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

[Colin Jacobson]

The policy changed... six months ago? Can't remember, but not a long time ago. Not sure what accounted for the change...

 

[seanOhara]

Isn't that exactly what protected open-matte is?

 

[Patrick McCart]

I think "Lady" was the only film Disney shot twice (and the 4x3 version for theaters actually exposed more vertical picture than the CinemaScope version). Maybe they were shot with television in mind, but not for television. Like you said, Disney was quite the visionary since he had TV material shot in color while television was just B&W at the time. With that in mind, it wouldn't make sense to continue filming stuff only for 4x3. Disney's widescreen films not in CinemaScope (or Panavision) were usually 1.66:1 or 1.75:1.

In the same year Robin Hood was released, both The World's Greatest Athelete and One Little Indian (both live-action) were released into theaters for 1.85:1. The DVDs are framed accordingly. It wouldn't make sense for Disney to film two minor (and forgettable) live-action productions for widescreen, yet film their major animated release of the year without theatrical matting in mind.

Like it's been said, it's not a matter of more or less picture visible, but rather the right framing. Even CinemaScope/Panavision animation has to be carefully framed since exposing 100% of the available picture will lead to unwanted artifacts. Being a good advocate for proper presentation must focus on "correct" instead of "more." Not that it's bad when "more" means "correct," but it's not always the case.

 

[soop.spoon]

.

 

[Bo_Darville]

well.... then how come so many of the other animated disney dvd's are released in 1.33:1? were they dummies these other times?

(forgive my ignorance, i'm just trying to understand)

 

[soop.spoon]

.

 

[Chuck Pennington]

"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."

What an attitude problem... No one is trying to "trip" you up. I was just trying to show how ROBIN HOOD was not likely framed for 1.33:1 for use on television as only 2 animated features had been shown on television at all up until that point - 2 out of 20 (Robin Hood making the total 21) - and NO FILMS were beign shot for mass theatrical distribution at 1.33:1.

You have not made a comprelling argument explaining how ROBIN HOOD was composed to be shown at 1.33:1 over 1.66:1, 1.75:1, or 1.85:1 - or any ratio, actually. I don't own the ROBIN HOOD pressbook to check it, but I have other pressbooks for films that do state the aspect ratio for the feature. Perhaps someone can reference theirs and lay this matter to rest.

 

[Jay Pennington]

Au contraire. The only exhibitions of such attitude have been from you. In every single post. The others are offering counterpoints, as are par for any discussion. You are offering arrogance and insults. Abrasiveness is not a quality that will help your argument.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

He was actually pretty nice to me - he must like my site!

 

[Colin Jacobson]

He was actually pretty nice to me - he must like my site!

 

[Roy Batty]

Despite Robert's somewhat "bullying" manners and his failure to provide conclusive argument to support his point of view, I would say he certainly has a point, at least one worthy of an open, not-so-easy-to-nail-down debate.

I loathe those few DVD's that present both the widescreen theatrical aspect ratio and a cropped 1.33:1 travesty, as if it were but a matter of personal choice for the viewer. But, in this case, I for one would have liked to have both the open frame and the matted version included, for both merit to be preserved for different reasons.

 

[AndrewR]

Okay. Wow, I guess that means you win.

 

[SteveJKo]

I think what Colin said here is (or in the future could become) the real issue. Not too long ago I was at a relatives party. Some people were in the den watching a film on the widescreen TV. As a movie and home theatre lover, what I found disturbing was that the film was "Return Of The Jedi" but the DVD was pan and scan...............and distorted to fill the widescreen TV! Later a pre-scope classic 1.37:1 film was put in the player and........you guessed it, the distortion continued. By the way the "mode" being used to display these DVD's was one of those "less expansion in the middle, more expansion at the edges of the frame, combined with a slight zoom" type modes. The one positive thing I can say about this is the (slight) majority of guests were aware that this way of viewing these DVD's was incorrect. On the negative side, the host didn't care what was correct, he just didn't want bars on the top/bottom or in the case of the classic film, the sides.

I'm sure many of you, like me, have seen 1.37:1 material broadcast in HD that was being cropped to fit 1.78:1, or just as bad it was stretched and distorted by the broadcaster to fill the screen. With that happening a little too often, I can't help but wonder if in the widescreen TV era we'll have 1.37:1 material being cropped for hd dvd to satisfy people like that host who couldn't tolerate "those damned bars on the side" any more than the top/bottom bars for letterboxing?

 

[Ira Siegel]

Roy got it exactly right.

 

[Bo_Darville]

snow white
dumbo
pinocchio
bambi
peter pan
cinderella
sword in the stone
aristocats
fox and the hound

thanks

 

[Colin Jacobson]

The first six were clearly composed at 1.33:1 - widescreen didn't really exist yet.

The others are like Robin Hood: murky. You can add 101 Dalmatians, Rescuers and Jungle Book to that list as well...

 

[TedD]

JG (Robert), I don't know who you are or your background in the industry, but I wager that you have never held a 35mm print of a Disney animated feature in you hands and examined the frame dimensions to determine it's actual aspect ratio.

If you had, you would have realized that the actual AR of the film frame for many of the Disney animated features from this era, including "Robin Hood" is approximately 1.2:1, not 1.33:1. There goes your argument that the intended AR of this title was 1.33:1, since the image on the prints did not have a 1.33:1 AR. These prints were ALWAYS intended to be shown with soft mattes in place.

The prints actually carried the normal width of the academy 35mm frame, but utilize the Scope format frame lines (very skinny), resulting in the approximate 1.2:1 AR seen upon examining an actual print of this title.

Ted

As a professional projectionist for many many years and an avid film collector, I know this information to be correct....

 

[Vincent_P]

You mean to tell me that Disney is RAPING their artists by not presented the FULL 1.2:1 aspect ratio of the ORIGINAL NEGATIVE of these animated classics on their video transfers???

I AM OUTRAGED!!!



Vincent

 

[ChristopherDAC]

Now that's interesting! I wonder why they did that? Was this a Disney-specific practice, or have I just missed something in my research into animation techniques?
I have a short strip here, a few frames, from what appears to be a duplicate interpositive (in any case, a positive element with no soundtrack) of a Japanese animation produced on 35mm for video in the 1990s, and it looks to fill the complete Academy frame ; but that is another kettle of fish altogether!

 

[Robert Harris]

TedD's comments sound accurate. The original features were photographed without matte. The 1.37 matte added during the 1930s through 50s, via a silver record overlaying the dye transfer image.

The final Disney animated featured photgraphed to be projected in 1.37 would have been Peter Pan in early 1953. LatT was photographed in both formats, and could have been projected 1.37 in 1955, but following Sleeping Beauty, the next spherical production was 101 Dalmatians, which would have been photographed "open matte" to be projected at 1.75-1.85.

If one examines an original print of 101, the image is more 1.2 than 1.37, with uninked portions of the frame exposed.

Taken to the most simplistic point, theatres had made the changeover to wide-screen, had been running films in 1.66 since 1953, and had standardized at 1.85 by at latest 1956-8 in the smallest communities.

Like any open-matte, non-effects production, the Disney animated features could be run on television at 1.37 if desired, but theatrically, 1.85 was the standard.

RAH