Intended Aspect Ratio Question

[blackcauldron85]

Oh...I still don't understand how no one who worked on the film knows. Thanks once again!

[ichabod]

Oh...I still don't understand how no one who worked on the film knows. Thanks once again!

Well people who worked on the film will know. It's just no one knows anyone who worked on the film!

[blackcauldron85]

I'm sure that someone who worked on the film could be interviewed...? Leonard Maltin could get the inside scoop...

[Lars Vermundsberget]

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.

Exactly. But unlike 1.33 vs 1.75 the difference between 1.66 and 1.85 is so small that I, "for practical purposes", prefer to ignore it.

[deathie mouse]

None of us know what is the situation with TFatH.

Don't speak for me, Icha

[Lars Vermundsberget]

None of us know what is the situation with TFatH.

Don't speak for me, Icha

I guess you may have solved the mystery in another thread a while ago (?), but by now the question of TFatH's OAR has taken on a mythical status, I guess - so it'll take time for us to remember that. What is it, BTW - the solution to the mystery?

[ichabod]

Don't speak for me, Icha

Quiet you! Or I'll start telling everyone The Black Cauldron was Technirama 70!

So come on then, what is it's ratio?

[Disney Duster]

BIG IMPORTANT VIEW ON ASPECT RATIOS

Okay, I'm gonna admit I didn't read all of the aspect ratio thread, so maybe this view has been given before, but I feel this is too important to not say something.

In fact, I'm gonna use terms like fullscreen and widescreen because I don't know that much about aspect ratios and there's too many tiny differences in number between all the different ratios, because they sometimes have ratios in between fullscreen and widescreen.

Okay, someone over at Animated News forums, Ben said that Walt Disney himself had the artists animate the films in fullscreen because he planned on the films being on television and home video! So even though they were cropped in widescreen for the wide silver screen, he wanted the whole image to fill the television screen when on T.V.

Here's some posts of Ben's. I underlined the very important parts.

In response to The Jungle Book coming out only in widescreen:

Widescreen ONLY??

So glad I'm keeping my LD with the FULL image. JB was animated to 1.37:1 negative, meaning that it was cropped in theaters, with the top and bottom sliced off (don't worry, it was framed with that in mind).

Walt preferred this as it mean the size was right for later TV showings.

So far, Disney has always issued it on home video in its "original theatrical aspect ratio" of 1.33:1 (close enough to 1.37).

Now that 1.78:1 HD programming is becoming the norm for mastering, guess what? All of Disney's post Sleeping Beauty features will now get their tops and bottoms removed for home video.

Sword In The Stone, 101 Dalmatians, Jungle Book, AristoCats - and it's already happened to Robin Hood - will all come out again in their "original theatrical aspect ratios".

In repsonse to a question about aspect ratios:

Essentially, when these films were made, Walt didn't know that we'd have home video...digital TV...widescreen sets, etc.

He made the film to play ONCE in the theater and forever more on home video. The full animated frame was intended to be seen in that version.

My point is that, for years, Disney has exhibited these films "in their original theatrical aspect ratios" of 1.33:1 (close enough) but now that it suits them to say "the original theatrical aspect ratios of 1.75:1" we're all supposed to forget that the top and bottom of the frame was intended to be seen.

[2099net]

Okay, someone over at Animated News forums, Ben said that Walt Disney himself had the artists animate the films in fullscreen because he planned on the films being on television and home video! So even though they were cropped in widescreen for the wide silver screen, he wanted the whole image to fill the television screen when on T.V.

I'm not sure what he does exactly, but Ben works in the animation industry somewhere in the UK, so he does know his stuff.

That said, I'm not sure I agree with his assement here. Firstly, Walt did not plan for his films being available on home video! Even if he was forward thinking enough to see the potential of the format (I'm not sure how far advanced video was in the late 60s) I doubt he would have wanted his films on it at all.

Secondly, he no doubt realised that when his films were to be shown on TV they would be cropped, just like every other widescreen film shown on TV (at least in the US, some European countries have always letterboxed widescreen movies). So he may have ordered the full 1.33 frame to be filled simply to stop left-right cropping when shown on TV. It doesn't mean he wanted it to be seen in a full screen format as such, and he may well have considered the widescreen format as the preferred viewing option.

Finally, I think the main reason why they actually take up the full frame with image more than anything is just because they could. All of the animation equipment was configured for 4:3 images. So why not use the whole frame? Especially, as has been noted, they were likely to appear on TV at some point in the future?

[carter1971]

Thanks for the post, Disney Duster. That's exactly what I've been saying as well. If widescreen TV's weren't becoming the norm, they wouldn't be cropping these films for home video. And of course the full picture was meant to be seen, at least at some point, or else they wouldn't have photographed it that way. Just because they knew the frame would be cropped in most theaters doesn't mean that's the way they wanted it. The last time this was discussed in The Jungle Book thread, I watched my LI DVD to see how cropping might affect this fillm. While some scenes will look just fine, or maybe even better, others will look cramped. I was also surprised to see that actual cel animation extended into the area which will be cut off on the Platinum disc.

I say to BVHE, once again: Just give us both! You've been placating P&S fans for years with dual versions of Sleeping Beauty, Brother Bear, Lady and the Tramp, and the Pixar films. Why can't we get dual versions of films that were actually made in fullscreen, even if they were shown in widescreen in most theaters?

[Disney Duster]

That said, I'm not sure I agree with his assement here. Firstly, Walt did not plan for his films being available on home video! Even if he was forward thinking enough to see the potential of the format (I'm not sure how far advanced video was in the late 60s) I doubt he would have wanted his films on it at all.

Yes, I questioned that as well. I had read that Disney wanted his movies only shown in theaters and on TV by him or whoever he let show the movies, so that it would be an extra special experience. One member here who hasn't visited in a while once said they felt owning the movies made them less magical, probably because they were now touchable and could be seen whenever someone felt like it.

Secondly, he no doubt realised that when his films were to be shown on TV they would be cropped, just like every other widescreen film shown on TV (at least in the US, some European countries have always letterboxed widescreen movies). So he may have ordered the full 1.33 frame to be filled simply to stop left-right cropping when shown on TV. It doesn't mean he wanted it to be seen in a full screen format as such, and he may well have considered the widescreen format as the preferred viewing option.

I think I get it. You mean even though he could have preferred it to be seen in widescreen, maybe Walt did the fullscreen thing just so it would be more attractive on the square, wide-screen televisions? But you think if he were to have know there would be rectangular widescreen televisions in the future, he'd want it cropped?

Finally, I think the main reason why they actually take up the full frame with image more than anything is just because they could. All of the animation equipment was configured for 4:3 images. So why not use the whole frame? Especially, as has been noted, they were likely to appear on TV at some point in the future?

As for the doing fullscreen "just because they could", I don't quite get that one. Why would you do more work just because you can, if the ideal way of viewing it wouldn't let the extra artwork be shown? Because it wasn't all that much extra work in the first place?

Oh, and you're welcome carter1971. If only we could talk to some Disney artists from then and ask them about...hey, a lot of them are still alive! No one's talked to them...?

Does anyone think Blu-Ray will allow the two versions of the film on the same disc but with no loss in quality?

[PapiBear]

I agree that Walt never had "home video" in mind when it came to any of his theatrical productions. Home video simply did not exist as an outlet for commercial films until the late 1970s (Disney's first home video releases were in Spring, 1980).

However, the company WAS heavily involved in television production, particularly with the anthology series, and many, if not most, Disney theatrical films eventually showed up on the anthology series after their original theatrical releases ended. It makes utmost sense that there was a decision to both animate and film live-action in a 1.37:1 negative (as opposed to print) aspect ratio for certain productions, which allows flexibility in both theatrical exhibition and a film title's afterlife on TV. Sometimes the decision to release a production theatrically was made after most of the production was completed, as well. This same sort of mentality still exists in modern film production throughout the industry, which is why the Super35 process exists.

But even then, widescreen motion pictures only became commonplace in the 1950s and 1960s, and if you look into the history and practices of the major studios during that time (particularly the '50s), you'll see that there was no definite standard when it came to aspect ratios for widescreen films. Some films were photographed in wider aspect ratios than today's standard 2.40:1 Scope ratio. So, Disney, like the other studios, was playing around and experimenting with many of the different widescreen processes. By the time these processes had standardized industry-wide into the typical Panavision 1.85:1 and 2.35:1 aspect ratios, Walt was concentrating on the theme parks and his various other ideas, and then he was gone.

So it's not particularly surprising that after a few experiments with widescreen processes in the 50s & early 60s, Disney (which had by then become a very conservative company - reflecting the conservatism of its founders) pretty much settled down to a comfortable and conservative trade-off between basic widescreen capability in theaters and TV broadcast re-usability for many of their productions, with very few exceptions. Filming or animating a movie in open matte, with simple matting for theatrical exhibition but otherwise full frame for TV exhibition, makes a lot of sense as a general policy.

Also, as to the notion that Walt intended for his theatrical productions to be released only once theatrically - highly unlikely. For decades, Walt Disney Productions was in the habit of theatrically re-releasing its major feature films, particularly its animated features, usually every 7 to 10 years or so. They don't do that anymore insofar as theatrical releases go, but they do continue the practice within the home video market. This is why you have limited availability for some releases ("available for a short time only!") as well as multiple DVD releases of the same films. No doubt someone in Disney Accounting did a cost-comparison analysis of modern theatrical re-releasing (prints, distribution, possibly any restoration or audio remixing costs, not to mention sharing box office profits with theater owners) vs. DVD re-releasing (production, packaging design, distribution, and keeping 100% of the profits), and found that DVD re-releasing was not only (possibly) cheaper, but also more profitable.

[2099net]

As for the doing fullscreen "just because they could", I don't quite get that one. Why would you do more work just because you can, if the ideal way of viewing it wouldn't let the extra artwork be shown? Because it wasn't all that much extra work in the first place?

Well, I'm not sure it was "much" extra work. Its been a while, but does Jungle Book for example have animated headers and footers? I'm pretty sure most of the unmatted content is static. So its only drawing and painting an extra 30% of each background image. (But I could be wrong)

Does anyone think Blu-Ray will allow the two versions of the film on the same disc but with no loss in quality?

Given that Disney isn't porting across most of the DVD extras onto most of their Blu-Ray releases, I would say "no". Just because you have the space, it doesn't mean Disney will use it.

But who knows? perhaps BDJ (Java) when it's implemented will allow software matting, and perhaps it will even scale up an image, allowing both ratios to be seen from one encoding? BDJ should allow much more complex user interaction than current DVDs and HD DVDs. It would be exciting to see it being used for something like I just suggested.

[Escapay]

Finally, I think the main reason why they actually take up the full frame with image more than anything is just because they could. All of the animation equipment was configured for 4:3 images. So why not use the whole frame? Especially, as has been noted, they were likely to appear on TV at some point in the future?

As for the doing fullscreen "just because they could", I don't quite get that one. Why would you do more work just because you can, if the ideal way of viewing it wouldn't let the extra artwork be shown? Because it wasn't all that much extra work in the first place?

Well it's not really *extra* work since (with the exception of LATT, SB, and several cartoons) they've been animating in the 1.37:1 ratio for 40 years by then. It simply was a matter now of keeping the action within a 1.75:1 ratio of the frame because that's what would be seen in theatres. The top and bottom was done because of both anticipation for future TV airings (as films like Dumbo and Alice in Wonderland were given TV airings) and it was easier/cheaper to matte a 1.37:1 film to 1.75:1 than to animate in 2.35:1 or 2.55:1.

Escapay

[Lars Vermundsberget]

The "lost" (matted-out) artwork would just be the top and bottom of the static background - I think that's clear. I also guess those parts could still be visible at one point or another anyway, though - as the camera moves about. What do you think? My point is that probably not even those parts of the artwork are entirely lost or wasted.

Besides, all of this has been dealt with quite extensively not that long ago - it might have been in the Jungle Book thread...?

[Disney Duster]

Well, I knew the issue of how what artwork we're losing was "solved", but many people, like Brother Bear, still care enough about that artwork. A lot of people cared about The Little Mermaid's slightly cropped aspect ratio, including me.

But if animation is so expensive and takes such a long time, isn't even 30% more artork a lot more time, money, and energy consuming?

Anyway, PapiBear actually explained a lot for me and I personally think that Walt Disney would want fullscreen to be available for films animated in fullscreen at least as an option. But if everyone got widescreen TV's, I guess then Walt would want it to fit that format and so only theatrical aspect ratio would be fine. It'd be nice to have both just for the sake of seeing every bit of the movie you can, though.

I want to ask, what do fullscreen films look like on a widsecreen television to most people here? I've seen a few televisions stretch the picture across to make it widescreen, and I don't like that! Everything is lengthened horizontally! So what do those fullscreen classics look like on your widescreen TV's?

[carter1971]

As for the doing fullscreen "just because they could", I don't quite get that one. Why would you do more work just because you can, if the ideal way of viewing it wouldn't let the extra artwork be shown? Because it wasn't all that much extra work in the first place?

Well, I'm not sure it was "much" extra work. Its been a while, but does Jungle Book for example have animated headers and footers? I'm pretty sure most of the unmatted content is static. So its only drawing and painting an extra 30% of each background image. (But I could be wrong)

Well, I stated above that I was surprised to find that it did when I last watched the film. I just put the disc back in to make sure I wasn't imagining things, because it has happened before. If you have the disc, look at Bagheera at 3:20 into the movie. Animation definitely extends into the area which will be cropped. When Bagheera plops down on the branch, much of his body will be cut off in the cropped version. A few seconds later, as he walks away His body takes up most of the frame. So, no, we are not talking about the loss of just static background here. Even so, I'd prefer to see the whole background. I remember some shots TonyWDA posted in his thread about this topic. One was from Pooh. In it, Pooh's honey pots and part of the Poocoo clock were cut off in the cropped version. Does this destroy the movie? Of course not. But does the uncropped picture look better? To me, it does. You see details in Pooh's house that you don't see if the image is cropped. Likewise, in The Jungle Book, at the beginning of the film, most of the lettering seen in the book as it opens will be lost, as will the flowing water in the opening scene. Again, nothing that will break the movie, but nice artistic touches that I would like to see remain.

[carter1971]

I want to ask, what do fullscreen films look like on a widsecreen television to most people here? I've seen a few televisions stretch the picture across to make it widescreen, and I don't like that! Everything is lengthened horizontally! So what do those fullscreen classics look like on your widescreen TV's?

If they are viewed properly, they have black bars at the sides, as widescreen movies have bars at the top and bottom on standard TV's.

[Lars Vermundsberget]

I don't quite buy the idea that more is always better - the element of composition might have been a factor when the framing was decided upon...

Still, for this "handful" of animated features in question I believe that both a "fullscreen" and a widescreen (theatrically matted) version could be seen as correct - so it would probably be a good idea to include both.

[Disney Duster]

If they are viewed properly, they have black bars at the sides, as widescreen movies have bars at the top and bottom on standard TV's.

Oh thank you, I didn't think of that! I'm glad it doesn't stretch it, then.

I don't quite buy the idea that more is always better - the element of composition might have been a factor when the framing was decided upon...

Well, some people have seen the fullscreen versions of the films and decided they like that better. I don't know exactly how I feel, but I always find when the characters are a little smaller or farther away to be more interesting somehow. Of course we need close-ups to read certain expressions, etc.

Anyway, you said the element of composition may have been a factor when the framing was decided upon...isn't that going with what I said about deciding to use fullframe for more square-looking televisions? The framing of the television determined that composition...right?