Fullscreen 1.33:1, Letterbox Wide 1.66:1, Widescreen 2.35:1.
10-05-07, 04:14 PM
#26
DVD Talk Gold Edition
I first became aware of this phenomenon when I saw my first wide-screen set, in the home of a New York friend. He was watching a tennis game between very wide people, who were batting the ball across a three-foot-high net. I pointed out that Selena Williams had become short and fat. “I have it set to fill the whole screen,” he explained proudly.
10-05-07, 04:34 PM
#28
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 6,290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Am I the only one here where I actually prefer if they chop off the top of heads to make an original full screen film into an anamorphic widescreen dvd? hahaha....
Well seriously speaking now, I don't like anything full screen, even if it was the original way, so I just watch a Full Screen DVD with the Wide Zoom (or Smart) Mode - stretch it out so the whole picture fits the widescreen without distorting too much, and avoiding chopping off if choosing a Zoom mode.
Well seriously speaking now, I don't like anything full screen, even if it was the original way, so I just watch a Full Screen DVD with the Wide Zoom (or Smart) Mode - stretch it out so the whole picture fits the widescreen without distorting too much, and avoiding chopping off if choosing a Zoom mode.
10-05-07, 04:37 PM
#29
DVD Talk Legend
Originally Posted by Egon's Ghost
They are not that rare. Walk into any supermarket, hotel, bar, etc., that has a widescreen TV, and what you invariably see?
Roger Ebert: It’s NOT because it’s on TV, dummy
Roger Ebert: It’s NOT because it’s on TV, dummy
The solution, at least for the hotels et al. would be to buy LCDs, but plasma is the "buzzword" that many people associate with flat panels so those are what gets bought. Also, viewing angle is very important in such environments, and LCDs can still be poor in this area.
10-05-07, 06:13 PM
#30
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just don't misunderstand me. Yes, yes...I am all for OAR. I have nothing against widescreen, as long as it's true to the way it was originally shown in theaters. Then I like it. Fullscreen or widescreen, both are fine to me. I respect the director's artistic integrity in making this choice. But it seems to me that the DVD producers are a little too triggerhappy in selling widescreen, even making widescreen out of original fullscreen.
This is what I am talking about. But it is not "surprising" or "odd", as mentioned by these two reviewers. It is perfectly logical: The widescreen format has become fashionable. And DVD-producers use it as a selling argument to cash in, to maximize profit on DVD sales. Therefore some older movies are presented more widescreen than they originally were. It's big business.
I say, It's enough! Stop the DVD-producers from vandalizing anymore! Organize yourselves in opposition against it. Spread the word!
Originally Posted by canaryfarmer
From DVDReview.com:
"Columbia TriStar Home Video is presenting "The 7th Voyage Of Sinbad" in a widescreen aspect ratio on this disc that is slightly matted to create roughly a 1.66:1 aspect ratio. The transfer is enhanced for 16x9 TV sets with a great level of detail. It seems a little surprising that the film is matted however, considering that it was originally shot in a fullframe format."
From Mondo Digital:
"Columbia's DVD of Sinbad is generally satisfying but displays a few oddities in the presentation of the film itself. The anamorphic video looks excellent for a film of this vintage, with especially strong and stable colors (after the noisy opening credits), but the image has been severely matted at 1.85:1. Previous video incarnations were completely unmatted at 1.33:1 and allowed plenty of breathing room, but this edition looks very tight. No crucial information appears to be missing, but the creatures and actors often scrape perilously close to the upper matte, making the film more claustrophobic than it was probably intended."
"Columbia TriStar Home Video is presenting "The 7th Voyage Of Sinbad" in a widescreen aspect ratio on this disc that is slightly matted to create roughly a 1.66:1 aspect ratio. The transfer is enhanced for 16x9 TV sets with a great level of detail. It seems a little surprising that the film is matted however, considering that it was originally shot in a fullframe format."
From Mondo Digital:
"Columbia's DVD of Sinbad is generally satisfying but displays a few oddities in the presentation of the film itself. The anamorphic video looks excellent for a film of this vintage, with especially strong and stable colors (after the noisy opening credits), but the image has been severely matted at 1.85:1. Previous video incarnations were completely unmatted at 1.33:1 and allowed plenty of breathing room, but this edition looks very tight. No crucial information appears to be missing, but the creatures and actors often scrape perilously close to the upper matte, making the film more claustrophobic than it was probably intended."
I say, It's enough! Stop the DVD-producers from vandalizing anymore! Organize yourselves in opposition against it. Spread the word!
10-05-07, 07:30 PM
#31
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 610
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Terri
I say, It's enough! Stop the DVD-producers from vandalizing anymore! Organize yourselves in opposition against it. Spread the word!
For decades, wide movies have been mutilated to fit them onto narrow TV screens, and cinemaphiles cringed and protested in vain. The struggle to demand OAR releases on home video goes back to the earliest days of Laserdisc and even widescreen VHS, but has never penetrated mass consciousness, even today.
Now, both Academy ratio films (and TV shows) as well as Cinemascope-style films are being mutilated to fit them onto 16:9 screens; cropping the top and bottom is no more or less acceptable than cropping the sides ever was.
The "fill the screen" mentality will always be with us, and all we can do is let the studios know why we aren't buying butchered product. (If we buy it anyway, they win.)
Last edited by rdclark; 10-05-07 at 10:44 PM.
10-05-07, 08:04 PM
#32
DVD Talk Limited Edition
I have a friend with a widescreen TV that hates the black borders that he still gets with with WS DVD's so much that he buys FS DVDs whenever possible and zooms them in so they fill his whole screen, despite chopping off the top and bottom of the pictures and losing huge amounts of resolution.
To each his/her own.
To each his/her own.
10-05-07, 08:34 PM
#33
DVD Talk Legend
Originally Posted by Terri
But it seems to me that the DVD producers are a little too triggerhappy in selling widescreen, even making widescreen out of original fullscreen.
10-05-07, 08:56 PM
#34
DVD Talk Hero
Yep. I think Terri is confusing the very rare occurrence of matting a 4:3 image into widescreen (and even then, it's usually an error rather than intentional) with "enhanced for widescreen". Enhanced for widescreen is a good thing. Incorrect matting is not.
10-05-07, 10:50 PM
#35
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 610
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Numanoid
Yep. I think Terri is confusing the very rare occurrence of matting a 4:3 image into widescreen (and even then, it's usually an error rather than intentional) with "enhanced for widescreen". Enhanced for widescreen is a good thing. Incorrect matting is not.
(The fear of plasma burn-in has also become a surprisingly commonplace rationale for various screen-filling techniques, even among people with LCD TV's. Go figure.)
Ever since Season 1 of "Kung Fu" came out cropped to 16:9, I've been concerned about the spread of this practice.
r
10-05-07, 11:26 PM
#37
DVD Talk Legend
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Vichy America
Posts: 13,533
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So is there a list of movies and TV shows that should be 1.33:1 but have been altered for a wider ratio?
I know of Kung Fu and the Dragonball Z season sets. There are several movies from the '50s where the intended aspect ratio is debatable, but all the examples I know of have been released in 1.33:1 -- the Universal Sci Fic Classics boxset and This Island Earth.
I know of Kung Fu and the Dragonball Z season sets. There are several movies from the '50s where the intended aspect ratio is debatable, but all the examples I know of have been released in 1.33:1 -- the Universal Sci Fic Classics boxset and This Island Earth.
10-06-07, 04:14 AM
#39
DVD Talk Legend
Originally Posted by bluetoast
Would it be all right to complain about overscan at this point? Or would that be overkill.
10-06-07, 04:51 AM
#40
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Very rare occurrence"?
My DVD collection is about 40 to 50 DVDs. And out of the ones I have bought, several have questionable aspect ratio. I don't think this is only from rare chance. But the problem is mainly with older films. Luckily a few have flipside discs (Local Hero, Evil Dead II), the backside showing an unmatted fullscreen, still retaining all of the detail on the sides, nothing lost.
Newer films are photographed to be presented in widescreen. Sometimes these also have flipside discs, and it's the other way around, with a matted fullscreen version on the back (Caveman, The Fog, and Fright Night). Such fullscreen is heavily cropped on the sides, and is just awful and unwatchable.
(Local Hero, Evil Dead II, Caveman, The Fog, and Fright Night, come from about the same time period. And yet they are each others opposite in format. So the nature of the matting, top or sides, is not only determined by different time periods. The 1980's was perhaps the pivot period.)
I was happy to see This Island Earth in fullscreen. The Classic Sci-Fi Collection have both fullscreen and widescreen movies (The Land Unknown from 1957 is in ultrawide compressed 2.35:1). All of the classic Hammer horror films on DVD are widescreen matted, and they sure don't look right to me (with chopped off spires of distant castles for example). Same with Harryhausen's One Million Years B.C. (I don't know about his other movies. I only have this one and The 7th Voyage of Sinbad).
When did movie theaters start showing films in widescreen? Was it in the 1950s? Earlier? Later? Maybe not untill the 1960's? And when did it become a revolution, so that all films were shown in that format?
And what is really "Original Aspect Ratio"? Is it the the way the director originally intended it, or is it the way it finally necessarily was shown in theaters? That may be another perspective of looking on this.
(Harryhausen coined words like Dynamation, Superdynamation and Dynarama, but that had nothing to do with aspect ratio. It was only descriptions of the animation process. It's only a side issue, but some people may have misunderstood this and thought it meant bigger or wider picture.)
My DVD collection is about 40 to 50 DVDs. And out of the ones I have bought, several have questionable aspect ratio. I don't think this is only from rare chance. But the problem is mainly with older films. Luckily a few have flipside discs (Local Hero, Evil Dead II), the backside showing an unmatted fullscreen, still retaining all of the detail on the sides, nothing lost.
Newer films are photographed to be presented in widescreen. Sometimes these also have flipside discs, and it's the other way around, with a matted fullscreen version on the back (Caveman, The Fog, and Fright Night). Such fullscreen is heavily cropped on the sides, and is just awful and unwatchable.
(Local Hero, Evil Dead II, Caveman, The Fog, and Fright Night, come from about the same time period. And yet they are each others opposite in format. So the nature of the matting, top or sides, is not only determined by different time periods. The 1980's was perhaps the pivot period.)
I was happy to see This Island Earth in fullscreen. The Classic Sci-Fi Collection have both fullscreen and widescreen movies (The Land Unknown from 1957 is in ultrawide compressed 2.35:1). All of the classic Hammer horror films on DVD are widescreen matted, and they sure don't look right to me (with chopped off spires of distant castles for example). Same with Harryhausen's One Million Years B.C. (I don't know about his other movies. I only have this one and The 7th Voyage of Sinbad).
When did movie theaters start showing films in widescreen? Was it in the 1950s? Earlier? Later? Maybe not untill the 1960's? And when did it become a revolution, so that all films were shown in that format?
And what is really "Original Aspect Ratio"? Is it the the way the director originally intended it, or is it the way it finally necessarily was shown in theaters? That may be another perspective of looking on this.
(Harryhausen coined words like Dynamation, Superdynamation and Dynarama, but that had nothing to do with aspect ratio. It was only descriptions of the animation process. It's only a side issue, but some people may have misunderstood this and thought it meant bigger or wider picture.)
Last edited by Terri; 10-06-07 at 06:00 AM.
10-06-07, 07:37 AM
#41
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Long Island NY
Posts: 2,056
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is interesting. I also have the Seventh Voyage of Sinbad, but haven't watched it in a while. I saw a theatrical re-release of it back in the 1970's, but I was a kid then and not into things like aspect ratios so I don't know how it was shown (or even if the way it was shown then was true to the way it was shown in the 1950's when it premiered).
Widescreen, as we know it today, did pretty much appear in the 1950's. There were earlier attempts at widescreen, like Abel Gance intending certain scenes in Napoleon to be shown with three projectors--kind of like Cinerama I guess--but for our purposes it began in the 1950's. I think the rationale behind it was that television was really taking off by then, and people would rather stay home and watch than go to a theatre for a movie, so the studios started giving them something they couldn't see on TV: wide pictures that seemed to engulf their field of vision.
When it comes to creating fullscreen versions of widescreen movies, how it is done depends on how the film was shot for widescreen in the first place. I don't think there was any "pivot point" where one method for creating widescreen became preferred over another. Even today, several different processes are used.
To make a widescreen image, some films are simply matted, top and bottom. Movies intended to be shown around 1.85:1 are usually done this way. Often the whole 35mm frame is exposed, but the director and DP place the essential information in the 1.85:1 portion, which will remain visible when the top and bottom of the frame are blocked out in the projector (assuming the projectionist in the theatre frames it properly, but that's another story). To convert this to fullscreen, you can either crop it by panning and scanning the 1.85 area, or open the mattes and expose the whole frame (unless something you're not supposed to see appears in those top and bottom areas. Some studios do occasionally show films like this as open matte transfers on video anyway. Then you may see ridiculous things like supposedly naked actors suddenly wearing clothes, that were supposed to be hidden out of frame in the widescreen version).
Another way to create widescreen is to use an anamorphic filming process like Panavision. Here the image (in Cinemascope ratio, about 2:40:1) is squeezed by an anamorphic lens onto the entire 35mm frame. There's no way to covert this to fullscreen except to pan and scan it, which will result in the sides being cropped to some degree throughout the movie.
Then you have Super 35, which shoots in a wider than regular 35mm ratio (I think around 1.60:1). Here, neither widescreen nor fullscreen versions typically show the entire frame. Widescreen versions remove some of the top and bottom (and perhaps a bit of the sides); fullscreen will remove some of the sides and show more of the top and bottom. (But it gets complicated; sometimes to follow important action, a fullscreen transfer of a Super 35 film will actually "pan" around the frame and crop out some of both axes!) Theatrically, these films are usually framed for, and shown at, scope ratio. (See any scope film by James Cameron, one of the biggest supporters of this process).
So any of these processes may have produced the widescreen image you see today.
My feeling about OAR is that it's the director's intended ratio, not necessarily the way it was shown in theatres. But my guess is that they coincide the great majority of times.
Of course, if a DVD provides the correct ratio but frames the image incorrectly, then we still have a problem.
Anyone wishes to correct/add/expand upon these points, feel free.
Hope this helps you, Terri.
Widescreen, as we know it today, did pretty much appear in the 1950's. There were earlier attempts at widescreen, like Abel Gance intending certain scenes in Napoleon to be shown with three projectors--kind of like Cinerama I guess--but for our purposes it began in the 1950's. I think the rationale behind it was that television was really taking off by then, and people would rather stay home and watch than go to a theatre for a movie, so the studios started giving them something they couldn't see on TV: wide pictures that seemed to engulf their field of vision.
When it comes to creating fullscreen versions of widescreen movies, how it is done depends on how the film was shot for widescreen in the first place. I don't think there was any "pivot point" where one method for creating widescreen became preferred over another. Even today, several different processes are used.
To make a widescreen image, some films are simply matted, top and bottom. Movies intended to be shown around 1.85:1 are usually done this way. Often the whole 35mm frame is exposed, but the director and DP place the essential information in the 1.85:1 portion, which will remain visible when the top and bottom of the frame are blocked out in the projector (assuming the projectionist in the theatre frames it properly, but that's another story). To convert this to fullscreen, you can either crop it by panning and scanning the 1.85 area, or open the mattes and expose the whole frame (unless something you're not supposed to see appears in those top and bottom areas. Some studios do occasionally show films like this as open matte transfers on video anyway. Then you may see ridiculous things like supposedly naked actors suddenly wearing clothes, that were supposed to be hidden out of frame in the widescreen version).
Another way to create widescreen is to use an anamorphic filming process like Panavision. Here the image (in Cinemascope ratio, about 2:40:1) is squeezed by an anamorphic lens onto the entire 35mm frame. There's no way to covert this to fullscreen except to pan and scan it, which will result in the sides being cropped to some degree throughout the movie.
Then you have Super 35, which shoots in a wider than regular 35mm ratio (I think around 1.60:1). Here, neither widescreen nor fullscreen versions typically show the entire frame. Widescreen versions remove some of the top and bottom (and perhaps a bit of the sides); fullscreen will remove some of the sides and show more of the top and bottom. (But it gets complicated; sometimes to follow important action, a fullscreen transfer of a Super 35 film will actually "pan" around the frame and crop out some of both axes!) Theatrically, these films are usually framed for, and shown at, scope ratio. (See any scope film by James Cameron, one of the biggest supporters of this process).
So any of these processes may have produced the widescreen image you see today.
My feeling about OAR is that it's the director's intended ratio, not necessarily the way it was shown in theatres. But my guess is that they coincide the great majority of times.
Of course, if a DVD provides the correct ratio but frames the image incorrectly, then we still have a problem.
Anyone wishes to correct/add/expand upon these points, feel free.
Hope this helps you, Terri.
Last edited by Superdaddy; 10-06-07 at 07:40 AM.
10-06-07, 11:08 AM
#42
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 1,030
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
- Films have been photographed for widescreen since the mid-1950s. While 1.66:1 and 1.85:1 films will usually have extra image visible in 4x3 versions (unmatted), they were made for the wider ratio in general. If you saw a film print, it wouldn't have the exact same image you see on a 16x9 enhance DVD.
- Films like Caveman and The Fog were shot in Panavision, which is a "anamorphic scope" format. So, any 4x3 version would crop the sides heavily.
- Studios began releasing films for widescreen in 1953. Besides films shot in special processes like CinemaScope/Panavision, VistaVision, Technirama, and 65mm/70mm, 1.66:1, 1.75:1, 1.85:1, and 2.00:1 were invariably used. While a handful of 1953-1954 films were shot for 4x3, the major studios generally switched to wider presentation. This Island Earth was meant for 1.85:1 (or even 2.00:1). I think some of the Warner DVD for Hammer films are incorrectly framed (The Mummy, Dracula, Frankenstein) for 1.78:1, but new versions are apparently in the works. They should be 1.66:1. Just one example, though.
- The "OAR" is basically what the film was shot for, released in, or the intent of the filmmaker. Most of the time, if it was originally released for an AR, that's the correct one. Exceptions are like Shane (shot for 4x3, but released in 1.66:1), Apocalypse Now (shot 2.35:1 scope, cropped to 2.00:1 per Coppola's approval), or Austin Powers (shot in super-35 for 2.35:1, mattes opened up to 2.00:1 for DVD per Jay Roach's approval).
Super-35 is actually 1.33:1, since it uses the entire full area of the 35mm frame - same area used for silent films up until sound-on-film was introduced. However, Super-16 (a format that uses nearly the entire available area on a 16mm frame) is about 1.63:1.
- Films like Caveman and The Fog were shot in Panavision, which is a "anamorphic scope" format. So, any 4x3 version would crop the sides heavily.
- Studios began releasing films for widescreen in 1953. Besides films shot in special processes like CinemaScope/Panavision, VistaVision, Technirama, and 65mm/70mm, 1.66:1, 1.75:1, 1.85:1, and 2.00:1 were invariably used. While a handful of 1953-1954 films were shot for 4x3, the major studios generally switched to wider presentation. This Island Earth was meant for 1.85:1 (or even 2.00:1). I think some of the Warner DVD for Hammer films are incorrectly framed (The Mummy, Dracula, Frankenstein) for 1.78:1, but new versions are apparently in the works. They should be 1.66:1. Just one example, though.
- The "OAR" is basically what the film was shot for, released in, or the intent of the filmmaker. Most of the time, if it was originally released for an AR, that's the correct one. Exceptions are like Shane (shot for 4x3, but released in 1.66:1), Apocalypse Now (shot 2.35:1 scope, cropped to 2.00:1 per Coppola's approval), or Austin Powers (shot in super-35 for 2.35:1, mattes opened up to 2.00:1 for DVD per Jay Roach's approval).
Originally Posted by Superdaddy
This is interesting. I also have the Seventh Voyage of Sinbad, but haven't watched it in a while. I saw a theatrical re-release of it back in the 1970's, but I was a kid then and not into things like aspect ratios so I don't know how it was shown (or even if the way it was shown then was true to the way it was shown in the 1950's when it premiered).
Widescreen, as we know it today, did pretty much appear in the 1950's. There were earlier attempts at widescreen, like Abel Gance intending certain scenes in Napoleon to be shown with three projectors--kind of like Cinerama I guess--but for our purposes it began in the 1950's. I think the rationale behind it was that television was really taking off by then, and people would rather stay home and watch than go to a theatre for a movie, so the studios started giving them something they couldn't see on TV: wide pictures that seemed to engulf their field of vision.
When it comes to creating fullscreen versions of widescreen movies, how it is done depends on how the film was shot for widescreen in the first place. I don't think there was any "pivot point" where one method for creating widescreen became preferred over another. Even today, several different processes are used.
To make a widescreen image, some films are simply matted, top and bottom. Movies intended to be shown around 1.85:1 are usually done this way. Often the whole 35mm frame is exposed, but the director and DP place the essential information in the 1.85:1 portion, which will remain visible when the top and bottom of the frame are blocked out in the projector (assuming the projectionist in the theatre frames it properly, but that's another story). To convert this to fullscreen, you can either crop it by panning and scanning the 1.85 area, or open the mattes and expose the whole frame (unless something you're not supposed to see appears in those top and bottom areas. Some studios do occasionally show films like this as open matte transfers on video anyway. Then you may see ridiculous things like supposedly naked actors suddenly wearing clothes, that were supposed to be hidden out of frame in the widescreen version).
Another way to create widescreen is to use an anamorphic filming process like Panavision. Here the image (in Cinemascope ratio, about 2:40:1) is squeezed by an anamorphic lens onto the entire 35mm frame. There's no way to covert this to fullscreen except to pan and scan it, which will result in the sides being cropped to some degree throughout the movie.
Then you have Super 35, which shoots in a wider than regular 35mm ratio (I think around 1.60:1). Here, neither widescreen nor fullscreen versions typically show the entire frame. Widescreen versions remove some of the top and bottom (and perhaps a bit of the sides); fullscreen will remove some of the sides and show more of the top and bottom. (But it gets complicated; sometimes to follow important action, a fullscreen transfer of a Super 35 film will actually "pan" around the frame and crop out some of both axes!) Theatrically, these films are usually framed for, and shown at, scope ratio. (See any scope film by James Cameron, one of the biggest supporters of this process).
So any of these processes may have produced the widescreen image you see today.
My feeling about OAR is that it's the director's intended ratio, not necessarily the way it was shown in theatres. But my guess is that they coincide the great majority of times.
Of course, if a DVD provides the correct ratio but frames the image incorrectly, then we still have a problem.
Anyone wishes to correct/add/expand upon these points, feel free.
Hope this helps you, Terri.
Widescreen, as we know it today, did pretty much appear in the 1950's. There were earlier attempts at widescreen, like Abel Gance intending certain scenes in Napoleon to be shown with three projectors--kind of like Cinerama I guess--but for our purposes it began in the 1950's. I think the rationale behind it was that television was really taking off by then, and people would rather stay home and watch than go to a theatre for a movie, so the studios started giving them something they couldn't see on TV: wide pictures that seemed to engulf their field of vision.
When it comes to creating fullscreen versions of widescreen movies, how it is done depends on how the film was shot for widescreen in the first place. I don't think there was any "pivot point" where one method for creating widescreen became preferred over another. Even today, several different processes are used.
To make a widescreen image, some films are simply matted, top and bottom. Movies intended to be shown around 1.85:1 are usually done this way. Often the whole 35mm frame is exposed, but the director and DP place the essential information in the 1.85:1 portion, which will remain visible when the top and bottom of the frame are blocked out in the projector (assuming the projectionist in the theatre frames it properly, but that's another story). To convert this to fullscreen, you can either crop it by panning and scanning the 1.85 area, or open the mattes and expose the whole frame (unless something you're not supposed to see appears in those top and bottom areas. Some studios do occasionally show films like this as open matte transfers on video anyway. Then you may see ridiculous things like supposedly naked actors suddenly wearing clothes, that were supposed to be hidden out of frame in the widescreen version).
Another way to create widescreen is to use an anamorphic filming process like Panavision. Here the image (in Cinemascope ratio, about 2:40:1) is squeezed by an anamorphic lens onto the entire 35mm frame. There's no way to covert this to fullscreen except to pan and scan it, which will result in the sides being cropped to some degree throughout the movie.
Then you have Super 35, which shoots in a wider than regular 35mm ratio (I think around 1.60:1). Here, neither widescreen nor fullscreen versions typically show the entire frame. Widescreen versions remove some of the top and bottom (and perhaps a bit of the sides); fullscreen will remove some of the sides and show more of the top and bottom. (But it gets complicated; sometimes to follow important action, a fullscreen transfer of a Super 35 film will actually "pan" around the frame and crop out some of both axes!) Theatrically, these films are usually framed for, and shown at, scope ratio. (See any scope film by James Cameron, one of the biggest supporters of this process).
So any of these processes may have produced the widescreen image you see today.
My feeling about OAR is that it's the director's intended ratio, not necessarily the way it was shown in theatres. But my guess is that they coincide the great majority of times.
Of course, if a DVD provides the correct ratio but frames the image incorrectly, then we still have a problem.
Anyone wishes to correct/add/expand upon these points, feel free.
Hope this helps you, Terri.
10-06-07, 12:16 PM
#43
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 6,290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can someone clarify the old school animated Disney movies (pre-Lion King/Alladin) on DVD whether they are full screen or widescreen or if some versions created an anamorphic version out of an original Full Screen version? It's hard to keep track because Disney keeps on making limited editions and then re-releasing new versions.
Are there any anamorphic widescreen versions of:
1. Pinocchio
2. Fox and the Hound (i think the current DVD is letterboxed?)
3. Cinderella
4. Alice in Wonderland
5. Bambi
6. Snow White
Are there any anamorphic widescreen versions of:
1. Pinocchio
2. Fox and the Hound (i think the current DVD is letterboxed?)
3. Cinderella
4. Alice in Wonderland
5. Bambi
6. Snow White
10-06-07, 12:31 PM
#44
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 363
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A small point about the problematic Harryhausen aspect ratios:
It's worth noting that from Seventh Voyage (and possibly even from Five Million Miles to Earth) onwards, Harryhausen was more or less working exclusively in Europe, where the shift from 1.37 to widescreen in theaters was generally slower and more variable than in the U.S. So my understanding is that most directors, particularly the British filmmakers Harryhausen worked with, continued working in 1.37 throughout the 1950s and 1960s, knowing that the projected image might be matted to 1.66, 1.77 (or thereabouts), or 1.85. Apparently, the preferred aspect ratio of most of these films is 1.66, but that wasn't a very common aspect ratio in America at that time.
It's worth noting that from Seventh Voyage (and possibly even from Five Million Miles to Earth) onwards, Harryhausen was more or less working exclusively in Europe, where the shift from 1.37 to widescreen in theaters was generally slower and more variable than in the U.S. So my understanding is that most directors, particularly the British filmmakers Harryhausen worked with, continued working in 1.37 throughout the 1950s and 1960s, knowing that the projected image might be matted to 1.66, 1.77 (or thereabouts), or 1.85. Apparently, the preferred aspect ratio of most of these films is 1.66, but that wasn't a very common aspect ratio in America at that time.
10-06-07, 01:41 PM
#45
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Long Island NY
Posts: 2,056
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by PatrickMcCart
Super-35 is actually 1.33:1, since it uses the entire full area of the 35mm frame - same area used for silent films up until sound-on-film was introduced. However, Super-16 (a format that uses nearly the entire available area on a 16mm frame) is about 1.63:1.
10-06-07, 02:00 PM
#46
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Long Island NY
Posts: 2,056
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by toddly6666
Can someone clarify the old school animated Disney movies (pre-Lion King/Alladin) on DVD whether they are full screen or widescreen or if some versions created an anamorphic version out of an original Full Screen version? It's hard to keep track because Disney keeps on making limited editions and then re-releasing new versions.
Are there any anamorphic widescreen versions of:
1. Pinocchio
2. Fox and the Hound (i think the current DVD is letterboxed?)
3. Cinderella
4. Alice in Wonderland
5. Bambi
6. Snow White
Are there any anamorphic widescreen versions of:
1. Pinocchio
2. Fox and the Hound (i think the current DVD is letterboxed?)
3. Cinderella
4. Alice in Wonderland
5. Bambi
6. Snow White
The other Disney movies you mention were all released in the pre-widescreen era, so the 1.33 ratio should be the OAR. To make them widescreen you would have to crop the top and bottom, and unlike movies today these movies were not made with that in mind. They were meant to be seen theatrically at 1.33:1. I think Disney did re-release Snow White at one time cropped to make it fit a contemporary widescreen ratio, which is a shame.
The last time I saw it in a theatre was with my young niece in the early 1990's. As I recall it was projected at the correct ratio for that release.
So if you're holding off on buying those earlier Disney movies, don't. The aspect ratio is correct as presented. (Well, maybe hold off for Pinocchio until they give it a new transfer or a special edition release).
Last edited by Superdaddy; 10-06-07 at 02:02 PM.
10-06-07, 02:08 PM
#47
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 1,030
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by toddly6666
Can someone clarify the old school animated Disney movies (pre-Lion King/Alladin) on DVD whether they are full screen or widescreen or if some versions created an anamorphic version out of an original Full Screen version? It's hard to keep track because Disney keeps on making limited editions and then re-releasing new versions.
Are there any anamorphic widescreen versions of:
1. Pinocchio
2. Fox and the Hound (i think the current DVD is letterboxed?)
3. Cinderella
4. Alice in Wonderland
5. Bambi
6. Snow White
Are there any anamorphic widescreen versions of:
1. Pinocchio
2. Fox and the Hound (i think the current DVD is letterboxed?)
3. Cinderella
4. Alice in Wonderland
5. Bambi
6. Snow White
Rundown on proper presentation for traditional animation Disney features....
2.55:1 - The Lady and the Tramp
2.20:1 - Sleeping Beauty and The Black Cauldron
1.85:1 (1.66:1 protected) - The Great Mouse Detective, Oliver & Company, and The Little Mermaid
1.75:1 (1.33:1 protected) - 101 Dalmatians, The Sword in the Stone, The Jungle Book, The Aristocats, Robin Hood, The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh, The Rescuers, and The Fox and the Hound
The films made before The Lady and the Tramp (Snow White through Peter Pan) were all made for standard 4x3. After The Little Mermaid, they switched to the CAPS system. All of the later films are 1.66:1, with 1.85:1 framing intended (except for the few 2.35:1 films like Atlantis and Brother Bear).
The special editions of The Jungle Book and Robin Hood are presented correctly at 1.75:1, while the previous editions were unmatted. The existing (or out of print) DVDs of 101 Dalmatians, The Aristocats, Winnie the Pooh, and The Fox and the Hound are unmatted. They also opened up framing on The Great Mouse Detective, Oliver & Company, and The Rescuers to 1.66:1 on DVD.
10-06-07, 04:21 PM
#49
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 1,030
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by toddly6666
SUPERDADDY and PATRICK, thanks so much for the info...So are there any anamorphic international DVD versions of Aristocats and Fox & the Hound?
10-06-07, 04:26 PM
#50
DVD Talk Legend
Originally Posted by Terri
But the problem is mainly with older films. Luckily a few have flipside discs (Local Hero, Evil Dead II), the backside showing an unmatted fullscreen, still retaining all of the detail on the sides, nothing lost.
In other words, OAR isn't about more picture or less picture, it's about seeing the right picture, as framed and intended by the director.