What's new

Rankin/Bass The Daydreamer coming to blu ray (1 Viewer)

darkrock17

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2007
Messages
2,161
Location
Alexandria, VA
Real Name
Andrew McClure
You're misunderstanding him. They were filmed Full Screen/Open Matte with mattes to protect for widescreen and shown in theaters widescreen. Extra information was filmed at the top and bottom of the frame that contains mostly dead space so it could be cropped. Theatrical films were not shown Full screen in the 60's. I just watched the blu ray of MMP this weekend and its not even full open matte 1.37 its 1.33 tv aspect ratio which means its slightly zoomed in. The sides are a little tight.
By 1955 theaters had all done away with Full Screens/1.37:1 and replaced them with widescreens as we have today. If a movie in the 60's was shown Full Screen nearly half of the screen would be covered with huge black bars. People would think there is something wrong and would have asked for their money back.
The Wizard Of Oz and Looney Tunes were both shown originally in 1.33.1 and for the most part have always been shown that way. You could crop both for widescreen, but Looney Tunes would look way off, were as Oz is debatable.

Night of The Living Dead was shot and filmed in full, wide wasn't an option for Romero and company.
 

richardburton84

Second Unit
Joined
Sep 4, 2011
Messages
470
Real Name
Jack
The Wizard Of Oz and Looney Tunes were both shown originally in 1.33.1 and for the most part have always been shown that way. You could crop both for widescreen, but Looney Tunes would look way off, were as Oz is debatable.

Night of The Living Dead was shot and filmed in full, wide wasn't an option for Romero and company.

I don’t think Oz is a valid example for the full screen/widescreen debate since that was filmed before widescreen really became a thing (the post-1953 Looney Tunes are more valid on this point).
 

darkrock17

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2007
Messages
2,161
Location
Alexandria, VA
Real Name
Andrew McClure
I don’t think Oz is a valid example for the full screen/widescreen debate since that was filmed before widescreen really became a thing (the post-1953 Looney Tunes are more valid on this point).
Any film that came before 1953 is a valid example because you could crop those films for widescreen, but they might look very off just like the Looney Tunes, Tom & Jerry and even Disney shorts.
 

Randy Korstick

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2000
Messages
5,217
Any film that came before 1953 is a valid example because you could crop those films for widescreen, but they might look very off just like the Looney Tunes, Tom & Jerry and even Disney shorts.
What do films made before 1953 and non widescreen have to do with widescreen films made after. Looney toons cartoons made after 53 were also matted in theaters but they were also protected so that most of the info. cropped was filler just like the Rankin Bass theatrical films and just like any other film released after 1953 that wasn't filmed in scope widescreen. Films before 1953 were not intended to be widescreen so they did not have mattes applied during production so they were not intended to be seen that way. Films after were. When they show them on tv they use a open matte that reveals all the dead space that was not intended to be seen. So you get more on top and bottom but you lose the intended widescreen look of the film and you lose a small amount of intended footage on the sides. Most animation buffs grew up with looney tunes on tv and want to see the full frame in all the cartoons made after 1953 like they saw on tv but that doesn't make it correct and honestly for short cartoons it isn't that big of a deal either way.
Night of the Living Dead is a rare exception. It was a very low budget independent film and did not really block for widescreen although theaters showed it in widescreen so like post 1953 cartoon shorts you can make a case for it to be shown either way.
 
Last edited:

darkrock17

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2007
Messages
2,161
Location
Alexandria, VA
Real Name
Andrew McClure
What do films made before 1953 and non widescreen have to do with widescreen films made after. Looney toons cartoons made after 53 were also matted in theaters but they were also protected so that most of the info. cropped was filler just like the Rankin Bass theatrical films and just like any other film released after 1953 that wasn't filmed in scope widescreen. Films before 1953 were not intended to be widescreen so they did not have mattes applied during production so they were not intended to be seen that way. Films after were. When they show them on tv they use a open matte that reveals all the dead space that was not intended to be seen. So you get more on top and bottom but you lose the intended widescreen look of the film and you lose a small amount of intended footage on the sides. Most animation buffs grew up with looney tunes on tv and want to see the full frame in all the cartoons made after 1953 like they saw on tv but that doesn't make it correct and honestly for short cartoons it isn't that big of a deal either way.
Night of the Living Dead is a rare exception. It was a very low budget independent film and did not really block for widescreen although theaters showed it in widescreen so like post 1953 cartoon shorts you can make a case for it to be shown either way.
Here is a still from Mad Monster Party, as I couldn't find any decent sized photos from The Daydreamer. If this photo was matted to widescreen, half of Dracula's face and fingers would be cut off also you wouldn't able to see that Felix is carrying a picnic basket either.

1612215716803.png
 

Randy Korstick

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2000
Messages
5,217
Here is a still from Mad Monster Party, as I couldn't find any decent sized photos from The Daydreamer. If this photo was matted to widescreen, half of Dracula's face and fingers would be cut off also you wouldn't able to see that Felix is carrying a picnic basket either.

View attachment 87602
I just watched this over the weekend zoomed to 1.77:1 and it didn't cut off that much. It also doesn't look like those screen captures. That screen capture looks zoomed in. As I mentioned the Blu Ray is zoomed to 1.33. If they went back to the original 1.37 frame a lot more information would be available on top and bottom and more info on the sides. The framing would look similar in widescreen to what you are showing that looks similar to what I just watched zoomed in. All of that dead space above Dracula's fingers was intended to be cropped and if it was zoomed there would be more space. There are lots of photos of the film in widescreen on the net. It looks great that way a big movie as intended instead of a TV look. Here are some:

mad monster party1.jpg
MMP2.jpg
MMP3.jpg
MMP4.jpg
 

haineshisway

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2011
Messages
5,038
Location
Los Angeles
Real Name
Bruce
The top one has way too much headroom. I'm not sure the bottom one is accurate, frankly, because the sides are cropped. Not accurate at all. And you, sir, posted a STILL photo - or is that a frame grab. Still photos cannot help you in your argument, but in the end you are beating a dead horse and you are wrong. The film was composed for widescreen showings. That is the end of the story and while you can make post after post, your arguments about older films shot in Academy ratio are pointless and meaningless. You might want to read up on stuff. It's not hard to find any of this information. I would caution everyone to not grab meaningless frames from websites. Here's the bottom line: This film was shown in 1:85 everywhere. Not one theater showed it in any ratio but that. What you saw on TV is meaningless to this discussion.
 

darkrock17

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2007
Messages
2,161
Location
Alexandria, VA
Real Name
Andrew McClure
The top one has way too much headroom. I'm not sure the bottom one is accurate, frankly, because the sides are cropped. Not accurate at all. And you, sir, posted a STILL photo - or is that a frame grab. Still photos cannot help you in your argument, but in the end you are beating a dead horse and you are wrong. The film was composed for widescreen showings. That is the end of the story and while you can make post after post, your arguments about older films shot in Academy ratio are pointless and meaningless. You might want to read up on stuff. It's not hard to find any of this information. I would caution everyone to not grab meaningless frames from websites. Here's the bottom line: This film was shown in 1:85 everywhere. Not one theater showed it in any ratio but that. What you saw on TV is meaningless to this discussion.
IMDB is not a trusted site
 

RolandL

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2001
Messages
5,528
Location
Florida
Real Name
Roland Lataille
Are the Pink Panther Cartoon Collections (all 1.33) released by Kino Lorber zoomed in? Some scenes don't look right at 1.77.

pp.jpg


ppc.jpg


pp1.jpg


pp1c.jpg
 
Last edited:

haineshisway

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2011
Messages
5,038
Location
Los Angeles
Real Name
Bruce
IMDB is not a trusted site
Pardon me, but can you point out to me where I mentioned the imdb in my last post? Hint: You can't. I want to be clear that I am talking about The Daydreamer here and unlike you, I saw The Daydreamer the day it opened - in 1.85 - there was not a theater in LA or anywhere else (unless a specialty art house and even then I doubt it, but certainly no mainstream house) that could even show Academy ratio. So, you think this film was shown in the Academy ratio when it came out? Because if you do, I would really recommend you reading about aspect ratios. It's clear that you want to believe what you want to believe, which is fine as long as you understand what you think is not correct.

Now, I understand you are also talking about other Rankin/Bass films, but this thread is about The Daydreamer, not other films. And even you said, "The Daydreamer was probably shot in widescreen." Just remove the word probably.
 
Last edited:

haineshisway

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2011
Messages
5,038
Location
Los Angeles
Real Name
Bruce
Good question, lets ask the experts since they seem to know everything.
You don't have to be an expert to understand the basics of theatrical projection in the year The Daydreamer came out. You clearly do not understand, and that's fine. I do understand, because I've been involved in film for fifty years now, but, you know, why listen to people who know what they're talking about? You could ask Bob Furmanek - he knows a little bit about aspect ratios. You could ask Robert Harris - he knows a little bit about aspect ratios.
 
Last edited:

Rob W

Supporting Actor
Joined
May 23, 1999
Messages
963
Real Name
Robert
darkrock, have you ever directed a feature film that actually played in theatres ? Bruce has.

darkrock, have you ever amassed a 35mm feature film collection that would actually let you see just how 35mm prints are printed and understand the ways they are projected in their proper aspect ratios as opposed to video transfers ? Bruce has.

darkrock, have you ever had any experience in the theatrical exhibition industry ? Many of our members have, and they know their stuff.

Suggesting Bruce doesn't know what he's talking about is a great way to lose easy, free access to decades of valuable, real-world information & experience. You have experts here, should you choose to learn from them.
 

darkrock17

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2007
Messages
2,161
Location
Alexandria, VA
Real Name
Andrew McClure
That's nice that Bruce has done all that, but Mr. Know It All, could very well be wrong though; as I asked an expert on all things Rankin/Bass and if anyone would know how the films were shown in the theater it would be him.
 

haineshisway

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2011
Messages
5,038
Location
Los Angeles
Real Name
Bruce
That's nice that Bruce has done all that, but Mr. Know It All, could very well be wrong though; as I asked an expert on all things Rankin/Bass and if anyone would know how the films were shown in the theater it would be him.
Mr. Know-it-all? How charming of you. Who is this "expert" you talked to? What is this "expert's" age? Did this "expert" see these films in theaters? Let's start there. And we really don't need any further "Mr. Know-It-All" comments either. You also didn't address the fact that you said "IMDB is not a trusted site" in response to one of my posts when I had not referenced the IMDB at all. Hmmm.
 

Randy Korstick

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2000
Messages
5,217
Mr. Know-it-all? How charming of you. Who is this "expert" you talked to? What is this "expert's" age? Did this "expert" see these films in theaters? Let's start there. And we really don't need any further "Mr. Know-It-All" comments either. You also didn't address the fact that you said "IMDB is not a trusted site" in response to one of my posts when I had not referenced the IMDB at all. Hmmm.
He asked Rick Goldschmidt who is a Rankin/Bass expert not a film expert or aspect ratio expert. And I believe the question was were the Rankin Bass movies filmed in widescreen which is part of the understanding issue. They were not filmed widescreen they were filmed in academy ratio 1.37 with mattes so they could be shown 1.85:1 in theaters not the same as scope 2.35, etc widescreen that is filmed that way and had to be pan and scanned to be shown on 1.33 tvs.
The screen shots I posted are not accurate someone zoomed in the blu ray which is 1.33 instead of 1.37 open matte but they still show the film looks fine even zoomed in. If it was done from a full open matte transfer they would look better with more room on the sides and the top and bottom.
This stuff is not as easy to grasp as it sounds it took me along time to figure out the difference between filmed in widescreen (2.35) or filmed academy ratio with mattes(1.85). I used to think everything was either filmed widescreen or it wasn't. I suspect that may be the same case here.
I hope darkrock17 doesn't take my comments the wrong way. I mean no offense at all just trying to explain things.
 
Last edited:

Randy Korstick

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2000
Messages
5,217
Are the Pink Panther Cartoon Collections (all 1.33) released by Kino Lorber zoomed in? Some scenes don't look right at 1.77.

View attachment 87640

View attachment 87641

View attachment 87646

View attachment 87647
Same thing happened here. These are 1.33 and yes zoomed in and not full 1.37 open matte. I tried zooming them and yes they do not look right. Kino debated releasing these in widescreen as shown in theaters but they know a lot of current animation fans want the whole image as they saw on tv and the other issue is it appears MGM provided Kino with these 1.33 masters that don't look right with the mattes because they are slightly zoomed. These were most likely taken from the TV masters.
 

darkrock17

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2007
Messages
2,161
Location
Alexandria, VA
Real Name
Andrew McClure
Mr. Know-it-all? How charming of you. Who is this "expert" you talked to? What is this "expert's" age? Did this "expert" see these films in theaters? Let's start there. And we really don't need any further "Mr. Know-It-All" comments either. You also didn't address the fact that you said "IMDB is not a trusted site" in response to one of my posts when I had not referenced the IMDB at all. Hmmm.
Various review sites have stated that the original aspect ratio was 1.85.1 which they credited IMDB as their source of the information, they then went back and corrected it to 1.33.1/1.37.1.

Happy now
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Forum Sponsors

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
347,485
Messages
4,816,134
Members
142,111
Latest member
moviefan88
Top