DVDs Cropped to Widescreen from Fullscreen transfer?
 

I've run into a couple of DVDs which are labeled as Widescreen but you can tell by the close-in shots and cut off heads that they are really just cropped versions of the Fullscreen transfers that the studio did for VHS/Cable. This is worse that Fullscreen because not only did they cut off the sides when the transfered it to Fullscreen but they then cut off the top and bottom when they transfered it again to Widescreen. Really, its fake Widescreen because you miss more than if you were watching the Fullscreen transfer!

I'm having real trouble finding a list of all the movies that were transferred to Widescreen this lazy, sloppy way. Does anyone know where I can find a list of these movies so that I can avoid purchasing them? If not, does anyone know the proper term for this kind of transfer so that I can do a Google search?

Thanks!

It's probably just easier to ask if you're concerned about a particular movie instead of trying to find some magic list. Also, some movies' widescreen versions are supposed to be that way, as they've simply opened up the frame for the fullscreen from the correct widescreen ratio (usually filmed with Super 35). Laziness rarely has anything to do with it. I'd like to know which movies you're upset about.

I prefer WS and I'm not talking about when they open it up larger from the original print. I just noticed the obvious transfers from fullscreen on a few of the DVDs in my collection and wonder how many DVDs were cropped down from the fullscreen transfer. I can't list the hundreds I already own so I was just looking for a list.
Thanks

It would still help if you listed a title or two that you're concerned about.

The thing is, it's actually a pretty damn rare occurrence. I can only think of two examples : Season 1 of Kung-Fu (which pissed off so many people they changed back to the OAR for the subsequent seasons) and the new season sets of Dragonball Z. We're not asking for a list of every widescreen movie you own, just the ones you think are obvious. There can't be that many.

ninja edit: Oh, and the 10th Anniversary Ninja Scroll, which at least had the original 4x3 transfer included.

I've wondered on occasion when one sees the term fake widescreen used if the person was speaking about comparing an open matte release to the intended aspect ratio one and then presuming the IAR one was a fake widescreen transfer or something legitimate like the Kung Fu season example (recall reading one of the ER seasons is similar also though I'm not sure if it was originally aired open matte for 1.33:1 or composed for it and therefore qualifies to be mentioned).

There are a couple of people that post reviews on Amazon that seemingly confuse the two, stating something has first been altered to be "full screen" and then again cropped from that image to create the "widescreen" one, when they seem to be comparing an open matte DVD/VHS to the intended aspect ratio and complaining that the IAR release cuts off picture (the resulting image from something "pan and scan" then cropped to widescreen would seem like it would be barely watchable.. which is why ~1.37:1 IAR titles made ~1.78:1 seem more likely).

This person comes to mind. And to confuse the issue even more, they get the Kung Fu modification correct but the rest seem to have been directly compared to an open matte release to reach their conclusion. I don't recall ever seeing a trustworthy confirmation on them.

There are a number of releases for things with an intended aspect ratio of 1.37:1 that have been modified to something like 1.78:1 though. Just a few examples of those.

Blue Planet: IMAX (1990) (BD/HD DVD)
Chronos (1985) (BD/HD DVD)
Dragon's Lair (1983) (BD/HD DVD)
Father... A Son... Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, A (2005)
Glenn Miller Story, The (1953)
It (Stephen King's It) (1990)
Roy Orbison: Black & White Night (1988) (HD DVD)

Some made for TV movies from years past have been released in one aspect ratio in one region and in a different one in another region. There is so little information for some of those that one would basically have to guess which is the intended aspect ratio.

Jet Pilot (made in 1949, but released in 1957). Film in Academy ratio 1 - 1:33, but trim to 1 - 1:85. The Universal laserdisc release was in it's proper full-screen aspect ratio, but the DVD was released at widescreen. It's very obvious looking at them side-by-side that the DVD is missing information at the top and bottom of the screen.

I think this film is a prefect example of what your looking for.

John Boorman's 'Excalibur' DVD is the perfect example of how to completely screw up everything on framing and 'open matte' and 'fake widescreen'...

The Evil Dead. Thankfully, AB included both the WS and FF transfers on the latest edition, but the BotD edition only had the unholy WS transfer. That film is not meant to be seen WS. It just doesn't look right.

There are also alot of films whose OAR was 1.66:1 that are cropped to 1.78:1 when they are released to DVD..

One that was most upsetting for me was the V miniseries (1983 / 85)

Intented ratio = 1.33:1, but the DVD release has been cropped to 1.78:1... Boy did I get burned on that one. Still have the Japanese LD release which is proper 1.33:1, but has burned-in subtitles.

The newer edition of George Romero's Martin on DVD is cropped to Widescreen while the old Anchorbay has the 1.33:1 transfer.

Checking reviews on this one suggests that the director did also compose it for a theatrical showing so isn't entirely modified from its intended aspect ratio but instead just presents an alternate one (perhaps similar to the early ER seasons?).

John Carpenter's SOMEONE IS WATCHING was a TV movie from 1978, the DVD has been cropped to 1:78.

Here are a few of DVDs I recently purchased from Big Lots and they all seem to be cropped to 1.78:1 from the 1.33:1 transfers:

New Year's Day (1989)
Mom and Dad Save The World (1992)
Dream for an Insomniac (1996)

The shots are very close in and heads are often cut off. These are the few I have noticed so far. As I've mentioned, it would be nice to have a resource to find out what other DVDs have this issue. I can assume that any DVDs with covers which state they are preserving the original aspect ratio are good....its just the others that I'm curious about.

can anyone confirm that MOM AND DAD SAVE THE WORLD is a cropped image or does this guy not know what he's talking about? i've been meaning to pick that up.

Babylon 5.

The show was originally shot in widescreen (16:9), but was cropped to 4:3 when broadcast.

When it was released on DVD, widescreen transfers were used. The original filmed elements were shown at the apsect ratio they were filmed in. BUT all of the special effects shots and live-action elements with any special effects were trimmed at the top/bottom because the effects were only rendered at 4:3.

Yep that's correct.

With respect to TK111, and full awareness that it is entirely possible albeit unlikely, there doesn't seem to be much of evidence that those are "fake widescreen".

I'm thinking the thought process to reach that conclusion is the same as the above linked to Amazon reviewer 'ed600' that thinks retaining a films intended aspect ratio if a full frame exposure print exists means that it is cropping the picture. Something being filmed on a 1.37:1 frame with the full intention and compostion being for something other than that, like the earlier Super 35 mention, is not "fake widescreen" when in its intended aspect ratio. The unmatted version is the modified aspect ratio release, not vice versa.

I'd give credit to the person whose signature it is but I don't recall offhand, basically, it isn't about which has more or less image but rather about preserving the composition as intended. The three titles TK111 mentions all seem to have their intended aspect ratio preserved on their DVD releases.

Couple generic links..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_35_mm_film
http://www.widescreen.org/aspect_ratios.shtml#super-35
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_matte

Psycho 4 is "fake widescreen".

I thought that the original "Invaision of the body snatchers" was cropped from a 1.33:1 to 2.35:1.

Nope. Shot in SUPERSCOPE. I think it's 2.00:1 or something.

That's what I always heard. This is the first time I've heard mention of Superscope.



Also, V & V: The Final Battle are 1.85:1 on DVD even tho it was originally broadcast on TV. When released, a lot of people said they were shown in theaters in the UK so I guess it's okay.

I did some research online to find screenshots from Mom and Dad Save the World that appear to be from the full screen version (here's the website where the images were found: http://www.badmovies.org/movies/momdad/).
I did a couple of screenshots from my 16:9 DVD for comparison. It's pretty clear that unfortunately this DVD is cropped from a FS transfer. Here are the examples side by side:

http://s282.photobucket.com/albums/k...tos/MomAndDad/

For Comparison 1, notice there's less space above their heads and less of the car seats showing. Also, there's nothing additional showing on the right and left.

For Comparison 2, notice the top of his head is cut off along with a good portion of their torsos. Also, nothing different on right and left.

This is just one example of a DVD originally released as widescreen in theaters, then cropped to FS for VHS/Cable then seemingly cropped again from this FS transfer to 16:9 WS. If the original theatrical release was 16:9/1.78:1 (just as an example) then you would be losing approximately 44% of that original image! If the aspect ratio of the original theatrical version was 1.85:1 or 2.35:1, etc. there would be even more picture loss. I thought FS was awful but this practice is even worse.

You're still not understanding the concept of an open-matte video transfer.

See here:

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

And here:

http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/sh...rs_Go_Away/764

Look again at the comparison shots you've compiled. Shot 1 clearly has too much empty headroom at the top of the shot and looks very awkward. That black thing at the very top may even be a boom mic.

http://i282.photobucket.com/albums/k...momdad1_FS.jpg

The matted 1.85:1 version is the correct theatrical framing.

http://i282.photobucket.com/albums/k...momdad1_WS.jpg

The open-matte 4:3 version has too much extraneous picture information exposed at the top and bottom of the frame. More is not always better.

Here Comes the Grump
 

The complete series DVD release of the 1969 DePatie-Freleng cartoon "Here Comes the Grump" was quite a mess. They cropped it for 16x9 HDTV, but then compressed the cropped image back to academy ratio for the standard DVD. So not only was the the image cropped, it was also squeezed!

Thankfully, they "busted" themselves by including original ratio coming attractions on the set, which made for easy comparison between original and remastered images.

I blogged about it two years ago (with pics).

If that was the case, the image on the dvd image would be severely cut into on the sides. This is a simple opening of the matte for the FS image, not some crazy double-cropping malarky. Josh Z, you explained this perfectly. Odds are that the other two movies TK listed fall into the same category. Maybe the framing isn't perfect, such as with Excalibur, but I really really doubt that they've been double-cropped.

Here are just a couple of DVD screenshots of examples of why I feel this is a cropped FS and not a cropped to WS from an open-matte transfer.

In this first one the man in the middle right of the frame is actually talking while his face is cropped to below his nose!

http://i282.photobucket.com/albums/k...g?t=1213326721

And, in this one the actor (Jeffrey Jones) on the left is talking back and forth with Teri Garr as the framing cuts his head off to his eyes!

http://i282.photobucket.com/albums/k...g?t=1213326772

Unfortunately there are many other examples of these sorts of problems, I just thought to post a couple so people can see more of where I'm coming from. Anyone can check their own copy if they got the 16:9 $3 copy of Mom and Dad Save the World from Big Lots (I can give time locations of a lot of examples on the DVD).
Josh Z - I do understand the concept of an open-matte video transfer. But the strange cropping of peoples' heads and just scenes in general seeming way too tightly focused/ overly close-in makes me believe this is not a 16:9 version cropped from an open-matte transfer but rather a 16:9 cropped from a FS version, artistically I don't think it would be preferable to crop into the head and face when someone is talking?!
Aside from my discussion of Mom and Dad Save the World I have seen many mentions of theatrical releases vs. FS transfers and FS versions cropped to 16:9, etc. Also, many people have mentioned that they have FS/WS flippers on which the WS is actually the FS cropped (need original theatrical version to confirm if open-matte FS). It may or may not be possible to compare to / find scenes from the original theatrical versions to prove definitively. Some people state they saw the original theatrical releases of the films in question and are sure about this.
I would just like confirmation about some of these suspect titles but can't realistically locate the theatrical release comparisons or find definitive info., again I do know that theatrical widescreen releases are matted to widescreen from the 35mm original and some FS transfers to VHS/Cable/DVD are from the original film with the matte removed. But many transfers are FS from the matted widescreen with or without pan and scan,etc.
It would be nice to discuss these possible problems in an objective and open way without the sometimes unkind statements that have been made.

I think it's simply much more likely that the framing is off. Move either of those last example frames up just a bit and you have a nicely composed still.

kg3, these new screencaps you've posted better demonstrate the problem you're describing.

I think canaryfarmer has it right. It's not that the widescreen image was cropped on the sides to 4:3 and then cropped again on top and bottom to 16:9. It looks like in the transition from the original 1.37:1 camera negative to the 16:9 DVD, the telecine operator fell asleep at the switch and slid the frame down too far. Especially in the first shot, you can see that there's too much footroom and not enough headroom. I don't think there's anything missing from the sides.

This explains it all. Basically the film was shot and meant for Academy Ratio, and then was converted to 'superscope' which crops a lot of the image. And the true aspect ratio of the film has never been released at all. Since the 'fullscreen' transfers available on video/dvd are pan & scan transfers from the cropped 'widescreen' print.

http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/wingss4.htm

It was likely meant to be shown around 1.66:1 to 1.85:1. The real problem was the SuperScope process blowing up the image too much and introducing a lot of extra graininess. The 2:1 framing is only slightly tight, so a transfer at 1.85:1 using standard 1.85:1 STMPE specs should look right.

Here's a another example of open matte vs. widescreen. Consider these screenshots from the R4 open matte, and R1 anamorphic releases:

http://www.************.com/eropen.jpg

Now compare the R1 anamorphic release frame:

http://www.************.com/erwide.jpg

In this frame you can clearly see the whole of frame as it exists on the print. Also, you can see Mary Woronov standing on her "mark", which is the white masking tape T under her feet. These things are normally masked when projected in the intended 1.85:1 ratio. A good example is Pee Wee's Big Adventure. The VHS tape is open matte, and without the 1.85:1 masking, you can see practical effects that are ruined by the open frame, in particular the ropes pulling the railroad signs when Pee Wee is driving at night, and the endless bike chain scene. Sometimes they are still visible, in this case probably due to the extremely low budget of the original production. In a modern production, actor's "marks", boom mikes and other things are digitally removed, so you don't see them.

The pictures you posted seem identical except one is horizontally stretched and the colors are different. But you can see the same things on the walls and the ground, including her mark. The only difference I see is that the top of the frame is trimmed, cutting off too much of the dude's head.

Uh, no. As droidguy said, there's no difference in the framing of those two shots. The bottom one has the exact same framing, it's just been squished.

It has been squished a little, but is definitely not the exact same.

The first image has been stretched vertically. The second image has been compressed vertically. Neither one has correct picture geometry.

Comparing the picture information at the edges of the two shots, the left edge is identical, the bottom edge is identical, and the right edge is identical. However, the first image has a bit more picture information at the top of the frame (you can see above the X-rays).

In any case, these shots do not make a very good example of what E. Honda describes them as. The tape laid down for the actress' mark is clearly visible in both images, indicating either that both are open-matte transfers to varying degrees, or that the tape was just a dumb production flub.

My doctor's office has pieces of tape on the floor also. I guess I live in an open-matte world.

:)

I think what TK is talking about is this... imagine a film that was only projected with a hard matte at 1.85:1, like Jurassic Park. Then imagine a fullscreen transfer is made for TV at 1.33:1. Then imagine Universal decides to release a widescreen version of the film on DVD, but instead of just transferring the original projected image, they take the 1.33:1 image and crop IT to 1.85:1. See examples below:


http://www.badongo.com/t/250/3801596 <- Original projected image

http://www.badongo.com/t/250/3801611 <- Cropped to 1.33:1

http://www.badongo.com/t/250/3801618 <- 1.33:1 image cropped to 1.85:1



You can see how in the second shot, information is lost on the sides. Then notice on the third shot, information is lost on the top and bottom, creating a very tight, poorly-framed image. I'm not in anyway implying that this was actually done to Jurassic Park, or any other film transfer, but I thought a visual example might help sort out what I think the OP was trying to illustrate.

Rooked, that's perfect! Now, has this actually happened?
I swear I remember reading about one such example here.