You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Vault Disney DVD Collection
- Thread starter Michael Zielski
- Start date
I wrote my message in a bit of a hurry (never a good idea), so perhaps I should back up a bit.
Old Yeller and Monkeys, Go Home! were shot flat (open matte) which means that no hard mattes were used in front of the lenses when they were being made.
Open matte filming method (1.33:1) is still used. The visual information at the top and bottom of the frame are matting out for theatrical release and the mattes are often removed for home video release. (Super 35 is similar but utilizes a common top frame with both projected and video presentations so only the bottom frame line is matted.)
Anyway, the new transfer of Old Yeller for use on the upcoming DVD release was full frame. Someone must have decided to matte the image slightly to 1.75 : 1. I don't have any problem with that but the laserdisc of a few years ago actually shows more visual information. The full frame was kept "clean" but I don't think anyone will really be disappointed with the minor matting utilized on the new DVD.
I've seen Old Yeller projected both matted and non-matted -- and feel that both "methods" serve the picture's story well. I'm certain that Charlie Boyle (the DP) didn't care if the image was matted or not but probably liked it better flat. I seem to recall that Yeller was the last picture he shot.
The point is, neither Yeller nor Monkeys is missing visual material from the sides... so neither has to be scanned and panned for release on DVD.
One last thing, for some reason my full thought regarding the 1.37:1 aspect ratio didn't make it into my post. 1.37:1 was used before the on-film audio track required the captured image to be the slightly smaller 1.33:1.
1313
Old Yeller and Monkeys, Go Home! were shot flat (open matte) which means that no hard mattes were used in front of the lenses when they were being made.
Open matte filming method (1.33:1) is still used. The visual information at the top and bottom of the frame are matting out for theatrical release and the mattes are often removed for home video release. (Super 35 is similar but utilizes a common top frame with both projected and video presentations so only the bottom frame line is matted.)
Anyway, the new transfer of Old Yeller for use on the upcoming DVD release was full frame. Someone must have decided to matte the image slightly to 1.75 : 1. I don't have any problem with that but the laserdisc of a few years ago actually shows more visual information. The full frame was kept "clean" but I don't think anyone will really be disappointed with the minor matting utilized on the new DVD.
I've seen Old Yeller projected both matted and non-matted -- and feel that both "methods" serve the picture's story well. I'm certain that Charlie Boyle (the DP) didn't care if the image was matted or not but probably liked it better flat. I seem to recall that Yeller was the last picture he shot.
The point is, neither Yeller nor Monkeys is missing visual material from the sides... so neither has to be scanned and panned for release on DVD.
One last thing, for some reason my full thought regarding the 1.37:1 aspect ratio didn't make it into my post. 1.37:1 was used before the on-film audio track required the captured image to be the slightly smaller 1.33:1.
1313
Sorry about the bad link back there for The Digital Bits interview... here's a good one http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/int...interview.html/
SharonKurland
Active Member
Michael-
of course, someone will always say that Disney is still getting your money...whoever it is that's selling the DVD on eBay or at the flea market or whatever, might be selling his SECOND copy (which is going to be the equivalent of your first copy). but I prefer to look at it as when you buy his, he won't have one anymore .
-Sharon-
of course, someone will always say that Disney is still getting your money...whoever it is that's selling the DVD on eBay or at the flea market or whatever, might be selling his SECOND copy (which is going to be the equivalent of your first copy). but I prefer to look at it as when you buy his, he won't have one anymore .
-Sharon-
Michael Zielski
Member
Thanks, Sharon--right when I thought I had a plan! Just kidding, thank you for your insight! And Shane, thanks for The Digital Bits reference--first time I was on the site, a great one! They have an anamorphic widescreen "tutorial" which I hope will fill in the gaps of my "widescreen knowlege"(or ignorance, I should say). Michael.
Jeff N Orange Coun
Member
Jeesh Sharon!!!
I thought I had it bad when I stood in the Indy line 3 hours on opening day!! My respects.
___
As for me I have recorded most of these titles in Pan and Scan from TDC over the last 10 years for my own personal use. Unless they have widescreen and many goodies I wont jump. Just too pricey.
My apologies to the copyright Gods.
I thought I had it bad when I stood in the Indy line 3 hours on opening day!! My respects.
___
As for me I have recorded most of these titles in Pan and Scan from TDC over the last 10 years for my own personal use. Unless they have widescreen and many goodies I wont jump. Just too pricey.
My apologies to the copyright Gods.
Disney Bean Counter -- your right, who but todays families will want to see Annette Funicello and Tommy Sands, you know, those big stars from 40 years ago, in a movie that is sooo in line with today's MTV generation, singing "lemonade" in pan-n-scan! Film enthusiast like us don't matter.
1313 -- your right, whether a movie was shot 1.33/full-frame, and projected 'matted' to 1.85, I may not be loosing visuals on the side, but I would rather have my next generation digital TV fill the whole wide-screen with the intended theatrical aspect ratio, then have black/grey bars on the side of my screen and have to zoom the image to fill the screen and distort the image. And whether or not Charlie Boyle liked 1.33 or 1.85, he still had to frame 'shots' for the 'matted' version. Why wouldn't he, if he knew his framing whould be compromised for intended theatrical projected aspect ratios? Walt Disney had an obligation to deliver (as a film distributor) to theater owners a film that could be projected in both ratios. Why not view the intended vision most theater viewers saw originally. We arn't losing anything, but we will gain down the road.
Shane -- I too read the article at thedigitalbits.com, but was unimpressed with BVHE's stance on the situation. WHITE FANG is rather featurless on dvd, so why not include both versions on the dvd, especially since the sequel was also released on the same day on dvd, but in anamorphic wide-screen? Full-frame or matted, it was projected atleast at 1.85 theatrically.
1313 -- your right, whether a movie was shot 1.33/full-frame, and projected 'matted' to 1.85, I may not be loosing visuals on the side, but I would rather have my next generation digital TV fill the whole wide-screen with the intended theatrical aspect ratio, then have black/grey bars on the side of my screen and have to zoom the image to fill the screen and distort the image. And whether or not Charlie Boyle liked 1.33 or 1.85, he still had to frame 'shots' for the 'matted' version. Why wouldn't he, if he knew his framing whould be compromised for intended theatrical projected aspect ratios? Walt Disney had an obligation to deliver (as a film distributor) to theater owners a film that could be projected in both ratios. Why not view the intended vision most theater viewers saw originally. We arn't losing anything, but we will gain down the road.
Shane -- I too read the article at thedigitalbits.com, but was unimpressed with BVHE's stance on the situation. WHITE FANG is rather featurless on dvd, so why not include both versions on the dvd, especially since the sequel was also released on the same day on dvd, but in anamorphic wide-screen? Full-frame or matted, it was projected atleast at 1.85 theatrically.
SharonKurland
Active Member
Wow...TWO Jeff Messages in the SAME DAY!
Hey Jeff...that's nothing. Before I was a Disney fan, I was a huge Monkees fan. Back in 1986, when three of the Monkees re-joined (for the first time), I was known to sit in line at a "general admission" concert for 10 hours, sans food or bathroom breaks (I was 20. I'm 36 now. I could NEVER do that now). I also slept on he sidewalksof Chicago (getting significantly more sleep than at the sleepover pin event last August, may I add) to get a good seat for a Monkees convention (yes, they had 'em) at the Bismarck Hotel. I was 21 for that. Obviously, I haven't smartened up much since I've grown up .
-Sharon-
Hey Jeff...that's nothing. Before I was a Disney fan, I was a huge Monkees fan. Back in 1986, when three of the Monkees re-joined (for the first time), I was known to sit in line at a "general admission" concert for 10 hours, sans food or bathroom breaks (I was 20. I'm 36 now. I could NEVER do that now). I also slept on he sidewalksof Chicago (getting significantly more sleep than at the sleepover pin event last August, may I add) to get a good seat for a Monkees convention (yes, they had 'em) at the Bismarck Hotel. I was 21 for that. Obviously, I haven't smartened up much since I've grown up .
-Sharon-
Will,
I can understand their position, but I am totally against it. I thought it was rather funny that they are still actually pushing the full color artwork as a major feature of each release. I personally seldom enjoy the artwork on the discs as the medium itself distorts it too much. I would much rather have a fold-out poster ala cds or more artwork in a gallery on the dvd itself.
Regarding their argument about limited space for said conversion format, I have seen dvds w/ the theatrical & director's/video version in widescreen on 1 side & plus both versions in p/s on side two. In other words, there were 4 full length films on one dvd. There were hardly any extra features, but then most of the Disney 'family' titles don't include much in the way of bonus material anyway. So what have they been doing with all of the available space on each disc up till now? Many of the so-called 'family' films are only 90 minutes long, so why can't they include both versions? How many people here honestly think the artwork is a feature that makes the dvd worth buying just for that?
As for its intended target of younsters, wouldn't they rather enjoy a poster that they could keep with them most of the time (including while they watch the film), instead of a relatively delicate dvd disc that mommy and daddy will make them put away before they ruin it? How many families have a disc doctor or similar device to repair scratched dvds? The "value" of this feature to me is highly negligible.
I can understand their position, but I am totally against it. I thought it was rather funny that they are still actually pushing the full color artwork as a major feature of each release. I personally seldom enjoy the artwork on the discs as the medium itself distorts it too much. I would much rather have a fold-out poster ala cds or more artwork in a gallery on the dvd itself.
Regarding their argument about limited space for said conversion format, I have seen dvds w/ the theatrical & director's/video version in widescreen on 1 side & plus both versions in p/s on side two. In other words, there were 4 full length films on one dvd. There were hardly any extra features, but then most of the Disney 'family' titles don't include much in the way of bonus material anyway. So what have they been doing with all of the available space on each disc up till now? Many of the so-called 'family' films are only 90 minutes long, so why can't they include both versions? How many people here honestly think the artwork is a feature that makes the dvd worth buying just for that?
As for its intended target of younsters, wouldn't they rather enjoy a poster that they could keep with them most of the time (including while they watch the film), instead of a relatively delicate dvd disc that mommy and daddy will make them put away before they ruin it? How many families have a disc doctor or similar device to repair scratched dvds? The "value" of this feature to me is highly negligible.