is jungle book 16x9 ratio that bad?

[2099net]

Warner Bros have released various 4:3 format films and shorts in 4:3 on HD DVD and Blu-ray. Examples are The Adventures of Robin Hood and Casablana, and High-Def Loony Tunes shorts on various discs. They're also going to release Justice League Season 1 on Blu-ray in 4:3 format (when they could legitimately release it in 16:9 - in fact, most people want it to be released in 16:9!)

Disney also released the Pixar Shorts Blu-ray which has 4:3 content.

[drfsupercenter]

But are they "widescreen" with a pillarbox, or is it actually fullscreen?

[2099net]

Pillerbox - I don't believe the format[s] allows for 4:3 content. It doesn't matter how they're encoded though, the vertical resolution will be 1080 lines either way.

Another Disney example:
Mars and Beyond on the Roving Mars Blu-ray. As the back cover image shows, the extras are 1080 HD, but it retains its 1.33:1 ratio.
http://www.dvdempire.com/Exec/v4_item.a ... #topoftabs

[drfsupercenter]

Yeah, I didn't think Blu-Ray allowed for 4:3.

I noticed that the Pinocchio re-release trailer (at least one of them) was cropped to widescreen (since it was in theaters past when they supported 4:3)... so there's a good chance it'll be T&S on Blu-Ray.

For that matter, I'm sure almost all the Disney classics were cropped to widescreen when they were shown in theaters past the 70s... I was born in 1991 so of course I wouldn't know

[gregmasciola]

Yeah, I didn't think Blu-Ray allowed for 4:3.

I noticed that the Pinocchio re-release trailer (at least one of them) was cropped to widescreen (since it was in theaters past when they supported 4:3)... so there's a good chance it'll be T&S on Blu-Ray.

I really don't think they'll crop Pinocchio. I know they did it with Jungle Book and many people hated that, but Jungle Book was framed so it could be widescreen and fullscreen (kind of). Movies like Pinocchio, Snow White, and Peter Pan were just framed for fullscreen. Jungle Book was a little bit "tight" at times, but Pinocchio would definitley NOT look good if it were cropped. But like I said, I don't think they will do that.

[Escapay]

I noticed that the Pinocchio re-release trailer (at least one of them) was cropped to widescreen (since it was in theaters past when they supported 4:3)... so there's a good chance it'll be T&S on Blu-Ray.

Disney can be stupid at times but they're not THAT stupid!

Albert

[2099net]

I think its important to note that there are - depending on how you look at it - possibly valid reasons why owners of 4:3 tv sets would want their screen filled.

Firstly, they were watching off VHS tapes. Now VHS only has 320 lines of resolution. Block off the top and bottom with black bars and the quality of the image is substandard. Detail did get lost. By P&S the image, it would be bigger and it would have more detail. Of course this doesn't explain open matting, where the actual detail would be the same as the image isn't zoomed, just opened up, but generally people would be ignorant of this, and see something that to them was better.

Of course DVD increase the vertical resolution, and now Blu-ray has increased it again. These days on current technology, the resolutiuon shouldn't really be an issue.

Now, when a 4:3 image is shown on a widescreen TV, it is still the same height as a 16:9 image. So claims that the image is smaller and harder to see or lacks detail don't have as much import as a 16:9 image on a 4:3 television. For this reason, I don't expect T&S to become a common practice. I do worry that scope films may be cropped/P&S to 16:9 format though once Blu-ray becomes more mainstream.

[deathie mouse]

Hollywood went widescreen in the mid fifties. Try to find me a 1.37 film from the 60's on. No Dr. Strangelove doesn't count. Nor the Coppola movie.

[drfsupercenter]

Yeah, I used to be "pro-fullscreen", but only because I thought widescreen versions were vertically cropped.

About 3 years ago, a friend linked me to a page on starwars.com showing the differences between widescreen and fullscreen, and I realized it was actually the reverse of what I thought, and started buying widescreen movies.

However, I'm not "pro-widescreen" either. I just want the original. That goes for Disney movies as well.

As far as Pinocchio goes, we'll have to wait and see... I'm sure all of their older classics were cropped to widescreen for newer theatrical re-releases, how else would they do it? I do find it funny that 90% of the Disney DVDs with theatrical previews have them fullscreen (what theater shows fullscreen previews?) but for a movie that was animated in fullscreen, the preview's widescreen.

Now, when a 4:3 image is shown on a widescreen TV, it is still the same height as a 16:9 image. So claims that the image is smaller and harder to see or lacks detail don't have as much import as a 16:9 image on a 4:3 television. For this reason, I don't expect T&S to become a common practice. I do worry that scope films may be cropped/P&S to 16:9 format though once Blu-ray becomes more mainstream.

I just wish that widescreen TVs pillarboxed by default... they all stretch the image! Heck, I had to look at several stores to find a portable DVD player that had an OPTION to pillarbox, all the $100 cheap Wal-Mart ones automatically stretched and there wasn't a thing you can do about it.

As I like to think, the majority of America is stupid (thank you Green Day for the song title) and would go "OMG what happened to my TV? There are black bars on the movie! It must be broken!", that's probably the reason VHS was pan-and-scan by practice in the first place.

[Mooky]

I don't care if it's fullscreen or widescreen (I don't mind black bars), I just want to see as much image as possible.

[drfsupercenter]

Well "as much image as possible" is a funny term.

Here they tell you that widescreen has more image than fullscreen. Well, I beg to differ. Technically the most image you can possibly get is a square. So the closer to a square, the more image.

That being said, I still want my movies widescreen, but if a movie's animated in fullscreen (look at a lot of Pixar stuff, the fullscreen releases have more on the top and bottom than the widescreen) it will have more picture than the fullscreen.

[2099net]

I just wish that widescreen TVs pillarboxed by default... they all stretch the image! Heck, I had to look at several stores to find a portable DVD player that had an OPTION to pillarbox, all the $100 cheap Wal-Mart ones automatically stretched and there wasn't a thing you can do about it.

As I like to think, the majority of America is stupid (thank you Green Day for the song title) and would go "OMG what happened to my TV? There are black bars on the movie! It must be broken!", that's probably the reason VHS was pan-and-scan by practice in the first place.

Mine doesn't. But then I'm from the UK. Also the PS3 playing 4:3 content automatically pillarboxes too. I normally have my TV set to Auto Wide, and it's never made any attempt to stretch a 4:3 image over HDMI (be it PS3 or my HD DVD player), but sometimes does attempt to do so over terrestrial analog tv transmissions (again, it never does over digital terrestrial tv transmissions).

And hey, even if it does, the correction is only 1 button click away! It really is no big deal.

[2099net]

Well "as much image as possible" is a funny term.

Here they tell you that widescreen has more image than fullscreen. Well, I beg to differ. Technically the most image you can possibly get is a square. So the closer to a square, the more image.

But its also less, because its smaller and has less pixels than a rectangle of the same height.

That being said, I still want my movies widescreen, but if a movie's animated in fullscreen (look at a lot of Pixar stuff, the fullscreen releases have more on the top and bottom than the widescreen) it will have more picture than the fullscreen.

But that picture is irrelevant 90% of the time - its empty air. Even with Pixar's recompositions, it's a compromise. Pixar obviously storyboarded and did the original frame compositions for the theatrical widescreen ratio. Why settle for the compromised image at all?

[Mooky]

Well "as much image as possible" is a funny term.

Here they tell you that widescreen has more image than fullscreen. Well, I beg to differ. Technically the most image you can possibly get is a square. So the closer to a square, the more image.

That being said, I still want my movies widescreen, but if a movie's animated in fullscreen (look at a lot of Pixar stuff, the fullscreen releases have more on the top and bottom than the widescreen) it will have more picture than the fullscreen.

I mean, if a fullscreen release of - let's say - "Bug's Life" has more image at the top and bottom why don't they just keep that ratio for the widescreen release but expand the image more on the sides (not stretch it)? That would be the best solution, IMO.

[2099net]

I mean, if a fullscreen release of - let's say - "Bug's Life" has more image at the top and bottom why don't they just keep that ratio for the widescreen release but expand the image more on the sides (not stretch it)? That would be the best solution, IMO.

No it wouldn't. Because then you'd have an image with nothing of concequence around all four sides of the image. it would make the whole film appear empty, distant and underwhelming.

Look, you can't reframe "art". Nobody here would suggest The Mona Lisa had a different ratio with more background added to the sides would they? People would literally laugh if that was suggested. So why is it different for a movie?

[drfsupercenter]

But that picture is irrelevant 90% of the time - its empty air. Even with Pixar's recompositions, it's a compromise. Pixar obviously storyboarded and did the original frame compositions for the theatrical widescreen ratio. Why settle for the compromised image at all?

Well, I was watching Toy Story 2, and some detail seemed to be cut off in the widescreen version... like at the beginning when video-game Buzz is flying and you see a close-up of his head.

I'm not saying stuff should be reframed, I'm just saying I think it's silly that they're getting wider and wider.

As far as pixels go... that only applies to digital stuff, when it's on a film reel it's not stored in pixels.

But even stuff like commercials are being shot widescreen now... even on TV stations that don't broadcast in HD! (Things like Cartoon Network... even if you had HDTV, it would hopefully be pillarboxed and then you'd have double black bars)

And @2099net, you're lucky... the American portable DVD players are stupid, they literally only had one model at Best Buy (out of 10 or so) that even allowed you to change the displayed aspect ratio. And the store employee was like "why would you WANT black bars" and I was like "For the same reason that I wish store employees knew what they were talking about"

[akhenaten]

well its clearly made known that pixar's fullscreen reframing is a positional alteration of characters for some shots instead of cropping..and the advantage of 3d films is they have a fully built environment. one good example is the hopper peeking behind the leave chair in a bug's life.

[Escapay]

Try to find me a 1.37 film from the 60's on.

Manos, The Hands of Fate! (And by "the Coppola movie", I'm assuming you mean One from the Heart?)

Also, would The Good German count? It was framed for 1.37:1 but had to be matted in theatres, while the DVD retains its original 1.37:1 ratio.

Plus, there's a slew of television movies filmed in 1.37:1, but I don't think you meant those.

Here they tell you that widescreen has more image than fullscreen. Well, I beg to differ. Technically the most image you can possibly get is a square. So the closer to a square, the more image.

And yet 70mm films are nowhere near a square...

But its also less, because its smaller and has less pixels than a rectangle of the same height.

Thank you, netty.

As far as pixels go... that only applies to digital stuff, when it's on a film reel it's not stored in pixels.

When it's being transferred for digital processing, then it's stored in pixels.

Albert

[drfsupercenter]

Yes, I know how pixels work...
I'm just saying in theory, if you have a rectangle, expanding it to a square gives you more image. Expand it in either direction and it'll keep making its way back to a square.

I have nothing against widescreen, I just find it funny how our films keep getting wider and wider (just a few years ago they were all 1.85!), and those bars keep getting bigger and bigger on my TV. What's next, 3:1? Or maybe a 360-degree movie that's somewhere in the vicinity of 20:1?

[Escapay]

I'm just saying in theory, if you have a rectangle, expanding it to a square gives you more image.

If you're talking about unmatting a Super35 film, it will. But anything else will result in a vertically-stretched version of the same image.

Expand it in either direction and it'll keep making its way back to a square.

Take a screencap of a 2.35:1 filim and expand it in both directions until you have your square. Does the image look better or worse?

I have nothing against widescreen, I just find it funny how our films keep getting wider and wider (just a few years ago they were all 1.85!)

For god's sake, they have not been getting "wider and wider". Early widescreen was in 2.35:1 and 2.55:1 and throughout the 1950s it was the most common form of widescreen used (thanks largely to processes like CinemaScope, Todd-AO, Panavision). 2.35:1 is still used today on many features, especially action films. If anything, 1.85:1 is the less-common one that has really gained prominence in the past 15 years due to being closer to the 1.78:1 ratio of widescreen TVs.

I don't know why I'm still replying to your misinformed posts. Your lack of information regarding widescreen astounds me, especially since you're so keen to either bash or praise certain aspects of it without truly understanding the process at all.

Please, for the love of all things original aspect ratio, go to these sites:

http://www.widescreen.org

http://www.widescreenmuseum.com

Or maybe a 360-degree movie

You've never been to a Disney theme park, have you? They've had Circle-Vision 360 presentations for decades. America the Beautiful, Reflections of China, O Canada, The Timekeeper, etc.

Albert