DVDizzy Forum

SpringHeelJack wrote:Yee-ha, I'm on a real matting kick/avoiding homework! Just some ideas...(sorry they're so large, I'm horible at resizing)

Great job man! Those pics look great.

If I'm not mistaken most European cinemas were showing the films in 1.66:1 so they would probably want to accommodate for that. And of course you always need some margins if you want to move around something or make last minute changes (I'd bet most background are even bigger than what is in the full frame) so perhaps they thought they might as well go for the entire 1.33:1 frame.

Most of the animation happens in the middle anyway, and if you look at the examples from the Aristocats, then almost every time a character is cut off by the cropping the additional animation is a matter of extending a few lines and filling that with colour, nothing too complex or that takes too much time. And one example of an animated movie that was animated at full 1.33:1 but clearly intended for widescreen presentation, is the Transformers movie, where there's at least one section of incomplete animation visible in the fullscreen version because they figured it would be cut off by the matting. So that kind of thing is not exclusive to live-action movies.

But I do agree that the best would be to have both versions. And it shouldn't be too much trouble with regards to restoration and remastering and such. If they just captured the entire frame in high resolution then it should be a simple procedure to create lower-res 4:3 and 16:9 anamorphic DVD video from that (though if the resolution wasn't high enough, any future widescreen HD-DVD/Blu-Ray presentation might be compromised, i.e. you might not get full 1080p but instead 720p.)

TonyWDA wrote:

SpringHeelJack wrote:Yee-ha, I'm on a real matting kick/avoiding homework! Just some ideas...(sorry they're so large, I'm horible at resizing)

Great job man! Those pics look great.

Thanks!:) I did a few of Bambi, Cinderella, and Fantasia just to see what it would look like, and it's...scary...

if i hadnt been introduced or known of the matting issue. i'd probably welcome the widescreen version with open arms..but look at the pooh sample.how many jars we're missing, and the roof of the clock on the wall. situations become different. in some instances after the matting, some background seems plain with just an empty sky with nothing much in the background, cutout foreground.leaving just the character, giving the impression of a cheap production. me no likey.

akhenaten wrote:if i hadnt been introduced or known of the matting issue. i'd probably welcome the widescreen version with open arms..but look at the pooh sample.how many jars we're missing, and the roof of the clock on the wall.

Yeah, the entire narrative of the film is destroyed just because there's 2 less jars on Pooh's floor.

Escapay

Escapay wrote: Yeah, the entire narrative of the film is destroyed just because there's 2 less jars on Pooh's floor.

Escapay

im not saying its disrupting the narrative flow..i just think the whole composition worked better in 1.33:1. its not as cramped. unlike the beauty and the beast and mulan cases which don't make much difference so i don't really care. i'd say the 60s films were specifically designed as fullscreen because from most shots of the cropping it feels as if ur sitting eye to eye with the character at breathing distance, or using some macro camera to shoot them. but i give the artists credit for trying hard to think of a solution to make either ways work.

Escapay wrote:

akhenaten wrote:if i hadnt been introduced or known of the matting issue. i'd probably welcome the widescreen version with open arms..but look at the pooh sample.how many jars we're missing, and the roof of the clock on the wall.

Yeah, the entire narrative of the film is destroyed just because there's 2 less jars on Pooh's floor.

Escapay

Now, now, in all fairness, you also can't tell what kind of roof is on the cuckoo clock. Thatched? Conical? Tiled? These are the sort of questions that would keep me up at night after watching the matted version.

TM2-Megatron wrote:

Because it's still something to look at, that's why... it's more animation detail we can scrutinize and examine. People (including myself) whine and whine about most fullscreen transfers cutting off the sides of a film, and for similar reasons I'd rather have fullscreen transfers of Disney's pictures that were made this way. I like widescreen as much as any film buff, but I don't want widescreen simply for its own sake.

You are the only one here who wants to 'scrutinize' a Disney film frame by frame. That is so silly. Why not enjoy the movie as it is presented. If they choose to 'matte' it to a widescreen format, you are not losing any of the central characters, or anything like that. You are only using unused space that was apparently done for that reason. Your television is made for even a 1:33.1 ratio anyway. Maybe you should learn what the different ratios are, and what they mean, and then you will see that you don't have to do anymore 'scrutinizing' and can just sit back and enjoy the movie. After all, and you know what I am going to say, Movies are supposed to be entertainment. Plus, you aren't a trained critic, so quit trying to be one. If you were that good, you would be working for Disney.

I really dont care if a film is matted or not. It just depends if you like the film or not.

the widescreen is good. Because i can see it more than ever. Because i have The Incredibles on widescreen. i love it.:mickey:

ahaaa! i've found one example where the narrative or a joke might get lost if matted!!! i watched the aristocats and the scene where edgar was walking on his two hands inbetween the motorbike with napoleon and lafayette.if cropped u cant see the hand trying to walk on ground. im not scrutinizing gggggggggggggg. hihihihihihihi

SpringHeelJack wrote:*stolen from Scaramanga in other thread and edited by me*



Actually, this doesn't look as bad as I thought it would matted...

It doesn't look bad at all! Great job matting.

dvdjunkie wrote:TM2-Megatron wrote:

Because it's still something to look at, that's why... it's more animation detail we can scrutinize and examine. People (including myself) whine and whine about most fullscreen transfers cutting off the sides of a film, and for similar reasons I'd rather have fullscreen transfers of Disney's pictures that were made this way. I like widescreen as much as any film buff, but I don't want widescreen simply for its own sake.

You are the only one here who wants to 'scrutinize' a Disney film frame by frame. That is so silly. Why not enjoy the movie as it is presented. If they choose to 'matte' it to a widescreen format, you are not losing any of the central characters, or anything like that. You are only using unused space that was apparently done for that reason. Your television is made for even a 1:33.1 ratio anyway. Maybe you should learn what the different ratios are, and what they mean, and then you will see that you don't have to do anymore 'scrutinizing' and can just sit back and enjoy the movie. After all, and you know what I am going to say, Movies are supposed to be entertainment. Plus, you aren't a trained critic, so quit trying to be one. If you were that good, you would be working for Disney.

And maybe you should stop putting thinly veiled insults in your reply and stick to the topic. I'm fully aware of every different aspect ratio, thank you, and own examples of all of them on DVD; even a few older European films that are pillarboxed. And as for not being a trained critic, no I'm not... but nor are you, and you've recently done some rather harsh and uninformed critiquing of other animation *cough*avatar*cough* from a similarily (although more so, IMHO) amateur standpoint... so you're hardly one to talk.

I prefer widescreen in most cases because it gives me the entire original image... for the same reason, I'd prefer fullscreen transfers in the cases of these movies... more picture. Characters don't need to be occupying that space for there to be a point to it... its mere presence creates the impression of a more spacious environment.

And yes, movies are entertainment... but animation is also an artform like any other; and there are people who like to examine it in its entirety. I'm not saying I'm quite that extreme personally, but I do like seeing the entire image.

Luke wrote:In all fairness, calculating and cropping the extremes of anything won't necessarily make it look poorly composed. You could take the widescreen shot of Allan-a-dale and crop off the sides of that to return it to 1.33:1. You're losing picture but the argument that there's nothing going on in those areas still stands. I'm not convinced that all these films are intended to be matted. There are instances in <i>Robin Hood</i> where the framing feels cramped, and elements are cropped in the vertical.

Well, that's probably because generally speaking, you can't compose for both aspect ratios at once (no matter what James Cameron may enthuse about his Super-35 films). Composing everthing with both ratios in mind is like the Mad fold-ins; neither the unfolded or folded pictures look natural.

I must admit, I do prefer the unmatted compositions on most of the shots that I've seen on these various threads, but that doesn't mean that they are right. Nobody can dispute that there's generally a lot of head and foot room. Sometimes shots may look cramped, but that could be intentional, or it could just be poor dual-composition.

I think that absolutely Disney was thinking about TV showings when they made these films. After all, films like Alice in Wonderland has already been shown on TV. Also, going from 1.85/1.66/1.33 isn't exactly that different.

When Disney filmed in 'Scope, they used different equipment. 1.85 and 1.33 can be done with the same equipment, so it seems kinda wrong not to. I don't know if it was the case then (what are we talking about? Late 60's onwards?) but most films in the 70's (excluding various 'scope' ratios) were filmed 4:3 and either matted or hard matted for the cinema. Why should animation be any different? Even today, you'll see most camera equipment has both ratios marked on their displays.

I wonder how many people here would be arguing for High School Musical to be released only in 4:3 being as that's how it was (apparently) shown on TV. Because I'll tell you now, it looks absolutely awful in 4:3 (made worse by the fact it's actually centre cropped rather than panned).

Here's a video I made, remastering the picture and sound of 101 Dalmatians. This is an example of matted Widescreen.



101 Dalmatians Remastered

Enjoy!

akhenaten wrote:ahaaa! i've found one example where the narrative or a joke might get lost if matted!!! i watched the aristocats and the scene where edgar was walking on his two hands inbetween the motorbike with napoleon and lafayette.if cropped u cant see the hand trying to walk on ground. im not scrutinizing gggggggggggggg. hihihihihihihi

For whatever reason, people seemed to have ignored this very important bit of information. Could you possibly post a visual example of the scene, before and after cropping? I'd be interested to see it.

TonyWDA wrote:Here's a video I made, remastering the picture and sound of 101 Dalmatians. This is an example of matted Widescreen.

101 Dalmatians Remastered

Enjoy!

Excellent job, Tony! The film looks perfect in widescreen. The tops of everyone's heads fit neatly underneath the top of the frame, and in that one shot where Cruella stops her car as the dogs pass by her in disguise, the height of the car matches the height of the frame. Although I've never been a big fan of 101 Dalmatians, I have to admit that climax is awesome, and Iwould've much preferred to have seen that replicated in the live-action remake than the Home Alone antics it ended up with. Awesome job, again!

All of the examples I see in this thread were matted to 1.66:1 ... I thought the original intended ratio was supposed to be 1.75:1 ?

That would reduce this:



to this:

Disneykid wrote:

TonyWDA wrote:Here's a video I made, remastering the picture and sound of 101 Dalmatians. This is an example of matted Widescreen.

101 Dalmatians Remastered

Enjoy!

Excellent job, Tony! The film looks perfect in widescreen. The tops of everyone's heads fit neatly underneath the top of the frame, and in that one shot where Cruella stops her car as the dogs pass by her in disguise, the height of the car matches the height of the frame. Although I've never been a big fan of 101 Dalmatians, I have to admit that climax is awesome, and Iwould've much preferred to have seen that replicated in the live-action remake than the Home Alone antics it ended up with. Awesome job, again!

Thanks Disneykid! I'm very glad you like it!

Scaramanga wrote:All of the examples I see in this thread were matted to 1.66:1 ... I thought the original intended ratio was supposed to be 1.75:1 ?

That would reduce this:



to this:

1.66:1? The others and I matted the photos to 1.75:1