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

[Jason Seaver]

Well, I think you're missing the question - which aspect ratio was Robin Hood optimized for? Did the animators and directors compose a 1.33:1 film that could be projected without being harmed too much, or did they compose a widescreen film that could be opened up for later TV/video without being harmed too much? Given the material, it could be either, and I don't think you've yet presented a convincing argument that this is a film meant to primarily be shown 1.33:1, with the widescreen presentation being considered a lesser, compromised, version by its creators.

 

[Jambalaya Gumbo]

Provide MORE evidence? What, you don't trust your own eyes? (see the link from UltmateDisney's review in the first post on this thread). You admit ignorance of Disney Feature Animation production techniques? That's no surprise, most people are. I don't ask Robert Harris to put up or shut up when he faults the aspect ratio of Sleeping Beauty. I trust him. You are strangely defensive of a DVD that has a visual image demonstrably cropped from its 4:3 original. You're the one who should be on the defense, not the people upset about the cropping.

 

[Jambalaya Gumbo]

I admit that Disney animation has not been an emphasis for me, but the statement that
Quote:
The "whole image" is the "whole originally photographed image"
is as generally erroneous with respect to animated films as in the case of live-action motion pictures shot flat since 1955, if you mean by "The whole image" the image which was specifically intended by the director that his audience see.

The Disney animated films had myriad intents, one does not neccessarily preclude ALL. The three hours of Davy Crockett were filmed in color but AIRED in BLACK AND WHITE, then later released in color on cinema screens then shown again in color on TV screens! How many "intents" were abrogated by the initial TV airing?

That's where all of you protestors are wrong. You're confusing original release with original intent.

 

[ChristopherDAC]

To paraphrase Messrs Bones & Jones, how can you provide MORE evidence when you haven't provided ANY evidence yet? I haven't seen any "put up or shut up" comments in this thread, only the recurring question "why do you say that the theatrical ratio is the wrong one?" — and I have not yet seen an answer to this question. In any case, as I recall, Robin Hood had some of its important sequences rotoscoped from previous Disney animations, which would make it difficult to establish a preferred aspect ratio other than the theatrical. Robert Harris is a known authority on films and their presentation and restoration, and when he tags an aspect ratio as incorrect he gives a reason why. Neither of these two criteria appears in this thread. Vague talk about "multiple intents" is just that : vague talk. Also, wouldn't it be correct to call the person making the complaint, rather than one questioning its validity, the "protestor"?

 

[Chuck Pennington]

Correction: It is cropped from its 1.33:1 shot image to 1.75:1, its INTENDED theatrical aspect ratio. It was animated with this matting in mind, just like THE SOUND OF MUSIC was composed for 2.2:1 70mm projection as well as 2.35:1 reduction 35mm prints which matted off parts of the image. The cinematographer/layout person would have a viewfinder that made clear what would - and would not - be seen in theatrical projection in whichever format.

This is a soft matte vs. open matte issue. One could pull out thousands of comparison photos showing transfers of films that reveal more bottom and top picture information than their widescreen counterparts, but what does that prove? That seeing the boom mike above the actors' heads in THE SEARCHERS is what we should be seeing? Or the boom mike visible in the unmatted RE-ANIMATOR?

Just because it was shot somewhere on the film doesn't mean it was intended to be seen. I wonder what you think of the Super 35mm format, and how it chops of large amount of top and bottom picture information contained on the negative to make a 2.35:1 anamorphic print.

 

[Jambalaya Gumbo]

"In any case, as I recall, Robin Hood had some of its important sequences rotoscoped from previous Disney animations, which would make it difficult to establish a preferred aspect ratio other than the theatrical."

Which is a statement singularly ignorant of the animation process. The ability to trace animation from Snow White, The Jungle Book, The Aristocats, Goliath II and other animated works does not mandate that the copier utilize the same aspect ratio. The Disney Company was using the Xerox process to transfer animatio to cels since the production of 101 Dalmatians. Somehow the Xeorx process negated the ability to resize the animation or (in the case of Robin Hood) the traced animation? I think not.

In any even, copied or "recycled" animation in the Disney films goes all the way back to the 30's, long before the Xerography process even existed.

Nice try.

 

[Chuck Pennington]

Disney animated features were almost never shown on television before the video era, ALICE IN WONDERLAND being one exception that comes to mind. These films were seen as perrenials, titles that could be reissued every 7 to 10 years or so to THEATERS. Home video was not in existence, so it can't be argued that these films were shot open-matte 1.33:1 for a future on television or video.

When GONE WITH THE WIND and THE WIZARD OF OZ were reissued theatrically, they were windowboxed 1.33:1 within the 1.85:1 ratio so that theaters could project them properly. Modern theater projectiors are not equipped to show full 1.33:1. I don't know when things became so complicated with 1.33:1 material and theatrical presentations, but by 1973 I'd think something more than 1.33:1 was expected from a film.

 

[Jambalaya Gumbo]

I wonder what you think of the Super 35mm format

I wonder how gloriously arrogant you are that you think I'm not aware of the S35 format. Robin Hood was not shot open matte, it was cropped for theatrical release. The 4:3 aspect ratio is its true aspect ratio. That's the truth, ruth.

 

[Chuck Pennington]

"It was cropped for theatrical release." THAT's the truth.

I wonder if anyone has the riginal pressbook for ROBIN HOOD? They often listed the aspect ratio films should be shown at. In fact, I've seen many a projection print matted on the film with black bars when it was originally shot soft-matte, as if the company wanted to make sure it was cropped properly and so they cropped it in the printing process.

What do you think of CASPER or DEATH BECOMES HER? All of the non-effects shots are open matte 1.33:1, but any shots involving special effects are 1.85:1 hard matte. Should those films be shown with varying aspect ratios to expose as much of the filmed image as possible at all times?

 

[ChristopherDAC]

Again, I don't see how I'm being either ignorant or disingenuous. If some of the animation was composed for one ratio, and some for a different ratio, the sequences are going to be artistically different, laid out to take advantage of width or height to take advantage of the frames they were originally meant to be seen in. As a result, the animators and director would have had to recompose the sequences for their intended framing, and there would be quite a bit of material on the cels which would not reflect the intended final product.

I don't see how using a Xerox copier to print line artwork from paper onto transparencies has any relation to taking artwork from one film and re-arranging it to use in another. The two cases are scarcely even related, much less parallel.

How do you know? You still haven't told us the source of your information.

 

[Jambalaya Gumbo]

Disney animated features were almost never shown on television before the video era, ALICE IN WONDERLAND being one exception that comes to mind.

Alice in Wonderland and Dumbo were both show in the initial seasons of the Walt Disney anthology TV show, as well as slews of shorts from his library and long-form sequences from his package films. In 1954, there were only eight true Disney animated features to speak of, with the package films and live-action animation hybrids and war films making up the rest.

You're not going to trip me up with Scene It-style Disney trivia, so I invite you to return to the subject at hand.

 

[Jambalaya Gumbo]

What do you think of CASPER or DEATH BECOMES HER? All of the non-effects shots are open matte 1.33:1, but any shots involving special effects are 1.85:1 hard matte.

A completely moot point as Robin Hood was shot entirely in 4:3, no differing aspect ratios for differing f/x shots. The point is moot.

 

[Jambalaya Gumbo]

As you might be able to deduce from my name, I have no intention of revealing my identity, so you can further deduce I have no intention of being more specific regarding my knowledge of American animation or the Disney studios. You'll just have to take my word for it and use your own eyes and common sense for the rest.

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

The above was condescening and rude.

The question is a simple matter of whether or not the film was composed for the more constrictive widescreen ratio and protected for 4:3 or whether it was composed for 4:3 without regard to how it would look matted. It is hardly surprising that people would question someone claiming the latter option as it seems like aesthetic suicide for a 1970s commericial release.

As a live action analogy, the film "Miller's Crossing" was shot by the Coen brothers and Barry Sonnenfeld soft matted. There are no effects shots, and the entire film can be shown at 4:3 with no revealing errors or mistakes since they protected the entire 4:3 frame. They intended it to be shown theatrically at 1.85:1, though, and the compositions look best this way.

Regards,

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Thanks for the complimentary comments my way. I support movies being shown in their original theatrical aspect ratios. I DON'T support movies being altered for home video formats - that means no P&S and no cropping for WS TVs. I want to see what was intended, even if that means I see "less" of the image ala matted flicks like Back to the Future.

I think the review at Ultimate Disney says it well:

"Matting occurs on a majority of live action films today, which are often shot "flat" (filling an approximately 4x3 frame) but framed for widescreen (approximately 16x9) so that the excess space at the top and bottom of the filmed frame are never intended to be seen. Animation is a different story, and for Disney's features (and some shorts) from 1960 through 1984, this issue has been the source of questions with no easy, definitive answers emerging."

That's the way I feel. I'll be damned if I know whether the filmmakers wanted us to see Robin Hood at 1.33:1, 1.75:1 or only screened on the ass of a 500-pound man with eczema. If Disney took Pinocchio or another film clearly composed for 1.33:1 and cropped it, I'd scream foul like everyone else. Robin Hood and its 1960-1984 siblings remain a murkier question.

Let's just hold a seance to get Woolie Reitherman to answer the question once and for all...

 

[Jambalaya Gumbo]

The above was condescening and rude.

No more so than that extended to me. You give it, be ready to take it.

The question is a simple matter of whether or not the film was composed for the more constrictive widescreen ratio and protected for 4:3 or whether it was composed for 4:3 without regard to how it would look matted.

The film was shot and composed for 4:3 knowing it would be shown in various aspect ratios. The Disney DVD crops the image to make a 4:3 film fit a rectangular image. We've long worried about such things happening -- you can either accept that it has happened in this case, or shut your eyes and pretend otherwise and wait for it to happen again.

It is hardly surprising that people would question someone claiming the latter option as it seems like aesthetic suicide for a 1970s commericial release.

Its hardly surprising people are ignorant of American animation techniques and processes of the 60's and 70's. OAR breaks down in this regard, and has been the source of much unnecessary sturm und drang considering the "Original Aspect Ratio" of Disney features of the 60's amd 70's.

 

[Jambalaya Gumbo]

Can I ask a simple question?

Deduce this for yourselves.

What is the primary distinction between an open matte live action film and an animated feature?

Answer that, and you probably already know why this "open matte" analogy is DOA.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Ahem, let's calm down and discuss this subject matter without any further attitude. Thank you.




Crawdaddy

 

[Stephen_J_H]

Looking at the screencaps on UltimateDisney, I'd say that this is a protected "widescreen" film. I say this based on my experience as a projectionist and my knowledge of animated film. The compositions just make more sense in widescreen, and by 1973, only art-house theatres were capable of showing a film in anything other than a widescreen ratio, be it 1.85, 2.21 or 2.35:1. Disney animators would have known this, and therefore would have animated in a protected form. Contrast this with the "suits" at Disney, who had a mandate to rerelease every animated feature on a 7-year rotation and frankly didn't give a crap if the films were projected correctly, and that's why films like Snow White, Bambi and other pre-1953 classics would have been shown matted on rerelease.

It would also have been the suits who rereleased Fantasia anamorphically stretched in SuperScope. The same sort of suits would be the ones responsible for rereleasing Gone With the Wind in 70mm, cropped to 2.21:1. Go over to widescreenmuseum.com for pictures of that debacle. In fact, here's a link: http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/special/gwtw.htm.

Quit acting like you're stunned and that this is a new phenomenon. Neither is true.

 

[Robert Floto]

I was under the impression that the Home Theatre Forum didn't allow assumed names. I seem recall that when I joined a million years ago that everyone was using their real names or were not allowed to post. Am I mistaken, or has this policy been changed...?

I digress.

Anyway, most of you know that I work as an animator and I have often been called upon to produce more art than will end up in the finished frame. All I can say is that the director's intention is all that matters. And in the case of Robin Hood, I can see arguments both ways...but unless Jambalaya Gumbo's secret identity is Wolfgang Reitherman (who has long since passed away) I'm afraid I can't simply take his word for it because my eyes see the wider composition as more likely.