Thanks, Kelvin.Kelvin backwards is Nivlek wrote:Well, at HomeTheaterForum, David Boulet had this to say after going to Disney's special presentation:Escapay backwards is Yapacse wrote:I'm still puzzled as to where Disney got the idea 2.55:1 for Sleeping Beauty when all evidence points to 2.20:1 (for 70mm) and 2.25:1 (for the original negatives). Perhaps the 2.55:1 is derived from the 2.25:1 negative, and could still be losing some % of information on the top and bottom, but not sides (as evident from the 2.35:1 35mm DVD caps)
David Boulet wrote:Oh yes, and that 2.55:1 aspect ratio you may have heard about... I received assurances that this aspect ratio is in fact the native aspect ratio of the original photographed negatives and was not achieved by cropping any picture content. For those of you wondering why I’m making a point of this, there’s a bit of controversy among Sleeping Beauty aficionados about this 2.55:1 choice for the Blu-ray Disc since the original theatrical aspect ratio was actually narrower given 70 mm and 35 mm projection at the time. Disney’s choice to go with 2.55:1 may be controversial with regard to original theatrical aspect ratio, but it’s not controversial with regard to the original filmed aspect ratio. Once we can get our hands on some real image captures to compare among the various incarnations we’ll confirm (our review of the Blu-ray Disc in the fall will try to clarify issues related to aspect ratio).
Anyway, I think/hope that I found an answer to the "Can Technirama really be 2.55:1?" conundrum.
Doing some quick searches online, I found an online table that showed the various widescreen processes there were, along with technical specifications for each. When it came to Technirama, while it's generally known/accepted that the 35mm film is shot horizontally through the camera, what's also important (and should have been factored in when I was trying to figure out what the hell was going on with 2.55:1) is the amount of the frame actually being used. I (stupidly) assumed that shooting the entire frame would always yield the standard 2.25:1 that, when transferred to 35mm and 70mm prints, would get the 2.35:1 and 2.20:1 ratios, respectively. But in actuality, the amount and dimensions of the frame area you use can get different types of aspect ratios.
Anyway, according to the table, these are the frame areas used in Technirama...
On 8-35A1.5H format:
1.496x0.992 will yield the 2.26:1 aspect ratio on the original negatives (this is the generally known one, though most often round it to 2.25:1)
1.480x0.915 will yield a 2.42:1 aspect ratio on the original negatives
On 4-35A2.0 format:
0.839x.0715 will yield a 2.35:1 aspect ratio on the original negatives
0.912x0.715 will yield the 2.55:1 aspect ratio on the original negatives
God, I hope I got all that right (where's deathie when I need him?)
If I did get it right, then the mystery is solved! Sleeping Beauty must have been shot with a frame area of 0.912x0.715 if it yields a 2.55:1 aspect ratio on the original camera negatives.
The part of me that appreciates the backgrounds and animation is excited for the 2.55:1 (:D), but the theatrical purist in me is still a bit upset that we're not getting the 2.20:1 70mm aspect ratio (:(). It's a small consolation knowing that the 35mm print has already been released on VHS, laserdisc, and the 2003 DVD, but to the best of my knowledge, the 70mm version has yet to surface on any home video format. And given that 70mm is the more acceptable theatrical ratio (as it was the one predominantly used in its original release), it's a pity and a shame that we're still not getting it. Additional picture in the 2.55:1 is fine and all, but it's not representative of the original theatrical experience (which is what I'd rather have, hence, why I prefer matted widescreen for the 60s/70s films).Mike backwards is Ekim wrote:Thanks for the aspect ratio info, Disneykid, I had a feeling Disney wouldn't let a title concentrating on the perfect, originally intended, collector's release of the film have a wrong ratio. I wonder what Escapay will think now. I hope he'll be pleased. It looks great!
Still, if Disney wants to release the completely animated frame, that's their prerogative (and lord knows they're inconsistent with that regarding the 60s/70s titles!).
I checked the official site, and Sleeping Beauty is listed as one of the films they worked on. IIRC, the 2003 DVD restoration was done in-house by Disney, so having Lowry list Sleeping Beauty must mean it was for the 2008 DVD.Ekim wrote:Can I ask how you know? Though I guess we'll know for sure when we have it, right? Is there a way to find out now?Nivlek wrote: Supposedly it's Lowry Digital/DTS Digital Images, the same guys who did the restorations for all of the non-fab four Platinums (along with Alice in Wonderland).
Albert
ETA:
I forgot that I bolded a part of what David Boulet said without actually addressing it, lol. Anyway, I bolded it because I think it's odd how they'd go out of their way to announce the rhyme and reason to Sleeping Beauty in 2.55:1 but they still have no solid answer, nor are they eager to give one, regarding everything from 101 Dalmatians to The Fox and the Hound...