Peter Pan Question

becko · Post by **becko** » Mon Oct 20, 2003 11:23 am

I have a question-- what is the OAR of Peter Pan?? I want to buy this, and I've been looking on ebay, sometimes the auctions say it is a widescreen, and some say fullscreen. Does anyone have any insights on this? I don't want to make a mistake and buy a bootleg, and everyone here seems to know everything Disney, so I thought I'd ask the experts!

Thanks in advance guys, anything you can tell me will help!

disneyfella · Post by **disneyfella** » Mon Oct 20, 2003 12:24 pm

to the best of my knowledge, the OAR of Peter Pan is 1.33:1 (fullscreen). i'm in a computer lab now, but when i get home, i'll check my dvd for you, but i think that there is no widescreen available. i thought that the first animated film to get a widescreen treatment was Lady and the Tramp which came out 2 years after peter pan. hope this helps, but i'll check back in a couple hours with the skinny on the dvd box.

Chernabog · Post by **Chernabog** » Mon Oct 20, 2003 12:54 pm

It´s only availible in fullscreen!

Maerj · Post by **Maerj** » Mon Oct 20, 2003 12:56 pm

The box itself says "Original Theatrical Ratio" but doesn't specify what that ratio is! The movie's ratio is 1.33:1

becko · Post by **becko** » Mon Oct 20, 2003 1:09 pm

I was guessing the fullscreen was okay, because it said 'original' on the box, and luke has it listed as such on his list. So, if fullscreen is the OAR, should I avoid anything on ebay that says its in widescreen??

Captain Hook · Post by **Captain Hook** » Mon Oct 20, 2003 2:03 pm

Peter Pan's ratio is indeed 1.33:1. I would think that if it is advertised as widescreen either it's A) lying or B) been matted over. I would suggest to you to buy the Special Edition, or just wait and buy the Platinum Edition when it arrives.

Hook

Uncle Remus · Post by **Uncle Remus** » Mon Oct 20, 2003 2:40 pm

yeah it would be good if you wait for the platinum edition but if you really want the movie that bad, then go ahead and get the special edition.

quiden · Post by **quiden** » Thu Nov 13, 2003 9:51 am

I too was concerned when I saw that Peter Pan was saying that it was the original theatrical ratio, but when I put it on it was full screen. Which was right?, well both! If you notice, all of the older movies are full screen. That was the shape of the screen in the theater. They started widening it when Television became common and the movie industry wanted to do something to set themselves apart from TV. I believe that Peter Pan is correct in it's full screen theatrical ratio and I don't think anyone should feel jipped.

By the way. Peter Pan is one of my favorites.

ArtOfDisney · Post by **ArtOfDisney** » Thu Nov 13, 2003 10:39 am

It is only in FullScreen.

But the correct answer to the widescreen question was Sleeping Beauty was the first Disney film to be filmed in Widescreen format.

quiden · Post by **quiden** » Thu Nov 13, 2003 11:17 am

I know that Sleeping Beauty was the first Cinemascope animated feature, but is it the first to be in wider than TV aspect ratio too? What is the feature that came out just before Sleeping Beauty?

quiden · Post by **quiden** » Thu Nov 13, 2003 11:23 am

Hmm, well now I'm confused. It looks like Lady and the Tramp came out before Sleeping Beauty and it has an aspect ratio of 2.35:1 which is the same as what is listed for Sleeping Beauty. Was Sleeping Beauty really the first to have that ratio?

Anyway, I think the question of whether or not you're not getting the Theatrical full picture on the Peter Pan DVD's answer is that Full Frame is giving you all there is to see.

ArtOfDisney · Post by **ArtOfDisney** » Thu Nov 13, 2003 11:59 am

Weird how that is. Everything I've read from Dis said that Sleeping was. But anyhow, forget that.

Everything I've ever seen of Peter Pan was Full Screen. So I think that that is all there is to offer. If there was a widescreen I think they would have released it on the Special Edition.

Chernabog · Post by **Chernabog** » Thu Nov 13, 2003 12:05 pm

Peter Pan was fullscreen.
Lady and the Tramp was presented in Cinemascope (Widescreen)
Sleeping Beauty in Tehnirama 70 (even wider screen)

Joe Carioca · Post by **Joe Carioca** » Thu Nov 13, 2003 1:15 pm

Chernabog wrote:
Peter Pan was fullscreen.
Lady and the Tramp was presented in Cinemascope (Widescreen)
Sleeping Beauty in Tehnirama 70 (even wider screen)

Yeah, "Sleeping Beauty" had a even wider screen format, but the DVD crops the picture, so that it is presented in the "traditional" 2.35:1 aspect ratio. What a shame, Disney.

Captain Hook · Post by **Captain Hook** » Thu Nov 13, 2003 3:29 pm

Joe Carioca wrote:Yeah, "Sleeping Beauty" had a even wider screen format, but the DVD crops the picture, so that it is presented in the "traditional" 2.35:1 aspect ratio. What a shame, Disney.

How wide was it? I think the widest Disney ever released was 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea with a 2.55:1 ratio.

MickeyMouseboy · Post by **MickeyMouseboy** » Thu Nov 13, 2003 3:42 pm

mmmm last time i check Technirama 70 was 2:35.1 aspect Ratio

It's two 35mm film running along side to create a 2:35.1 frame and then it uses a anamorphic lense to fit the theater screen. this format is long gone

Captain Hook · Post by **Captain Hook** » Thu Nov 13, 2003 3:50 pm

MickeyMouseboy wrote:mmmm last time i check Technirama 70 was 2:35.1 aspect Ratio

It's two 35mm film running along side to create a 2:35.1 frame and then it uses a anamorphic lense to fit the theater screen. this format is long gone

Ahh... thanks! I was kind of worried there for a minute that maybe both my fairy tales were changed (Beauty and the Beast was matted from 1.66:1 to 1.85:1).

Hook

Joe Carioca · Post by **Joe Carioca** » Thu Nov 13, 2003 4:03 pm

Captain Hook wrote:
Joe Carioca wrote:Yeah, "Sleeping Beauty" had a even wider screen format, but the DVD crops the picture, so that it is presented in the "traditional" 2.35:1 aspect ratio. What a shame, Disney.
How wide was it? I think the widest Disney ever released was 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea with a 2.55:1 ratio.

I think it was as wide (or at least almost as wide) as "20,00 Leagues". This aspect ratio thing has been discussed at the Home Theater Forum: http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htforum ... did=157762

In this page ( http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htforum ... genumber=6 ) you can see some screens from an old "Sleeping Beauty" trailer, which had the aspect ratio of 1.85:1. Of course, the sides are croped, but if you compare the pictures to the DVD, you can see that top and bottom from the picture of the DVD are croped.

MickeyMouseboy · Post by **MickeyMouseboy** » Thu Nov 13, 2003 4:22 pm

I dont think it was wider. the Original ratio has always been 2:35.1

I think the reason you see more picture on that trailer it's because the artwork for the movie it's not actually 2:35.1 it's wider but it's hidden behind the matte that's probably why you see more. but the Ratio of the film upon release has always been 2:35.1. it's just a open matte transfer.

in the home theater review it states the following:

So what about vertical cropping? That wouldn't be affected by overscan on the DVD player or display bcs of the 2.35:1 letterboxed image hard-coded into the 16x9 frame. Bottom line...the DVD and LD are basically about the same as far as vertical information goes. In one scene they look identical. Then in the next the LD has a sliver more at the bottom. But then in the next scene the DVD has a sliver more at the bottom...then the LD has a sliver more at the top, then they look the same in the next scene you get the idea. Basically they're almost identical and when they do differ they differ only very slightly and with no consitency from DVD to LD in terms of who's got more.

Now, until RAH or someone else can chime in (screen pics???) with some samples of what the "real" film-frame is *supposed* to look like we can't say much more...and indeed any cropping criticm of the DVD will apply to the LD as well. But at least we don't have a situation where the LD had marvelous framing which has been dramatically "zoomed" on the DVD. Nope...aspect-ratio/framing wise DVD and LD are basically on par.

it basicly the same the DVD at times has more than the LD and same with the LD more than the DVD and it's slighly. why this happens no idea maybe it has to do with the prints since they have to take two 35mm to put sleeping beauty together that might have cause this who knows.

About LAdy and the Tramp it was shot twice in 35mm Fullscreen and Cinemascope. Cinemascope it's basicly a 2:35.1 shot on a 35mm print

Joe Carioca · Post by **Joe Carioca** » Tue Nov 18, 2003 8:44 am

An extract from DVD Angle's review, that explains what I was trying to say:

Sleeping Beauty was originated in Technirama, which uses 35mm film running sideways in the camera. The image was then blown up to create the 1959 70mm theatrical prints with six track audio (five front channels and a mono surround channel). The original aspect ratio on these release prints was approximately 2.21:1. Therefore, to arrive at the slightly wider 2.35:1 aspect ratio on the DVD, some of the image is unfortunately cropped off the bottom of the frame. For example, the MPAA logo during the opening credits is partially lopped off. The reason for this change in aspect ratio is unclear, but there has been some speculation that the change occurred somewhere along the line in the digital restoration process. This is a minor complaint, and it’s certainly more tolerable than hacking off over half of the image to create the pan&scan version.

DVDizzy Forum

Latest Movie Reviews

🎬 DVDizzy Top Stories️️

Peter Pan Question

Peter Pan Question

Peter Pan

Peter pan