the fox and the hound ratio

[drfsupercenter]

With the Disney animated movies, it's not just "empty space" on the top and bottom. That's why I'm so picky about getting those in open matte... and not so much movies that are only available with the theatrical ratio (like I mentioned, the first Harry Potter)

For example, look at these screenshots of Beauty and the Beast.

Here is an example of the original negative of 1.66:1 (taken from the laserdisc). See how the dishes are perfectly centered and the proportions look good?
Here is the same frame from the 1.85:1 original theatrical aspect ratio. See how the bottom of the plates is cut off, and it looks more "squished" in there?

It's even worse with The Jungle Book.

For example:





See how in the open matte version, the characters are centered, but when you make it widescreen it looks cramped in the frame?

[blackcauldron85]

don't know why Hahn continually lied that The Lion King's DVD release was going to be the absolute original version. Did they not expect us to figure out that it wasn't?

Sure, people say we're just whiners that we aren't happy the crocodiles became larger and greener or the waterfall more textured... the film is largely the same so a few tiny changes shouldn't matter. It just irks me because the original animation is what made it famous. Clearly it had no problem then, why the need to improve it? That to me is like going back and changing the Mona Lisa's eye color - sure, that quixotic smile is still there which is the most important part - it's just two little dots of color that were changed, right? No biggy!?

Wrong. You don't !@#$%*& mess with the original!

I think the crocs were changed due to legal reasons:


http://www.bigmoviezone.com/filmsear...rod_notes.html
Allers also got a chance to fix another source of irritation in the "Just Can't Wait to be King" musical sequence. "The singing crocodiles in this sequence never looked right. It's a very short scene but they were never properly designed. For the Large Format version, we were able to redesign the crocodiles and the birds in their mouths and re-do the animation. The color palette was also changed. Now this scene is much more integrated."

http://www.animationnation.com/cgi-b...=1;t=006655;p=
Anyone remember an artist named Michael Bedard? I first noticed his stuff when he was doing a strip for the L.A.. FREE PRESS. He went away, but came back with a series of terrific art prints featuring cartoony, white ducks. These were quite popular during the 1980s. One of these images (the one in our home) was/is a duck sunning himself at poolside, surrounded by hungry crocs. The crocs in that LION KING scene are nearly identical to the crocs in that Bedard art.

Here's a picture of Michael's crocodiles, to compare to the crocs in TLK:

http://www.mbedard.com/Scripts/prodView ... roduct=409

http://www.ultimatedisney.com/thelionking2.html

[drfsupercenter]

Legal, schmegal.

I want the original.

Then again, the DMCA says recording the laserdisc version to a DVD is illegal... so like I really care about the copyright of a crocodile... LOL

[Elladorine]

I just stuck the comparison pics together and I don't see enough resemblance for legal action.

[Goliath]

See how in the open matte version, the characters are centered, but when you make it widescreen it looks cramped in the frame?

Yeah, I hate the widescreen version on the Platinum DVD. I was foolish in thinking a 'Platinum' DVD would deliver the best version of the film. (Fortunately, I never had to 'souble dip' 'cause I didn't own it on dvd already.)

Here are some links to a website that I think is really good when it comes to understanding aspect ratios:

Thanks, that's been really helpfull.

[Flanger-Hanger]

the 1.85:1 original theatrical aspect ratio. See how the bottom of the plates is cut off, and it looks more "squished" in there?

Squished? Or helps to give the illusion of endless rows of plates? That's all matter of opinion.

It's even worse with The Jungle Book.See how in the open matte version, the characters are centered, but when you make it widescreen it looks cramped in the frame?

Your examples are funny because they show how there is more image on the sides on the supposedly horrible cropped images. This only proves that not only does the the open matte version not present the original animated shape in full it in addition too that, like pan and scan, is a compromise to the intended exhibition image.

The Jungle Book examples are also poor because you can't be sure if 1.75 to one was the intended projected image. It could have been 1.66:1 in which the characters would look less cramped (and in your examples only the first 2 do and in that particular shot) and still have the more dynamic staging of a wider shot. The fact that they look "centered" doesn't really make the composition of the shot more interesting either. The charactres in the frame are constantly moving and if for a certain split second you can't see the top of their hand or head you would still later see it in full some mere seconds later. The audience is still capable of understanding the action on screen (these characters are dancing in this position, in this location) and following the story.

I remember when someone showed an example of what a matted shot from the Sword in the Stone looked like and someone complained about how we didn't see Merlin's hat. It was outrageous not only because the hat is so superfluous to understanding the action of that particular scene the poster also failed to understand that in some other point in the movie we might see his hat then and not seeing it in that one shot would not make the viewer fail to follow the story. The animators knew this and when part of a drawing is cut (for however brief a time) it is not essential like a facial or hand expression or gesture and we still understand the characters and plot.

You can bring up as many captures of VHS masters, transfers and ratios as you like (regardless of how many times you've gotten used to watching them like that), but it still doesn't change the fact that these films were meant to be exhibited in theaters first and that any instructions on how they are to be shown their are still stronger than any angry rant or pictures filled post you could come up with. If you want to argue about how The Jungle Book should be matted in a different ratio based on an excerpt you found in one of these press books then you have a case, but don't assume that because decades later you figured out how the film should be presented based off some comparison pictures you put together that should be the definitive way. Don't give me any BS about Disney releasing these films like this before on laserdisc or what not because there are others reasons why they might have been released like that (Laziness on their part is the number one factor I expect, that and people complaining about how it doesn't "fill" there screen).

Disneyfella has on numerous occasions posted excerpts from these theatrical release booklets made at the time of these films original release and I find it hilarious how many times people feel like they know better or are entitled to something else just because they've seen the film so many times on a format the film was never meant to be seen in.

[drfsupercenter]

Your examples are funny because they show how there is more image on the sides on the supposedly horrible cropped images. This only proves that not only does the the open matte version not present the original animated shape in full it in addition too that, like pan and scan, is a compromise to the intended exhibition image.

Well you get like 2% more on the sides but almost a third less on the top and bottom. It's not like it's half-and-half like it is with Terminator 2. (Terminator 2 is one of my favorite movies... and I have both versions in my collection because neither one really has "more" picture, they're entirely different)

The Jungle Book examples are also poor because you can't be sure if 1.75 to one was the intended projected image. It could have been 1.66:1 in which the characters would look less cramped (and in your examples only the first 2 do and in that particular shot) and still have the more dynamic staging of a wider shot.

Isn't that kinda contradicting the fact that the DVD is the correct aspect ratio, though? If you're saying 1.78:1 might not be the proper aspect ratio, then the DVD is STILL bad and what difference does it make?

And, to reference a previous post, what Disney is using is basically "flat widescreen." Because they're drawing the full Academy frame and then cutting the top and bottom off to get the widescreen image (That small bit you lose on the sides is likely just a home video problem, because 1.33:1 is barely, BARELY, cropped from 1.37:1).
So therefore, they ARE drawing more than they actually need to for all of these movies. How is that saving money and/or being cheap? They could have just drawn it in 1.78:1, or 1.85:1, or whatever ratio, to begin with...
And that's why I like having the open matte versions of the Disney movies.

As far as movies being filmed today, I think most of them are either anamorphic or "hard matted"... I was watching a making-of Transformers (the Michael Bay movie), and it has numerous shots where you can see the cameras... and their display is clearly 2.35:1. It's not like they're filming it in some other ratio with the intent to crop it later. (And even if they were using a different ratio film, it's being covered up so the camera only films the 2.35:1 area)

[Flanger-Hanger]

Well you get like 2% more on the sides but almost a third less on the top and bottom. It's not like it's half-and-half like it is with Terminator 2. (Terminator 2 is one of my favorite movies... and I have both versions in my collection because neither one really has "more" picture, they're entirely different)

Isn't that kinda contradicting the fact that the DVD is the correct aspect ratio, though? If you're saying 1.78:1 might not be the proper aspect ratio, then the DVD is STILL bad and what difference does it make?

And, to reference a previous post, what Disney is using is basically "flat widescreen." Because they're drawing the full Academy frame and then cutting the top and bottom off to get the widescreen image (That small bit you lose on the sides is likely just a home video problem, because 1.33:1 is barely, BARELY, cropped from 1.37:1).
So therefore, they ARE drawing more than they actually need to for all of these movies. How is that saving money and/or being cheap? They could have just drawn it in 1.78:1, or 1.85:1, or whatever ratio, to begin with...
And that's why I like having the open matte versions of the Disney movies.

Getting more image isn't always the best thing. As I said before when you open matte a picture it's compromising the shape intended to be shown by the public in theaters. I used the "extra image on the side" comment because it shows how the number one reason why people prefer open matting still doesn't completely solve the "getting the whole picture" issue. at least with matting (done correctly) you get the full intended shape, you can't say that about open matte.

The DVD for The Jungle Book is 1.75:1 not 1.78:1 as you said in your post, and were not sure if that's correct. Disney has in the past contradicted itself by releasing a ratio for a film different from what they have published in the past for it to be seen in (Watcher in the Woods is a good example). By using The Jungle Book as proof for why matting is so "terrible" your argument becomes flawed because were not sure if that is the correct intended exhibition shape and your not comparing the proper images. It's unfair to use that DVD for your argument, if you had one which you knew for sure was right you could at least do it properly. What difference does it make? The difference is between proving your point that open matte is better and acuratelty judging the matted image. I could crop Jungle Book to 2.35:1 and show how awful it would look but that doesn't really say anything about why or how these films are meant to be matted.

As I've said on numerous occasions it's cheaper to draw a 1.37:1 image than it is to draw a wider one (one that has the same hight as the 1.37:1 image, but more on the length) because there is less space to draw and paint with and it saves time and money on costs and labour. Disney did NOT merely draw a smaller 1.75:1 shape because that would be more difficult to work with for the animators because it would require a physically smaller shape to design with.

[drfsupercenter]

The DVD for The Jungle Book is 1.75:1 not 1.78:1 as you said in your post, and were not sure if that's correct.

Um, no, I'm pretty sure it's 1.78:1. I'll check it right now.
But last time I looked it didn't have any black pixels on any of the sides and that's "16:9" mode which triggers 1.78:1.

By using The Jungle Book as proof for why matting is so "terrible" your argument becomes flawed because were not sure if that is the correct intended exhibition shape and your not comparing the proper images. It's unfair to use that DVD for your argument, if you had one which you knew for sure was right you could at least do it properly. What difference does it make? The difference is between proving your point that open matte is better and acuratelty judging the matted image. I could crop Jungle Book to 2.35:1 and show how awful it would look but that doesn't really say anything about why or how these films are meant to be matted.

Well it proves that Disney can be quite noobish when it comes to releasing DVDs... some are good (such as Aladdin, I've never heard anyone complain about the 1.66:1 and that's definitely the original negative ratio), others are terrible (like The Jungle Book... also Aladdin and the King of Thieves, there are more examples I can think of too)

As I've said on numerous occasions it's cheaper to draw a 1.37:1 image than it is to draw a wider one (one that has the same hight as the 1.37:1 image, but more on the length) because there is less space to draw and paint with and it saves time and money on costs and labour. Disney did NOT merely draw a smaller 1.75:1 shape because that would be more difficult to work with for the animators because it would require a physically smaller shape to design with.

What difference does the height make? They weren't drawing it in the computer like they do now with Pixar... they're drawing it on a piece of paper. The camera doesn't care how big the original is... so long as it's big enough to focus it, it will look the same. (Yeah I know there's a detail issue... but then again, Lowry destroys just about everything that would prove me wrong on the subject anyway)

[Escapay]

*sits back, grabs a bowl of popcorn, and waits eagerly for Wire Hanger's rebuttal*



albert

[Flanger-Hanger]

Um, no, I'm pretty sure it's 1.78:1. I'll check it right now.But last time I looked it didn't have any black pixels on any of the sides and that's "16:9" mode which triggers 1.78:1.

Well the back of the box says 1.75:1, UD's review says 1.75:1 and in your screenshots you can see thin bars on the side. As for your TV, ever heard of overscan?

Well it proves that Disney can be quite noobish when it comes to releasing DVDs... some are good (such as Aladdin, I've never heard anyone complain about the 1.66:1 and that's definitely the original negative ratio), others are terrible (like The Jungle Book... also Aladdin and the King of Thieves, there are more examples I can think of too)

Ya, Disney can and does screw up it's ratios often (Aladdin 3 was just terrible and A Goofy Movie is the only theatrical animated feature to be released pan and scan). Marry Poppins has never been released in it's proper ratio either. We can agree upon that. Just don't compare open matte with not properly done matted images because it doesn't really show what the matted image should look like in comparison.

As for Aladdin, I haven't head anyone complain about the re-colouring of the image like BatB or Lion King either. Guess people don't care as much about that film.

I'm glad your enjoying all of this Scaps. Comments on how any of us are doing on your part?

[drfsupercenter]

Well the back of the box says 1.75:1, UD's review says 1.75:1 and in your screenshots you can see thin bars on the side. As for your TV, ever heard of overscan?

Oh, yeah sorry... I didn't notice those small bars. I don't have the box because I refuse to buy it, due to the fact that it's hard to watch it cropped and I already own it in open matte.

And yes I know what overscan is... I'm actually surprised with the anamorphic 1.66:1 movies (Aladdin, TLK (EW at that DVD, though), Mary Poppins, etc) you can't see ANY black bars on the sides when using a normal TV.
You know how much is cut off? That's just scary to think about.

Ya, Disney can and does screw up it's ratios often (Aladdin 3 was just terrible and A Goofy Movie is the only theatrical animated feature to be released pan and scan). Marry Poppins has never been released in it's proper ratio either.

That's why I never trust what the back of the box says, either
I just look for myself... measure the black pixels, whatever. Because half the time it's wrong.
And oddly enough, Aladdin 3 had a very rare (nowaday) 4:3 DVD transfer, and then got universally replaced with the widescreen one. I'm just curious as to WHY... there's no doubt 4:3 is the correct OAR, why would Disney intentionally crop the heck out of it? And then call it fullscreen on the box?

Just don't compare open matte with not properly done matted images because it doesn't really show what the matted image should look like in comparison.

Give me an example of a properly matted Disney movie then. Robin Hood or something?
I don't complain nearly as much about live-action movies because most of them DO look good. (Heck, I owned the widescreen set of Back to the Future for years and never suspected that it was actually matted... because it's not noticeable until you compare it to the 4:3 version)

But with the Disney movies, I think they all look best in their original negative ratio, not necessarily the way they were shown in theaters.
(Hey, it's obvious Disney felt that way about Sleeping Beauty or they wouldn't have released it 2.55:1!)

As for Aladdin, I haven't head anyone complain about the re-colouring of the image like BatB or Lion King either. Guess people don't care as much about that film.

And I wasn't mentioning the colors there. I meant the fact that it was released in 1.66:1, which is the original NEGATIVE ratio, but apparently not the way it was shown in theaters. And the people who DO complain complain about the audio editing (I do that a lot because I hate what they did to it) and the colors.
Same with The Lion King... I know it was horribly redone and everything, but it too was 1.66:1. And I don't think I've ever seen a review complaining about the aspect ratio. (Though one thing that does strike me as odd is that TLM, BatB, and Aladdin were all 1.66:1 on laserdisc, but TLK was 1.85:1 on both its laserdisc releases. But then when the DVDs come out of TLM (the new one) and BatB they're the OTAR, but yet TLK is 1.66:1. Weird.)

[David S.]

Your used to watching open matte home video prints, does that make it right? Don't answer because you don't know!

There is certainly nothing WRONG with watching the open-matte DVDs that Disney offered for sale to the public and I, as a consumer, paid them for!

As far as I'm concerned you can't go wrong with the theatrical ratio because that's where the movie was first released and that's where it was first displayed and seen by audiences. I'll trust that further than any TV or VHS showing of a film.

I never said they shouldn't release the theatrical ratio, just that the open matte for animation should also be made available especially in cases where it's always been so. There is implication that viewing these films in open-matte is showing disrespect to the animators. But of course there is an alternate point of view in which I feel I am showing respect for the animators precisely by wanting to see everything they bothered to draw for the film that eventually made it into the film print.

And besides, the animators may have been animating with both ratios in mind. You can pull out all the press kits you want (which of course wouldn't say 1.33:1 even if the animators did consider that an equally valid ratio, since the press kits were for theaters) but you have no proof that Walt or Woolie Reitherman would be offended or apalled that someone watching at home prefers the version with more picture! And who is to say they wouldn't want the fans to be able to choose that version if they wanted to watch it?

I'm not a theatrical purist, I guess. What I mean by that is I don't believe that it's black and white wriitten in stone that EVERYTHING you see in theatres are EXACTLY what was "intended".

For instance, studios and theatres have an incentive to keep run times down, as shorter films = more daily screenings. Often the longer directors cut is exactly what the director intended but was not shown in the almighty theatres but is avilable on lowly home video!

One thing I do agree with you on is that we will never agree on this, so what's the point.

We can argue about this until the cows come home (and I don't even have any cows) but now we've both put forward the basic arguments of our sides.

Now everybody put on your helmets and proceed to the trenches.

As I said before I'm not looking for an arguement or to rehash all of my opinions about this. Been there, done that. I entered this thread to be helpful by mentioning the luck I had finding open matte JB, Aristocats, and RH at FYE, and to answer Neal's question.

My reply to Goofystich was also not meant as an arguement but merely as an answer to his question about why not just release the matted versions now that tvs have changed. I gave my opinion that why not give the consumer a choice? And also explained that even with a wide tv, I'd still prefer the open-matte.

I am in Florida now and my computer isn't with me and I don't have the time or the desire to get into a recurring arguement with you or anyone else about all this again. I explained why I posted in this thread and hopefully that will suffice.

[JDCB1986]

I just stuck the comparison pics together and I don't see enough resemblance for legal action.

If anything I feel like the new alligators are more similar than the originals.