Sleeping Beauty DVD not so special! (everyone please read!!)

[MickeyMouseboy]

http://guni.no-ip.com/simon/sleeping_beauty_cell.jpg


Here's a original animation cell from the movie the black square resembles what's seen on the DVD transfer the rest is not seen on the DVD what happened to the rest of the animation?

well, i checked out a comparison shot from the dvd and i would say your black lines on the cell are fairly acurate but if you look at that sceen there is alot of other art work going on. that is the cell and i don't think any movie would shoot from the extreme edge of the cell to the other. and as for your screenshots they are deceiving because when you save a screenshot on power dvd or whatever it doesn't preserve the shot in its natural aspect ratio. if you put those dvd shots into a better perspective there may be a little clipped off the edges but when i viewed this movie, i was blown away at the presentation especially compared to the pan and scan version. while there may be a weed or 1/4 of a brick missing from the shot, i don't think it's anything to complain about.

I'm sorry but i dont agree with you. so that is that

[Udvarnoky]

Well, the DVD of Beauty and the Beast isn't in the original ratio, but it is in the INTENDED ratio, which was projected in theaters.

That is the worst thing I have ever read on this forum in my entire life. To think that people agree with cropping movies! What is this world coming to!!! AAAH!!! Why is the VHS a pan and scan of the 1.66:1 version instead of the 1.85:1 then? Sorry if this doesn't make sense, but in all reality, I think that both movies should be rereleased in their original formats.

Look, if it is the way the FILM MAKERS want it, I don't have any right to wish otherwise. Perhaps you are unaware of processes such as soft-matting, where a film is purposely cropped to fit the ratio of a theater screen. I don't see the purpose of this in animation, but the fact remains that 1:85 was the ratio intended.

[MickeyMouseboy]

well if the filmmakers wanted a 1:85.1 ratio then create the movie at that ratio why make more animation that is going to get cropped? I don't believe 1:85.1 was the filmmakers "vision" for B&B but more of a general rule for all disney features. 1:66.1 is the ratio it was created it in and that's what should be released since the filmmakers made the animation to cover the whole 1:66.1 frame then that's their vision or else they would have just left the rest of the frame that's suppose to be matted blank!

[Udvarnoky]

well if the filmmakers wanted a 1:85.1 ratio then create the movie at that ratio why make more animation that is going to get cropped?

That's a very good question. I'd like to know the answer to that myself. Perhaps it was to make the horrid "pan-and-scan" version less drastic? Maybe it was a last-minute desicion because of the desire for a tighter composition? Who knows? My point is, having a movie willingly cropped by ITS CREATORS is much different than it being destroyed by the pan-and-scan technique.

[MickeyMouseboy]

1:66.1 frame is still P&S with mininal lose but still goes thru that process so it's stupid to me that they just dont make the movie at 1:85.1 it gets chopped off on either ratio.

[Maerj]

I have been going threw the very lengthy review of Sleeping Beauty at Home Theater Forum, here is what it says concerning aspect ratio so far:

UPDATE - Laserdisc/DVD Framing Comparison: 9-7-03

Ok, while my fancy-shmancy Pioneer Elite CLD99 is off at my friend's house I hooked up my trusy CLD-52 to do some DVD/LD framing comparisons (my CLD53 doesn't have the 3-D comb-filter or AC-3 capability, but puts out a nice image just the same).

Firstly, let's just get it out of the way that in overall picture qualitiy the DVD UTTERLY, TOTALLY *SMOKES* the laserdisc to all H*LL. I mean *really*, if you want a poster-child DVD that just STOMPS all over a laserdisc you've got it. That poor LD is still whimpering with its tail between its legs after having its *ss kicked!

Ok, aspect ratio.

Comparing the DVD to the LD, the LD seems to have a *slight* bit of more information to the left/right (probably less than you lose in overscan on your set anyway). Now after I made this same proclaimation about the Hello Dolly DVD/LD comparison someone with a Bravo DVD player using the DVI (digital video) connection to his plasma responded and told me he saw the missing L/R information that I wasn't seeing on my DVD. This leads me to believe that my Panny RP91 might be doing a bit of overscanning for me on its analog video outputs...many DVD players do this so it's not unusual. Point: Who knows...maybe the S.B. DVD also has the full horizontal info but I'm not seeing it cuz my DVD player overscans for me (like with Dolly).

And certainly running DVD video via DVI to a digital display calibrated for minimal overscan should be our reference point...so I'm trusing that other HTFer's experience over mine in this case.

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.

[XxSuRgEoxX]

If any you feel your life is somehow less fullfilled because of this than you need some counciling.

Can't we just be happy that we have this gorgeous film in widescreen on a great DVD set? There are more important things going on in the world.

PS. MickeyMouseBoy I think there were plenty of good, practical examples and explanations given as to why this was done. I don't think they warrant responses like "I'm sorry but i dont agree with you. so that is that" Just a thought.

[2099net]

Well, the DVD of Beauty and the Beast isn't in the original ratio, but it is in the INTENDED ratio, which was projected in theaters.

That is the worst thing I have ever read on this forum in my entire life. To think that people agree with cropping movies! What is this world coming to!!! AAAH!!! Why is the VHS a pan and scan of the 1.66:1 version instead of the 1.85:1 then? Sorry if this doesn't make sense, but in all reality, I think that both movies should be rereleased in their original formats.

It makes perfect sense. Lots of live action films are filmed in a 4:3 ratio but matted to 1.85:1. Look at Titanic for example. Why are there never demands to see all of these 'opened up' on DVD? It's just hypocritical to have one rule for live action and one rule for animation.

Beauty and the Beast (and Hunchback - the only other animated film released in 1.85:1) were released in that format on DVD at the directors' request (it's no co-incidence both films are directed by Wise and Trousdale). They know most theaters would be too lazy to change the matting from the more common 1.85:1 to 1.66:1 when showing the movie at the cinema, so always intended the movie to be matted to 1.85:1. These were the instructions given when the movie was shipped out to theaters.

All Disney films that use the CAPS system are made a 1.66:1. It's just the format of the equipement (choosen as a midway point between 1.85:1 and 4:3). Just because your equipment allows a 1.66:1 image to be shot, doesn't mean it should contrain your artistic choice (see how Atlantis and Brother Bear are 2.35:1 while still being made on CAPS)

I'm sure the 1.66 frame is fully animated to, as suggested, make the full-screen version suffer from less cropping/scanning - remember in the 90's when these films were made, most home videos were released in MAR.

[disneyfella]

i just don't understand as to why disney would mess with the framing in sleeping beauty. it doesn't make any sense, there is no motivation for it.


MMBoy......when do i get the info on that freaky friday dvd?

[Udvarnoky]

1:66.1 frame is still P&S with mininal lose but still goes thru that process so it's stupid to me that they just dont make the movie at 1:85.1 it gets chopped off on either ratio.

I'm not trying to defend P&S. I'm simply trying to state possible reasons why the film was presented this way.

[Udvarnoky]

If any you feel your life is somehow less fullfilled because of this than you need some counciling.

Can't we just be happy that we have this gorgeous film in widescreen on a great DVD set? There are more important things going on in the world.

No, I'd be pretty mad if the film was indeed mis-framed. I would feel as if my life is somehow less-fufilled.

[Luke]

Hey folks, just remember that it's fine to attack arguments made, but there's no need to attack the people making them or get personal. Thanks.

[quasi72]

Well, I am in shock.
I cannot believe that Disney would ever do that on this special DVDs, specially, if they have included a featurette about different ratios and how DVD is sooo good that you can include the actual ratio in which the movie was made. BS.
If I go to a museum to see a painting, I want to see the original painting. Just because the artist made it too large, that doesnt' allow anyone to chop it into pieces to fit in a smaller frame.
This sucks.
I am very upset about it.
And yes, I am comparing Sleeping Beauty with paintings, because I truly believe that the movie -the original one- is a work of art.

[MickeyMouseboy]

I think why the movie was misframed was because they took the 70mm framed and reshoot it to a 65mm which was fine but as the restoration feature said they scanned the framed from 65mm and then restored then and shot them back on a 35mm film. that could have been why they had to chop the pick alot still makes me mad! why couldnt they just use the 65mm transfer for the DVD instead of the 35mm?

[Anders M Olsson]

If I go to a museum to see a painting, I want to see the original painting. Just because the artist made it too large, that doesnt' allow anyone to chop it into pieces to fit in a smaller frame.

Agreed. But you don't go to a museum and insist that they take the canvas out of the frame so that you can see the borders that were covered by the frame.

The film print, when watched outside the projector, is just like a canvas without the frame. When the film is loaded into the projector, the aperture and velvet mask around the screen is comparable to the painting's frame.

It's in that context, when projected at a movie theatre, that the 70mm film should be watched. With that in mind, you can make the comparison to what you see on the DVD. I think you'll agree that the difference is no longer too much of an issue.

[Captain Hook]

well if the filmmakers wanted a 1:85.1 ratio then create the movie at that ratio why make more animation that is going to get cropped? I don't believe 1:85.1 was the filmmakers "vision" for B&B but more of a general rule for all disney features. 1:66.1 is the ratio it was created it in and that's what should be released since the filmmakers made the animation to cover the whole 1:66.1 frame then that's their vision or else they would have just left the rest of the frame that's suppose to be matted blank!

Thank you MMBoy! Again, you prove yourself the smartest ally anyone could have.

Hook

[catNC]

1:66.1 frame is still P&S with mininal lose but still goes thru that process so it's stupid to me that they just dont make the movie at 1:85.1 it gets chopped off on either ratio.

this is driving me crazy...

1:66.1 is read "1 to 66.1"

1.66:1 is read "1.66 to 1"



thank heavens the ratio isn't 1:66.1.. then it would be a very very wide skinny rectangle

[Joe Carioca]

I had stated this before, but I think nobody gave it much attention.

From DVD Angle:

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.

I really don't understand why Disney couldn't give us "Sleeping Beauty" properly frammed. They only do this because they think that only children like Disney... and the grown ups who like aren't able to disclaim.

Oh, 2099net, "Mulan" and "Fantasia 2000" also have the 1.85:1 aspect ratio. And I also agree that the aspect ratio of "Beauty" was a matter of choice from the directors. As for "Sleeping Beauty"...

[Udvarnoky]

So it is official. I know that studios have been known to round aspect ratios to 2.35:1 when they were somewhere near it, but this is rather disappointing. While it is not as major as it could be, it's still upsetting, especially with a movie such as Sleeping Beauty (though no film should be unnecessarily cropped)

[MickeyMouseboy]

see I told you Ub and Anders!!! the Mouse is always right!