DVDizzy Forum

disneyfella wrote:EDIT: I found this site off a link from here at ultimatedisney, that might be able to explain better my feelings on wanting the matted films (a process called soft matting):

http://www.widescreen.org/widescreen_matte.shtml

Keep in mind that the examples given on this site also have open matte fullscreen transfers available out there...and some people are calling them OAR.

See, the thing is, when we see the whole picture from a matted animated film, there's not going to be any boom mikes, etc. - any extra picture is all quality, in a Disney movie at least. That's why I personally don't have a huge problem with the fullscreen version. Yes, the intended ratio would have been nice, but I'm not gonna complain about the 1.33:1 ratio.

The thing is, movies like The Sword in the Stone would have parts of characters cut off (as your screenshot shows), so therefore I wouldn't want it.

If you lost absolutely nothing, that's one thing... but I still prefer the way it was drawn (since unlike some anime shows, Disney movies don't have camera/drawing errors in the matted area)

I should clarify that given the amount of animation/artwork that would be lost if the movie was matted, I would only like the matted version IF the open matte version was also provided.

drfsupercenter wrote:The thing is, movies like The Sword in the Stone would have parts of characters cut off (as your screenshot shows), so therefore I wouldn't want it.

If you lost absolutely nothing, that's one thing... but I still prefer the way it was drawn (since unlike some anime shows, Disney movies don't have camera/drawing errors in the matted area)

Just because part of a character is cut off (or part of an image is missing) doesn't mean that you should have seen it in the first place, though. Look at the image without the matting and you'll notice that both Merlin's hat and part of the broom are cut off. Traditionally the cel artwork would have allowed the rest of the image to be seen, but the camera used to photograph that picture cut off the excess.

I know that often complaints and examples of why matting shouldn't be done include things like "Well, this character's fingers were cut off, or part of his stomach is cut off". What no one takes into account is that maybe they were meant to be matted out. Remember that most of these online matting examples only offer a single frame from a 24 fps film. If a character were in motion, within only a few seconds you would see the image that is out of the screen because it moves into view. You would eventually see matted elements as they make their way into the aspect ratio image (or sometimes referred to as the "director's eye"...what the film-maker sees).

I'm not saying that I'm right, but rather just trying to defend my opinion that DVD should present films in their truest form....the form that the film-maker intended. Disney has released these animated films in both the matted widescreen ratio, and the open matte fullscreen ratio.

I simply choose the theatrically matted widescreen ratio, because that is the movie that the film-makers wanted us to see. Though again, I think Disney could solve a lot of problems by simply offering both aspect ratios. If they were going to release only one format, though, I think in respect for the DVD format and it's ability to offer films in their OAR, that the matted theatrical ratio should be chosen. The open matte version is more of a 'special feature' as it were.

Do you think that perhaps this is all some conspiracy on the part of Disney Home Entertainment? What if the inevitable Blu-rays of all these old movies will have both aspect ratios and at the moment they're taking us all for suckers with these incessant re-releases on DVD?

I was honestly thinking that too, and am sort of hoping this is the case. DVD opened up a LOT of windows for widescreen releases of films. Before it was almost impossible to find letterboxed VHS, and even then the selection of titles was limited. DVD has seriously helped to promote film preservation and restore artists' rights more than any format in history (look at the Blade Runner cut, the Superman II Richard Donner cut, etc.).

That being said, several mistakes have been made in DVD releases (i.e. many old Disney films haven't been receiving OAR, etc.). I only hope that with this new format we can push even further to preserve the original theatrical experience with exceptional clarity, pristine sound, and the ORIGINAL THEATRICAL ASPECT RATIOS . Careful consideration has to be given to the film-maker's intent when direct input cannot be given. We want these Blu-Ray presentations to be the best possible...as if we were there at the opening night premiere.

Give me the overtures....the intermissions......give me the 3D glasses....the "Tingler"........make me relive movie history in my own home! Make me a part of what film critics have been talking about for years!!

disneyfella wrote:Give me the overtures....the intermissions......give me the 3D glasses....the "Tingler"........make me relive movie history in my own home! Make me a part of what film critics have been talking about for years!!

THIS!!

A pity I'm limited to a 13" Commodore-style CRT monitor or my 17" PC monitor to watch this stuff.

That Disney Fella wrote:I know I'm going to get a lot of flack for my opinion on this.....::shudder back in preparation:: ......but I am a true beleiver in the artists vision of the film and the original theatrical aspect ratio. Perhaps Disney can appease both crowds by offering their film in both the OAR and the open matte fullscreen transfers (the way they were later shown on television).

No, you won't get flack from me, fella. You get pink elephants and applause! I agree with everything you said!




Albert

Escapay wrote:

That Disney Fella wrote:I know I'm going to get a lot of flack for my opinion on this.....::shudder back in preparation:: ......but I am a true beleiver in the artists vision of the film and the original theatrical aspect ratio. Perhaps Disney can appease both crowds by offering their film in both the OAR and the open matte fullscreen transfers (the way they were later shown on television).

No, you won't get flack from me, fella. You get pink elephants and applause! I agree with everything you said!




Albert

Yay!! I'm naming you my 'OAR buddy' Albert. We seem to be few and far between...lol.

Now if only National Treasure 2 had the Goofy cartoon... that was like my favorite theatrical short and my friend tells me it wasn't on the DVD!
Same with The Rescuers Down Under... what is it with Disney and not giving us the theatrical shorts on DVD? (Though that WAS on a DVD, just not on the correct one )

I agree with most of you most of the time when it comes to aspect ratios. With just about all films non-animated I want the way it was released in theaters. Because usually it's released in the way it was shot... otherwise, why shoot it in that ratio?!

Some exceptions include Back to the Future... I might swap my widescreen boxset someday, since the fullscreen version shows more picture, and IMdB confirms that it was indeed shot in Academy and just matted for theaters. (I have a 25" CRT 4:3 TV, and therefore couldn't care less about "widescreen".)

However, for films like The Jungle Book and The Sword in the Stone, I want the way it was originally drawn. If they didn't want the top and bottom in the frame, why would they waste time drawing it?
To mention a counter-example, the TV show Grappler Baki (known in the US as Baki the Grappler) was animated in widescreen, though non-anamorphic (it was drawn in about 640x480 in the computer). I asked a friend of mine who told me about the show why they didn't just animate the frame in, and he said they wanted it to be widescreen and thus didn't bother animating any more than the 16:9 area.

And to quote mollyzkobou, "They INTENDED it to be Academy. Otherwise they wouldn't have put an effort into animating the matte area and you'd see [errors in the animation]."

I have often wondered why shorts and stuff attached to films never made it on their DVD releases....I mean...goodness knows that there has been room! Every once in a while a cartoon short will pop up on a disc (i.e. "Escape to Witch Mountain" had the cartoon short "The Eyes Have It" on the disc). But the problem then becomes....is the cartoon simply put on there because of a similar theme? Or was the cartoon actually attached to it in the theatre? I think Disney should make a point to include originally attached shorts/featurettes with a brief explanation of an old movie practice.....

I'm researching "Baby...Secret of the Lost Legend", and in my research I've found out that the UK screening of the film was the ONLY release that "Frankenweenie" had in theatres (even though it was originally going to be attached to a reissue of Pinocchio before Frankenweenie got a PG rating....it's a long story).

Is there a place where you can go online and find out which cartoons/featurettes were attached to which features??






@ drfsupercenter - I think I understand where you're coming from. I know that even when Walt was alive he would film theatrical films in Academy Ratio knowing that they would be matted for theatres, but that he would also later air them on television (so the film would be framed for theatre matting, but also have a fullscreen film print). P&S wasn't common practice at the time. Other times a film would originally be intended for television airing and subsequently get a theatrical release (i.e. The Misadventures of Merlin Jones, etc.) which would imply a matted theatrical release, when it might have been framed for a fullscreen presentation. That's when things get sticky (though I still stand by my notion of the artist's right and demanding the original artist's intention...whatever it be).

The camera used to photograph the cels and use the xerox process established in 101 Dalmatians were all in the 4:3 ratio. However, these films were actually framed for matted theatrical releases...they were intended for theatrical release...the matted picture is the actual OAR.

However, there is an open matte print that offers more picture. While this print is available, and it shows more image, it was not the intended theatrical aspect ratio. It was simply something the studios would use for television airings (because at the time all television airings were in 4:3).

I suppose at this point in history it all comes down to personal preference as to which version you want (i.e. do you want the widescreen "Seven Brides for Seven Brothers" or the rarely seen flat version? both are availabe and both are true released versions of the film.....though only one was the theatrical release).

The primary version released should be the theatrical release....the open matte or fullscreen image should be ancillary as it is merely a secondary form of the original theatrical version. At least that's my preference

drf wrote:Some exceptions include Back to the Future... I might swap my widescreen boxset someday, since the fullscreen version shows more picture

Your problem with that will be that while most of the film will be open-matte, any scene with visual effects will not be. The visual effects were done and hard-matted to the 1.85:1 widescreen ratio, so any 1.33:1 presentation of a VFX scene is not open-matte, but pan&scan of the 1.85:1 frame.

drf wrote:IMdB confirms that it was indeed shot in Academy and just matted for theaters.

As is nearly every live-action 1.85:1 movie out there. Matting is the most common way of doing widescreen if it's not being shot in widescreen itself. Some directors, when viewing camera shots on their monitors, will actually tape appropriately-sized pieces of cardboard to their monitors to know what their intended framing will look like (thus, boom mikes that pop up in open-matte frames aren't immediately noticed).

That Disney Fella wrote:I have often wondered why shorts and stuff attached to films never made it on their DVD releases....I mean...goodness knows that there has been room! Every once in a while a cartoon short will pop up on a disc (i.e. "Escape to Witch Mountain" had the cartoon short "The Eyes Have It" on the disc).

All four of the Vault Disney Collection DVDs, as well as the similarly-assembled-but-not-given-the-VDC-Banner DVDs came with their original theatrical cartoon:

20,000 Leagues Under the Sea - "Grand Canyonscope"
Old Yeller - "Bone Trouble"
Pollyanna - "The Nifty Nineties"
Swiss Family Robinson - "Sea Salts"
The Parent Trap - "Donald's Double Trouble"
The Love Bug - "Susie the Little Blue Coupe"
The Apple Dumpling Gang - "Two Gun Goofy"
Escape to Witch Mountain - "Pluto's Dream House"
Return from Witch Mountain - "The Eyes Have It"

Unfortunately, Disney stopped this practice, though some of their movies do have bonus cartoons which, as you said is "simply put on there because of a similar theme". The ones I remember off the top of my head...

Davy Crockett: Two Movie Collection - "The Lone Chipmunks"
Bedknobs and Broomsticks - "The Vanishing Private" and "The Worm Turns" (R2 versions have "Magician Mickey" and "Trick or Treat")
Pete's Dragon - "Lighthouse Keeping"

That Disney Fella wrote:(i.e. do you want the widescreen "Seven Brides for Seven Brothers" or the rarely seen flat version? both are availabe and both are true released versions of the film.....though only one was the theatrical release).

When I watch 7B47B, I watch the flat version on my portable DVD player, but the Scope version on television.

Albert

drfsupercenter wrote:

My question is with the 1.75.1 ratio that some say is the intended ratio for this era. It's not a common ratio as it was an early 35mm widescreen ratio, used mostly by MGM, and since abandoned. It seems more likely that it was probably 1.66.1, especially giving the issues with the JB release.

1.78:1 and 1.66:1 are essentially both anamorphic widescreen. Disney thinks consumers are stupid, and therefore they figured we wouldn't be able to tell on releases like The Jungle Book (nice try though, I saw through it the whole time!)
It was initially said that SitS would be 1.66:1 so you're probably correct about the intended aspect ratios.

But why is everyone so disappointed that it's in the original negative ratio? Why would you want one showing LESS of the picture than a different release? If anything, you can crop it yourself using your DVD player's settings... I used to do this all the time since my sisters would only watch a movie if it was fullscreen and I bought widescreen everything (talking live-action movies that are actually shot in widescreen)

As I stated before, if I demand the intended aspect ratio of a live-action film, I must also for the DAC. I used to feel the same as you about wanting the animated ratio, but I realize I was wrong about that. I want the filmakers intent for a particular movie to be the primary version to be released on DVD. The animated ratio could be put on as an extra, and I'm all for it, but not at the expense of the filmakers intent.

Back to my question regarding the 1.75.1 ratio (not 1.78.1-that's the ratio of widescreen tv's) as the intended ratio of the DAC of this era, I'm just wondering where they came up with this as the intended ratio for the JB release? It was intended to be matted, as was SitS, but I don't think for this ratio.

disneyfella wrote:

Escapay wrote: No, you won't get flack from me, fella. You get pink elephants and applause! I agree with everything you said!




Albert

Yay!! I'm naming you my 'OAR buddy' Albert. We seem to be few and far between...lol.

Don't forget about me... Just look at my username. And I also agree with what you posted above wholeheartedly.

Lots has come up since I last read this thread:

drfsupercenter wrote:But why is everyone so disappointed that it's in the original negative ratio? Why would you want one showing LESS of the picture than a different release?

I think the bulk of the disappointment is that THIS IS A TOTALLY WORTHLESS RE-RELEASE from Disney. The transfer is the same as the Gold Collection disc (although I'll admit it may be marginly better due to more advanced compression coding and possible remastering – I say remastering as I'm pretty sure its not restored) but it appears the overall content of the disc is LESS THAN THE PREVIOUS RELEASE.

I'm sorry for shouting, but I'm so annoyed, words cannot express how angry and frustrated I feel with Disney Home Video in general. If I didn't know any better I'd swear they were doing everything in their power to destroy their DVD sales.

All of us here, every single one of us, could nominate either a Disney film, be it an animated classic or not, more deserving of a re-release than the Sword in the Stone, which let's face it, had a better Gold Collection DVD release than most live action Disney films released today (such as Enchanted for example). And all of us, again, every single one, could think of supplemental content to ADD to (rather than replace) the existing Gold Collection DVD for the re-release of The Sword in the Stone, which isn't a freaking DVD set-top game!

Again, this DVD re-release is TOTALLY POINTLESS and a complete waste of EVERYONE'S TIME, EFFORT and MONEY who worked on it, and absolutely a waste of everyone's money who buys it. (Unless you want a shiny slipcover! :rollseyes:)

disneyboy20022 wrote:Well.... that one Coming soon of The Secret of the Magic Gourd might be worth buying Sword in the Stone DVD.......I wonder if The secret of the Magic gourd will come directly to DVD or Theaters....??

I know this may sound like I'm picking on you, but you would seriously consider buying a DVD just for a 2 minute or so sneak peek? No wonder Disney feel they can get away with crapping out their newest DVD releases without any financial consequence to their business.

David S wrote:If you look at the screencap Brownpuppy posted on the last page, the top of Merlin's hat and the bottom of Wart's broom would be missing if they would have put the film in widescreen - with no additional picture on the sides.

Firstly, why would you want more information on the sides? What would it achieve showing more grey wall to the left and right? All it would do would make the focus of the picture – the two characters – less important and look somewhat lost in the environment.

Secondly, without context (and I don't have the time or inclination to put that scene in context by watching my Gold Collection DVD) how important is the top of Merlin's hat or Wart's broom? The shape and form of Merlin's hat will have been established in previous shots (and re-established in later shots) and most likely so will Wart's broom. It's not always important to see everything – seeing everything is the visual equivalent of characters stopping every two minutes to restate the plot over and over again. The audience is clever enough (or should be!) to understand everything going on.

That said, the matting example posted by Steve doesn't strike me as a particularly good single frame – Wart appears too far down the screen. But again we're not seeing it in proper context so who knows. Perhaps something happens in the top-left area of the frame in later shots? (Again, I can't check at this time).

Steve wrote:See, the thing is, when we see the whole picture from a matted animated film, there's not going to be any boom mikes, etc. - any extra picture is all quality, in a Disney movie at least. That's why I personally don't have a huge problem with the fullscreen version. Yes, the intended ratio would have been nice, but I'm not gonna complain about the 1.33:1 ratio.

Well, I wouldn't call the tip of Merlin's hat and an area of grey stonework at the top of that frame "quality" and even the bottom which has more detail (or information) it pretty irrelevant – like I said, I assume we all know what Wart's broom looks like, and the state of the floor too from previous shots.

[quote=""drfsupercenter"] The thing is, movies like The Sword in the Stone would have parts of characters cut off (as your screenshot shows), so therefore I wouldn't want it.[/quote]

That seems a little illogical. Look at the screenshots on these live action reviews:

http://www.ultimatedisney.com/nationaltreasure2.html
http://www.ultimatedisney.com/enchanted.html
http://www.ultimatedisney.com/nationaltreasure-ce.html
etc

they all have examples where the top, side or bottom of a character's head is cut off to some extent. It's not always important to see this "information" because we all know what we are missing when viewing that frame, and having the opportunity to do so, makes for more interesting and dramatic shots.

Imagine this short if all of Captain Jack's hat was in view:



It simply wouldn't have the same effect, as there'd be lots of empty sky over the other two character's heads – it wouldn't feel as tight, organised or (most importantly from an storytelling point of view) dramatic. The character's wouldn't dominate the frame as much.

Interestingly, looking at Disney's review screenshots I've noticed these both generally tend to show "the whole picture" (though not in HSM2's case of course)

http://www.ultimatedisney.com/highschoolmusical2.html
http://www.ultimatedisney.com/hannahmon ... llion.html

Don't all the screenshots on those pages appear smaller? less dramatic and eventful? They even appear "cheaper" to me, the Hannah Montana one's especially. It has nothing to do with the money spent on the filming, but the fact everything looks "simple". It looks like TV, it doesn't look like cinema (and its not just the screen ratio, it’s the unimaginative placement of characters and angles). It's visually dumbed down.

2099net wrote:

David S wrote:If you look at the screencap Brownpuppy posted on the last page, the top of Merlin's hat and the bottom of Wart's broom would be missing if they would have put the film in widescreen - with no additional picture on the sides.

Firstly, why would you want more information on the sides? What would it achieve showing more grey wall to the left and right? All it would do would make the focus of the picture – the two characters – less important and look somewhat lost in the environment.

Not to be blunt, but you misinterpreted my meaning. I was not suggesting there SHOULD be more picture on the sides. Since the movie was animated full frame, of course we know there is none.

What I meant was, the ideal reason in my opinion to change a ratio from 1.33:1 to anything wider is to show information that IS cropped on the fullscreen which if done right will not crop off anything vertically. However, since there IS no missing information on the sides in this case that can be added by going wider, the net result of going wider here results in nothing but the LOSS of 25 percent of the vertical image. Which is not to my taste one bit, but I respect other's rights to have a different opinion.

@ drfsupercenter - I think I understand where you're coming from. I know that even when Walt was alive he would film theatrical films in Academy Ratio knowing that they would be matted for theatres, but that he would also later air them on television (so the film would be framed for theatre matting, but also have a fullscreen film print). P&S wasn't common practice at the time. Other times a film would originally be intended for television airing and subsequently get a theatrical release (i.e. The Misadventures of Merlin Jones, etc.) which would imply a matted theatrical release, when it might have been framed for a fullscreen presentation. That's when things get sticky (though I still stand by my notion of the artist's right and demanding the original artist's intention...whatever it be).

Well I had a hunch it was made with TV airing in mind... but the thing is I question the "intended ratio". Disney is the only company that actually releases the open-matte versions of their films... even if other films are shot in fullscreen, the VHS and fullscreen DVD releases are most often pan-and-scan. (Back to the Future being an exception, as I said)
The same goes with animation - shows like Grappler Baki and Sailor Moon animated for widescreen and it's very obvious since you can see the frame errors in the open-matte version.

they all have examples where the top, side or bottom of a character's head is cut off to some extent. It's not always important to see this "information" because we all know what we are missing when viewing that frame, and having the opportunity to do so, makes for more interesting and dramatic shots.

Now, I realize no film shows the entire character's body... but films like Pirates of the Caribbean aren't released in open-matte. I think it says something when 99% of widescreen movies are released pan-and-scan and Disney movies are released in the original fullscreen ratio. Why wouldn't they pan-and-scan it as well? (I'm not talking the uber-wide movies like Lady and the Tramp either... though that was possibly the stupidest video release ever since there WAS an Academy version)

I'm sorry for shouting, but I'm so annoyed, words cannot express how angry and frustrated I feel with Disney Home Video in general. If I didn't know any better I'd swear they were doing everything in their power to destroy their DVD sales.

I agree with that, but for different reasons. I think Disney has had their share of false advertising - and they're more concerned with making the picture look good than preserving a classic. Movies like Cinderella never should have been "restored" to that extent, and movies like The Lion King and Beauty and the Beast should have come from the theatrical film reels, not the remade IMAX print. I've about had it with the fake OTVs, as well as identical re-releases (and overly-dumb menu games)

2099net wrote:

Steve wrote:See, the thing is, when we see the whole picture from a matted animated film, there's not going to be any boom mikes, etc. - any extra picture is all quality, in a Disney movie at least. That's why I personally don't have a huge problem with the fullscreen version. Yes, the intended ratio would have been nice, but I'm not gonna complain about the 1.33:1 ratio.

Well, I wouldn't call the tip of Merlin's hat and an area of grey stonework at the top of that frame "quality" and even the bottom which has more detail (or information) it pretty irrelevant – like I said, I assume we all know what Wart's broom looks like, and the state of the floor too from previous shots.

2099net, when I said "quality", I just meant that was nicely done and that it was all there - by which I mean that the painting doesn't stop with visible brushstrokes or anything, which of course wouldn't happen because it would be visible in theatres that couldn't properly matte the film. I was actually thinking of more recent animated films that are filmed in 1.33:1 but because the artists know that it's going to be matted, they sometimes don't bother finishing the artwork right to the edge. Because the artwork in The Sword and the Stone is all finished and it's done to a very high standard, that's why I don't mind the fullscreen version. I would still prefer it if we were given both aspect ratios though.

Also, I agree with you about the complete and utter pointlessness of this release. To raise a reeeeeally old point - again - WHERE ARE HERCULES AND HUNCHBACK?!

drfsupercenter wrote:[

they all have examples where the top, side or bottom of a character's head is cut off to some extent. It's not always important to see this "information" because we all know what we are missing when viewing that frame, and having the opportunity to do so, makes for more interesting and dramatic shots.

Now, I realize no film shows the entire character's body... but films like Pirates of the Caribbean aren't released in open-matte. I think it says something when 99% of widescreen movies are released pan-and-scan and Disney movies are released in the original fullscreen ratio. Why wouldn't they pan-and-scan it as well? (I'm not talking the uber-wide movies like Lady and the Tramp either... though that was possibly the stupidest video release ever since there WAS an Academy version)

It actually costs a company money to create a pan and scan version, where as an open matte version is already made ("in the can" as it were). A lot of the Warner Brothers DVD releases that are in Widescreen (even those that don't offer a fullscreen option), are matted to their theatrical ratio. There are literally thousands of DVDs out there that are matted widescreen releases, and no one knows the difference because both widescreen and fullscreen would be released at the same time (often on a flipper disc), and on one ever compared whether the fullscreen was open matte or P&S because most people had a preference of fullscreen or widescreen regardless of the fullscreen print. People who wanted the original image usually watched the matted widescreen version, but an open matte print with more image was always waiting on the other side if they wanted it...but it wasn't OAR.

Where Disney has decided to be different, is that they never really offered a lot of their catalog titles in matted theatrical widescreen prints (which might have cost more money to create a matted digital file for the film), and thus we only got them in the open matte fullscreen releases regardless of what they were intended to be framed as.....it was simply cheaper for Disney to do it this way. Sometimes we would get the VHS master which was P&S created for home video release in the 1980s (I can't remember the guy in charge of Home Video for Disney, but he made it big in the 80s.....'Disney War' has a good section on him if I remember it right). Examples of this include Blackbeard's Ghost (atrocious) and Miracle of the White Stallions (equally ghastly) to name a few.

I whole heartedly agree that they should have released the reformatted Academy Ratio version of Lady and the Tramp with the Platinum.....it would have been interesting to watch (and they wanted to put a fullscreen version on anyway!). Oh well.....maybe we'll finally get it with the Blu Ray release.

drfsupercenter wrote:

But why is everyone so disappointed that it's in the original negative ratio? Why would you want one showing LESS of the picture than a different release? If anything, you can crop it yourself using your DVD player's settings... I used to do this all the time since my sisters would only watch a movie if it was fullscreen and I bought widescreen everything (talking live-action movies that are actually shot in widescreen)

Cropping from fullscreen to widescreen is not always an exact science; it doesn't always mean that you simply crop the exact same amount from the top and the bottom of the picture.

If you look at the screencap of Wart and Merlin, it seems like there should be less trimmed off the bottom and more off of the top.
Another example would be in Austin Powers: Goldmember. There are several widescreen shots where the head is at the top, and the bottom comes just below the neck. On the fullscreen version, the head is still at the top, and the bottom comes just below the chest. If you just cropped the top and bottom from these shots, the entire top half of peoples' heads would be gone.
I will try to do some of my own screencaps to give a better example.