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

[Douglas Monce]

As a director and director of photography (of admittedly very low budget films that practically no one has seen) I can tell you that there is a big difference between shooting for 1.33 and shooting open matte 1.85 and protecting for 1.33.

In my opinion (and it is mine alone) protecting for 1.33 means just keeping lights and microphones out of the open matte area in case some rookie projectionist puts the wrong aperture plate in the projector. Or in case some television distributor shows the full frame on TV.

My intent would NOT be for the full open matte image to be shown. I am always framing for the 1.85 image.

 

[Robert Harris]

Douglas...

We're in agreement, but once television overscan takes a toll on the image, extracting a good 10% of the image all around, what is left, while not perfect in a cinematic sense, was at least screen-filling twenty years ago.

 

[Bo_Darville]

okay. so are the post-1955 ones i listed capable of widescreen formats? b/c thus far they have ONLY been offered on dvd in 1.33:1

 

[Douglas Monce]

Robert,

Very true.

Interestingly enough much of my work is now going to the internet and I have the other problem. The computer monitor under scans and people see things that I thought I had framed out. I end up pushing in on the image so people don't see the boom mike in a quicktime window.

May I also take this opportunity to say what a huge fan of your work I am? The restoration of Lawrence was the first time I had the chance to see a 70mm film actually projected in 70mm. My friends were laughing at me because I was saying, out loud in the theater "Geezz you can read the time on his watch!"

Doug

 

[Ethan Riley]

If Disney wants to keep re-re-releasing these flicks in increasing "superior" packages, then this time they should have done their billions of fans a favor and presented Robin Hood in both aspect ratios. I now fondly recall the early days of dvd when packagers routinely offered films both ways. Those days are gone simply because packagers are under the mistaken belief that most homes have widescreen televisions, or plan to get them. This is untrue and unfair. Most households absolutely do NOT have widesreen tvs, don't have the space, the time or the money to be bothered with them. These millions of people have to put up with widescreen dvds simply to please a wealthier minority who demands them. Again, the option of wide or full should be offered by the video packagers. Many, many dvds come out in either format--why is Disney so special that theirs do not?

 

[Robert Harris]

There is yet another point that has not been raised... the potential audience --- or at least PERCEIVED potential audience.

The majority of these discs are being purchased not by Disney animation aficionados, but by parents and grandparents for young children.

The films are child safe.

In most cases, as has been noted above, the viewing device is not a widescreen monitor, but a 4:3 television set.

Dual aspect ratios would solve the problem, but the prime audience is not seeking wide-screen.

Therefore an unmatted version is perceived as fitting the bill. And they have no concerns re: mike booms and dolly tracks.

There were similar perception problems (early on) at other studios in regard to animated shorts, which were thought of as programming for children.

RAH

 

[Christian Preischl]

I don't give a rat's ass if my screen is filled. I want the intended aspect ratio of a film. Unfortunately, as this discussion once again proves, things aren't always always that simple. But making it into a fullscreen TV versus widescreen TV issue is completely missing the point of this thread.

 

[george kaplan]

Say what?!?!?

First of all, those who you view as demanding widescreen, are mostly not. We are demanding OAR. That means the appropriate aspect ratio of the film, regardless of the shape of our monitor. For newer films, this will typically be 'widescreen', whereas for older films, this is usually 1.33. Providing p&s on dvds that should be widescreen was a terrible idea.

As to Robin Hood, and other films of this ilk, the problem is that it is, in many cases difficult to know what the OAR was. If Disney knows for certain (and there may be stuff in their archives to indicate so), then they should present it OAR. If not, then in those cases presenting multiple aspect ratios might be acceptable, but that would be a far cry from providing p&s versions of clearly widescreen films to please those more interested in filling in their 4x3 sets than watching the film as intended.

 

[Jon Martin]

This is a very common discussion here. Why has this one become so nasty?

If it wasn't released widescreen, you would have outraged threads here of people saying they refuse to buy it. NO OAR = NO SALE and all of that.

There are countless examples of widescreen films offering more information. So, it isn't just animated films.

 

[Jack Theakston]

Didn't you read Universal's press release on this? All films from before 1998 were supposed to be exhibited in the academy ratio in order to save studios from having to do new transfers!!! Come on folks, get with it now!

Jamablaya Gumbo, indeed....sheesh.

 

[Mike Frezon]

The question:

 

[JimTravis]

Robert...or Robert Harris...

When 101 Dalmatians was re-released theatrically in the 90's, Disney performed the same "windowboxing" they did for Fantasia and Pinocchio.

It's true.

Go look it up.

I saw the last theatrical issue of 101 Dalmatians in Austin, and it was windowboxed, the same way I saw Gone With the Wind, Pinocchio, and Citizen Kane.

As for "unpainted ink lines" -- well, doesn't that describe the look of 101 Dalmatians in tota? If you had said the same thing about SLEEPING BEAUTY, I would have thought you were on to something. You don't need to look at a film print of 101 Dalmatians to see unfinished ink lines or unpainted ink frrames. All you need is a VCR and the last VHS release to see the same thing. That's the look of the film.

101 Dalmatians last came to cinema in "full frame" 4x3. If it was meant to be cropped, that means the last cinema release cropped off the sides for some unexplicable reason. Right? My head hurts.

 

[Chuck Pennington]

I remember seeing that release at the theater and it was windowboxed for some reason. Maybe because of that flack Disney got for cropping PINOCCHIO and some other Academy Ratio films in prior years, I dunno. But I'd wager that the film was matted somewhat for its original theatrical release.

 

[Jack Theakston]

Original prints of 101 DALMATIANS run quite comfortably in 1.75:1, which is the aspect ratio marked in the leaders.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

And the debate on 101 Dalmatians ends there. Thanks, Jack; always good to hear from another projectionist.

 

[JimTravis]

Original prints of 101 DALMATIANS run quite comfortably in 1.75:1, which is the aspect ratio marked in the leaders.

And yet the last theatrical re-release of 101 Dalmatians was windowboxed to retain the full image, which would suggest the original theatrical release was cropped for theatrical issue. I think that was Mr. Gumbo's point (I hope I'm not subsequently told I don't know what I'm talking about by Mr. Gumbo. I am just a simple caveman. Your world frighten and confuses me).

I think situations like this indicate how the OAR debate can break down. The OAR of Fantasia/2000 is 4x3 or whatever, because of the IMAX release which predated the theatrical 1.85:1 run (or whatever it was, I'm no expert). F2K was originally released in a 4x3 fashion, but that wasn't the full photographed image. 101 Dalmatians may have been cropped for original theatrical issue, but the full image is a 4x3 image. Disney chose to display the entire true 4x3 aspect ratio when they re-issued it in theaters in the early 90's (91? anyone know?) That's powerful evidence that Disney continued to produce his animated features and shorts in a square aspect ratio, and that these had the tops and bottoms chopped off for original theatrical issue.

One of these days, 101 Dalmatians is going to come out as a "platinum" DVD title. If it is letterboxed, we'll be able to compare the chopped letterboxed image to the full 4x3 image available on DVD now. I suspect such comparisons will look like the Robin Hood situation being discussed here.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

Not to doubt you, especially since I didn't get the chance to see F2K in IMAX, but are you sure the AR for the IMAX release was 4:3? I saw Beauty and the Beast in IMAX, and it was matted for 1.66:1. The DVD for F2Kis 1.85:1 with The Sorcerer's Apprentice windowboxed to 1.33:1.

 

[Jack Theakston]

It doesn't necessarily mean that whoever made that judgment was correct. Legend's recently struck prints of PLAN NINE FROM OUTER SPACE are windowboxed so that you HAVE to run them academy, even though the film is clearly blocked for 1.85.

But, I'm just reporting what I've seen.

 

[Jack Theakston]

Also, can anyone cite some sources of any composition being thrown off in the WS version of DALMATIANS? I came in late here and don't know what the gripe is.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Fantasia 2000 in IMAX is one of the best theatre going experiences I've ever had - if they ever rerun it near you, you definitely should go. Rhapsody In Blue was particularly stunning.

IMDB says the IMAX ratio was 1.5:1. I know IMDB isn't 100% accurate by any means, but that sounds right, it's what I remember... a little bit wider than 4:3 but not by much at all.