Snow White on Laser - Letterbox?!?

[Y. Chen]

I was watching the Collector's edition of the Snow White Laser disc and
it seems that the film was not released in letterbox format. Is it true or
did I get the wrong version? Or is the original film was released in this
format?

Thanks,

[Greg Sarcasm Is A Way Of Life Spira]

The original film was released in that format; there is no need for
letterboxing the film (or 99% of pre-1950 films).

Greg

[Ronald Epstein]

Hi!

There is no need to letterbox SNOW WHITE.

Back in the 30's, there were no WIDESCREEN movies like we have today.
The films were shown on a smaller screen.

What you are seeing on video, is all you can get!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
roep...@delphi.com
THE HOME THEATER FORUM is the most unique and friendly forum group discussing
VHS & Laserdiscs/Satellites/Home Theater/Current Theatrical. You will not
find a more personable board of its kind. Try us for 5 hours FREE on
DELPHI! FULL INTERNET ACCESS, TOO!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

[REGGUYBOST]

In article <38siod$1...@cville-srv.wam.umd.edu>, ch...@wam.umd.edu (Y.
Chen) writes:

Thanks,
>

WRONG! Letterboxing is a means of preserving the original aspect ratio of
the film. Most films were not filmed widescreen until the fifties (in
order to 'compete' with TV). Snow was filmed in the thirties!!!!! Same
as Wizard of Oz, Gone with the Wind, etc. None are widescreen, and as a
result none are letterboxed!

[Steve Fenwick]

In article <38siod$1...@cville-srv.wam.umd.edu>,

Both the CLV and CAV versions are in the original Academy format. No
letterboxing needed.

Steve

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Fenwick s...@W0X0F.com, s...@sgi.mti.com

[Yet Another Steve]

When SNOW WHITE was re-released to theaters a few (5?) years ago, there was
some complaint that the restoration had been re-formatted from its original
square aspect ratio to something more approaching wide-screen; this resulted
in parts of the top and bottom of the image being lopped off. One scene in
particular was often mentioned -- everyone's looking up at the Pretty Birdies
or some such, only the birdies are no longer in the field of view.

Does anyone know if the video release perpetuates this, or does it present
the entire square image?

-- Steve, reluctant to shell out the bucks without knowing

[chuck cilek]

In article <steve_hoffmann-...@shoffman.sdd.trw.com>,
Yet Another Steve <steve_h...@qmail4.trw.sp.com> wrote:
[50th anniv. theatrical release in 1.85 horror story deleted]

>
>Does anyone know if the video release perpetuates this, or does it present
>the entire square image?

The video release is in the original aspect ratio (Academy) or is
close enough. Obviously it doesn't need to be LBX'd.

Aside: Perhaps we should lead a movement to replace the term
'letterboxing' with the term 'original aspect ratio' so instead
of CAV LBX we could say CAV OAR. It would help minimize confusion.

The 1993 theatrical release prints were 1.33 printed
inside the standard 1.85 ratio (ie the picture on the screen was
correct at 1.33; if you looked at the actual frames going through
the projector, the whole frame was reduced to fit inside the 1.85
area so that the usual aperature plates could be used. Apparently,
there are not many theatres equipped to show Academy ratio films
properly.) This info is from the supplements.

--
WWW page under construction: http://nyx10.cs.du.edu:8001/~ccilek/home.html
"[Princess Jasmine], you're speechless I see.
A fine quality in a wife" -Jafar, _Aladdin_

[Steve Fenwick]

In article <396g63$b...@nyx10.cs.du.edu>, cci...@nyx10.cs.du.edu (chuck

cilek) wrote:
> Aside: Perhaps we should lead a movement to replace the term
> 'letterboxing' with the term 'original aspect ratio' so instead
> of CAV LBX we could say CAV OAR. It would help minimize confusion.

This is a great suggestion! There's actually three possibilities, right?

P&S Pan & Scan (implies not original aspect ratio)
LBX Letterbox (implies an aspect ratio that's not the original,
but not cropped to 1.33:1)
OAR Original Aspect Ratio (ratio as originally released to theatres)

I don't have any hard evidence that LBX, non-OAR every existed, but I seem
to think that some releases may fall into this category.

Can we get this "blessed" by the god of video, Prof. Niland? :)

Steve

--
Steve Fenwick s...@w0x0f.com

[Charles Henrich]

s...@w0x0f.com (Steve Fenwick) writes:

After about a month of owning laserdiscs I made the above change to my personal
database of disc's. It just became to difficult to determine if something is
Pan&Cram, OMT (Open Matte) or LBX or whatever. I now use OAR, P&S, and when I
know, OMT.

-Crh
--

Charles Henrich Michigan State University hen...@crh.cl.msu.edu

http://rs560.msu.edu/~henrich/

[Timm Doolen]

In article <scf-021194...@w0x0f.com> s...@w0x0f.com (Steve Fenwick) writes:
>In article <396g63$b...@nyx10.cs.du.edu>, cci...@nyx10.cs.du.edu (chuck
>cilek) wrote:
>> Aside: Perhaps we should lead a movement to replace the term
>> 'letterboxing' with the term 'original aspect ratio' so instead
>> of CAV LBX we could say CAV OAR. It would help minimize confusion.
>
>This is a great suggestion! There's actually three possibilities, right?
>
>P&S Pan & Scan (implies not original aspect ratio)
>LBX Letterbox (implies an aspect ratio that's not the original,
> but not cropped to 1.33:1)
>OAR Original Aspect Ratio (ratio as originally released to theatres)

You also need to distinguish between P&S and full-frame, where they open
up the matte instead of panning. Some people prefer full-frame to
letterboxing. (not me, of course)

>
>I don't have any hard evidence that LBX, non-OAR every existed, but I seem
>to think that some releases may fall into this category.
>

Here's some evidence:

The first ltbx version of Abyss was only partially letterboxed. Look
at Phil Kim's review of Abyss on his WWW page as to why Cameron did this.

Also, some movies that were wider than 2.35:1 originally are letterboxed
at 2.35:1. For instance, Ben-Hur, which was 2.66 or 2.75:1 was recently
letterboxed at 2.35:1. The company's reasoning was that pictures
smaller than 2.35:1 on the TV screen really push the limitations of
NTSC resolution and viewers' eyesight, so losing the 10-15% off of the
sides wasn't considered that big a loss.

There were also some questions a few months ago about Mary Poppins's
Archive collection being ltbx'd at the proper aspect ratio.

I'm sure there's dozens more anecdotes like this. Personally, I think
that if there less than a 5-8% difference in projected ratio to
video ratio, it's nitpicking. Aspect ratios from theater to theater
on the same movie will vary more than 10%.

-----------------
Timm
-----------------