Sabrina Blu-ray cropped to 1.78:1?

[macgeek2005]

I just discovered that my Sabrina Blu-Ray is cropped on the top and bottom compared to the DVD, turning it into a widescreen picture.

Why did they do this, and does anybody have access to a list of all the classic movies that received such treatment?

[animefan77]

It's probably not cropped like how you think it is. It is still within the filmmaker's intent. Lot of the movies made in the 1950's were filmed with multiple aspect ratios in mind because that was the time when film industry were transitioning to the widescreen format.

In the beginning of transition, not lot of theaters could afford the renovation to upgrade to widescreen, so filmmakers made lot of their movies with multiple aspect ratios so it can show in ALL of the theaters without cutting off important images like somebody's head or something. So new widescreen theaters get the widescreen print, and old theater gets the other print. And both ratios will show the information that filmmakers intended.

Great example of this is the Criterion release of "On the Waterfront"
Criterion release of that film includes 3 different aspect ratios because that's how they filmed it. It's not simply removing the top and bottom image. The widescreen version actually shows more picture on the sides than the 1.33:1 while 1.33:1 would show more on the top and bottom but lose some side information. No one ratio will show everything. That's why Criterion released all 3 aspect ratios on their blu-ray. (There is nice short featurette about it too) - GREAT movie and blu-ray release.

So I don't think any movies made in the 1950's to be cropped. We are still getting the proper release that filmmakers intended. 1950's movies are just a special case.

[bertal]

Originally Posted by macgeek2005

Why did they do this, and does anybody have access to a list of all the classic movies that received such treatment?

It is not a classic, not a movie, not a BD: Road to Avonlea. PQ is better but cutting out almost the third of the picture ... Terrible, just terrible.

[Arkadin]

actually it is being released correctly for the first time on home video. This has been confirmed by many people.
Sabrina was actually a widescreen film when first exhibited theatrically, but people--including myself--thought it was 1.33:1 due to previous home video releases and television airings.
btw: all previous bd releases of Sabrina--i.e. other countries' releases--are in academy ratio, so if you want to to see it that way you can.
I have the UK version and the US release so I have both options.

[bigdaddyhorse]

Originally Posted by macgeek2005

I just discovered that my Sabrina Blu-Ray is cropped on the top and bottom compared to the DVD, turning it into a widescreen picture.

Why did they do this, and does anybody have access to a list of all the classic movies that received such treatment?

95%+ of all movies 1.78 or 1.85 ratio are matted from a 1.33 negative. Some are "hard-matted" in which there is no extra picture trimmed from top and bottom, but 95% or so are soft-matted and opened up for home viewing on cable, vhs and some dvds.

[EddieLarkin]

Yes, it was standard to shoot 1.33:1 but actually compose for a widescreen ratio. No different to say, Remo Williams on BD:

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film4/blu-r...ns_blu-ray.htm

Note that the DVD has much more image, but it's the BD that is correct. Same goes for Sabrina.

[#Darren]

Originally Posted by Arkadin

actually it is being released correctly for the first time on home video. This has been confirmed by many people.
Sabrina was actually a widescreen film when first exhibited theatrically, but people--including myself--thought it was 1.33:1 due to previous home video releases and television airings.
btw: all previous bd releases of Sabrina--i.e. other countries' releases--are in academy ratio, so if you want to to see it that way you can.
I have the UK version and the US release so I have both options.

Yes, even imdb has it listed as academy 1.37

btw I gotta buy this soon!

I might even get the AUS release to have it in both ratios because I am a huge Bogie fan.

[macgeek2005]

I compared the Blu-Ray to DVD and the DVD has no image missing on the sides. It just contains a bunch of the top and bottom that isn't there on the Blu-Ray.

So what you're saying is this actually is the ideal cropping, and the visible stuff on the top and bottom of the DVD would be considered superfluous by the filmmakers?

[wormraper]

Originally Posted by macgeek2005

I compared the Blu-Ray to DVD and the DVD has no image missing on the sides. It just contains a bunch of the top and bottom that isn't there on the Blu-Ray.

So what you're saying is this actually is the ideal cropping, and the visible stuff on the top and bottom of the DVD would be considered superfluous by the filmmakers?

correct

[James Luckard]

Originally Posted by macgeek2005

I compared the Blu-Ray to DVD and the DVD has no image missing on the sides. It just contains a bunch of the top and bottom that isn't there on the Blu-Ray.

So what you're saying is this actually is the ideal cropping, and the visible stuff on the top and bottom of the DVD would be considered superfluous by the filmmakers?

Yep, exactly. Almost any movie shot on film, if it's flat (1.85) and not scope (2.35) will have lots of additional image information on the top and bottom, because the negative and even the release prints will almost always be in 1.33:1. It's the projectionist's job to properly frame it. This often didn't happen in the days of film prints being projected, leading to boom mics dipping into frame or the tops of people's heads being cut off. It's one thing that makes me happy for the transition to digital. I remember seeing both the Mel Gibson movie RANSOM and THE BIRDCAGE in theaters with the prints improperly framed and mics visible over everyone's heads the entire time.

[imsounoriginal]

Originally Posted by macgeek2005

I compared the Blu-Ray to DVD and the DVD has no image missing on the sides. It just contains a bunch of the top and bottom that isn't there on the Blu-Ray.

So what you're saying is this actually is the ideal cropping, and the visible stuff on the top and bottom of the DVD would be considered superfluous by the filmmakers?

Yes, but if you prefer the 4x3 version, I think Australia got their BD in that aspect ratio. I've held onto my Centennial DVD because I prefer the 4x3.

[James Luckard]

Originally Posted by imsounoriginal

Yes, but if you prefer the 4x3 version, I think Australia got their BD in that aspect ratio. I've held onto my Centennial DVD because I prefer the 4x3.

Every other BD in the world is 4:3, open matte. I think they used the same HD master they used for the last DVD release. If you look in the search engine up top, they all came out in 2012 or 2013.

It's only the 2014 US BD (and of course the bilingually packaged Canadian clone of it) that was made from a newer HD master, properly framed in widescreen.