What's new

Matt Hough

Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2006
Messages
26,152
Location
Charlotte, NC
Real Name
Matt Hough
After a series of award-winning television specials and an off-Broadway musical that ran for years, Charlie Brown and his Peanuts gang finally came to the big screen in A Boy Named Charlie Brown.



A Boy Named Charlie Brown (1969)



Released: 04 Dec 1969
Rated: G
Runtime: 86 min




Director: Bill Melendez
Genre: Animation, Comedy, Drama



Cast: Peter Robbins, Pamelyn Ferdin, Glenn Gilger, Andy Pforsich
Writer(s): Charles M. Schulz (created by), Charles M. Schulz



Plot: Charlie Brown makes his way to the national spelling bee finals.



IMDB rating: 7.4
MetaScore: N/A





Disc Information



Studio: CBS
Distributed By: N/A
Video Resolution: 1080P/AVC



Aspect Ratio: 1.33:1
Audio:...

Continue reading...
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Osato

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2001
Messages
8,182
Real Name
Tim
matt-hough

A Boy Named Charlie Brown Blu-ray Review

boychuckbrowntop2.jpg


After a series of award-winning television specials and an off-Broadway musical that ran for years, Charlie Brown and his Peanuts gang finally came to the big screen in A Boy Named Charlie Brown.

[review]
Click here to read the original article.

On the wish list for sure!
 

Dick

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 22, 1999
Messages
9,913
Real Name
Rick
Zero interest in this title. It appears to be nothing more than an overpriced non-anamorphic transfer that is inconsistent and sometimes almost blurry, with little or no cleanup. Even the OP's screen cap looks way-y soft. Too bad...I kinda liked it when I was young.
 
Last edited:

Patrick McCart

Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 16, 2001
Messages
8,196
Location
Georgia (the state)
Real Name
Patrick McCart
Blu-Ray.com's review has screencaps up. Seems like the transfer is very good, but the film element has issues compared to Snoopy Come Home.

As for the aspect ratio, the Blu-Ray consistently has more image on all four sides. The 1.75:1 framing on the DVD isn't a center crop, but adjusted shot-by-shot. Some shots have the widescreen frame shifted all the way to the top, others closer to the bottom.

h9wtRgr.jpg

c9N4b4d.jpg

OXKYNTI.jpg

(Red frame indicates the DVD's framing)
 

Mark-P

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2005
Messages
6,487
Location
Camas, WA
Real Name
Mark Probst
Blu-Ray.com's review has screencaps up. Seems like the transfer is very good, but the film element has issues compared to Snoopy Come Home.

As for the aspect ratio, the Blu-Ray consistently has more image on all four sides. The 1.75:1 framing on the DVD isn't a center crop, but adjusted shot-by-shot. Some shots have the widescreen frame shifted all the way to the top, others closer to the bottom.

h9wtRgr.jpg

c9N4b4d.jpg

OXKYNTI.jpg

(Red frame indicates the DVD's framing)
Great comparison research! If anything it makes the case that Paramount made the correct decision to go open matte. This illustrates that the widescreen DVD is a revisionist creation rather than an accurate rendering of the theatrical presentation which would have been a static center crop. I guess theater-goers in 1969 would have been subjected to some rather poor framing!
 

Randy Korstick

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2000
Messages
5,839
Zero interest in this title. It appears to be nothing more than an overpriced non-anamorphic transfer that is inconsistent and sometimes almost blurry, with little or no cleanup. Even the OP's screen cap looks way-y soft. Too bad...I kinda liked it when I was young.
Agreed who releases a film non-OAR these days. And an old ragged transfer to boot. No respect for the Peanuts just a quick no effort release and over-priced to boot. The far superior DVDs were re-mastered and look great upconverted on a Blu Ray. Definitely a case to stick with the DVD.
 

Rodney

Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2001
Messages
2,404
I'm normally a "No OAR No Sale" guy, but these animated films always confuse me a bit. It isn't like a live action film where they never meant for you to see the area, the animators deliberately chose to create the artwork that resides there, so it appears there was an expectation that it would be seen.
In these cases, I like having an open matte approach so that the viewer can decide how they wish to view it.
 

LeoA

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2008
Messages
3,552
Location
North Country
Real Name
Leo
While I'm fine with the route they went with and think I prefer it, your last sentence isn't quite correct.

You can't just zoom in on this movie and get a decent widescreen presentation, The framing will be pretty bad at times, as shown by those screenshots. I know that it's how they were viewed in theaters originally, but even the most diehard theatrical purist will expect the perspective to shift as appropriate to best frame the image, just like on the old DVD.

People will argue all day long that these two classics should be viewed one particular way or the other. But the fact of the matter is that there are two original aspect ratios for these two films. There's the theatrical widescreen version, and then there's the tv version. The film was prepared for both from the start, unlike 99.9% of widescreen theatrical releases.

As such, there's nothing wrong with either option. What's wrong is not providing both options to satisfy everyone. Heck, this movie is short enough where they could provide both on a single layer Blu-Ray and not sacrifice quality from over compression.

They wouldn't of even been out the extra cost of going to a dual layer Blu-Ray, yet they're still restricting us with films that had a very unusual situation that could easily have accommodated everyone's taste.
 

Tony Bensley

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2013
Messages
7,306
Location
Somewhere in Canada
Real Name
Anthony
While I'm fine with the route they went with and think I prefer it, your last sentence isn't quite correct.

You can't just zoom in on this movie and get a decent widescreen presentation, The framing will be pretty bad at times, as shown by those screenshots. I know that it's how they were viewed in theaters originally, but even the most diehard theatrical purist will expect the perspective to shift as appropriate to best frame the image, just like on the old DVD.

People will argue all day long that these two classics should be viewed one particular way or the other. But the fact of the matter is that there are two original aspect ratios for these two films. There's the theatrical widescreen version, and then there's the tv version. The film was prepared for both from the start, unlike 99.9% of widescreen theatrical releases.

As such, there's nothing wrong with either option. What's wrong is not providing both options to satisfy everyone. Heck, this movie is short enough where they could provide both on a single layer Blu-Ray and not sacrifice quality from over compression.

They wouldn't of even been out the extra cost of going to a dual layer Blu-Ray, yet they're still restricting us with films that had a very unusual situation that could easily have accommodated everyone's taste.
I wholeheartedly agree that both Aspect Ratios should have been included for both Peanuts releases.

Based on the OP's A BOY NAMED CHARLIE BROWN (1969) screenshot, I also agree the visual quality is most disappointing - Not even much better than VHS quality! I'd expect better than this on DVD even for the old TV specials, let alone a Blu-ray release of one of the cinematic releases, whose bitrate isn't even the slightest bit compromised! Good Grief! :P

CHEERS! :)
 

Mark-P

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2005
Messages
6,487
Location
Camas, WA
Real Name
Mark Probst
While I'm fine with the route they went with and think I prefer it, your last sentence isn't quite correct.

You can't just zoom in on this movie and get a decent widescreen presentation, The framing will be pretty bad at times, as shown by those screenshots. I know that it's how they were viewed in theaters originally, but even the most diehard theatrical purist will expect the perspective to shift as appropriate to best frame the image, just like on the old DVD.

People will argue all day long that these two classics should be viewed one particular way or the other. But the fact of the matter is that there are two original aspect ratios for these two films. There's the theatrical widescreen version, and then there's the tv version. The film was prepared for both from the start, unlike 99.9% of widescreen theatrical releases.

As such, there's nothing wrong with either option. What's wrong is not providing both options to satisfy everyone. Heck, this movie is short enough where they could provide both on a single layer Blu-Ray and not sacrifice quality from over compression.

They wouldn't of even been out the extra cost of going to a dual layer Blu-Ray, yet they're still restricting us with films that had a very unusual situation that could easily have accommodated everyone's taste.
Leo, which widescreen version are you advocating be included? One like that on the DVD with each shot adjusted for best composition? Or the true Theatrical version with a static center crop? If it's the latter, then yes the open matte version on the Blu-ray can achieve that goal through zoom functions.
 
Last edited:

LeoA

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2008
Messages
3,552
Location
North Country
Real Name
Leo
First of all, if my earlier post wasn't clear enough, I think everyone should've been accommodated here via including an alternate widescreen presentation to complement the open matte, tv style presentation.

But I'd argue that it's the DVD style framing that shifts the frame vertically when appropriate that most people would want for a widescreen presentation. I believe that just based off those screenshots, most would agree that it's more suitable than just a static center crop and thus is preferred even if not historically accurate. And I've watched the DVD enough times where I'm confident in saying that it works well.

And when we get right down to it, I believe that it's accepted that this aired in theaters in an aspect ratio of 1.85:1. So 1.78:1 (Full-screen 16:9) like on the DVD isn't even original, albeit not dramatically different. So if you're not even using the "correct" aspect ratio for the theatrical presentation for the widescreen theatrical fans, you may as well go all out and enhance the framing at the same time to correct obvious issues with the source material.

OXKYNTI.jpg


Just like this excellent screenshot that demonstrates the compromise originally made for the DVD overlaid onto an open matte screenshot from this new Blu-Ray. I feel it's not even debatable that this is better than a static center crop and that the movie thus benefits from this move.

Sadly, using your tv's zoom function obviously can't achieve this on this Blu-Ray. Also, aren't there resolution issues this way, as well? All the image that is off-screen when zoomed in is leaving you a lower pixel density on your screen than if a widescreen option had just been available from the start.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
356,815
Messages
5,123,796
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
0
Top