 1.85:1. There were no black bars on either side, and compositions were clearly cropped. The 1992 release of Pinocchio and the1993 release of Snow White were indeed pictureboxed for 35mm presentations, but Fantasia definitely was not.

 

[Brandon Conway]

Great research Chuck!

 

[Tom M]

Which might not tell you anything. The theatrical prints could either be full frame meant to be cropped with an aperture plate or the print could be hard matted.

I have a Robin Hood "Reel Piece Of History" trading card with two frames from a theatrical print. The frames are shown in a rectangular window that looks like 1.85:1 to me. The framing is a bit tight, cutting the feather on RH's hat in half! If anyone wants, I'll try to scan it and post it.

There's no doubt there is extra head and foot room in the 4:3 DVD. The pictures of actual production cels on ebay leave no doubt about this.

Perhaps 1.66:1 might be the perfect ratio for home video. It would allow for more headroom and perserve a widescreen look.

RH is my all time favorite Disney animated film. Whatever it's IAR (Intended Aspect Ratio), the current DVD looks damn good projected on my 80" screen!

BTW, been trying to get a production cel of RH (the character himself) and recently lost an ebay auction by $5. I was at work and could not bump up my bid. :frowning:

I consoled myself with a Secret Of NIMH cel.

It's of my favorite character, Jeremy hanging upside down from the beginning of the film. It's pretty damn cool!

 

[Chuck Pennington]

Not unless they were hard matted on the print, which I don't believe they were.

I posted the pressbook scans that I did to prove that the intended theatrical aspect ratio was 1.75:1. There has been a lot of debate about this, with some people claiming since the films were shot protected for 1.33:1 that they should only be shown that way. The original pressbook scans clearly state 1.75:1 was intended for THE SWORD IN THE STONE and ROBIN HOOD. I don't have the pressbooks for THE ARISTOCATS, THE JUNGLE BOOK or A HUNDRED AND ONE DALMATIANS to state definitively what the theatrical aspect ratios are for those, but I would wager that the two features released between SWORD and ROBIN HOOD were also intended for 1.75:1.

 

[Mike Frezon]

I wouldn't bet against you on that point.

I think it's great that we can be sure of this now.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

What I meant by my comments, Chuck was whether or not the 1.33:1 video releases are in fact open matte or cropped down from 1.75:1. A release print would be beneficial for determining that. The other thing we need to do is get people out of this mindset that items being cropped off in the projected frame are not necessarily indicative of incorrect framing. It is only when such cropping actually ruins the composition that the framing can be ruled incorrect.

 

[Chuck Pennington]

Screen captures comparing the fullframe and widescreen DVD releases show there is information missing from the top and bottom but more added on the sides, though it does vary between the releases (I noticed quite a bit more picture info on THE JUNGLE BOOK, but next to nothing on ROBIN HOOD - go figure). There is no need for a scan from a print to determine that.

I posted the scans from the pressbooks to show that Disney intended for ROBIN HOOD and THE SWORD IN THE STONE to be presented at 1.75:1 in theaters. I'd be willing to bet the animated films produced between those two (THE JUNGLE BOOK and THE ARISTOCATS) were also intended to be shown similarly matted.

I REALLY wonder about A HUNDRED AND ONE DALMATIANS though. Having been released in 1961, and considering the way the film is framed, I'm leaning towards 1.66:1 or 1.75:1 for it as well, but I don't have anything to back that up - yet.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

Jack Theakston indicates that "Project at 1.75:1" was printed into the reel leaders for One Hundred and One Dalmatians. If we could get our hands on a 1961 release print with the reel leaders intact, that would provide conclusive proof. I worked as a projectionist for some time while going to law school, and when shipping prints out after they had completed their run, we always had to splice the leaders back on after taking the print apart. They were always clearly labeled. Granted, this was 40 years after 101D was in theatres, but I would hope that projectionists actually took greater care in the 60s than they did in 2003-5

 

[Jack Theakston]

UNLESS YOU ARE RUNNING A FILM PRINT, YOU CANNOT TELL ANY GIVEN ASPECT RATIO OF A FILM.

 

[Robert Harris]

I cannot believe that this thread is still going.

While there are aspect ratios, the content of a projected image in a theater is virtually uncontrollable for a variety of reasons. Most older houses project an image that is an extraction trapezoidal in shape.

Disney films from the '60s and onward were all 1.85, while the prints were generally open matte. 1.2:1 still sounds correct for the prints -- which again is totally irrelevant to the projected image.