DVDizzy Forum

It seems many of you are having some dilemmas on the whole cropping-from-fullscreen issue. I don't know if you've noticed, with all due respect, but... I'VE SPENT ALMOST ALL OF MY TIME TRYING TO GET IT THROUGH!!!!!!!!! These films were CREATED for Widescreen! Let me show you what I mean.

In 1940's, there was NO such thing as Widesceen. The films were made in the Academy ratio: 1.33:1 Fullscreen. Of course, films like Fantasia and The Three Caballeros show moments where the film looks like it CAN be cropped. But don't completely count on that.

Here's an example of a 1940's fullscreen film:

Bambi, when released in the 1940's, was intended to be presented in a 1:33.1 Aspect Ratio. This film cannot be matted.


In the 1950s, 60s, and 70's, Things took an interesting twist. After Lady and the Tramp, and Sleeping Beauty, widescreen became a motif in films. But if that's the case, why in the world is 101 Dalmatians,The Sword in the Stone, The Jungle Book, The Aristocats, Robin Hood,and The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh in FULLscreen?

I noticed one day, while watching 101 Dalmatians, and Winnie the Pooh, that these films had an abundant amount of space, Never used on the screen. Here's what I mean:



Why did the films look like this? I've said it time and time again, these films were MEANT for Widescreen. Look at these examples and see what I mean:
This is Winnie the Pooh's Originally Created Aspect Ratio in 1977:



This is the intended 1.75:1 Widescreen Matted Aspect Ratio:



See the difference?

Now Look at the Robin Hood examples:
Fullscreen:



Intended Matted Widescreen:




Matted Widescreen really comes in handy when you've got films that were created this way. It doesn't COMPLETELY work at some moments, but it works. So, is it safe to say that the Disney films of the 50s, 60s, and 70s were designed for Widescreen? Yes, most definitely.

I hope this forum has been very helpful to you. Thanks for reading.

--TonyWDA

Nice explanation, Tony! I fully expect the re-releases this year of The Aristocats, The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh, and The Jungle Book to all be matted to 1.75:1. I'll be shocked if they're not after what Disney did with Robin Hood last year. The Fox and the Hound is the only oddity in the Disney canon. Sometimes the DVD's image looks perfectly framed. Other times it looks cramped. Then there are times where it seems too open. I wish the filmmakers who are alive today would clear this one up.

TonyWDA, Do you make pictures from Disney movies matted and remastered in widescreen? How do you do that?

How do you make movies matted and remastered in widescreen?

Ya, I did a school project about the issues with The Fox and the Hound's framing. And got an A-!

Disneykid wrote:Nice explanation, Tony! I fully expect the re-releases this year of The Aristocats, The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh, and The Jungle Book to all be matted to 1.75:1. I'll be shocked if they're not after what Disney did with Robin Hood last year. The Fox and the Hound is the only oddity in the Disney canon. Sometimes the DVD's image looks perfectly framed. Other times it looks cramped. Then there are times where it seems too open. I wish the filmmakers who are alive today would clear this one up.

Thanks! I'm very glad you liked it!

And your right! After Robin Hood , I won't be dissappointed in The following DACs releases. As you stated, Winnie the Pooh ,The Jungle Book , and The Arsitocats are all getting released to DVD this year. Let's hope the matted Widescreen technique is included with these films! (Which I'm very sure it will )

danfrandes wrote:TonyWDA, Do you make pictures from Disney movies matted and remastered in widescreen? How do you do that?


How do you make movies matted and remastered in widescreen?

I sure do!

I use a video recording system that let's me crop the film to a perfect 16:9 Widescreen Aspect Ratio. As for the pictures, I just open them to a photo album, and that too has a croping option.

TonyWDA wrote:I use a video recording system that let's me crop the film to a perfect 16:9 Widescreen Aspect Ratio.

How do you do that?

TonyWDA wrote:As for the pictures, I just open them to a photo album, and that too has a croping option.

How do you do that?

Flanger-Hanger wrote:Ya, I did a school project about the issues with The Fox and the Hound's framing. And got an A-!

Really?! Awesome!:D

danfrandes wrote:

TonyWDA wrote:I use a video recording system that let's me crop the film to a perfect 16:9 Widescreen Aspect Ratio.

How do you do that?

TonyWDA wrote:As for the pictures, I just open them to a photo album, and that too has a croping option.

How do you do that?

Well, the answers are pretty much up there pal.

*stolen from Scaramanga in other thread and edited by me*



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

Personally, I feel that the transfers for these movies should be made in whatever way that shows the most of the original drawing. If these means creating 1.33:1 transfers instead of widescreen, fine. From those pictures, it sure looks as if you get more on the top and bottom in fullscreen than a matted widescreen.

It's may be safe to say that the 50s, 60s, 70s titles were made or designed for "wider screen" formats, but the difference is basically, as you know, that L&T and SB were animated for and shot in "scope" while the others were not. Therefore different solutions are, in my opinion, acceptable for this handful of titles. They could include two different versions on future editions, of course.

TM2-Megatron wrote:Personally, I feel that the transfers for these movies should be made in whatever way that shows the most of the original drawing. If these means creating 1.33:1 transfers instead of widescreen, fine. From those pictures, it sure looks as if you get more on the top and bottom in fullscreen than a matted widescreen.

That's JUST it. Why have all of that space at the top and bottom when the characters almost never use it?

TonyWDA wrote:

TM2-Megatron wrote:Personally, I feel that the transfers for these movies should be made in whatever way that shows the most of the original drawing. If these means creating 1.33:1 transfers instead of widescreen, fine. From those pictures, it sure looks as if you get more on the top and bottom in fullscreen than a matted widescreen.

That's JUST it. Why have all of that space at the top and bottom when the characters almost never use it?

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.

TM2-Megatron wrote:

TonyWDA wrote: That's JUST it. Why have all of that space at the top and bottom when the characters almost never use it?

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.

Well that's how the films are going to be presented. The Aristocats in March will possibly be matted.

TonyWDA 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.

Well that's how the films are going to be presented. The Aristocats in March will possibly be matted.

A pity. Disney rarely seems to make the right choices when making DVDs... except for that brief period from like, 2001-2003 where they had a number of excellent releases with great bonus features. Not the biggest loss, though; none of these films were Disney's absolute best.

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










Overall, I personally like the matted look better. I don't think it counts as making it look widescreen just to make it look widescreen if it's how the film was intended to be seen. Many movies are filmed in a full screen aspect ratio then matted in editing to provide a desired effect. I think that's similar to what's happening here.

Ok, so I thought I should put my input in on this subject...so here I go!

Overall, I don't really prefer one presentation over the other (widescreen vs. fullscreen), just as long as I get the WHOLE picture! In cases like Aladdin, Little Mermaid, Lion King, or Lady and the Tramp, I prefer the widescreen presentation because you get the whole picture. But likewise, I'd prefer to get Jungle Book, 101 Dalmatians, and Aristocats in fullscreen because it presents all of the picture in the film. Yes, I know that in theatrical releases these films were meant to be matted in widescreen and were specifically filmed for this purpose. But, just like cropping a widescreen film, you will loose a part of the picture if you create a matted widescreen presentation of a fullscreen movie. Thankfully, I already have many of these DAC's that were filmed in fullscreen and later matted such as 101 Dalmatians, Aristocats (GC), Robin Hood (GC), and (Sword in the Stone(?)). Also, because I'm not a huge fan of Pooh, I think I'm going to pick up the new "Friendship" Edition just because I'm a completeist. I don't care that much about the aspect ratio of this film. But if The Jungle Book is presented in matted widescreen, I admit, I'll be VERY ticked off. That would mean that I would have to purchase both the PE as well as the old Limited Issue (which I have tried for a few years to not just give in and buy) so that I can have both aspect ratios.

Well, at least Disney isn't planning on putting out a "matted" widescreen of Peter Pan! Or are they? (I'm just kidding, by they way).

-BB

brotherbear wrote:Overall, I don't really prefer one presentation over the other (widescreen vs. fullscreen), just as long as I get the WHOLE picture!

Well, there is the element of composition to be taken into account - and your logic here wouldn't work very well on matted live-action movies.

But we are talking animation here after all, and I think it's pretty safe to say that there will be no excessive "accidental" animation at top and bottom of the frame - unlike some live-action movies where elements that weren't supposed to be seen can be seen when the mattes are opened up on video.

In general I'm all for original aspect ratios. But in a few cases there is for specific reasons more than just one acceptable right answer.

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.

If theaters were only going to see the middle sliver (much more than a sliver, but you know what I mean) -- which it's yet to be definitively proved and I've heard some pretty convincing arguments that even a film like <i>Fox and the Hound</i> was supposed to be projected in Academy -- then why even fill the frame with art? Obviously, TV is/was a concern, but who's to say then that the widescreen presentation is preferred? At the time, such thinking would seem to indicate that since television is where the movie's greater life might be that perhaps the 1.33:1ish framing is the more important or at least as important as the framing seen for a few months in theaters.

The best route to take on films where it is an issue would seem to be including both versions. And that's kind of a waste of space (and restoration efforts) since most people will never watch whatever version they don't want to. 16x9 may be the more forward-minded way to go, but such rationalizing can justify matting <i>Wizard of Oz</i>, <i>Citizen Kane</i>, or even <i>Snow White</i>. Still, I think dual aspect ratios seems like a definite possibility for <i>The Aristocats</i> at this time.