is jungle book 16x9 ratio that bad?

[yukitora]

^apprently the image was squashed/stretched to make it widescreen, so you actually lose image, not gain image.

[REINIER]

is jungle book 16x9 ratio that bad?

In a word YES

[Escapay]

I thought the recent Platinum Edition was 1.77:1.

1.75:1

While I can see where some people would prefer the full screen version I'm glad the recent release was widescreen.

Ditto.

If they must include both I would prefer that they stick the full screen version on a separate disc, or even *shudder* do those "flipper" discs.

Flipper discs suck.

^apprently the image was squashed/stretched to make it widescreen, so you actually lose image, not gain image.

The only time you'll ever find an image stretched to make into widescreen is when it's being filmed with an anamorphic lens (which The Jungle Book wasn't). An anamorphic lens will "squish" an image onto 35mm film, and when it's projected back (again, via the anamorphic lens), it will be properly "stretched" to its OAR (2.35:1 or 2.55:1)

The Jungle Book was animated in 1.37:1, but was framed for and projected in theatres in the 1.75:1 ratio by "matting" the top and bottom of the frame, resulting in what's known as "flat widescreen" (since 'Scope pictures were projected on a curved screen). Matting is a common practice for many films, be it live-action or animated, and it's been around for years.

Albert

[drfsupercenter]

Yes, the Platinum Edition is that bad.

PM me if you want a copy of the original 1.33:1 aspect ratio... I have the now rare Limited Issue version, which has it the way it was originally drawn - nothing cut off.

[yukitora]

oh I see, thanks albert XD I really didn't know what I was talking about!

[DarthPrime]

I thought the recent Platinum Edition was 1.77:1.

1.75:1

Well I was close...

If they must include both I would prefer that they stick the full screen version on a separate disc, or even *shudder* do those "flipper" discs.

Flipper discs suck.

Yeah they do. However if they must issue both aspect ratios on a single disc, I would rather have a flipper than both transfers stuck on one side.

I do have to applaud Disney and the few studios that seem to only release new titles in OAR. I know its a pain for some who still like the full screen versions, but I'm glad its finally happening.

[Escapay]

oh I see, thanks albert XD I really didn't know what I was talking about!

You did, you just mixed up anamorphic with flat. If you wanna know more about the widescreen process, check out www.widescreen.org

Well I was close...

Every time I see something saying it was "close" it always reminds me of How I Met Your Mother when Barney yelled at Marshall "Pretty close? Pretty close!?! It's called 'The Price is Right' not 'The Price is Close'!!!"



Albert

[steve]

I'm not saying the aspect presentation on the DVD is correct or incorrect, but it's always annoyed me they way in some shots, characters occasionally brush the top or the bottom of the screen, like there's not enough room for them to fit the screen comfortably.

[my chicken is infected]

However if they must issue both aspect ratios on a single disc, I would rather have a flipper than both transfers stuck on one side.

With compression technology the way it is now, and the fact that many classic Disney films barely run over 75 minutes, it's not really that big a deal to put two versions on one disc. They did it for Lady And The Tramp and Sleeping Beauty and I didn't notice anything wrong with the transfers from the compression. Crap, the Robin Hood: Most Wanted Edition's entire DVD contents add up to only 4.77 GB - a fullscreen version would have easily fit with no loss of quality. Disc 1 of the 101 Dalmatians DVD was a waste of a DVD-9, since its contents add up to about 4.32 GB - they could have put a cropped widescreen version on there too, if it had been shown in theaters that way.

For many classic films, both on the same side IS a big deal and would be impossible. But this is Disney animation. Animation, for one, compresses better than live action because of the flatness of the image - yes, even in computer animated films. Secondly, as I said before, most Disney animated classics are about 70-80 minutes. A DVD-9 disc is meant to hold about 210 minutes of video at normal compression. With variable bitrate and the short running time, it's nothing to have both widescreen and fullscreen versions, because that's only a total of 140-150 minutes.

[gregmasciola]

I'm not saying the aspect presentation on the DVD is correct or incorrect, but it's always annoyed me they way in some shots, characters occasionally brush the top or the bottom of the screen, like there's not enough room for them to fit the screen comfortably.

The only shot that really bothers me is one of Baloo when he is dancing in his monkey costume.


I don't know everything about aspect ratios, but I'm curious if the matted widescreen was supposed to be 1.66x1, and not 1.75, that way there would have been a little bit less trimmed off of the top and bottom.

But like I said, that shot of Baloo is the only one that bothers me.

In other shots such as these:


you can see that there is a lot of open space under the characters, and it seems like it was meant to be cut off a little.

[drfsupercenter]

DarthPrime wrote:

I thought the recent Platinum Edition was 1.77:1.

1.75:1 Wink

Um... Anamorphic widescreen = 16:9 = 1.77777777 (or just 1.78):1. I don't know how you get 1.75, even if it was "intended" for such... A widescreen DVD is either 16:9 or 1.85:1 depending on your player and setup.
Now, if you're talking about black pixels on the disc itself, that's a different story... I refuse to watch The Jungle Book PE because it sucks IMO.

[gregmasciola]

While I don't mind the widescreen transfer, I do agree that they should have made both versions available. When Warner Brothers only put out Willy Wonka in fullscreen, lots of customers complained until they put out a widescreen version. Maybe if people write and explain to Disney why this widescreen version is a disappointment to them, they might put out the restored full-screen version. I'm not saying it will happen, but you'll never know if you don't let them know how you feel.

[AlwaysOAR]

Um... Anamorphic widescreen = 16:9 = 1.77777777 (or just 1.78):1. I don't know how you get 1.75, even if it was "intended" for such... A widescreen DVD is either 16:9 or 1.85:1 depending on your player and setup.
Now, if you're talking about black pixels on the disc itself, that's a different story... I refuse to watch The Jungle Book PE because it sucks IMO.

Actually, 1.78:1 is the widescreen video standard (16:9) used in high-definition televisions. Anamorphic widescreen DVDs can be any number of ratio's, depending on the intent of the makers of a movie.

I had always believed that the animated ratio was the correct ratio to see the JB, Robin Hood, etc. However, I realized I was wrong in regards to this. As with live-action movies, I want the intended/original aspect ratio.

Almost every 1.85:1, 2.35:1, etc. live action movie is shot open matte on a 1.33:1 negative, which is then matted in the theater. This is actually a far more common practice than most people seem to realize.

In the case of, say, Air Force One, it was filmed in a process called Super 35, which also captures a 1.33:1 image on the negative, but Super 35 is usually matted to 2.35:1 for theaters. Theatrical audiences are "losing" information with all these movies, but it's information that was meant to be lost.

Other movies that use Super 35 include everything from James Cameron since 1989 (The Abyss, Terminator 2, True Lies, Titanic). You're missing picture with the widescreen versions, but again, those parts of the picture were never intended to be seen in widescreen. In those parts of the missing picture you might see microphones hanging down, etc.

With animation, the artists take the time to animate a certain ratio, but sometimes the makers of a particular movie want it projected for a different ratio. In that sense I guess I would have to go along with the filmakers intent.

From what I can gather, 101 Dalmatians, SITS, JB, Aristocats, Robin Hood, and Winnie-the-Pooh were possibly animated with two ratios in mind. For those theatres capable of matting, they would matte in the ratio the makers intended, and those that couldn't would show them in the animated frame.

So I guess I have to go along with the maker's intent for these films, the question now is what the intent was for some of these, and I just don't know for sure. If anyone knows of an authoratative source/website please let me know. I've searched the web and get conflicting info regarding this subject.

[Escapay]

A widescreen DVD is either 16:9 or 1.85:1

When a widescreen DVD is 16:9, it does not mean that the image's film dimensions are 1.85:1. For someone that is so gung-ho about wanting the "original" aspect ratios, you certainly don't know much about them. When a widescreen DVD says "16-9 enhanced", it does NOT always mean that the image is 1.78:1 or 1.85:1. It means that it's anamorphically enhanced to fit the width of a widescreen TV (16:9), but the height of the image is still preserved to is original ratio. Conversely, it also means that when presented on a 4:3 television (if the DVD player is also set to 4:3), it will vertically shrink the image to fit properly (otherwise it would be horizontally compressed, or vertically stretched depending on how you think of it). If a fullscreen DVD is presented on a widescreen TV, it will be pillarboxed, with bars only on the sides.

ETA:

Looks like AlwaysOAR gave a better explanation. Kudos, AlwaysOAR!



Regarding The Jungle Book: Platinum Edition, the film is 1.75:1, and when presented on a widescreen TV, will only have very minor black bars on the sides.

Here are examples of how various aspect ratios appear on a 16:9 television...

1.20:1 - aspect ratio for the majority of silent films (screencap is from Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans)

1.33:1/1.37:1 - "Academy Ratio" (the 1.37:1 is without the soundtrack), the standard ratio for films before the boom of widescreen, and the standard ratio of a 4:3 television set. (screencap is from Laura)

1.66:1 - widescreen ratio used in Disney's CAPS system as well as one of the many ratios used in matted widescreen (screencap is from Mary Poppins)






1.75:1, 1.78:1, 1.85:1 - ratios used in 35mm films that are in a matted widescreen (1.75:1, 1.85:1) and in 16:9 digital presentations (1.78:1). There are no "black bars" on any 1.78:1 presentations. (screencaps are from The Shaggy Dog, Chicken Little, and The Breakfast Club)






2.00:1 - rarely-used ratio used in matted widescreen. (screencap is from Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country)

2.20:1 - aspect ratio for 70mm films shot in Todd-AO, Technirama, Super Panavision, etc. (screencap is from Todd-AO version of Oklahoma)





2.35:1, 2.40:1, 2.55:1 - aspect ratio for 35mm films shot in CinemaScope, Panavision, etc. (screencaps are from Legend, Spider-Man 2, and CinemaScope version of Seven Brides for Seven Brothers)






2.76:1 - aspect ratio used for films shot in Ultra Panavision, MGM Camera 65, etc. (screencap is from Ben-Hur)



Then, of course, there's the curved Cinerama presentations with an aspect ratio of 2.60:1, and early widescreen films like Napoleon (4.00:1), The Big Trail (2.10:1), etc.

Albert

[drfsupercenter]

Anamorphic widescreen DVDs can be any number of ratio's, depending on the intent of the makers of a movie.

Well, that would have to be done via using black pixels in the actual VOB... the PGC of a DVD says only one of 3 things: "4:3", "16:9 automatic letterbox", and "16:9 automatic pan-and-scan". There is no "16:9 stretch to XX aspect ratio" mode...

For someone that is so gung-ho about wanting the "original" aspect ratios, you certainly don't know much about them.

I know about the DVD format itself... and as far as what aspect ratio an anamorphic widescreen DVD gets stretched to, that's not actually in the IFO files or anywhere in the structure of the DVD - it's the TV/DVD player setup that determines it...

Almost every 1.85:1, 2.35:1, etc. live action movie is shot open matte on a 1.33:1 negative, which is then matted in the theater. This is actually a far more common practice than most people seem to realize.

Are you talking about the old movies? Most new movies are shot with the aspect ratio used in theaters... At least that's what's shown in the "making of" documentaries
Stuff like Star Wars, if you watch the making of, you can see that the screen on the camera is 2.35:1 so if it is being put on a 4:3 negative, they're not actually seeing anything in the "black bars" during filming.

As far as animation goes, when you watch Disney movies, there's no "microphones hanging down" or anything like that. I know of some anime series that are shown in widescreen, and they use a fullscreen negative but the picture just fades to black from there and they don't waste time filling in the bars.
As far as being "intended" for anything, we'll probably never know as Walt Disney's dead and the people working there now probably don't even remember...

If the films were ALWAYS released widescreen, I wouldn't mind. But the fact that films like The Jungle Book and Robin Hood have been fullscreen on home video forever and "all the sudden" are made widescreen just makes it look stupid... and if they really wanted it widescreen it would have been long ago.

[gregmasciola]

As far as animation goes, when you watch Disney movies, there's no "microphones hanging down" or anything like that.

That's true. That's exactly what makes cropping a cartoon different from cropping a live-action film.

...if they really wanted it widescreen it would have been long ago.

That, on the other hand, is not entirely true. There are several movies that were intended to be widescreen, but the companies have only released the fullscreen versions, such as Homeward Bound, Funny Farm & My Girl just to name a few. The companies that seem to be the most guilty of this are Warner Brothers and Disney.

[gregmasciola]

For those who are disappointed with the Jungle Book's widescreen transfer, I suggest you go to http://disney.go.com/disneyvideos/dvdsupport/ and leave your feedback to Disney about it. Like I said before, it may not make any difference, but you won't know if you don't tell them.

[drfsupercenter]

Well I couldn't care less as I have a copy of the Limited Issue and am digitally restoring the films (and unlike Lowry, I'm making the colors look GOOD and not OVERKILL)... So it'll be OAR and just as good-looking as the PE

As far as the DVD screencaps go (I couldn't see images from school, so just saw them now), a lot of times the black bars are to prevent overscan, not only for the aspect ratio.
I have many "1.85:1" DVDs that have no black bars on the top and bottom - either that or they have a few pixels on all sides. I don't think the term "16:9" was around when DVDs first came out... DVDs were out long before HDTVs.

That, on the other hand, is not entirely true. There are several movies that were intended to be widescreen, but the companies have only released the fullscreen versions, such as Homeward Bound, Funny Farm & My Girl just to name a few. The companies that seem to be the most guilty of this are Warner Brothers and Disney.

Well I'm talking about things like Pixar... Except for Toy Story (and possibly A Bug's Life - I don't own that since I didn't really like it), their VHS and fullscreen DVD releases have had more on the top and bottom than the widescreen version. That being said, they're released in both ratios (on DVD) and you can pick what ratio you want... that's what they should have done for The Jungle Book. I think Toy Story 2 looks better in fullscreen, as a lot of detail is lost in the widescreen presentation.

Regarding The Jungle Book: Platinum Edition, the film is 1.75:1, and when presented on a widescreen TV, will only have very minor black bars on the sides.

Actually, unless you're playing it on a computer, you won't see ANY bars. Heck, you can't even see any bars in Aladdin or The Lion King, and those bars are far bigger than 1.75 movies.

[Jules]

Well I couldn't care less as I have a copy of the Limited Issue and am digitally restoring the films (and unlike Lowry, I'm making the colors look GOOD and not OVERKILL)... So it'll be OAR and just as good-looking as the PE.

Um ... about that. Unless you're in the film restoration business and just pretending to be a goofy internet user, I seriously doubt you can restore the film well on your own. I think it's rather silly to shun a product created by professionals with the intention of doing the same yourself ... what - on a home computer? Don't let's be silly!

And even if you produce a stunning, mind-boggling restoration - who's going to benefit from it? I hugely doubt you own an original Jungle Book nitrate negative which you plan to physically clean up in a dust-free laboratory and then scan into a computer system and remove all the remaining speckles frame by frame by hand. No. I think you just intend on doing the best you can by tweaking and altering the Limited Issue Jungle Book transfer.

And all that trouble for what? For restoring a ten-year old DVD transfer at standard resolution when we're entering the era of HD? All this just because of your stubborn rejection of a perfectly fine DVD release? I won't rekindle the argument of which aspect ratio is the correct one (which has been discussed so many times I'll admit it's become even more boring than an 'Is Aurora a heroine or a damsel in distress?' discussion).

Oh, to hell with it. I will.

Both ratios are correct. Get over it!

[Escapay]

I don't think the term "16:9" was around when DVDs first came out... DVDs were out long before HDTVs.

Dude, 16:9 televisions (and even a few experimental 16:9 laserdiscs) were around the same time that DVD first appeared!

Well I'm talking about things like Pixar...<snip> their VHS and fullscreen DVD releases have had more on the top and bottom than the widescreen version.

Pixar's case is unique as they are able to re-animate or alter scenes in order to fit 4:3 presentations. There is a featurette about it on A Bug's Life that show the four versions they do, and only two of them will show "more" than the original widescreen.

Re-Stage - re-arranges how the scene is presented, sometimes adding more to the top and bottom


Frame Height - simply adds more to the top and bottom


Crop - focusing on the central part of the action.


Scan - aka pan-and-scan

That being said, they're released in both ratios (on DVD) and you can pick what ratio you want...

Only A Bug's Life, Monsters, Inc., Finding Nemo, and the older releases of Toy Story and Toy Story 2 feature both versions. Everything since The Incredibles has been separate releases (and the fullscreen is not a re-animated version, but a pan-and-scan of the widescreen).

Regarding The Jungle Book: Platinum Edition, the film is 1.75:1, and when presented on a widescreen TV, will only have very minor black bars on the sides.

Actually, unless you're playing it on a computer, you won't see ANY bars.

Was I talking about playing these discs on a computer? No. And like you said, the bars will likely not be seen due to overscan.

Computers are different from television when it comes to how a video image is shown. Sheesh.

And Jules, you get a for saying everything I wanted to without having to resort to words that shouldn't be used in polite company.

Albert