Darby O'Gill and the Little People DVD Press Release

All topics relating to Disney-branded content.
User avatar
deathie mouse
Ultraviolet Edition
Posts: 1391
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 1:12 am
Location: Alea jacta est

Post by deathie mouse »

bmadigan wrote:Could Disney have done this with TV in mind? So that they could show the film on TV later without modifying it with pan and scan?
That is one reason the MAYORITY of standart Widescreen movies (1.66-1.85) are shot open matte. (Another is that there's no need to modify or make two separate kinds of cameras (one for Academy ratio and another for Widescreen ratios) the Academy type serves for both, since it's in PROJECTION that the Aspect Ratio is presented.)

But make no mistake, the image must be composed for the "letterboxed" within the camera area , otherwise when projected on theaters, the image would have choppped off heads and feets, like an abnormal vertical pan/scan job. (Or like what would happen when projecting the Academy ratio movies like Gone With The Wind and Wizard of Oz, Snow White , etc in Widescreen)

here's a quote that talks about this too on

http://www.tech-notes.tv/Jim/Articles/Cut-Off.html

The article wrote:It is important to note that all wide-screen films employ aspect ratios based on the projection aperture not the camera aperture. At present, most films shot for the United States are generally composed for a 1.85:1 A/R, while European films are generally composed for the 1.66:1 A/R.

Surveys of theaters throughout the world have shown that actual projection screenings fall somewhere between 1.66:1 and 1.85:1, with the average about 1.75:1.

The projection problem complicates composing for flat wide-screen films in the camera because the top and bottom of the frame are imaginary lines. The cameraperson is at the mercy of the projectionist for both up-and-down framing and choice of mask. Screen proportions may further mutilate the composition. There is no guarantee that flat wide-screen films in any aspect ratio will appear on the screen as composed in the camera.

American producers, generally, do not shoot with a hard matte in the camera which would result in the desired aspect ratio on the original negative. However the cinematographer does compose with some aspect ratio, other than the 4x3 or 1.33:1 full aperture A/R, based on lines drawn on the graticule or focusing screen. All American releases are generally slated for showing on television later and an elongated A/R hard matte in the camera would result in masking at the top and bottom (letterbox) of the television display. Therefore, the entire aperture must be "protected", i.e., kept clear of lights, mike booms, scaffolding, etc. Although these things will not be seen on the theatrical screen, they will appear on standard 4x3 A/R television sets.

movie title typo now gone with the wind
:brick:
Last edited by deathie mouse on Wed Aug 04, 2004 1:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
bmadigan
Gold Classic Collection
Posts: 142
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2004 10:18 am

Post by bmadigan »

According to a review by Darrell Heath over at Amazon there is a flyer included that states,

"Darby O'Gill and the Little People is presented as it was originally shot, in a 1.33;1 aspect ratio. When released to theaters in 1959, the studio recommended projecting the image at 1.75:1, to satisy the public's growing appetite for widescreen movies. To give the illusion of this wider image, theaters often needed to crop films at that time, and some of the picture was not seen. The following presentation has not been cropped, and none of the original image has been lost"

Does this settle the issue?
User avatar
disneyunlimited
Gold Classic Collection
Posts: 137
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2004 6:16 pm
Location: London, England
Contact:

The Little People

Post by disneyunlimited »

Finally got round to watching my PAL DVD of Darby last night. The kids loved it although I thought it was all a bit silly. I watched it on the widescreen telly in 'zoom' mode which chops off the top and bottom and displays the 1.33:1 picture as 1.78:1, which is near enough the OAR. The titles fitted fine as expected and no heads were chopped off. Picture quality was excellent. Another fine family feature from Disney. The only unconvincing bit about the film was Sean Connery's Irish accent!
User avatar
deathie mouse
Ultraviolet Edition
Posts: 1391
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 1:12 am
Location: Alea jacta est

OIR OAR OTR

Post by deathie mouse »

bmadigan wrote:Does this settle the issue?
With that and Disneyunlimited's post I think it does :D

The flyer is just saying the same thing in a backwards way: shot open matte projected in widescreen 1.75

By 1959, 7 years after Cinerama and 6 after Cinemascope every mayor production knew it would be projected widescreen.

(To give you a frame of reference, it's been about the same amount of time or so since DTS and DolbyDigital 5.1 prints were introduced to theaters)
Disney in it's flyer wrote:When released to theaters in 1959, the studio recommended projecting the image at 1.75:1
Were films released in any other way back then? ;)

(*thinks of images of proto DVDs released in huge metal discs the size of truck wheels for home DVD players the size of closets)

If the studio "recommended projecting the image at 1.75" that's the original Intended ratio.

(It could have recommended 1.66 if the film was 1.375)



Releasing it in open matte showing the full camera aperture avoids pan/scaning it or cropping anything and people who want to watch it "full frame" on their 4:3 tv's will have their screen filled, and people who want to see it as in the theater just have to zoom it on their 16:9 displays, as it was done in the original theatrical presentation. As it still done today for standart Widescreen movies. As Disneyunlimited just did :)
User avatar
Joe Carioca
Collector's Edition
Posts: 2039
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2003 5:05 pm
Location: Brazil

Post by Joe Carioca »

I've never imagined "Darby O'Gill" was such a popular title with general public... it is on the 8th spot of Amazon's top sellers chart! Why Disney didn't give it a 2-disc special edition release is beyond me!
User avatar
Poppins#1
Gold Classic Collection
Posts: 244
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2004 11:46 am
Location: Portland, OR

Post by Poppins#1 »

bmadigan wrote:"Darby O'Gill and the Little People is presented as it was originally shot, in a 1.33;1 aspect ratio. When released to theaters in 1959, the studio recommended projecting the image at 1.75:1, to satisy the public's growing appetite for widescreen movies. To give the illusion of this wider image, theaters often needed to crop films at that time, and some of the picture was not seen. The following presentation has not been cropped, and none of the original image has been lost"
This would definitely coincide with the observations I made on my full screen laserdisc which seemed to me to be an open-matte uncropped transfer. I can't wait to get my hands on this new DVD. I've only been buying the full frame disney titles that are definitely NOT cropped.
User avatar
MickeyMouseboy
Platinum Edition
Posts: 3470
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2003 4:35 pm
Location: ToonTown

Post by MickeyMouseboy »

Joe Carioca wrote:I've never imagined "Darby O'Gill" was such a popular title with general public... it is on the 8th spot of Amazon's top sellers chart! Why Disney didn't give it a 2-disc special edition release is beyond me!
That's what I keep wondering. They should have release it as a 2 disc the open matte on disc 2 and the Original Theatrical Aspect Ratio on Disc 1.
User avatar
Luke
Site Admin
Posts: 10037
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2003 4:57 pm
Location: Dinosaur World
Contact:

Post by Luke »

User avatar
deathie mouse
Ultraviolet Edition
Posts: 1391
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 1:12 am
Location: Alea jacta est

Post by deathie mouse »

Great review Luke! :up:

The colors look great the image looks graeat the audio is the correct one.

Just 2 notes :P

first a minor one. When Disney says: "as it was originally shot, in a 1.33:1" and "Presented as Originally Filmed in 1959 - Fullscreen (1.33:1)" well you and I know that's inaccurate cus Academy/Open Matte/whatever is 1.375

I know 1.33 is the "family friendly" general public nomenclature, but it bothers me they keep perpetuating this Silent movie Aspect ratio myth, specially when movie studios use phrases like "as Originaly Filmed in a 1:33:1 ratio" when that's not the truth. (hey when you buy a bag of Doritos, it says "X ounces, the contents may have settled down in transit." They could say "Presented Full Frame 1.33 aproxemately the original theatrical ratio." In fact didn't studios used to say it more or less like that? ) But anyway that's splitting hairs.

My second point :P is that I cropped your captures to 1.75 and they look (to me) perfect that way.
I asume that Full Frame means just that: the original 480x720 DVD image is showing the full frame Academy/Open Matte 1.375 image, then i slice an 1.75 image from it, on your 200 x 267 caps.
I crop out the top 20 pixels and the bottom 23, ending with 157 x 267. To eliminate psychovisual impressions i blow the captures up so the vertical image fills the screen (so the image is big and not letterboxed.) looks good to me.

Don't ban me now! :lol:

;)

(On the 480 x 720 image that would be crop the top 48 and the bottom 55)

(Yeah I know that gives an aspect ratio of 1.70 on a computer display, but remember i use Brooadcast Standarts and on a professional $$$$ video display the 377 x 720 image would display in the correct Disney Ratio :P)

Anyway, I find nothing wrong with the disc from what i read on your review so i'm looking foward to buying it so I hope everybody enjoys it a lot :)
User avatar
Hennie
Gold Classic Collection
Posts: 390
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2003 12:52 pm
Contact:

Post by Hennie »

Great review Luke :thumb:
I am gonna buy the region 1 too :D
User avatar
Loomis
Signature Collection
Posts: 6357
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2003 4:44 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia ... where there is no Magic Kingdom :(
Contact:

Post by Loomis »

Luke wrote:Here's our review:
http://www.ultimatedisney.com/darbyogill.html
Excellent stuff, L.

So glad that I held off from buying the local edition, as the 49 minute Disneyland episode makes this all the more worthwhile.

Also good to see Sean was willing to be interviewed about this. His dulcet tones make the world taste good.

It is certainly the best single disc version of Darby that could be put together, short of a commentary. But really, with over an hour of extras, this exceeds everything that I expected (which was the barebones pan & scan transfer that Australia got).

Can't wait for it to arrive.
Behind the Panels - Comic book news, reviews and podcast
The Reel Bits - All things film
Twitter - Follow me on Twitter
User avatar
disneyunlimited
Gold Classic Collection
Posts: 137
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2004 6:16 pm
Location: London, England
Contact:

Pan & Scan?

Post by disneyunlimited »

Loomis, I think you'll find the R4 Darby is open matte, the same as the UK edition - i.e. NOT pan and scan!
User avatar
Loomis
Signature Collection
Posts: 6357
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2003 4:44 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia ... where there is no Magic Kingdom :(
Contact:

Re: Pan & Scan?

Post by Loomis »

disneyunlimited wrote:Loomis, I think you'll find the R4 Darby is open matte, the same as the UK edition - i.e. NOT pan and scan!
Oh yes, I think I meant I skipped the release thinking it was P&S, when in fact it was not. Either way, it was barebones, and this is quite clearly not.

It's 3am...give me a break :)
Behind the Panels - Comic book news, reviews and podcast
The Reel Bits - All things film
Twitter - Follow me on Twitter
User avatar
AwallaceUNC
Signature Collection
Posts: 9439
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2003 1:00 am
Contact:

Post by AwallaceUNC »

As I told Luke in the chat, this review is great and really has me excited. I must admit that I had low expectations for this release. It sounds to be a wonderful addition to any collection, though! The special features are great, and I am so enthused that Disney went out of their way to explain the confusion over the aspect ratio to the public. Who knew they cared about OAR?? It's really starting to seem like they do- and like they are listening to the public (hey, they must have known there was confusion!). Bravo, Disney. I think I'll add this to my Christmas list. I liked the movie as a child, but don't remember it all that well.

-Aaron
• Author of Hocus Pocus in Focus: The Thinking Fan's Guide to Disney's Halloween Classic
and The Thinking Fan's Guide to Walt Disney World: Magic Kingdom (Epcot coming soon)
• Host of Zip-A-Dee-Doo-Pod, the longest-running Disney podcast
• Entertainment Writer & Moderator at DVDizzy.com
• Twitter - @aaronspod
User avatar
Poppins#1
Gold Classic Collection
Posts: 244
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2004 11:46 am
Location: Portland, OR

Post by Poppins#1 »

deathie mouse wrote:My second point :P is that I cropped your captures to 1.75 and they look (to me) perfect that way.
Any way you could post these pix? It would make an interesting comparison in composition!
User avatar
deathie mouse
Ultraviolet Edition
Posts: 1391
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 1:12 am
Location: Alea jacta est

Post by deathie mouse »

I have no hosting thinguie.

The easiest quickest way for you to see them is crop them yourself like i explained. 20 from the top/23 from the bottom from the captures in the review. (or crop the other suggested ammount for full 480 pixel tall captures).

Since then, i've been in contact with Disneyunlimited since he has the PAL disc, which shows the Full open matte (the NTSC disc is cropping some of the image by going from the 486 x 720 Professional NTSC Digital format to the mpeg2 480 x 720 DVD format, which doesn't happen in PAL) so i could do a real acuurate center extraction from it. (That's one reason i say "crop 20 top/23 bottom" on the NTSC derived review captures instead of "crop equal amounts from top and bottom")

For fun, I also did a quick and dirty "restore" on the PAL image to make it have the Technicolor look instead the more muted/realistic look favored today.


But i'm waiting for Disneyunlimited's reply before I try to post anything, cus after all, it's his capture ;) and I wanted to talk to him before even mentioning it, but since you asked...
User avatar
Poppins#1
Gold Classic Collection
Posts: 244
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2004 11:46 am
Location: Portland, OR

Post by Poppins#1 »

Like this, deathie mouse? It was a very low rez picture so saving it as a jpeg again after cropping made it ever crappier :(

Image
User avatar
deathie mouse
Ultraviolet Edition
Posts: 1391
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 1:12 am
Location: Alea jacta est

Post by deathie mouse »

Yes, Poppins#1 just like that. Don't worry about the compression

:)
User avatar
disneyunlimited
Gold Classic Collection
Posts: 137
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2004 6:16 pm
Location: London, England
Contact:

Widescreen

Post by disneyunlimited »

Hey, Poppins#1 beat us to it...

Here's another image with the same effect...

Image

As deathie mouse mentioned there are a few extra pixels at the top on the PAL DVD as you can see below...

Image Image

However, as these wouldn't be visible in the widescreen image it doesn't really matter.
(The colours on the PAL transfer are very dark so I had to enhance the image to match the NTSC "technicolour" levels.)

Oh, and the PAL disc is dual-encoded Regions 2 & 4 so presumably is the same as the Aussie one, i.e. film only, no extras (although it does include French and German audio and subtitles!)
User avatar
deathie mouse
Ultraviolet Edition
Posts: 1391
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 1:12 am
Location: Alea jacta est

Deathie's Violent Act

Post by deathie mouse »

If you have seen Crocodile Dundee you might get this next sentence ;)


(Paraphrasing Crocodile Dundee) That's not OAR. Now, this is OAR.


Image




:D

Remember, that just for fun, I also changed the look to try to emulate that of a blindingly bright Technicolour. So it looks VERY different from Luke's and Disneyunlimited's original capture's in rendition . :twisted:

Technical specifications/Credits

Original PAL 576 x 720 image at precise Computer Digital 0-255 levels courtesy of Disneyunlimited.
Widened to it's correct 1.375 Academy open matte aspect ratio from PAL 576x720 file using nearest neighbor interpolation (fastest, but worst)
Cropped from the center, down to 453 x 792, 1.75 Disney Widescreen ratio
Contrast tone curve, sharpness and color adjusted to resemble super bright Technicolor look using only 8 bits and only one "move" per adjustment.
Final mage compressed at least 3 times: original mpeg2, Disneyunlimitedjpeg, deathiemousejpeg. So after the tone curve adjustment and saturation to make it bright and Technicolour, the mpeg noise artifacts have been incresed a LOT. So mmm it's probably 6 bits by now and 100:1 compressed :lol: (You should see the PAL DVD original, which is transfered very dark and muted)

If only i could get my hands on the negatives to have a really clean one.

MUAHAHAHAH!!

:twisted: :ears:

As you can see you could still crop up to 18 pixels from the top. In fact i prefer it cropped that way (435 x 792, 1.82) without those 18 pixels, which its probably very close to how it would have looked projected on the common USA Widescreen theater 1.85 screen.


If my image looks too bright (or too dark), if you can, adjust the gamma control on your image editor or video card up or down, so it looks correct on your setup/enviroment. (I usually adjust images for my normal set up in which I watch images in a cave err... I mean a total darkened room with a black surround with the CRT monitor's black adjusted to 0 light output to maximise saturation and contrast (like in a movie theater) but i did this during the day with open windows thinking most of you might be reading this in a bright home in daylight or an office enviroment, but i might been way off. (thats what the gamma control is good for. Make it look the best for your viewing conditions) For those of you that don't have gamma/can't be bothered to play with adjustments :P , in any case there' a darker, richer colour version of this on http://disneyunlimited.com/darby/images/dm2.jpg

If more people like the darker one i'll switch places with the lighter one :P

The choice of surround background also afects the way it looks.

Best Theater effect when seen at full monitor screen height or close to it. Specially a 16:9 monitor of course :twisted:


Deathie Mouse would like to express lots of thanks to Disneyunlimited for his considerable help and webspace use. :ears:

_________________
I'm nor bad i'm just remastered that way
Post Reply