Aspect Ratio Question

[drfsupercenter]

Has anyone here seen some of the early CGI Disney films in theater? Like Aladdin, Beauty and the Beast, etc.?

I was just curious about how it was shown in theaters... since the "original" aspect ratio is 1.66:1, was it tilt-and-scanned in theaters to make it 1.85:1? Or was it shown not using the entire screen?

I know some films like The Jungle Book were shown with the top and bottom chopped off to make them fit... and the DVDs of Beauty and the Beast and The Little Mermaid seem to think 1.85:1 is the original aspect ratio (when, in reality, it isn't)

So does anyone know if it was tilt-and-scanned in theaters?

[Escapay]

Has anyone here seen some of the early CGI Disney films in theater? Like Aladdin, Beauty and the Beast, etc.?

They're not CGI (well, not completely). Perhaps you mean CAPS.

I was just curious about how it was shown in theaters... since the "original" aspect ratio is 1.66:1, was it tilt-and-scanned in theaters to make it 1.85:1? Or was it shown not using the entire screen?

deathie mouse explained it quite well in an old post of his which I always refer to...

[T]he concept that the camera aperture (or in this case, the total rendered area) is NOT the Original Aspect Ratio!

If it was, the OAR for Lord Of The Rings would be 1.33 as it was shot on a 1.33 Silent Full aperture Super-35 camera at aprox. 19mm x 25mm camera hole size, YET that movie's correct aspect ratio is 2.39



As posted uncounted times, the reason the CAPS films are rendered in near 1.66 is cus 35mm prints are mechanical things, not electronic data that you can uprez and resize at a whim. So only ONE image can be printed on them. Since the 35mm CAPS films prints are projected ALSO in Europe where some theaters have 1.66 wide screens, a little bit more image on the top and bottom is rendered for them so when the 35mm film print is shown in one of those European 1.66 theaters you don't end up with the hated by everybody black bars ON A MOVIE THEATER SCREEN, that you would see if the 35mm print was renderered hard matted in the correct 1.85 aspect ratio. Theater projectionists don't have zoom lenses to blow up the 1.85 tall image to fill the 1.66 screen's height, so animation and background is drawn to fill the otherwise empty black bar space that would result. (and zooming to fill a 1.66 screen would crop the sides of the 1.85 screen also) (which would then crop animation that was intended)

Is that clear?

Same reason the 60's and 70's movies were shot "full frame" 1.37 with a normal sound aperture camera instead of hard matted to 1.75



In my state there was only ONE theater (and even that place no longer exists) that knew what lenses to use to change Projection ratios from 1.37 to 1.66 to 1.75 to 1.85, yes that would imply 4 different specific lenses, 4 different projector aperture plates and someone changing the curtains 4 times for each and we aren't counting Scope movies! Theaters have enough trouble presenting properly the 1.85 and 2.39 ratios today as it is.

A Disney movie in an US theater is 1.85

Mulan was 1.85
Lion King was 1.85
Aladdin was 1.85



If the director is filming a movie for a 1.85 theatrical presentation he makes sure his characters are framed for THAT.
The director of BatB didn't "change" it to 1.85, that's how he shot it.

There weren't any 16:9 TVs or DVDs back then so millions of people would only see it on a theaters at 1.85

BTW, the PAL dvd version of Beauty And The Beast looks stupendous one of the best transfers i've seen, no fuzzi lines.

Going back to the topic, i don't think of the DVD version of Beauty and the Best as a restoration but more as a re-interpretation, it changes the mood of the film.
Maybe the Blu-ray should have 3 versions like this: Original theatrical dark moody colors, original theatrical Work In Progress, and the IMAX happy bright recoloring one currently on the DVD.

And later on in the thread...

Well, the only films released at 1.85 in the past have been Hunchback (Trousdale/Wise), Beauty and the Beast (Trousdale/Wise) and Mulan (Bancroft/Cook).

Netty of course means the only films released at 1.85 in the past on DVD.


Cus all the US films of the last 3 decades were released at 1.85 (or Scope 2.40, if anamorphic printed)

People, you have to keep in perspective that films are FILMS, not DVDs, the Film, and the way it's done is for Film. As in Theatrical. Apparently we're so DVD crazed on UD that most people keep forgetting the reality is they are 35mm FILMS. Not DVDs. And we end up thinking the DVD is the real thing instead of the Film. And it's not. The Film is the real thing. Don't confuse the copy with the real object. The DVD is a paperback edition of the deluxe illustrated 12" hardcover coffee table book.

When the director makes the film he makes it FOR theatrical presentation. He judges it on a 1.85 screen. This might change soon enough but Hollywood people - directors, cinematographers, producers - they think in FILM terms and aspect ratios. That's why Sony and others are trying to come up with Digital Cinema solutions like 2160 x 4096 pixel projection (btw that's 1.90) to make them satisfied fully.

A filmmaker makes a Film. We get a personal downrezed paperback edition copy of it on DVD. or a VHS. or a Laserdisc.

All the Disney movies I've seen on theaters have been 1.85 except for the pre 60's Academy ones and the Scope/Technirama ones of course. And if you live in all of America, so have you.

And nearly a year later...

CAPS renders are something more like 1.50-1.60.

The prints had a printed image area of about 13mm x 22mm of which 11.33mm x 21mm (1.85) was projected.

While he doesn't mention tilt-scan, given the fact that the directors/animators composed all the shots for a 1.85:1 ratio, it's probably safe to assume that it was a simple matting of the top and bottom without having to tilt-scan anything at all.

the DVDs of Beauty and the Beast and The Little Mermaid seem to think 1.85:1 is the original aspect ratio (when, in reality, it isn't)

Only BATB is 1.85:1, the PE DVD for TLM is 1.75:1 (the 1999 LI was 1.66:1).

Albert

[Disney Duster]

Thank you for that, Albert.

Going back to the topic, i don't think of the DVD version of Beauty and the Best as a restoration but more as a re-interpretation, it changes the mood of the film.
Maybe the Blu-ray should have 3 versions like this: Original theatrical dark moody colors, original theatrical Work In Progress, and the IMAX happy bright recoloring one currently on the DVD.

When even deathiemouse sees a problem with the restorations, and that they were just recoloring, it proves a point.

[Escapay]

Going back to the topic, i don't think of the DVD version of Beauty and the Best as a restoration but more as a re-interpretation, it changes the mood of the film.
Maybe the Blu-ray should have 3 versions like this: Original theatrical dark moody colors, original theatrical Work In Progress, and the IMAX happy bright recoloring one currently on the DVD.

When even deathiemouse sees a problem with the restorations, and that they were just recoloring, it proves a point.

Oh wow, I didn't even read that part! I was just focusing on the top half of his old post and didn't read the rest of it!

Albert

(edited to fix messed up quote box)

[drfsupercenter]

A couple things.

The laserdiscs of movies like Beauty and the Beast are 1.66:1. The DVDs clearly have missing picture on the top and bottom.
Not to mention The Little Mermaid's "limited issue", that WAS 1.66:1 and not the tilt-and-scan version.

I realize it was shown in theaters as 1.85:1, that's why I was asking as I've seen pillarboxed movies plenty at theaters around here (some theaters have a large group of 1.85 films but only 2.35 screens that aren't in use, so they just project on the middle of it)

So I still believe the original aspect ratio is 1.66:1 (the original production aspect ratio), but thanks for the heads-up about theaters.

Anyone who thinks 1.85:1 is the original intended aspect ratio, look at The Jungle Book before talking to me again. LOL.

[Escapay]

Not to mention The Little Mermaid's "limited issue", that WAS 1.66:1

I'm pretty sure I already say that at the end of my first post.

Only BATB is 1.85:1, the PE DVD for TLM is 1.75:1 (the 1999 LI was 1.66:1).

Albert

[drfsupercenter]

All I'm saying is that you can't deny that the 1.85/77 aspect ratio is missing picture from the 1.66:1.

[Jules]

All I'm saying is that you can't deny that the 1.85/77 aspect ratio is missing picture from the 1.66:1.

But ... erm ... that's the directors' intenton?

[SpringHeelJack]

All I'm saying is that you can't deny that the 1.85/77 aspect ratio is missing picture from the 1.66:1.

Well, missing picture can sometimes be the director's intention. Hence the open matte.

[drfsupercenter]

But if it's cropped it's cropped.

Why would you want stuff cut off? Look at The Jungle Book's new Platinum Edition. People's heads are cut off. How the heck is that what they intended?

[SpringHeelJack]

I would want stuff cut off if the director wanted stuff cut off. For example, "The Muppet Movie". Shot in an open matte. If you watched it sans the matted widescreen, you can see puppet sleeves and puppeteer arms in some shots. Clearly, that was intended to be matted. If the shot was composed with the intents of seeing it in widescreen, I want to see it in widescreen.

Now, the other question is if "The Jungle Book" ought have been matted. IMO, it should not have, as I doubt the animators composed the shot to be seen as such. I think you can make a case for some movies like "The Aristocats" and "Robin Hood", since nothing significant is usually lost and many of the shots look better and tighter when matted.

[drfsupercenter]

It's not like it was "intended" to be matted.

At the time, theaters were converting to widescreen and a lot lacked the ability to project fullscreen anymore. So therefore, it was matted because it HAD to be, not because they WANTED it to be.

And I think the only reason why The Jungle Book, Robin Hood, The Aristocats, and some future releases (which I will avoid) are matted are because of the increasing demand for anamorphic widescreen. But us DVD fans are avoiding the tilt-and-scanned versions at all costs.

It's just like Song of the South. Apparently in the 1986 release, it was matted to widescreen. But surely you can't say it was intended to be that way, it was fullscreen for 40 years!

[KubrickFan]

I think it works both ways. Some films of Stanley Kubrick (The Shining, Full Metal Jacket) were also Open Matted. The first dvds showed the whole image, as Stanley Kubrick intended (they said he didn't like the black bars in the frame), the SE's were shown in the 1.78:1 format, were matted. You could argue that it wasn't how he meant it to be, but some of the compositions were clearly better in the 1.78:1 version.
So maybe they shot (animated, in this case) for both 1.33:1 and 1.85:1.

[drfsupercenter]

In this thread I was only referring to the CAPS films made in 1.66:1.

There's a whole 'nother thread about the Academy films

[drfsupercenter]

In this thread I was only referring to the CAPS films made in 1.66:1.

There's a whole 'nother thread about the Academy films

[KubrickFan]

In this thread I was only referring to the CAPS films made in 1.66:1.

There's a whole 'nother thread about the Academy films

I know that, I was just saying that they could be composing for both aspect ratios at the same time, and I gave an example with it .