Willy Wonka Widescreen is still cropped!

Discussion in 'Archived Threads 2001-2004' started by ScottR, Jun 14, 2002.

  1. ScottR

    ScottR Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2000
    Messages:
    2,646
    Likes Received:
    0
    I finally got the 30th Anniversary widescreen edition of "Willy Wonka" and to my dismay, it is missing information on both sides!!! I compared the film to the previous dvd release, and the original release shows about 5% (or more) info on both sides! EVERY SHOT HAS BEEN MODIFIED. I remember seeing the film in the theatre about 5 years ago and distinctly remembered seeing the "Salt's Peanuts" sign very clearly during Veruca's first scene in the film. It looks exactly like its theatrical counterpart on the original release. However, on the new widescreen release, the sign is only partially visable. Other scenes are the same....the film is not in its original version. And before everyone starts to say that the film was shot open matte and simply matted, that may be, but there is quite a bit missing from the sides now...no two ways about it. Wonka petitioners, I think we've been slightly misled into thinking this was the correct ratio, information wise.
     
  2. ChrisMatson

    ChrisMatson Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2000
    Messages:
    2,181
    Likes Received:
    0
    Most TVs have about 5% overscan.

    Have you ruled out your TV as the culprit? I can zoom OUT with my Toshiba SD4700 DVD player to compensate for the overscan, revealing the entire picture.

    Note that I haven't tried this with the Willy Wonka DVD, but it has held true for all of my other DVDs.
     
  3. ScottR

    ScottR Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2000
    Messages:
    2,646
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, this isn't it....I am seeing much more info on the original dvd..on this version, it looks like they just slapped the mattes on and said, there, are you satisfied? The original dvd contains the correct ratio of info.
     
  4. John P Grosskopf

    John P Grosskopf Second Unit

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2001
    Messages:
    313
    Likes Received:
    0
    The cropping of the anniverary DVD on the sides is also apparent when compared to the AC-3 LD release.
    Comparing the newer anniversary DVD version to the first DVD release, the image is zoomed in from the sides and a little across the top and bottom as well. This is sometimes done when the outer side edges of a film print or negtative are damaged in a manner that cannot be remedied by other means.
    I'm looking for the first DVD release myself, and currently love my LD because it "makes the world taste good" and I can sing along karaoke style if I want! [​IMG]
     
  5. JJR512

    JJR512 Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 1999
    Messages:
    619
    Likes Received:
    0
    I didn't know that there were two DVD releases of this movie.

    The one I have doesn't say anything about being an anniversary edition, but I'm assuming I have the newer one...I got it within the past few months at Best Buy, and it's the WS version that Warner decided to release after the HTF petition regarding the FS version that was originally released.

    So there's an earlier version that was already WS? Is this OOP?
     
  6. Jeffrey Gray

    Jeffrey Gray Second Unit

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2001
    Messages:
    488
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think the new WS release looks fine...it shows NO cropping whatsoever from what I have seen.
     
  7. ScottR

    ScottR Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2000
    Messages:
    2,646
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is cropped..trust me. Image is lost on both sides of the frame. This is not a true representation of what I saw on screen, or on the previous release.
     
  8. Nathan*W

    Nathan*W Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2001
    Messages:
    1,076
    Likes Received:
    2
    Real Name:
    Nathan
    If you have the ability to post screenshots, I'm sure the members would be interested in seeing the cropping for themselves. (myself included, as I only own the original release)
     
  9. ScottR

    ScottR Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2000
    Messages:
    2,646
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't have the ability to post screenshots, but if someone would like to, I would appreciate it. This saddens me that the widescreen edition is nothing more than pan and scan with masking.....not a true letterboxed transfer of the film.
     
  10. Chris M

    Chris M Second Unit

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2000
    Messages:
    487
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm willing to host screenshots, if someone can screencap and send me the pics, I'll host 'em.

    I'm curious as well.

    Chris.
     
  11. David Lambert

    David Lambert Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2001
    Messages:
    11,380
    Likes Received:
    38
    He's right, you know!
    I started both at the 0:16:21 mark and frame-by-framed until the mid-bar of the "E" in the "Make Happy Hearts" sign on the back wall was cut off in the center (vertically) of the mid-bar. Then screen-captured it.
    Here are the results:
    WW: 25th Anniversary Edition DVD
    [​IMG]
    WW: 30th Anniversary Edition DVD
    [​IMG]
    Look at the word "Profits" on the sign on the right-hand wall. Cropped on the new one.
    If you look close, you'll see that the alignment of Mr. Salt isn't identical between the two shots. Also, the ladies in the background "shelling Wonkabars" aren't all in the same position. These aren't the identical frames. Why? Because based on the way I timed the screen-cap, I got two different frames, because it's cropped top-and-bottom, too!
    Okay...now what? As much of a stickler as even *I* am...does this REALLY make all that big a difference? [​IMG]
     
  12. Jeffrey Gray

    Jeffrey Gray Second Unit

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2001
    Messages:
    488
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hey...the amount of image cropped is not even CLOSE to the difference between 1.33:1 and 1.78:1. That's just the amount of information usually lost in overscan. So the transfer is slightly cropped. It's still showing more info than the P&S DVD...
     
  13. David Lambert

    David Lambert Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2001
    Messages:
    11,380
    Likes Received:
    38
    Heh...Jeffrey, the 1.33:1 version of WW is OPEN MATTE.

    In other words, if you're looking for simply MORE INFORMATION, the Fullscreen version is what you want.

    If you're looking for the CORRECT INFORMATION, you want Widescreen. The Original Theatrical Presentation, the OAR, and the Director's intent.

    If you get the extra information, then in the scene where Violet, um, "blows up" (avoiding the spoiler here...there are no explosions for those who haven't seen the film; I'm being cute when I say that) you can clearly see hoses and stuff between her legs!

    My main point here, is just how much of a difference does this small percent make? Are you willing to give up the disc? Go back to the original DVD version, provided you can find one (good thing I'm a packrat, eh?)?
     
  14. Jeffrey Gray

    Jeffrey Gray Second Unit

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2001
    Messages:
    488
    Likes Received:
    0
    In that case...no. Absolutely not. 5% of cropped picture info will not cause me to get rid of a superior edition. End of story.

    And BTW, Dave, I know the film was an open-matte film. I just thought that WB always tightened the framing on full-frame DVDs of open-matte films...
     
  15. Adam Lenhardt

    Adam Lenhardt Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2001
    Messages:
    17,603
    Likes Received:
    2,117
    Location:
    Albany, NY
    The ammount of difference in the frame is comparable to the ammount lost when 1.85:1 films are cropped to 1.78:1 for DVD Release. The impact of the framing and the intent isn't lost, and the transfer of the 30th aniversary disc has better compression and color vibrancy, judging by those two screenshots.
     
  16. LukeB

    LukeB Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2000
    Messages:
    2,178
    Likes Received:
    0
    I remember that you definitely saw more on the sides of the picture on the widescreen side versus the 1.33:1 side on the original DVD release. If they did just matte their 1.33:1 transfer for this DVD release, well then it's a pain, but fortunately, it doesn't seem to be too great a problem.
     
  17. cafink

    cafink Producer

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 1999
    Messages:
    3,043
    Likes Received:
    37
    Real Name:
    Carl Fink
    David, since you seem to have the ability, do you think you could post some screen captures of identical frames from the two releases?
     
  18. Jeff Adkins

    Jeff Adkins Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 1998
    Messages:
    1,775
    Likes Received:
    22
    Real Name:
    Jeff Adkins
    Well, I'm not knowledgeable enough to know the answer, so perhaps someone could help me out here??

    When a film is projected theatrically, they are taking a 1.37 image and masking it to 1.85 (unless a film is hard-matted, which is extremely rare). Isn't that pretty much the same as taking a 1.33 transfer and masking it to 1.85?? I don't see why two seperate transfers need to be made. Can't they add mattes to the full frame transfers?

    Jeff
     
  19. David Lambert

    David Lambert Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2001
    Messages:
    11,380
    Likes Received:
    38
     
  20. Patrick McCart

    Patrick McCart Lead Actor

    Joined:
    May 16, 2001
    Messages:
    7,555
    Likes Received:
    186
    Location:
    Georgia (the state)
    Real Name:
    Patrick McCart
    I think WB used a different print and a different transfer. The old one looks dark and a little less detailed. The new one looks a lot more colorful and detailed.

    It's also possible that WB made a high-def transfer of the film and made the non-matted and matted transfers off of that. They probably followed the original framing charts, too.
     

Share This Page