Beauty and the Beast widescreen?

[Marce82]

Ok, so this may put me over the edge from obsessed to "let's call the nut house".
I was watching my Beauty and the Beast PE DvD, and I noticed something. When you watch the original music video (fullscreen) there is of course less content on the sides of the screen compared to watching the movie, but I also noticed, there is MORE material in the top and bottom of the screen. For example, look where the screen cuts off at the top and bottom when Belle and the beast bow to each other before dancing at the top of the staircase. now comare the cut off from the music video to the movie. There is more artwork in top and bottom! Same thing happens when we seeBelle finding the rose when she goes into the West Wing.
Those are the only 2 I've compared,. but it's probably all of it like that. I'm starting to think this whole "widescreen" thing is big ball of...you know.
Marcelo

[Pasta67]

I'm starting to think this whole "widescreen" thing is big ball of...you know.

Never!

Welcome, Marce82! Glad you're here to post on the forums.

The reason the top and bottom of the picture is cut off is because the aspect ratio is incorrect on the Platinum Edition. Beauty & the Beast was filmed (or drawn) in 1.66:1 widescreen. The DVD only has it in 1.85:1 widescreen, which means that it cut some of the picture off.

Let's hope that problem is fixed when it is re-released.

Don't lose faith in widescreen. It's the real deal. Disney just made a mistake.

[Disney-Fan]

It could very well be, that Beauty and the Beast was shot on a 1.66:1 aspect ratio though presented in cinemas in a 1.85:1 ratio (what you get on the DVD). The chopped head deal could be a result of that. When Disney films a feature they usually do it on a 1.66:1 aspect ratio although take in mind that it'll be shown on a different AR. From what I've read, it's the director's call how the film will be presented on home video.

[Disneykid]

Yeah, the 1.85:1 ratio is what the directors prefer, and if that's what they want, then I'm satisfied. Besides, you can't go around hating widescreen the moment you find out that it was shot with more picture. Various films like Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory and The Princess Bride are shot in a 1.33:1 ratio (the size of a standard TV screen) and have their tops and bottoms masked for both theaters and widescreen presentations. That doesn't make the fullscreen one better. The director intended for you to see it in the widescreen ratio. A similar thing happens with Super35 films where the film is shot in a 1.85:1 ratio and is masked to create a 2.35:1 ratio. Movies like Titanic and Harry Potter are a part of this category. In the end, just know that when you see a film in widescreen on DVD, you're seeing what the director wanted you to, regardless of whatever extra bits may have been shot.

[Pasta67]

I respect the director's desicions to display the movie the way they want it to, and I guess that's the best way. But, everytime I remember that I'm missing some of the picture that was animated everytime I see it, I can't help but twitch.

[Marce82]

Thanks for all the replies. But I must say I'm a bit dissapointed about the whole issue. I remember testing out Monsters inc and Roger Rabbit awhile backand findoing out the same thing, but I figured that with a taditionally animated film nobody would take the time to shoot something they wouldn't use in theaters.
There is a good side to all of this. In that shot where Belle finds the rose and the camera is moving around the table, I remembered seeing the pattern on the edge of the table being animatedto rotate, but when I got the DVD it was cut off. For a while I though I must have imagined it, but it's good tofind out I didn't
May I am sane after all
Marcelo

[deathie mouse]

ok. This apparently bears repeating: The image photographed (or computer rendered this days) into the FULL CAMERA APERTURE area of a movie negative or print is NOT the image that you're supposed to see nor composed for to be presented on the movie screen. (Or transfered to DVD for that matter). The PROJECTOR APERTURE is what is MEANT to be seen. They ARE two different things. For Standart Widescreen movies made in the USA the PROJECTOR APERTURE has been 0.446" x 0.825" (11.33mm x 20.96mm) which is 1.85, for decades.
Therefore Beauty and the Beast (And the Lion King and Aladdin and what not) are meant to be seen, were composed for, WERE seen by most everybody in 1.85 if they were shown correctly. Some theater might have a different standart like the 1.66 screens that the Europeans originaly prefered when Widescreen was introduced in the 50's. That's one reason the FULL CAMERA APERTURE has more image area, to fill in the screen with extra space for those instances a print is projected on those non-USA standart following screens. Otherwise there might be a possibility you'd see a ugly black band running across the bottom of the screen or the top or both on a THEATER!
In fact some projectionist/theaters are so out of whack that sometimes they project the prints so misframed or with such a wrong lens/screen combination that you SEE the Camera Aperture black borders even with the safeguards!

The fact that this extra area serves double duty to help fill 4:3 versions or displays is also a reason for doing it.

I myself also noticed that the music video and some 4:3 versions of these movies have more top and bottom than the widescreen versions, sometimes even more than the 1.66 "framing", in fact i mentioned i measured and roughly calculated what the whole CAMERA APERTURE image might on Beauty and the Beast in the international forum once and i think it came like 1.56 or 1.61 or something slightly different from the often mentioned 1.66 CAPS rendering ratio (for which i'd love for someone to tell me the exact pixel rendering dimensions to know exactly how they are done) But of course the rendering has to HAVE more image around the exact 0.446" x 0.825" 1.85 dimensions to cover the aformentioned different screens all over the world, projectionist errors, AND projector mechanical errors (For example, in projectors, the image moves from side to side slightly (projector weave) during projection so there's ACTUALLY more image on the sides that you're meant to see for safety factors than the Projector Aperture specified 0.825" (20.96mm) width: 0.868" (22.05mm).
For example if you showed THAT extra CAMERA APERTURE image area width in the video transfer you'd end up with a 0.446" x 0.868" 1.95 wide image.

Much has been said in this forum and elsewhere about what's the true aspect ratio of those CAPS films like, is Mulan 1.66 or 1.85? etc etc. It was done knowing that in most theater screens it would be shown at 1.85. So what do you think?



Now, why don't i complain bitterly about the current CAPS 1.66 editions? Well they just show a smidge extra top background and bottom animation that to me is extraneous but you know what? Unless you have a perfectly underscanned display (0% underscan) that shows you the whole image on a DVD, you're seeing those discs cropped back to roughly 1.85 on your 16:9 widescreen TV set! And those with 4:3 sets see a little more image top and bottom filling their dreaded black bars and everybody is happier. The resolution loss by doing Mulan in slightly open matte Pillarboxed 1.66 instead of prescisely Widescreened into 1.85 on a 16:9 coded DVD is negligible and keeps the people happy so it's no big deal if it's not exactly framed at the original 1.85
If you're really into getting the correct 1.85, you'll know (or will find out) how to make the 1.66 into 1.85 on your display anyway since it can be done.
(And if ya really want more resolution there's PAL for ya )



Marcelo: Roger Rabbit effects were shot on VistaVision (1.50 aspect ratio so they could be open matted up to that) and the non-SFX shots were probably done with a normal 35mm sound camera or maybe with a Super-35 (Silent aperture) camera so those could be open matted up to 1.375/1.33 respectively but Roger is an 1.85 movie. Monsters, Inc on 4:3 video is I believe (since i haven't seen that video ) a RErendering (a recompositing from the computer files) so its like a re-shot version of the movie specifically for 4:3 displays. The original renders I think were done 922 x 1536 pixels (called a 1.5k) (i've seen a couple ) which gives you a 1.67 camera aperture of which 1.85 would be the intended image as was shown in most theaters (see above explanation )

So for people that think they might be missing something, not really.

You can watch the supplements and the behind the scenes to see more of the sets and backgrounds. Or the 4:3 version

[dvdjunkie]

Okay, now deathie mouse, for those of us who don't speak techo-geek, can you put that in plain English. I think it was a great explanation, but i do think that it went over most of our heads.

[Isidour]

little image, just a bit cuted of the image(nothing for be mad of), thinier characters and look-nore-tall ones...
naaa...there´s no problem for me