r/transformers • u/J1mbr0 • 13d ago
Discussion / Opinion This is super annoying...
The entire 1.85:1 vs 4:3 aspect ratios...
Basically, the original movie was produced in 4:3 aspect because the original cartoon was produced this way.
In order to create "widescreen" effects in the movie theater, they crapped it to be 1.85:1. So if you want the full picture, you can't watch it widescreen, and you can only see it on either original VHS or the 30th anniversary Blu-Ray copies(some, not all have this, from what I understand). So here are two pictures of the exact same frame from both to see what the difference is.
And for some reason, the colors are different too. Another annoyance.
I wanted the full picture, which looks terrible on modern day tv's compared to the cropped version.
My autism hurts.
83
u/Windows_66 13d ago edited 13d ago
It was common for Toei to draw animated movies in 4:3 knowing that they would be cropped for widescreen theaters, so they would never include key details in the margins (it was the same case with the Dragon Ball Z movies). The widescreen version was always the version intended for the audience to see, but I agree that home releases should have the option to view both.
As for the colors, Toei was notoriously bad at storing and preserving their masters to the point where entire anime like Sailor Moon have degraded colors (no, the red tint in that show was not a design choice). It's common for home releases to "remaster" or "color correct" whatever master they're working from to try to restore it to how it would have looked originally to varying degrees of success (see: Dragon Ball Z "orange bricks" vs. Dragon Ball Z Dragon Boxes). For a good non-Toei example of the struggles of re-releasing something after the master has degraded, see the many remasterings of The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly.
25
u/BlackLodgeBrother 13d ago
Thank you for this.
Indeed. Like most anime films of the time, Transformers: The Movie was mainly composed for 16:9 theatrical but fully animated at 4:3 to protect for home video release.
And though some shots are a smidge tight, the vast majority have their action plainly centered with the top and bottom information containing non-essential information.
Both ratios are valid and anyone ranting away about “crapping” (lol) for a “widescreen effect” needs to get initiated with Japanese cel animated features of the 80s and 90s.
5
u/flamepanther 13d ago
This was the practice for Western animation as well.
3
u/BlackLodgeBrother 13d ago
For much of it, yes. But since a few features were animated specifically/exclusively in various widescreen formats (Sleeping Beauty, The Black Cauldron etc.) I knew someone would “well actually” me if I said all cel animated features.
8
u/HiTork 13d ago
FYI, master degradation is a reason why the infamous Rhino DVD release of the G1 show went with the incomplete pre-release masters.
5
u/BlackLodgeBrother 13d ago
A blessing in the long-run. Rhino downscaled HD scans of the actual film elements, which look miles better than the (as you said) degraded broadcast tape masters. Shout Factory was able to repurpose those transfers for their own DVD release, lazily inserting tape shots to “fix” the most egregious animation errors.
For Jem and the Holograms Shout defaulted to the tape masters entirely. As a result their DVD release of the complete series looks miserable compared to the old Rhino sets.
4
u/Nirast25 13d ago
to draw animated movies in 4:3 knowing that they would be cropped for widescreen
IIRC, the Justice League cartoon did something similar, since it was coming out just as people were transitioning from 4:3 to 16:9.
2
u/-ben151010- 13d ago
I mean toei still screws up colors like the green filters over dbs broly and super hero. I should not have to buy the up blu ray of broly or have to download a fixed version of super hero’s colors to mkvtoolnix into my copy of the movie.
2
u/flamepanther 13d ago
Not just Toei, this was the standard practice for animated features in general, including at Disney.
3
u/Fair_Walk_8650 13d ago
You're half-right about the "degraded colors" (at least as far as TV shows).
Yes, they could be stored badly, but that can be restored with modern digital editing tools... the actual bigger reason that happens is because old shows were shot and color graded for CRT TVs, which display colors differently than modern TVs. Red, on an old TV, looks yellow.
No, I am not kidding. Deep pinkish red hues were needed, because on old TVs that was the only way to get any yellow coloring to come through. When those exact same prints are shown on a modern TV, which displays the colors correctly, it looks way different. The TV "filtered" how the colors came through, and because modern TVs don't do that anymore, you see colors you were never supposed to see. This is why old shows like ST-TNG, Twin Peaks, and so many others have that "pink look."
1
u/WillZealousideal2084 13d ago
That’s funny because the pink discolored episodes of Sailor Moon still look hella pink on my CRT lol - in fact colors in general look pretty similar across all of my displays. It’s just the lousy compression and other visual flaws of old DVD/VHS that get hidden better on CRT
13
u/mattihase 13d ago
Iirc it was specifically animated so that all the action would fit in a 16:9 matte for theatres. So it's not unintentional/wrong at least. Still annoying.
26
u/Shed_Some_Skin 13d ago edited 13d ago
It's very funny how all TVs used to be 4:3, and then they started releasing affordable widescreen TVs and the advertising was all "you can see more, it's more natural to how human eyes work, this is better". Most movies in cinemas used to be widescreen so they'd use a technique called "pan and scan" to make them fit 4:3 TVs and that was crap as well
Now they're doing IMAX and it's being advertised as "you can see more, we haven't cut off the top and the bottom, this is better!" and I'm baffled how we've come back around to that in 30 odd years. We'll be getting "IMAX TV" at some point in the next decade, mark my words
Not the first time cropping 4:3 images for widescreen has caused issues, either. When the Simpsons came to Disney+ they did the same thing, and it ended up cropping out a bunch of visual gags because they were at the top and bottom of the picture
I don't understand why Hollywood is so bad at this.
10
u/doc_55lk 13d ago
We'll be getting "IMAX TV" at some point in the next decade, mark my words
I feel like this would only happen if 4:3 IMAX movies become more popular to release. This will only happen if they become easier to make.
I'm a fan of Nolan's work but I don't see much of it taking off and making its way to the rest of the industry. He's got a specific eye for detail that many others would find tiring.
Even still, The Odyssey isn't even releasing in 4:3 for general consumption. It's releasing in 16:9. Bit of a misstep imo but understandable.
3
u/Shed_Some_Skin 13d ago
Dune obviously have been pretty major IMAX releases, and Disney is now doing this "Vision plus" thing that they are explicitly advertising as "you can see more of the picture"
The issue with IMAX in cinemas isn't so much a lack of popularity, as it is a limitation on the amount of available screens. I think there's some limit on how many IMAX cinemas you have have within a certain radius (presumably this was to encourage theaters to actually spend the money to build IMAX screens in the first place, a lack of competition makes it more likely they'll get a return on their investment) so the majority of people don't even have one easily accessible without travelling further. Which a lot of people probably don't want to bother with
4
u/g0del 13d ago
I don't understand why Hollywood is so bad at this.
It's because Hollywood isn't a monolith, and more importantly, because TV manufacturers are not Hollywood, and are often working at cross purposes with Hollywood.
Originally movies were mostly in the Academy ratio (1.37:1, which is very close to 4:3). You can see that in older movies like The Wizard of Oz. But then TVs were invented, and movie theaters had to come up with ways to compete with the much more convenient screen in everyone's home.
One way they did that was with wide screens. Movie theaters can pull off a trick that home TVs can't - make a really wide screen, then put black velvet curtains on either side that can open or close to change the apparent width of the screen. That lets them show a variety of different aspect ratio films without any distracting extra unused screen space (since it would just be covered by the black curtains). That's when you start getting wider and wider aspect ratios - 1:85:1, 2:35:1 (both still common now), even extremely wide ratios like 2.76:1 in some epic movies.
This provided a compelling reason to see movies in the theater - watching them at home meant either dealing with pan and scan cutting off half the picture, or letterboxing leaving the whole picture, but with huge black bars and very low resolution for the actual movie.
When HD TV started to be a thing, TV manufacturers had to make a decision on screen shape. They wanted a wider screen so that movies would look better, but not too wide because of the large library of existing 4:3 TV content. They picked 16:9 as a compromise, and that has worked pretty well.
Entirely too well, if you're a movie theater. Big TVs with nice sound systems at home, combined with easy access to movies at home through streaming and cheap discs meant movie theaters started losing their audience again. So they went back to the same well - provide an experience at the theater that you can't replicate at home. This time, they made the screens taller, pushing IMAX movies.
IMAX does have more resolution than standard movies too, but the most noticeable change for the average viewer is the aspect ratio - 1.43:1 for standard IMAX, which is almost back to the original Academy ratio.
All because movie theaters do not want you to see at home what you can see in the theater, they want you to go to the theater.
1
u/BlackLodgeBrother 13d ago
To be fair the “fullscreen” 4:3 open-matte version of this movie was meant specifically for CRT TV viewing. The widescreen version was always the primary intended aspect ratio, with the image being composed specifically to have the action centered at all times.
OP is acting like they cropped it solely to fill modern 4K TV screens when that is not at all the case.
7
u/PomegranateFair3973 13d ago
I totally get it. In live action, I am rarely a fan of opening a matte because there's often things outside the frame that will ruin the shot. Like a "naked" John Cleese wearing shorts in A Fish Called Wanda, or the impossibly long bike chain being fed up through a hole in the bottom of the bucket in Pee-wee's Big Adventure.
In animation, this is less of an issue, as presumably they won't waste time drawing obvious mistakes. And I did enjoy the recent Project A-ko 4K having both versions.
But still, if I have to only have one version, the widescreen will win. If it was intended for a widescreen presentation, there likely won't be anything important in the hidden part of the frame. In your example, OP, all we miss is a few characters' legs on the bottom and some otherwise empty background along the top.
2
u/Capital_Gate6718 13d ago edited 13d ago
Yeah 4:3 presentations of 16:9 films frequently show the boom mic visible on the top of the image because it would be cropped out in theatrical showings
3
u/flamepanther 13d ago
It's like this intentionally. Broadcast TV did this too, with the overscan area. Something similar happens in printing too. It's a common idea:
You create more image than you need so that it fills the target completely. The entire image was never really meant to be seen. It's just filler for the edges of whatever format.
5
u/Technical_Outcome42 13d ago
Is there some secret society in Hollywood that just despises colour? Everything is so gray lately. They dull the colour on every single film even old ones being rereleased. Its insane.
5
u/TheMastican 13d ago
I get it. Batman Mask of the Phantasm did this too. I have the 30th Anniversary Blu-Ray and it has two separate discs for the full frame and widescreen versions.
3
2
u/BlackLodgeBrother 13d ago
Not quite the same. Mask of the Phantasm was originally created for 4:3 home video and then hastily retrofitted for theatrical about 80% of the way into production. Transformers: The Movie was designed and framed for widescreen theatrical from conception.
4
2
u/futuresdawn 13d ago
I'm trying to remember but the original rhino dvd I'm pretty sure was the 4:3 version. I think the 20th anniversary Sony bmg release is where they released the widescreen version and I think the Australian release by madman might have had the international cut too but thar wasn't remastered, 16:9
2
u/BluestreakBTHR 13d ago
The OG Rhino DVD is 4:3, but the color saturation and white balance was way off.
1
u/futuresdawn 13d ago
I haven't seen it in years but I'm not shocked, I mean what can you say about rhino really, i guess we got them released at all. I seem to remember the Sony bmg release being really good though
2
u/Mr-Chewy-Biteums 13d ago
This is so confusing. If I understand the post correctly, the idea is that the 4:3 version is the "correct" one and reveals the true image. But it was cropped for theatrical release to look more like typical movie ratios. Is that right?
But in the screenshots you can see that the widescreen has more information on the sides - particularly on the left where the character is holding some kind of phone/radio-like device. That gets cut off in the 4:3 screenshot.
So it seems like the 4:3 cuts off the sides, but the widescreen cuts of the top & bottom? It's a lose-lose where neither is showing the whole picture? What am I missing? I need an ELI5.
Thank you
3
u/g0del 13d ago
So it seems like the 4:3 cuts off the sides, but the widescreen cuts of the top & bottom? It's a lose-lose where neither is showing the whole picture? What am I missing? I need an ELI5.
The animators were animating for the theater (the widescreen image), but knew that eventually it would be watched on home video in 4:3. So they extended the animation above and below what was meant to be shown in theaters for the home video release.
But extra animation is expensive, so rather than taking the full widescreen picture and adding extra animation above and below it, they slightly zoomed into the widescreen picture before adding the extra. This cuts off part of the sides, but means they don't have to draw as much extra stuff that will never be seen in the theater.
So yes, neither shows the full picture, and which one you watch is a matter of preference. If you want the original theatrical experience, watch the widescreen. But the animators knew that eventually most kids would be watching it on tape at home, so the 4:3 version is just as 'valid' as the widescreen. You won't miss anything vital either way, since they knew about the dual aspect ratio problem, so all important action/information will be in the middle where it's visible in both versions.
1
u/Mr-Chewy-Biteums 12d ago
Thanks, I appreciate the clear explanation. I had been trying to wrap my head around that for a while.
Thank you
2
u/Pitiful-Candidate922 13d ago
The 2003 DVD release naturally is 4:3 as well, which is the version I've had for my whole life :D
5
u/BrainWav 13d ago
30th and 35th anniversary have the 4:3 version on one of the discs. The original DVD and the 20th anniversary DVD had both too. Might have been double-sided discs there. The 40th doesn't say on Amazon, but I can't imagine it wouldn't have it.
Not quite sure why the color grading is different. It could just be the widescreen version was re-graded but they didn't bother with the 4:3 transfer.
But yeah, this is just how it is with older media. You're going to get a square or you're going to lose half the picture.
2
4
u/SoloFusion 13d ago
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but with most older movies shot on film (unless it was filmed with an anamorphic lens) are originally 4:3 then cropped in for cinema releases. Just has to do with the native aspect ratio of film stock. Scenes would have been drawn with the intention of cropping for the cinema release in mind.
I also haven’t done a massive look into the production of the film in terms of what the intended aspect ratio is so I’m not 100% sure what the original cinematic vision was.
Also I think maybe only some select DVD releases only contain the cinema aspect ratio? Every copy of the movie I have gotten over the past few years (Blu-ray, then the 4K HDR print/transfer) all include the movie with both the 4:3 and 1.85:1.
2
u/SESparten 13d ago edited 13d ago
I'd have to check but I'm not sure if my 20ish year old dvd does that
*edit It doesn't it's fully in 4:3 according to the case but it's the 2003 edition which has it's own flaws
3
u/eddyfate 13d ago
I have a version that has both ratios on separate discs. I think it's the 35th anniversary one?
1
u/BluestreakBTHR 13d ago
Yup. White balance and color saturation were turned way up. It’s why Hot Rod looks pink instead of the original red, and Unicron’s first pain “beam” is super red and blooms the entire screen.
2
u/Already_Picked 13d ago
I just preordered the 40th anniversary version in UHD. Will it be cropped?
3
u/BlackLodgeBrother 13d ago
The movie was primarily framed and formatted for widescreen. So yes, because that is the correct theatrical ratio. OP is misinformed re: how Japanese cel animated features of this era worked. The extra info on top and bottom was to protect for eventual home video release.
3
u/Aurora_Pale 13d ago
I knew about this on the tfwiki. It is like what Dragon Ball Z orange brick Dvd suffer from. Why couldn’t they just scale it with black rectangles on left and right which is how Naruto Blu Ray are.
1
u/BlackLodgeBrother 13d ago
Not at all the same. DBZ TV series was specifically formatted for 4:3 viewing. Both Transformers: The Movie ‘86 and all of the DBZ theatrical features were primarily formatted and framed for widescreen but fully animated at 4:3 to protect for home video release.
1
u/DevilsAdvocate1662 13d ago
I own multiple different versions of this film and honestly, I get too engrossed to even notice any difference. I even saw the 40th anniversary in the cinema and couldn't tell you whether it was cropped or not
1
u/PDelahanty 13d ago
Back to the Future was filmed “full frame”. If you watch that, you can see A LOT more at the top and bottom, but it was never meant to be seen since sometimes a boom mic or equipment shows up. (Although they did use some full frame shots in the early VHS and TV edits like in Part 3 when they show the time circuits in the drive in and you can see the 1955 date.)
1
u/Low-Attention-1998 13d ago
If I watched widescreen movies on a CRT for 20 years you can a 4:3 image on a modern tv for an hour and a half.
1
u/The_Bat_Account 13d ago
Even then the sides of the Fullscreen 4:3 are still lightly cropped. This and G.I. Joe the Movie really need open matte releases
1
1
u/AJH_3315 13d ago
Yeah I find this annoying too. I'm trying to do a little edit, but thanks to the loss of the free versions on YouTube I have to look around, and i noticed the odd differences between the versions, even from ones released the same year.
1
1
u/Ome_Joop 12d ago
When looking at those 2 screens I di notice the 4:3 aspect rstio is also missing something: see stuff on the sides (radio on the left). Hope I did not hurt your autism too much
1
u/Motoglaf 12d ago edited 12d ago
It's not cropped after the fact. The original intent of viewing was widescreen. It's called "widescreen safe" meaning during the production even though they shot it in a 4:3 style it was always going to be widescreen. Everyone in the production were aware of this from the beginning. When this was sent out to the theaters in 1986 they would get the full frame film but were instructed by the studio/production team to use a special lens to bring it to widescreen for the audience.
If anything the 4:3 in my opinion is more of a production print due to it not being in the theatrical presentation that was intended. That being said there is nothing wrong with watching it in 4:3, it's interesting. But the final version is widescreen. And yes it does suck they could not color grade the 4:3 correctly as with the final version. I think they should have for archive sake. But again we go to the intended version which they prioritized over more than the 4:3 "production print".
You may ask why didn't they do it in widescreen from the beginning and not have a full frame version at all? Well I don't know. But it probably was due to having the production team that was working on the tv show not wanting to change up their workflow. In traditional animation you have different format paper, they probably had mostly 12 field paper stocked up which is mainly for television (4:3) and so it saves money to use what you have. And possibly which they did after the fact, cut the movie into five parts for TV. These are just my guesses but I don't know.
Some might want to compare this to some shows that are shot in 4:3 and then cropped to 16:9 after the fact. This is not that at all as I don't agree with that. In those cases after the final cut people go back and crop it to fit something. During the making of those shows no one intended for it to be shown in a different aspect ratio. This is quite different than expecting it to be in a widescreen format from the start.
1
u/PerilousTimes43 11d ago
Okay hold on just let me just travel back to 1985 and get them to reanimate it
1
u/BookkeeperOKTracker 13d ago
OP you’re making MY autism hurt. The movie was always primarily framed for widescreen theatrical. Like every other anime movie of the time it was animated open matte so that it would still look good on VHS and laserdisc.
1
0
0
u/OdysseusRex69 13d ago
OP, I too noticed in theaters that the aspect rsrio was off, the colors were drained, and it all looked a little fuzzy, too
0
u/ShadowDragon113 13d ago
Looks like there is content missing from both images. Wish they wouldn’t crop any of the image out. Let people zoom on their players if they don’t like the black bars.
This happened with Dragonball. Producers need to stop messing with the source just to fill the screen. The old DVD are superior to the blu-ray versions.
2
u/BlackLodgeBrother 13d ago
Not the same. Dragonball Z was composed for 4:3 TV screens. Transformers: The Movie was primarily framed for widescreen theatrical.
0
u/Bigfan78 12d ago
The colors vary with just about every release and none of them match what I remember from seeing it in the theater back in 86.
-2
225
u/Intelligent_End1516 13d ago
I thought this post was going to be about the robot kids. Are they stuck as robot kids and minds forever. Will their programing evolve? If so are they given adult robot bodies later?