60's & 70's Aspect Ratios (from Sword in the Stone)

[Escapay]

The open matte transfer is not modified from its original version... it IS the original version.

Yes, and demos are the original versions of songs in movies, and unused canvas is meant to be seen on any painting.

There's a difference between what was filmed on the negative and what's meant to be seen on the negative. Just because that extra image is there doesn't always mean it's the way it's supposed to be seen, and certainly doesn't mean it's the original image.

Look at this cap from Terminator 2: Judgment Day (courtesy of widescreen.org)


The red shows what's seen in the theatrical/DVD widescreen. The blue is what you see in 4:3 versions for television and pan-and-scan VHS. By your reasoning, neither is correct since neither shows the full original image.

Albert

[KubrickFan]

I actually think of it the other way around. The open matte version is a modified version. The director framed the film for a certain ratio. The only reason there is any more image (i.e. open matte) is because the camera negative had more space to fill. Believe me, if the filmmakers could afford it, they would have shot with more expensive cameras and used more expensive film so that the only way to view the film is in the aspect ratio it was framed and intended to be seen in.

Therefore, the open matte transfer is modified from its original version. And so some of the open matte VHS transfers state, btw.

Oh, I agree with you, absolutely. But there are certain people (and don't think they're not there) that would argue that. They think matting a picture (to it's intended aspect ratio) is as bad as panning&scanning, that opening up a Super35 image to 1.78:1 isn't bad, because you're gaining information. They are wrong, it's not about gaining or losing information, it's about the composition.

And yes, Criterion is one of the (or probably the) best dvd company. Every effort goes into every disc, and every part of a disc. If only they could get their hands on some more mainstream titles (even animation?), but licensing from certain studios is real hard, I've heard.[/i]

[drfsupercenter]

So did the original film ratio of Terminator 2, or any of those other movies, end up on home video somewhere?

I know Mary Poppins had a similar issue... but the Archive Collection laserdisc has the full image from what I hear.

But, isn't that Terminator 2 example a bit extreme? I thought that for the Disney movies they simply chopped the top and bottom off to make the widescreen aspect ratio... it would certainly seem like it in the newer releases! (You might get a few pixels on the side but it's trivial compared to what you lose otherwise)

Terminator 2 was shot for both aspect ratios... Probably similar to Lady and the Tramp. Most movies aren't done like that, though, are they? (As Mollyzkobou added, though, it wasn't shot separately like LatT, just with both in mind. I mean the concept of having two OARs is the same.)

@KubrickFan, way to be extreme... to quote Obi-Wan, "Only a Sith thinks in absolutes". In my opinion (and many others', for that matter), tilt-scanning IS as bad as pan and scanning. I'm not calling you absolutely wrong, nor am I saying I'm necessarily right. It's just my opinion. So in YOUR opinion it may be wrong, but certainly not in mine!

[Mollyzkoubou]

I wonder if Freaky Friday was original negative ratio 1.66:1 then?

[drfsupercenter]

I disagree. It may be the original negative, but to me, the original version is the intended version. I get where you're coming from, but because the matted widescreen version is usually the way the film was meant to be seen, I consider that to be the original version. So that's why I think some open matte DVDs still say that the film has been modified.

Also, I have a question: what the heck does n00b mean?

And yet again, the "intended aspect ratio" is questioned. For new films, where the director is actually alive, that's one thing. With films like The Jungle book, unless you can bring Walt Disney back from the grave, I won't accept that any one person (or DVD studio for that matter!) is absolutely right.

And n00b is computer lingo for newbie... basically someone who doesn't know what they're doing on a computer (or similar piece of technology)

Ha ha ha Ha ha ha

I will stand right there next to you!

Yeah, seriously... Even with the aspect ratio arguments aside... Disney's DVDs are so horribly inconsistent that it makes me question if they even are paying attention... Aladdin and The Lion King were released in the original negative ratio, but Beauty and the Beast and The Little Mermaid were released (or re-released) in the "original" theatrical aspect ratio... And for what reason? Shouldn't it be all one or the other? And would someone mind telling me why some colors look good and others suck?

I made up a list... there's only four of the (11 I think?) Platinum Editions that are "OK"... all the rest have something wrong with them, be it the coloring, aspect ratio, or the editing like The Lion King.

[KubrickFan]

@KubrickFan, way to be extreme... to quote Obi-Wan, "Only a Sith thinks in absolutes". In my opinion (and many others', for that matter), tilt-scanning IS as bad as pan and scanning. I'm not calling you absolutely wrong, nor am I saying I'm necessarily right. It's just my opinion. So in YOUR opinion it may be wrong, but certainly not in mine!

Actually, tilt-scanning is different to matting an open matted picture. The process is the same, but with the second you get the intended picture (let's assume that the matted widescreen versions are the intended versions), and with tilt-scanning you're basically lopping of information of a frame that's supposed to be there. It's like a widescreen version of Snow White, or Pinocchio. It would look horrible.

[drfsupercenter]

But yet there is at least one trailer of Pinocchio that is widescreen.

I'll have to check the other releases of The Jungle Book and 101 Dalmatians... They mostly ARE tilt-scanned.

At least movies like The Little Mermaid and Beauty and the Beast. I know it's trivial at only a few pixels, but there is no additional data on the sides, all they did was cut the top and bottom off. So with all the CAPS films, I want to see them in 1.66:1.

Again with the intended ratios discussion... we'll never know for sure unless we bring Walt Disney from the dead. The people who do DVD production don't know anything... to the point where they lie to our faces and say things like "Of course we'll give you the OTV of The Lion King".

I prefer the fullscreen versions, simply because there's more picture overall. You might lose a few pixels on the sides but there's far more data on the top and bottom... and it looks better overall. At least with The Jungle Book it does. The cropped version just looks cramped compared to the open matte. I would check something like The Aristocats but I hate that movie so I don't even care.

Additionally, there are a few shots of The Jungle Book that look stupidly cropped (same amount on the top and bottom, as I was saying before...), such as this one:
http://drfsupercenter.ath.cx/My%20Pictu ... 848709.png

You think they'd move the camera down a bit... Why on Earth would you want to see all that blue stuff above the snake's head at the expense of its neck? If I were the one matting it I would move it down to almost, if not THE, vary bottom of the frame.

I didn't watch the movie all the way through side-by-side yet, only jumped around to random scenes. But I have a feeling I'll have the same opinion for most of it... with the exception of maybe one or two scenes, the amount cropped from the top and bottom is identical (see that side-by-side image, it is at least for that shot)... surely it would have moved around a bit more logically in theaters!

[gregmasciola]

And yet again, the "intended aspect ratio" is questioned.

That's why I said that the matted version is usually the intended one, but not always. I do think that The Jungle Book was meant to be matted, but I agree with you that without being able to speak to someone involved in the making of the movie, I can't say for sure.

Additionally, there are a few shots of The Jungle Book that look stupidly cropped (same amount on the top and bottom, as I was saying before...), such as this one:
http://drfsupercenter.ath.cx/My%20Pictu ... 848709.png

You think they'd move the camera down a bit... Why on Earth would you want to see all that blue stuff above the snake's head at the expense of its neck? If I were the one matting it I would move it down to almost, if not THE, vary bottom of the frame.

In that shot, Kaa's head moves around a bit, so sometimes his cheeks come closer to the top of the frame.

[drfsupercenter]

Couldn't they just move it around a little then? Instead of keeping it there and making him look stupid?

I personally think The Jungle Book wasn't intended to be matted, but films like Robin Hood may have been, since nothing significant gets cut off. In The Jungle Book, a lot of stuff gets cut off, like parts of people and animals, and I don't think it was meant to look like that.
Also, even with nothing cut off, the frame looks a bit cramped. It's not like there's loads of extra/wasted space, it actually looks great there. Some of the newer films, though, do have nothing significant in the bars and look fine either way.

That being said, I still prefer the open matte transfers of Robin Hood and The Aristocats (The Aristocats being only for my collection... I haven't watched that movie since I was in elementary school, and have no intention to any time soon) to the newer releases... Partially because Robin Hood didn't go anywhere... it started with minimal extras and still does have minimal extras. Unless you count menu games as extras, I personally count them as wasted space. However, I don't cringe nearly as much as Robin Hood's widescreen form than I do The Jungle Book... since it doesn't look cramped.

[AlwaysOAR]

Yeah, seriously... Even with the aspect ratio arguments aside... Disney's DVDs are so horribly inconsistent that it makes me question if they even are paying attention... Aladdin and The Lion King were released in the original negative ratio, but Beauty and the Beast and The Little Mermaid were released (or re-released) in the "original" theatrical aspect ratio... And for what reason? Shouldn't it be all one or the other? And would someone mind telling me why some colors look good and others suck?

I made up a list... there's only four of the (11 I think?) Platinum Editions that are "OK"... all the rest have something wrong with them, be it the coloring, aspect ratio, or the editing like The Lion King.

Well, I can agree with you there concerning Disney and it's inconsistent releases. As I've stated before, there should be no reason why both the intended theatrical ratio and the open-matte versions of the DACs in question can't be released together. With 2-disc PEs, one could be put on one disc, and the other on the second. And there is room for these, especially given the silly games and such they put on instead.

I've been really disappointed lately, with the last two releases they've put out, in that we've gotten the open-matte transfers of 1H&1 Dalmatians and SitS without the intended theatrical ratios, IMO( Those of you who've I debated before know where I stand on this, as I don't believe one bit that 1H&1D, SitS, JB, Aristocats, etc. were ever intended to be released theatrically in the open-matte, especially a decade or more after the switch to widescreen in theatres).

And now they're doing the same thing for Sleeping Beauty, giving us the negative animated ratio of 2.55:1, instead of the intended theatrical ratios of 2.20:1(70mm version) and 2.35:1(35mm version - though that was released on the SE). I'm never going to purchase these in the incorrect ratios. And that goes for other studios as well, I'm still waiting for Apocalype Now to be released in it's correct ratio.

[drfsupercenter]

With 2-disc PEs, one could be put on one disc, and the other on the second. And there is room for these, especially given the silly games and such they put on instead.

I do agree there... movies like Finding Nemo were great IMO. That had both versions and still a bunch of bonus features.

As far as 101 Dalmatians goes, I'm actually pleased with the open matte version. My only objection to that is the 3D castle they plastered on the intro

The Sword In the Stone... well that was a pointless re-release, so I wouldn't have minded as much if that was matted. Granted, I wouldn't buy it since I prefer the open-matte but I'm not buying the SE anyway so at this point I couldn't care less.

Those of you who've I debated before know where I stand on this, as I don't believe one bit that 1H&1D, SitS, JB, Aristocats, etc. were ever intended to be released theatrically in the open-matte, especially a decade or more after the switch to widescreen in theatres

Well I never said they were intended to be seen THEATRICALLY that way. It is possible, though, that they were intended to be seen at home that way.
For example: Say you were making a film. You kinda wanted it to be in a 4:3 aspect ratio, but theaters were only capable of projecting widescreen. What do you do? You make it 4:3 and show it matted in theaters, animating it so that you don't lose any major details that way. Then later on, you release it the way you wanted it to be released - in Academy.
There is a possibility that they did that for The Jungle Book, etc... and I'd be willing to bet anyone that the ONLY reason the PE was widescreen is all those people with their HDTVs who don't like pillar boxes... movies like The Fox and the Hound SE came out long before The Jungle Book's PE, and they were the original Academy ratio. There's a possibility JB would have been to, if people weren't so "widescreen or nothing" like my friends are (And granted, they're like that for ANYTHING... they'd rather see a movie like Pinocchio cropped than have pillarboxes... Heck, they even set the TV up like that at times!)

As far as Sleeping Beauty goes... What aspect ratio was it originally animated in? I was under the impression that it was animated in 2.20:1 and the SE was tilt-and-scanned to make it 2.35:1. Is that incorrect? Surely the 2.55:1 would be even more cropped? Or is it the other way; it was animated 2.55:1 like Lady and the Tramp and pan-and-scanned for theater showings at 2.20:1?

[Mollyzkoubou]

I prefer whatever it was shot in, unless the matting hides errors (incomplete animation, stage equipment, etc.)

I do like to have a 4:3 copy around though as my TV is 13".

[gregmasciola]

Couldn't they just move it around a little then? Instead of keeping it there and making him look stupid?

If they did that, it would look like the camera was shaking back & forth and up & down. It would be like shake & scan.

On my Cinderella DVD, there is a sneak peek for the Jungle Book PE and shows the full frame completely restored, so I do agree that there is no reason why they couldn't have given us both ratios.
For the movies that were matted in theatres, they should get rid of all those dumb games on the bonus disc and include the other ratio. I doubt even many little kids enjoy those games anyways, so they're really just a waste of space on the disc.

[2099net]

Additionally, there are a few shots of The Jungle Book that look stupidly cropped (same amount on the top and bottom, as I was saying before...), such as this one:
http://drfsupercenter.ath.cx/My%20Pictu ... 848709.png

You think they'd move the camera down a bit... Why on Earth would you want to see all that blue stuff above the snake's head at the expense of its neck? If I were the one matting it I would move it down to almost, if not THE, vary bottom of the frame.

Because in that shot, the EYES are the focus of the composition, so they are placed in the centre - certainly the colour and intensity of the eyes draws your eyes to them when looking at the scene. Kaa's neck is irrelevant Really, what would seeing more of Kaa's neck achieve, especially as previous shots have already established what Kaa looks like?

Really, if you're moaning about the headroom of that shot when matted, you may as well moan about the increased headroom on the unmatted shot - "Why didn't they move his head up so we could see even more of his neck?"

[Escapay]

So did the original film ratio of Terminator 2, or any of those other movies, end up on home video somewhere?

No, because the filmed ratio is not the intended ratio.

But, isn't that Terminator 2 example a bit extreme?

Hardly. It's the same principles of matting, just in Super35.

I thought that for the Disney movies they simply chopped the top and bottom off to make the widescreen aspect ratio...

Kid, that's the universal process for widescreen. Sure, some films vary from this (BTTF), but it's generally a masking of the top and bottom with very little tilt-scan involved.

Terminator 2 was shot for both aspect ratios...

No, it was shot for widescreen. James Cameron uses Super35 on all his films, because he already knew that once it'd hit home video, at least his original widescreen version would still be preserved, albeit with additional image on the top and bottom because of 4:3 presentation.

Most movies aren't done like that, though, are they?

Most movies that are matted aren't done in Super35, but most movies are matted.

I actually think of it the other way around. The open matte version is a modified version. The director framed the film for a certain ratio. The only reason there is any more image (i.e. open matte) is because the camera negative had more space to fill. Believe me, if the filmmakers could afford it, they would have shot with more expensive cameras and used more expensive film so that the only way to view the film is in the aspect ratio it was framed and intended to be seen in.

Therefore, the open matte transfer is modified from its original version. And so some of the open matte VHS transfers state, btw.

Oh, I agree with you, absolutely. But there are certain people (and don't think they're not there) that would argue that. They think matting a picture (to it's intended aspect ratio) is as bad as panning&scanning, that opening up a Super35 image to 1.78:1 isn't bad, because you're gaining information. They are wrong, it's not about gaining or losing information, it's about the composition.

to both of you.

Regarding Criterion and animation, I think they stated somewhere that they choose not to select animated films, though I can't remember their reason why. Pity, too. A Criterion of Fantasia would be phenomenal. Perhaps Disney should licence out Song of the South to them...

At least movies like The Little Mermaid and Beauty and the Beast. I know it's trivial at only a few pixels, but there is no additional data on the sides, all they did was cut the top and bottom off. So with all the CAPS films, I want to see them in 1.66:1.

The Little Mermaid: Platinum Edition actually has additional image on the sides. Minor, but still additional.

The people who do DVD production don't know anything...

They obviously know more than you do if they're the ones doing the DVD production.

and I'd be willing to bet anyone that the ONLY reason the PE was widescreen is all those people with their HDTVs who don't like pillar boxes...

Are you F*****G KIDDING ME? That is probably the stupidest theory I've heard regarding why The Jungle Book finally got a theatrical ratio release.

I'm willing to believe that new-to-widescreen-so-they-don't-know-anything-about-film-ratios-and-how-they're-chosen HDTV buyers are one reason why Disney suddenly decided, "Hey, we should finally release the theatrical version, the TV fits it now!". But I'm certainly not going to believe it's the only reason.

Most of the people who have HDTVs, at least in its first several years, were cinemaphiles and technical aficionados who knew the proper difference between Academy, Scope Widescreen, Matted Widescreen, Pan&Scan, Tilt&Scan, etc. They certainly would NOT be complaining about pillarboxes on Academy films, because they're smart enough to know how films are shot.

Nowadays, any Joe Sixpack idiot can get an HDTV and hook it up the wrong way without realizing it. And Disney caters to them, because they'll buy anything without knowing if it's proper or altered. Bugger them all. But don't blame Joe Sixpacks and his keeping-up-with-the-new-hip-technology lemmings for Disney finally listening to theatrical purists asking for theatrically-matted-widescreen releases of the animated films.

As far as Sleeping Beauty goes... What aspect ratio was it originally animated in? I was under the impression that it was animated in 2.20:1 and the SE was tilt-and-scanned to make it 2.35:1. Is that incorrect? Surely the 2.55:1 would be even more cropped? Or is it the other way; it was animated 2.55:1 like Lady and the Tramp and pan-and-scanned for theater showings at 2.20:1?

*sigh*

Albert

[AlwaysOAR]

Well I never said they were intended to be seen THEATRICALLY that way. It is possible, though, that they were intended to be seen at home that way.
For example: Say you were making a film. You kinda wanted it to be in a 4:3 aspect ratio, but theaters were only capable of projecting widescreen. What do you do? You make it 4:3 and show it matted in theaters, animating it so that you don't lose any major details that way. Then later on, you release it the way you wanted it to be released - in Academy.
There is a possibility that they did that for The Jungle Book, etc...

Well, these films were made for the theatre, not for home viewing. They were intentionally framed to be matted in the theatre. It was just cheaper to animate academy, then matte to the intended ratio. Others have explained this better on previous pages in this thread.
The problem is many people have only ever seen these DACs in the VHS and early DVD open-matte(or pan&scan in some) versions, not realizing it was never intended to be seen that way. It was just easier to release the open-matte on home video to "fill the 4:3 screen".

and I'd be willing to bet anyone that the ONLY reason the PE was widescreen is all those people with their HDTVs who don't like pillar boxes... movies like The Fox and the Hound SE came out long before The Jungle Book's PE, and they were the original Academy ratio. There's a possibility JB would have been to, if people weren't so "widescreen or nothing"

The reason the JB PE was released in it's original theatrical aspect ratio of 1.75:1 was that Disney was finally trying to get it right for a change, they just messed up and didn't release the negative animated ratio along with it. Most people as far as I know still only have 4:3 TVs, and many of them don't like letterboxing, again not realizing they were seeing the film the way it was intended to be seen, and probably started complaining. That's why I think 1H&1D and SitS were released in the animated ratio, and not in their intended ratios, IMO.
BTW, Fox and the Hound SE was also released in it's original theatrical aspect ratio of 1.75:1

As far as Sleeping Beauty goes... What aspect ratio was it originally animated in? I was under the impression that it was animated in 2.20:1 and the SE was tilt-and-scanned to make it 2.35:1. Is that incorrect? Surely the 2.55:1 would be even more cropped? Or is it the other way; it was animated 2.55:1 like Lady and the Tramp and pan-and-scanned for theater showings at 2.20:1?

SB, as well as Black Cauldron, were animated in the 2.55:1 ratio, but were intended for, and released theatrically in both 70mm(2.20:1) and 35mm(2.35:1) versions.

[Escapay]

BTW, Fox and the Hound SE was also released in it's original theatrical aspect ratio of 1.75:1

Unfortunately, it's still 1.33:1

Albert

[AlwaysOAR]

BTW, Fox and the Hound SE was also released in it's original theatrical aspect ratio of 1.75:1

Unfortunately, it's still 1.33:1

Albert

Oh hell, I mixed up Fox and the Hound with Robin Hood. Don't know why I did that, it's getting late. Yeah, and your right, unfortunately F&tH is still 1.33:1.

[David S.]

and I'd be willing to bet anyone that the ONLY reason the PE was widescreen is all those people with their HDTVs who don't like pillar boxes...

Are you F*****G KIDDING ME? That is probably the stupidest theory I've heard regarding why The Jungle Book finally got a theatrical ratio release.

I'm willing to believe that new-to-widescreen-so-they-don't-know-anything-about-film-ratios-and-how-they're-chosen HDTV buyers are one reason why Disney suddenly decided, "Hey, we should finally release the theatrical version, the TV fits it now!". But I'm certainly not going to believe it's the only reason.

Well, given Disney's well documented past reluctance to release UNMATTED widescreen on titles that REALLY would gain substantial information on the sides before 16:9 tvs were invented, I find it hard to believe they would have ever released a matted Jungle Book, Robin Hood, et al, into a marketplace that consisted SOLELY of 4:3 TVs! So I do think the popularity of widescreen TVs are definately a catalist for matting material that would gain either nothing or a minimal amount on the sides while losing 25 percent of the vertical image. It's even happened with some IMAX films that are UNDISPUTABLY not "intended" to be seen in 16:9! Surely the trend towards those tvs has something to do with this?

I seriously doubt they would inflict black bars on the Jungle Book/Robin Hood buying public that basically did nothing but take picture away if Disney didn't feel that:

a) a large percentage of their audience already has wide tvs;

b) most that don't, will in the next few years, and

c) most "mainstream" (non-cinephile) types will want the material to conform to their tvs

And since most cinephiles will apparently not object to the matting on grounds of "intended" ratio (except those who like to see the entire frame) they went ahead and matted.

What they apparently underestimated was the wrath of those with 4:3s who either didn't like the bars simply because they were bars, or, in my case, didn't like the bars because they knew the bars were blocking picture they were used to seeing. Also, at least some 16:9 owners who were used to these films in open-matte likely expressed concern about the tighter cropped framing. (such as those concerns expressed in reviews by reviewers, at least some of whom likely have 16:9 tvs)

But in any case, I am skeptical they would have matted these films on DVD if the wide tvs didn't exist. After all, they were open-matte on laserdisc, and that was more exclusively a cinephile medium than DVD. And also, as mentioned above, Disney's past reluctance to go wide with many titles that are UNDISPUTABLY widescreen before 16:9 tvs existed.

You did say you accepted the tvs were one reason for the matting, just not the only reason. I just feel it is the main reason, and one without which, the matting would most likely not have happened on those DVDs.

Well, these films were made for the theatre, not for home viewing. They were intentionally framed to be matted in the theatre.

But I am buying these dvds of the DACS in question for... home viewing, for which the open matte is aguably the intended ratio and part of the reason the full frame was animated (also for theatres who didn't matte). I am not taking them down to the AMC and slipping the projectionist some cash to screen them for me after hours . They are purchased to play at home, on my 4:3 monitor, for which the open matte version was intended to be seen!

It was just cheaper to animate academy, then matte to the intended ratio. Others have explained this better on previous pages in this thread.
The problem is many people have only ever seen these DACs in the VHS and early DVD open-matte(or pan&scan in some) versions, not realizing it was never intended to be seen that way. It was just easier to release the open-matte on home video to "fill the 4:3 screen".

But who is to say the creators did not also consider the open-matte a valid way to view their work? Since they took the time to draw things in the matted areas, those things were "intended" to be seen by someone! And I want to see them! But I am restating things from earlier in the thread, and if we continue along these lines we'll end up talking in circles again. My main reason for replying to your quote is actually this part.

Most people as far as I know still only have 4:3 TVs, and many of them don't like letterboxing, again not realizing they were seeing the film the way it was intended to be seen, and probably started complaining.

I just want to clarify that in my case, at least, even though I have a 4:3 TV, when letterboxing gives me more picture on the sides and takes away nothing (or a minimal amount) on the top/bottom, I EMBRACE the black bars! I LOVE the black bars! I offer them popcorn and a soda and consider them friends!

It's only when the bars block significant amounts of vertical picture I am used to seeing, and feel I should be seeing, while giving me no gain (or minimal gain) on the sides that they become the enemy. I have always believed that the only reason to accept black bars was to GAIN picture not seen in the fullscreen version, NOT to lose it! That's how letterboxing was ALWAYS marketed and promoted, and that's what I bought into.

(I can see a "Revenge Of the Sith" parody:

Spoken to black bars:

"You were the choosen one. I trusted you! You were said to bring balance to the picture, not leave it in ruins! To add some on the sides, not take it away on the top and bottom instead!")

I respect those who want the cropped theatrical version of these DACs (allegedly the "intended" version although in some cases like these DACs I don't think that is completely clear).

I just also think it is EQUALLY valid, just from a different point of view, to want to see everything (protected) on the film frame - especially in the case of animation where EVERYTHING is pre-planned and drawn for a reason.

After all, with the open-matte version, I can get a ruler and some black tape to recreate the "theatrical framing" if I so choose

But with matted widescreen unfortunately I CAN'T put information on the DVD that is not encoded on it to recreate the actual film print!

Also, since others brought this up since my last reply in this thread, I wanted to state that I am NOT in favor of the open-matte version being zoomed in too tightly, which was apparently the case for the first Jungle Book DVD. Although given the choice, that is still my preferered option in this case as it loses less on the sides than what is lost on the top and bottom of the matted version.

But ideally, I prefer a frame that is zoomed out until the entire protected area of the frame can be seen - which for these DACs, would be the entire film print. And, based on the screenshots, the Gold Collection Robin Hood DOES seem to come close to capturing the whole print, as nothing is lost on the sides when compared to the matted version.

Also, instead of the cases mentioned above where the widescreen version of a live-action film loses on top and bottom and the alternate open-matte version loses some on the sides, WHY can't this alternate version just show EVERYTHING protected on the film print instead of cropping the sides to preserve a 1.33:1 ratio!

If the "protected" version would yield a ratio of 1.45:1 or 1.5:1 or 1.6:1 than SO BE IT.

Unfortunately, these secondary "fullscreen" versions in these cases are being marketed to people who want to fill their 4:3 screens and not like me who want to see everything protected on the film print.

In the question Escapay asked about his example pictured above, I would say the widescreen IS the correct theatrical version, but neither version is the correct film negative version.

The fullscreen version preserves neither the theatrical framing NOR the full protected area of the negative so IMO should not even exist! If they wanted to do a second version for home video, IMO it should be whatever preserves the ENTIRE protected area of the frame!

I wish instead of creating a "widescreen" and a "fullscreen" version of films for home video, they would just offer instead:

a) The original THEATRICAL framing version, and

b) The COMPLETE FILM NEGATIVE ratio version - (as much as can be "protected" and not show equipment, etc.)

If either of these just so happen conform to the dimensions of wide or standard tvs, great.

But if not, these are the two versions that should be released anyway - monitor dimensions be dammed!

At least all the bases would be covered from purists points of view this way, and technology exists to make this happen.

PS In a semi-related note, I absolutely DETEST the ridiculous invention known as "overscan" in commercial tvs and wish I knew how to disable it on mine. Ideally, I wish I could slightly "zoom out" my tv so my fullscreen DVDs would be surrounded by a small black border on all four sides of the screen, so I'd know I'd be seeing EVERYTHING encoded on the disc that way!

It all comes back to the idea that seeing everything I can possibly see is always more important to me than "filling the screen"

[gregmasciola]

Just because The Jungle Book was released open-matte on laser-disc doesn't automatically mean it was the intended ratio. I'm pretty sure there were plenty of movies on laser-disc that were not in their intended ratio.
And when Escapay said that these movies weren't made for home video I think he meant that when they were made home video didn't even exist; not until the 80s.