Disney's Widescreen and Fullscreen Issue Explained

danfrandes · Post by **danfrandes** » Sun Feb 04, 2007 11:48 am

How do I mat pictures from movies to 1.75:1?

TheSequelOfDisney · Post by **TheSequelOfDisney** » Sun Feb 04, 2007 12:27 pm

danfrandes wrote:How do I mat pictures from movies to 1.75:1?

If you are asking me, I really have no idea.

But I do have one problem......

......you incorrectly spelled "matte"

danfrandes · Post by **danfrandes** » Sun Feb 04, 2007 12:34 pm

How do I matte pictures from movies to 1.75:1?

teamfx · Post by **teamfx** » Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:32 am

TheSequelofDisney wrote:
No, it was never meant to be seen in 1.66:1, only 1.75:1 ratio.

Umm... at least 95% of the Disney theatricals presented in 16:9 are matted in 1.66:1 format. Here's a side-by-side comparison from "Bedknobs & Broomsticks."

Open-matted fullscreen version

Letterboxed version in 1.66:1

9 times out of 10, you couldn't tell the difference on account that the area space hides the black bars on the sides of the screen when viewed on your television set. At least 2 films I know of that were re-modified to full 1.78:1 were "Brother Bear" and "Pooh's Heffalump Movie." Hope this clarifies things a little. The direct-to-video films are also formatted to 1.78:1 as well.

deathie mouse · Post by **deathie mouse** » Tue Feb 06, 2007 5:00 pm

*Awards TonyWDA the Dethie Medal of Honor

Years go by and we're still discussing this?

I guess this bear's worth repeating.

Disney theatrical films after Lady And The Tramp in 1956 were made composed for the widescreen ratio, BECAUSE theaters went Widescreen in the mid fifties to entice people away from watching 1.33 black and white TV. (You'll also notice Hollywood practically stopped making movies in b & w, and began using multichannel stereophonic sound, like Mary Poppins, for the same reason). Disney just kept shooting their animations with the Disney's Sequential Technicolor 1.375 aperture camera, as they had one and it was a very special camera!

It's been 50 years that Hollywwod went away from Academy, people.

A film shot in a 1.375 aperture camera CAN be composed for Widescreen theaters and PROTECTED for 1.375 , but it CAN NOT be composed for 1.375 and PROTECTED for Widescreen theaters, which is their MAIN INTENDED EXHIBITION. (They are theatrical films, no?). Heads would be cropped on the theater. Sometimes horribly.

Again.

It's been 50 years that Hollywwod went away from Academy, people.

Another thing, some of you crop from 1.33, but DVDs are not 1.33 they are slightly wider so if you crop 1.75 from a computer 1.33 sized capture, you start by incurring in a slight error. 1.66 crop is actually 1.70, 1.75 one is actually 1.79, and 1.85 one is 1.90. On top of that NTSC 480 pixel mpeg-2 DVDs are made from NTSC 486 scanning lines masters so the height has been cropped 6 pixels (unevenly at that, 4/2), and you have to take that into account when positioning the center or the height of the cropping area. Related to that, what makes you think the matte crop in the film negative/print was exactly in the center? It should be, but not necessarily. That's why projectionist have frame knobs in their projectors.. They can frame up and down slightly for the specific movie. Vertical framing should be standardized on the center but sometimes it isn't, specially with European 1.66 screens showing 12% more height than USA 1.85 screens:

Also: What makes you think your 4:3 DVD or VHS is showing you 100% of the Academy Sequential 1.375 area, and you can crop 1.66 out of it with the full width? You may think your 4:3 version is showing the full 1.375 area but it may not! Many shots and transfers are zoomed in, because either the movie was shot in open matte Widescreen and the telecine operator is trying to get some of the close-ups and intimacy back, or to try to get enough detail in a NTSC video by enlarging (zooming in) the image slightly. Remember, even letterboxed widescreen transfers have been sometimes over-zoomed, not showing 100% (old Ben Hur DVD and Sleeping Beauty are about 12% zoomed). And many times it's not centered!

Here. Compare 4:3 areas of Sleeping Beauty 4:3 VHS (yellow) vs Sleeping Beauty 4:3 DVD (red). You think that doesn't happen on true Academy 1.375 movie transfers, or in 4:3 Open matte Widescreen movie transfers too, which have much more leeway and lots of non intended to be seen empty areas??

<img src="http://img166.imageshack.us/img166/6161 ... hedyz3.jpg" height=380 length=20>

(by the way the green is what the 16:9 DVD shows. (which, appart from the missing yellow area height, it might also be missing a few % of the image at the sides. I'd calculate, maybe 5% of the width)

Well anyway, with Blu-ray and 16:9 displays, hopefully we'll get proper original theatrical aspect ratio versions of this movies.

I have 12 Disney Blu-rays and I''m loving it, and can't wait (however long it takes) to get these on them in 1080 x 1920.

.

goofystitch · Post by **goofystitch** » Tue Feb 06, 2007 7:40 pm

Thanks for that wonderful description, deathie mouse. I have just one question, though. Where did this image come from?

An image like that was the topic of much debat when the 25th Anniversary Edition of "The Fox and the Hound" came out on DVD October of 2006 because in the film, you can't see Todd's tail like you can in this image, leading many to believe that we have been getting a pan & scan version of the film all these years.

deathie mouse · Post by **deathie mouse** » Tue Feb 06, 2007 9:17 pm

Yup said so myself a long time ago. The video has been pan scanned and open matted at the same time (do a search on the word matte or projection and maybe you'll find the post. I posted that image here decades ago. But noooooo. Fox is 4:3. yeah right. A quarter of a century of widescreen cinema don't count. This was after STAR WARS! Yup. 4:3...

)

It's a Widescreen Jungle out there

oops, is after midnight in Nova Scotia! Time to turn into a pumpkin!
(A dethipumpkin?)

teamfx · Post by **teamfx** » Wed Feb 07, 2007 5:45 am

goofystitch wrote:Thanks for that wonderful description, deathie mouse.

I second that. It was quite informative. Good job.

TonyWDA · Post by **TonyWDA** » Wed Feb 07, 2007 11:21 am

deathie mouse wrote:*Awards TonyWDA the Dethie Medal of Honor

Okay, if that Dethie Medal of Honor thing is good, then Thanks.

danfrandes · Post by **danfrandes** » Wed Feb 07, 2007 1:01 pm

TonyWDA, do you crop clips from films in 1.85:1 widescreen and do a digital transfer?

TonyWDA · Post by **TonyWDA** » Wed Feb 07, 2007 2:18 pm

danfrandes wrote:TonyWDA, do you crop clips from films in 1.85:1 widescreen and do a digital transfer?

Most of the time, I simply crop them. The transfers on the current Disney DVDs are fine in my opinion.

Scaramanga · Post by **Scaramanga** » Thu Feb 08, 2007 9:47 am

Very nice, lengthy and informative explanation deathie mouse ... but this says it all for me:

I'll take the DVD version, thank you. If they can give me a widescreen transfer that actually shows me considerably more then my current fullscreen transfer I'll gladly take it. But not the other way round, no thanks.

deathie mouse wrote:The video has been pan scanned and open matted at the same time.

Which is a everyone's worst nightmare... and something I can eventually see Disney doing with all of the controversial ones. Actually, I'm quite sure they'll screw up.

deathie mouse · Post by **deathie mouse** » Thu Feb 08, 2007 4:12 pm

Less is more.

Escapay · Post by **Escapay** » Thu Feb 08, 2007 5:43 pm

deathie mouse wrote:Less is more.

Tell that to reyquila!

Escapay

reyquila · Post by **reyquila** » Thu Feb 08, 2007 7:41 pm

Escapay wrote:
deathie mouse wrote:Less is more.
Tell that to reyquila!

Escapay

It all depends. All I know is more movies is better!!

SpringHeelJack · Post by **SpringHeelJack** » Thu Feb 08, 2007 8:35 pm

reyquila wrote:It all depends. All I know is more movies is better!!

Unless it's "Howard the Duck". Thank you, no.

danfrandes · Post by **danfrandes** » Sat Feb 10, 2007 6:06 am

TonyWDA, what video recording system do you use to crop films in widescreen?

TonyWDA · Post by **TonyWDA** » Sat Feb 10, 2007 12:22 pm

danfrandes wrote:TonyWDA, what video recording system do you use to crop films in widescreen?

I'm afraid of saying what it is.

Jules · Post by **Jules** » Sat Feb 10, 2007 2:43 pm

reyquila wrote:
Escapay wrote: Tell that to reyquila!

Escapay
It all depends. All I know is more movies is better!!

Reyquila, is it telepathy or something ... but whenever you're mentioned in a post, you immediately reply. Do you keep track of us?

Okays ... that was off topic ...

Now, for the eternal question:

If The Fox and the Hound is indeed in widescreen and presented in Pan & Scan on the DVD, and Disney never seem to want to clarify the issue... what does it mean?

Are Disney trying to hide the fact that they accidentally threw away the original FatH widescreen print 10 years ago, when they mistook it for a yo-yo?

blackcauldron85 · Post by **blackcauldron85** » Sun Feb 11, 2007 9:16 am

I have a question:
"The Lion King" was made with a 1.66:1 aspect ratio, right? http://www.lionking.org/homevideo.html says that the VHS releases have a 1.33:1 aspect ratio. I don't know how to use the VCR the way it's plugged in, so I can't check- but, are the VHS releases really in pan & scan? I find that hard to believe. Are any other Disney VHS tapes in pan & scan (I know that "Sleeping Beauty" offered both?), where the DVD is in the correct aspect ratio?

DVDizzy Forum

Latest Movie Reviews

🎬 DVDizzy Top Stories️️

Disney's Widescreen and Fullscreen Issue Explained

Matted Widescreen: Good or Bad?

Jack Nicholson: You can't handle the truth! :-p ;D

Re: Jack Nicholson: You can't handle the truth! :-p ;D