Since my widescreen TV accommodates the different aspect ratios with several display mechanisms, I can zoom a 4:3 (or - more correctly 1.37:1) movie to fill the screen horizontally, cropping it vertically to 1.78:1 (16x9). I tried it on Darby O'Gill, and it appears Disney had this in mind originally, as the titles, credits, and screen composition all work well within the 16:9 screen. With further testing since this was first written, I find the same to be true of a large number - perhaps the majority - of "modest" (1.66 - 1.85:1) WS films, which is probably why they are so hard to find in WS DVD releases - the 4:3 DVD contains ALL of the filmed image!
I also find that the British are more adamant about widescreen, to the point that several U.S. movies which were released theatrically in widescreen are only available on DVD at 4:3 in the U.S. but are available in the U.K. (in PAL format - need the right player) in their original theatrical formats. "84 Charing Cross Rd" and "Bite the Bullet" come immediately to mind, and there are many others. In fact there is a British (PAL) release of Don Bluth's "An American Tail" in widescreen, which *is* the 1.37:1 US original cropped vertically (see above).
reply
share
John-367
14 years ago
It would have been difficult if not impossible to shoot the special effects used in this film in anamorphic.
Most of the little people effects were achieved using forced perspective i.e. with some actors and props in the extreme foreground and others in the extreme background in the same shot. For the effect to work, both have to be in sharp focus. Anamorphic lenses intrinsically drastically reduce the depth of field - the nearest and furthest objects in focus. Full academy ratio, or cropped widescreen, has far more depth of field.
reply
share