Intended Aspect Ratio Question
-
blackcauldron85
- Ultimate Collector's Edition
- Posts: 16705
- Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 7:54 am
- Gender: Female
- Contact:
Intended Aspect Ratio Question
I know there have been other threads about aspect ratio...I'm still confused. Let's take "Robin Hood", for example. I have the Gold Collection DVD. There is also a "Most Wanted Edition". I know that the aspect ratio is different...and it's unclear which the artists intended it to be seen it. Is it worth having both aspect ratios in one's collection, especially since no one's sure which is "correct"? I'm mostly curious about "Robin Hood" and the upcoming "The Aristocats"...If TA is a 2-disc, I'll surely double-dip...but, especially for RH, am I missing out on not having the new edition?
-
carter1971
- Gold Classic Collection
- Posts: 168
- Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2007 7:42 pm
- Location: Georgia
I stuck with my Gold Collection DVD because i prefer to see all of the artwork. The reason why is actually addressed in UD's review of the MWE, but I'll reiterate it here.
When a director films a live-action movie "flat," he doesn't intend for the footage at the top and bottom of the frame to be seen, and sometime doesn't see it himself while filming. If the movie is later seen unmatted, the picture is not a true represention of his vision, and can also contain other things which ruin the picture such as cables, etc. So, when given the choice it is always better to view a live-action film matted, in my opinion.
Animation is different, however. There is no "junk" which can accidentally make it into the shot. The artists deliberately drew the entire frame. The reasons why it was drawn in 1.33:1 ratio haven't been explained, but I'm sure some theatres in 1973 stilled showed movies that way. It would also have been shown matted in many other theatres. For this film, it would be hard to say what is the "true" aspect ratio. Disney didn't start animating in 1.66:1 until they made The Rescuers.
Now, it is entirely a matter of opinion as to how one would prefer to view this movie. As I said, I prefer to see the full scope of the artwork. A few nights ago, I watched my GC disc and can't really imagine most of those scenes cropped at the top and bottom. To be fair, I haven't seen the matted version yet, so it may not be as bad as I imagine. But what's the point? They drew what is there, so why not show it?
Some other DVD's where this has come up include Beauty and the Beast and the upcoming release of The Aristocats. The former was drawn (and released on laserdisc) in the 1.66:1 ratio but was matted slightly for its DVD release. If I gather correctly from what I've read so far, The Aristocats will be matted as well, even though it was drawn in the 1.33:1 ratio. This is disappointing to me and puts a serious damper on this release. I'll likely still buy it if the extras are worth it but will likely continue to use my GC as my copy for viewing the movie.
I know there is a lot of debate about this and some members here actually prefer the matted versions. I fully see that side of things. The purist in me agrees with that position. But the art lover in me wins out and wants to see it all.
Disney could easily solve this problem by offering both versions on one release. They've hacked thier films before to offer P&S or "family friendly widescreen" so I don't see why they won't do this.
When a director films a live-action movie "flat," he doesn't intend for the footage at the top and bottom of the frame to be seen, and sometime doesn't see it himself while filming. If the movie is later seen unmatted, the picture is not a true represention of his vision, and can also contain other things which ruin the picture such as cables, etc. So, when given the choice it is always better to view a live-action film matted, in my opinion.
Animation is different, however. There is no "junk" which can accidentally make it into the shot. The artists deliberately drew the entire frame. The reasons why it was drawn in 1.33:1 ratio haven't been explained, but I'm sure some theatres in 1973 stilled showed movies that way. It would also have been shown matted in many other theatres. For this film, it would be hard to say what is the "true" aspect ratio. Disney didn't start animating in 1.66:1 until they made The Rescuers.
Now, it is entirely a matter of opinion as to how one would prefer to view this movie. As I said, I prefer to see the full scope of the artwork. A few nights ago, I watched my GC disc and can't really imagine most of those scenes cropped at the top and bottom. To be fair, I haven't seen the matted version yet, so it may not be as bad as I imagine. But what's the point? They drew what is there, so why not show it?
Some other DVD's where this has come up include Beauty and the Beast and the upcoming release of The Aristocats. The former was drawn (and released on laserdisc) in the 1.66:1 ratio but was matted slightly for its DVD release. If I gather correctly from what I've read so far, The Aristocats will be matted as well, even though it was drawn in the 1.33:1 ratio. This is disappointing to me and puts a serious damper on this release. I'll likely still buy it if the extras are worth it but will likely continue to use my GC as my copy for viewing the movie.
I know there is a lot of debate about this and some members here actually prefer the matted versions. I fully see that side of things. The purist in me agrees with that position. But the art lover in me wins out and wants to see it all.
Disney could easily solve this problem by offering both versions on one release. They've hacked thier films before to offer P&S or "family friendly widescreen" so I don't see why they won't do this.
-
blackcauldron85
- Ultimate Collector's Edition
- Posts: 16705
- Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 7:54 am
- Gender: Female
- Contact:
Thanks, carter1971- that was helpful! So, it's possible that different theaters showed different versions...and you don't lose artwork with the fullscreen version. I don't think I really need to update "Robin Hood", then...but, as I said, and as you said, if the extras on "The Aristocats" are worth it, I'll pick it up. Thanks again for your help!
yeah, i think i wasted my money with the upgrade of Robin Hood!blackcauldron85 wrote:Thanks, carter1971- that was helpful! So, it's possible that different theaters showed different versions...and you don't lose artwork with the fullscreen version. I don't think I really need to update "Robin Hood", then...but, as I said, and as you said, if the extras on "The Aristocats" are worth it, I'll pick it up. Thanks again for your help!
It was SSOOO not worth it at all.
-
blackcauldron85
- Ultimate Collector's Edition
- Posts: 16705
- Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 7:54 am
- Gender: Female
- Contact:
yes, of coarse I did!blackcauldron85 wrote:Matt, did you save your Gold Collection DVD? If so, you could always sell or trade your Most Wanted Edition if you're not happy with it...but that stinks that you're unhappy with your "upgrade".
I will just keep it, ya never know what can come down the line, ya know?
-
Lars Vermundsberget
- Collector's Edition
- Posts: 2483
- Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2003 1:50 pm
- Location: Norway
Right - that is an important difference - there couldn't really be that sort of "accidental junk" in the animated backgrounds.carter1971 wrote:When a director films a live-action movie "flat," he doesn't intend for the footage at the top and bottom of the frame to be seen, and sometime doesn't see it himself while filming. If the movie is later seen unmatted, the picture is not a true represention of his vision, and can also contain other things which ruin the picture such as cables, etc. So, when given the choice it is always better to view a live-action film matted, in my opinion.
Animation is different, however. There is no "junk" which can accidentally make it into the shot. The artists deliberately drew the entire frame.
But I wouldn't unconditionally say that "more is better" even in such cases - an intended composition could get "warped". The fact that part of the full frame is "hidden" when matted doesn't mean that the "artwork" is "lost" - it's usually visible at another point in time as the camera moves about. The basics of composition could in essence be the same for animated films as for live-action...
As for the 60s-70s Disney animated features "in question", however, I tend to think that both approaches may be justified and therefore considered "right".
-
blackcauldron85
- Ultimate Collector's Edition
- Posts: 16705
- Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 7:54 am
- Gender: Female
- Contact:
-
Lars Vermundsberget
- Collector's Edition
- Posts: 2483
- Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2003 1:50 pm
- Location: Norway
-
blackcauldron85
- Ultimate Collector's Edition
- Posts: 16705
- Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 7:54 am
- Gender: Female
- Contact:
Lars Vermundsberget wrote:So hopefully you can sleep well at night with any (or both) of the two versions on the shelf!
I'm going to stick with my Gold Collection DVD. Just like I'm going to stick with my Dumbo: 60th Anniversary DVD. I'll upgrade "The Aristocats" if it's 2-dsics, but, otherwise, probably not. I just sold my VHS tapes, so I'm trying to upgrade as many movies as possible to DVD- 14 of the VHS I sold I don't have the DVD for (but I just ordered "Pinocchio" and "101 Dalmatians"- I'm hoping they're legit!), and some of the other ones I can get from a UD'er and from my brother, and pretty much the rest I can get from the DMC.Thanks for your help, everyone!
-
carter1971
- Gold Classic Collection
- Posts: 168
- Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2007 7:42 pm
- Location: Georgia
You're welcome, blackcauldron85. I'm glad my response was helpful.
Lars, as I said in my review, I see both sides of this discussion as being correct, and was just outlining my reason for prefering full frame on these particular movies, even though I prefer widescreen for most other films. Interestingly, I found myself on the opposite side of this when a friend and I dicsussed the reissue of The Evil Dead on DVD a few years ago. He had always seen the film full frame and couldn't stand the "loss" of picture the new version brought. I told him that Sam Raimi never meant for it to be seen and even said so himself. I never convinced him to see it that way, and his reason why may be factor in why I prefer Robin Hood in full frame. That's the way I've watched it all my life.
To Matt and anyone else who bought the MWE - My previous post was in no way meant to say that you wasted your money on the disc. It is a legitimate presentation of the film, as is the GC disc.
Lars, as I said in my review, I see both sides of this discussion as being correct, and was just outlining my reason for prefering full frame on these particular movies, even though I prefer widescreen for most other films. Interestingly, I found myself on the opposite side of this when a friend and I dicsussed the reissue of The Evil Dead on DVD a few years ago. He had always seen the film full frame and couldn't stand the "loss" of picture the new version brought. I told him that Sam Raimi never meant for it to be seen and even said so himself. I never convinced him to see it that way, and his reason why may be factor in why I prefer Robin Hood in full frame. That's the way I've watched it all my life.
To Matt and anyone else who bought the MWE - My previous post was in no way meant to say that you wasted your money on the disc. It is a legitimate presentation of the film, as is the GC disc.
-
blackcauldron85
- Ultimate Collector's Edition
- Posts: 16705
- Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 7:54 am
- Gender: Female
- Contact:
Another aspect mystery- "The Fox and the Hound". I actually was in bed and couldn't sleep (because of a dream, not because of this), and I decided to go online and look up why no one knows the true aspect ratio of TF&tH. Surely there are people who worked on this movie who must know...? I'm wondering what your thoughts are on this! (IMDB and another site say it should be in 1:66:1)...
On http://www.ultimatedisney.com/oar.htm, it says:
The only DVD releases that seems to be affected, though, is The Fox and the Hound. It's been confirmed from actual cels that Robin Hood (1973) was animated in the 1.37:1 Academy Ratio, and thus the fullscreen DVD presentation is correct. Likewise, The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh (1977) was edited together from a series of shorts animated in the 1960s, when Disney was believed to still be working in Academy Ratio. So, if The Rescuers marks the first Disney animated feature to be created in widescreen (not counting the two Cinemascope features of the 1950s), then logic would have it that all animated features since 1977 should be in widescreen on DVD. And all of the animated features post-1977 ARE in widescreen on DVD...except for The Fox and the Hound (1981). This leads me to withdraw the claim that Fox and the Hound was animated for 1.37:1 and matted for widescreen theatrical presentation. Oddly enough, it seems that The Fox and the Hound is the ONLY animated feature that Disney has released to DVD in a compromised Fullscreen ratio, i.e. Pan and Scan. It certainly seems odd for just one film out of the whole batch to be released in the wrong ratio, but this is my new conclusion. With accurate information on the aspect ratio of these films so hard to come by, it's difficult to draw conclusions...but from the best information I've gotten, The Fox and The Hound is the only Disney animated classic to not be in the aspect ratio it was animated or exhibited in.
I just don't understand why we don't know, and, if it's always presented in the wrong aspect ratio, why?
And, still another "Robin Hood" question (I promise I'll fully understand some day!):
http://www.dvdtimes.co.uk/content.php?contentid=63420 says:
The Ultimate Disney review, which includes a screenshot comparing this release to its 1.33:1 predecessor, clearly shows that the earlier version was open matte. Indeed, flicking between the two captures of the same frame from both releases, it's clear that, on the left and right hand side of the frame, there is barely even a pixel's worth of difference. At the top and bottom, however, the new release obscures a considerable amount of the dead space that was present on the previous release.
So, "Robin Hood" was shown in theaters in 1:75:1. but was intended to be seen in 1:33:1, possibly? I thought I understood, but this site just confused me...
On http://www.ultimatedisney.com/oar.htm, it says:
The only DVD releases that seems to be affected, though, is The Fox and the Hound. It's been confirmed from actual cels that Robin Hood (1973) was animated in the 1.37:1 Academy Ratio, and thus the fullscreen DVD presentation is correct. Likewise, The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh (1977) was edited together from a series of shorts animated in the 1960s, when Disney was believed to still be working in Academy Ratio. So, if The Rescuers marks the first Disney animated feature to be created in widescreen (not counting the two Cinemascope features of the 1950s), then logic would have it that all animated features since 1977 should be in widescreen on DVD. And all of the animated features post-1977 ARE in widescreen on DVD...except for The Fox and the Hound (1981). This leads me to withdraw the claim that Fox and the Hound was animated for 1.37:1 and matted for widescreen theatrical presentation. Oddly enough, it seems that The Fox and the Hound is the ONLY animated feature that Disney has released to DVD in a compromised Fullscreen ratio, i.e. Pan and Scan. It certainly seems odd for just one film out of the whole batch to be released in the wrong ratio, but this is my new conclusion. With accurate information on the aspect ratio of these films so hard to come by, it's difficult to draw conclusions...but from the best information I've gotten, The Fox and The Hound is the only Disney animated classic to not be in the aspect ratio it was animated or exhibited in.
I just don't understand why we don't know, and, if it's always presented in the wrong aspect ratio, why?
And, still another "Robin Hood" question (I promise I'll fully understand some day!):
http://www.dvdtimes.co.uk/content.php?contentid=63420 says:
The Ultimate Disney review, which includes a screenshot comparing this release to its 1.33:1 predecessor, clearly shows that the earlier version was open matte. Indeed, flicking between the two captures of the same frame from both releases, it's clear that, on the left and right hand side of the frame, there is barely even a pixel's worth of difference. At the top and bottom, however, the new release obscures a considerable amount of the dead space that was present on the previous release.
So, "Robin Hood" was shown in theaters in 1:75:1. but was intended to be seen in 1:33:1, possibly? I thought I understood, but this site just confused me...
-
ichabod
- Diamond Edition
- Posts: 4676
- Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2003 8:29 am
- Location: The place where they didn't build EuroDisney
- Contact:
It was animated and shot as 1.33:1, but with the knowledge that it would be displayed in theatres as 1.75:1. Possibly also with the consideration that any TV broadcasts would be 1.33:1 since that was the ratio of TV screens.blackcauldron85 wrote:So, "Robin Hood" was shown in theaters in 1:75:1. but was intended to be seen in 1:33:1, possibly? I thought I understood, but this site just confused me...
Therfore it was framed so that whether watching the 1.33:1 aor 1.75:1 version all important information would be within the frame. Therefore it was shot so that it could be watched in both ration, so both ration are 'correct' and neither is 'incorrect'.
Which is why the melon-heads at BVHE should have put both versions on the DVD.
-
blackcauldron85
- Ultimate Collector's Edition
- Posts: 16705
- Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 7:54 am
- Gender: Female
- Contact:
-
ichabod
- Diamond Edition
- Posts: 4676
- Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2003 8:29 am
- Location: The place where they didn't build EuroDisney
- Contact:
I'm not saying TV was a contributing factor to the 1.33:1 decision, all I'm saying is it could have been.
What could be far more likely as a suggestion is the equipment used. All their movie making equipment could probably have been the same from the 40s and 50s which obviously was tailored to 1.33:1 film production.
But who knows.
What could be far more likely as a suggestion is the equipment used. All their movie making equipment could probably have been the same from the 40s and 50s which obviously was tailored to 1.33:1 film production.
But who knows.
Well, they might have done. After all it provides options later in the day.
Don't forget, all their shooting equipment and even animation desks etc were unchanged from when they shot films in the academy ratio. So it sort of makes sense for them to keep actually shooting their animated films the same.
Don't forget, all their shooting equipment and even animation desks etc were unchanged from when they shot films in the academy ratio. So it sort of makes sense for them to keep actually shooting their animated films the same.
Most of my Blu-ray collection some of my UK discs aren't on their database
-
blackcauldron85
- Ultimate Collector's Edition
- Posts: 16705
- Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 7:54 am
- Gender: Female
- Contact:
Thanks, 2099net, and thanks again, Ichabod! Yet another question:
on the OAR page of UD, it mentions this:
Sleeping Beauty (1959) [was created in] 2.35:1. The Sleeping Beauty Special Edition DVD released in September of 2003 displayed the film in a widescreen ratio, with black bars on top and bottom of the film making up for the difference in ratio between the film and a 4 x 3 television set.
Is anything lost by putting the bars on the top and bottom? Since it's already a widescreen film, this isn't considered matting, is it?
One more: At the end of the OAR page on UD, it mentions films such as B&tB and THoND being animated in 1.66:1, but presented on DVD in 1.85:1. Do you think that, when these films are re-released on DVD, that they might be shown in 1.66:1? Isn't 1.66:1 their intended aspect ratio? The article says but perhaps the theatrical ratio is the one preferred by producer Don Hahn and Directors Kirk Wise and Gary Trousdale. Why is there such uncertainty when it comes to intended aspect ratios?
(And, as a side note, I want to thank everyone for answering my questions...I feel that I take more than I give here, but I do appreciate everyone's help!)
on the OAR page of UD, it mentions this:
Sleeping Beauty (1959) [was created in] 2.35:1. The Sleeping Beauty Special Edition DVD released in September of 2003 displayed the film in a widescreen ratio, with black bars on top and bottom of the film making up for the difference in ratio between the film and a 4 x 3 television set.
Is anything lost by putting the bars on the top and bottom? Since it's already a widescreen film, this isn't considered matting, is it?
One more: At the end of the OAR page on UD, it mentions films such as B&tB and THoND being animated in 1.66:1, but presented on DVD in 1.85:1. Do you think that, when these films are re-released on DVD, that they might be shown in 1.66:1? Isn't 1.66:1 their intended aspect ratio? The article says but perhaps the theatrical ratio is the one preferred by producer Don Hahn and Directors Kirk Wise and Gary Trousdale. Why is there such uncertainty when it comes to intended aspect ratios?
(And, as a side note, I want to thank everyone for answering my questions...I feel that I take more than I give here, but I do appreciate everyone's help!)
-
ichabod
- Diamond Edition
- Posts: 4676
- Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2003 8:29 am
- Location: The place where they didn't build EuroDisney
- Contact:
No nothing is lost in the widescreen version.blackcauldron85 wrote:on the OAR page of UD, it mentions this:
Sleeping Beauty (1959) [was created in] 2.35:1. The Sleeping Beauty Special Edition DVD released in September of 2003 displayed the film in a widescreen ratio, with black bars on top and bottom of the film making up for the difference in ratio between the film and a 4 x 3 television set.
Is anything lost by putting the bars on the top and bottom? Since it's already a widescreen film, this isn't considered matting, is it?
Well when Disney switched to using the computers in 1990 with The Rescuers Down Under, Disney began using something called the CAPS system.One more: At the end of the OAR page on UD, it mentions films such as B&tB and THoND being animated in 1.66:1, but presented on DVD in 1.85:1. Do you think that, when these films are re-released on DVD, that they might be shown in 1.66:1? Isn't 1.66:1 their intended aspect ratio? The article says but perhaps the theatrical ratio is the one preferred by producer Don Hahn and Directors Kirk Wise and Gary Trousdale. Why is there such uncertainty when it comes to intended aspect ratios?
Whereas previously films like Robin and The Jungle Book were animated as 1.33:1 to be displayed at 1.75:1 in theatres. A similar situation occurs. All films from The Rescuers Down Under to Home on the Range (with the exception of the 2 2.35:1 features) were filmed at 1.66:1 (the ratio of the CAPS system) and matted to 1.85:1 in theatres.
So just as with the Robin Hood arguement, presenting Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, Home on the Range etc in either 1.66:1 or 1.85:1 can both be considered 'correct' depending on how you look at it.
-
blackcauldron85
- Ultimate Collector's Edition
- Posts: 16705
- Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 7:54 am
- Gender: Female
- Contact:
).