Is The Wizard of Oz Screen Aspect Full Screen?

[johnnyblackout22]

Just curious if that's how it's supposed to be. I have the black bars on the side of the screen.

[MattJoseph]

Yes.

[DimebagCFH]

yes it is the original aspect ratio

[johnnyblackout22]

Thanks guys!!!

[RocShemp]

Your disc is fine, johnnyblackout22. This movie had a 1.37:1 aspect ratio. So the pillarboxing is normal.

[Anthony P]

It is actually academy ratio(1.375), not exactly 4:3 but close to it, it was the standard AR after silent movies, until the time of TV when the cinema industry started worrying that people would just stay home to watch moving pictures and so went wider to differentiate themselves.

[Wdm81]

Originally Posted by johnnyblackout22

Just curious if that's how it's supposed to be. I have the black bars on the side of the screen.

It's actually 2.40:1... your TV might be sideways

[deangrazy]

Originally Posted by johnnyblackout22

Just curious if that's how it's supposed to be. I have the black bars on the side of the screen.

Yep the aspect is fullscreen, it looks good too.

[Russell_L]

Anyone else notice that the opening credits are windowboxed (i.e., black bars on all 4 sides of the image)? I got worried for a moment but all returned to normal (pillarboxing only) once the credits were over. I assume WB did it this way to counteract the varying amounts of overscan that might be present on peoples' displays since the text on the credits pretty much fill up the entire frame.

[steve_dave]

Opening credits are 1.37:1 proper to retain the correct framing on televisions with overscan. However, after the credits, the film shifts AR slightly to 1.33:1.

Casablanca and The Adventures of Robin Hood have the same effect. Its not a big deal. The difference between 1.37 and 1.33 is about the same as 1.85 and 1.78.

[nycomet]

The annoying black bars on the SIDES of the movie on these older titles should have that AWESOME feature we saw on Pinocchio: static artwork on the sides. It is SO EASY for the movie company's to include it as an optional feature.

In the case of Wizard of Oz, I would have liked to see various side panel artwork to match scenes in the film: clouds, poppies, the yellow brick road, the forest, the cornfield... anything but that plain black on the sides.

For the Star Trek Original Series, the enhanced special effects should have shifted to a full presentation, then jump back to the normal view during the non-effects scenes. The shifting aspect ratio was stellar and highly effective in The Dark Knight.

Ironically, it is only the black bars on the sides of the movie that irk me. I have no problem at all with the black bars on the top and bottom on wide screen presentations. I guess I am a freak.

[Blu-Malibu2009]

Originally Posted by nycomet

Ironically, it is only the black bars on the sides of the movie that irk me. I have no problem at all with the black bars on the top and bottom on wide screen presentations. I guess I am a freak.

I guess you are.

[brettallica]

Originally Posted by nycomet

The annoying black bars on the SIDES of the movie on these older titles should have that AWESOME feature we saw on Pinocchio: static artwork on the sides. It is SO EASY for the movie company's to include it as an optional feature.

In the case of Wizard of Oz, I would have liked to see various side panel artwork to match scenes in the film: clouds, poppies, the yellow brick road, the forest, the cornfield... anything but that plain black on the sides.

I also really enjoyed the art within the side borders on Pinocchio. Any time I watch that movie in a setting that is not optimized for movie watching — e.g. when it's not dark in the room — I choose the option for the artwork in the side bars. When we watch in the dark, I leave that option off. I wish all movies in the relatively square ratio would come with this option.

[Octavio]

Originally Posted by retablo

Can't wait for the people who champion the 21:9 TVs to become the norm to start complaining that close to half the TV is black screen when watching any movie pre-1954.

LMAO! Imagine how would look any of the silent films whose OAR is 1.20:1 in those screens (I.e. lots of Chaplin shorts were shot with that OAR)

Actually I've read already (in another forums) some people complaining for the black bars when watching a movie in Academy Ratio, even one of them dared to say that 1.33 movies SHOULD be modified to fit HDTV screens!

[Blu-Malibu2009]

Originally Posted by Octavio

LMAO! Imagine how would look any of the silent films whose OAR is 1.20:1 in those screens (I.e. lots of Chaplin shorts where shot with that OAR)

Actually I've read already (in another forums) some people complaining for the black bars when watching a movie in Academy Ratio, even one of them dared to say that 1.33 movies SHOULD be modified to fit HDTV screens!

Yeah, let's just chop off the actors' heads and such.

[OrlandoEastwood]

Originally Posted by Octavio

Actually I've read already (in another forums) some people complaining for the black bars when watching a movie in Academy Ratio, even one of them dared to say that 1.33 movies SHOULD be modified to fit HDTV screens!

I wouldn't mind that if that was the director's intention, like Stanley Kubrick did for his films. He shot them in Full Screen but had them cropped for movie theaters but open matted for home viewing.

[toef]

Originally Posted by OrlandoEastwood

I wouldn't mind that if that was the director's intention, like Stanley Kubrick did for his films. He shot them in Full Screen but had them cropped for movie theaters but open matted for home viewing.

Didn't James Cameron film Titanic in fullscreen? If so, I wonder what aspect ratio the BD will have.

[RiseDarthVader]

Titanic was shot in on Super35 for the intended AR of 2.35:1

[steve_dave]

Originally Posted by OrlandoEastwood

I wouldn't mind that if that was the director's intention, like Stanley Kubrick did for his films. He shot them in Full Screen but had them cropped for movie theaters but open matted for home viewing.

Kubrick actually shot 99% of his films with a 1.37:1 negative aspect ratio with the intention of the film being exhibited in 1.85:1 widescreen.

The only film he shot specifically 2.35:1 widescreen was 2001: A Space Odyssey. When the BBC broadcasted this film on television, neither he nor his cinematographer were consulted in creating a "fullscreen" presentation. They completely butchered his film with the pan & scna process.

In response, Kubrick instructed his cinematographer to frame for 1.85:1 but protect the 1.33:1 framing. This way when the film is transferred to home video, the composition is not destroyed. It is altered but no picture image is lost.

When DVD became the home video format and widescreen televisions grew into popularity, Warner Brothers was finally able to present Kubrick's original vision for his films. There would be no need to expose the protected area going foward.

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by steve_dave

Opening credits are 1.37:1 proper to retain the correct framing on televisions with overscan. However, after the credits, the film shifts AR slightly to 1.33:1.

Casablanca and The Adventures of Robin Hood have the same effect. Its not a big deal. The difference between 1.37 and 1.33 is about the same as 1.85 and 1.78.

Nope, Warner's Academy BDs are in the proper 1.37