60's & 70's Aspect Ratios (from Sword in the Stone)

[AlwaysOAR]

But as the theatrical framing is less imporant to me than what the animators took the time to draw and put on the frame, I would still want the 1.66:1, of course. And I'd be saying that the 1.66:1 was also "intended" to be seen, because why would they bother to animate in areas that they knew would get chopped off?

I was actually referring to how there was debate between you and I and others regarding the 60s/70s era of films, and whether or not they were initially released in some areas open-matte, for those few theatres not capable of matting. In regard to the later films, they were never released in their animated ratio in theatres, only later on home video/DVD. Ughhh, let me add, as far as I know.

None at all. When doing these posts, it may sometimes seem that way, the whole lost-in-translation thing, and I'm better at debating in person. I just get impatient typing and don't get down everything I want to put down half the time.

Interesting where you said you are better at debating in person. I feel that I express myself better in writing than any other way, I guess because that's my background and also I'm more shy in person! For what it's worth, you expressed yourself well and made your points clearly.

Thanks. As like everyone else, we all have our strengths and weaknesses.

[drfsupercenter]

Theatres change the width of the screen to match the width of the picture - usually by opening or closing curtains. The height of the image remains more or less consistent. Therefore there is no need for pillar-box bars.

The ones I go to (AMC theaters mainly) don't use curtains... Once they projected a 1.85 movie on a 2.35 screen due to availibility, but that was the only case of pillarboxing I've seen in American theaters.

Think about the Back to the Future DVD mistake, and imagine how easy it would be to do something like that when you a projectionist repeatedly adding, removing or adjusting the matte between performances of different films (and sometimes between the previews and the movie itself).

What exactly is that mistake? I have the "v2" versions that fixed the matting problem apparently.

As for Theatrical vs Extended/Director's Cuts - absolutely. I always want the theatrical cut first and foremost. Something I have stated many times on this forum. This is mainly because when you read about the reception and criticism of a film, it is referring to the theatrical cut, so I think its vital that you can view the theatrical cut to see if you agree or disagree with the criticisms.

I feel the same way for the most part. The only movie in which I prefer the director's cut is Independence Day... I saw it first that way and somehow the theatrical cut seems to be missing something. (Such as the scene where they triangulate the cell phone call which explains how they get to the White House in the first place)
I think as long as a DVD has both versions (and the ACTUAL OTV, not The Lion King version), then it's OK... I only don't like when it's ONLY the director's cut and not the theatrical version.

My biggest complaint (living over in the UK) is that a lot of films these days are only released in the "unrated" extended cuts over here. I think is more to do with the market being smaller than spite (it's the same was some films on BD in the US are only the extended cuts its just not feasible for the smaller market to support two different releases). Thankfully branching is becoming more popular on current Blu-ray discs.

I agree on that matter too... My family has a subscription to Blockbuster's online rental service, and they only get the unrated versions. What really makes me mad is that they make films that suck to begin with, and then add a bunch of profanity and sex and call it unrated. What happened to the good old days where if you wanted a violent film you'd let it be R rated and make it GOOD the first time?

Actually, I believe all of the films after the DAC's we have been debating about have been animated in one ratio, and framed and projected in another ratio. Of course, there should be no debate on the intent of these, though I know you and DavidS. will want the animated ratio.

Yes, I'm not arguing about the original animated ratio... I'm saying I prefer the original animated ratio to the way it was shown in theaters.

Upon closer look at Aladdin, it actually says something like "Original animated aspect ratio of 1.66:1", so they admit it's not the original theatrical aspect ratio. I like that DVD (everything but the audio), because it actually uses that ratio and not the cropped one.

@disneyfella,

Disney seems to be n00b a lot with their terms, though. A few of the 1.33:1 films like Robin Hood falsely stated that they were "modified from their original version to fit your screen". Later on, Disney realized their error and fixed it to say "the original aspect ratio of 1.33:1".
I think they just stick OAR on everything so people don't complain about it... but some movies claim to have more than one OAR (the ones that were released 1.33:1 in the Gold Classics Collection and later widescreen)

[Escapay]

The Aristocats, on the other hand, is framed for 1.75:1 on it's reissue DVD release and it has the label "original theatrical aspect ratio" on the box.

Oy, The Aristocats had me pulling hairs once.

A couple years ago (whilst I was still a WDW castmember with a lot of free time on my hands on days off), I did a comparison of the various back covers for Aristocats at several of stores (Once Upon A Toy, World of Disney, Virgin Megastore), and found there existed several different versions: (and no more than 2 versions each were at one particular store)

The first version - which lists the "Fun With Music" booklet and the aspect ratio is just described as "1.33:1 Aspect Ratio", and the "this film has been modified..." tag

The second version - which omits the "Fun With Music" booklet and still has "1.33:1 Aspect Ratio" and the "this film has been modified..." tag

The third version - which omits the "Fun With Music" booklet and changes the aspect ratio to "1.33:1 Original Aspect Ratio", thus removing the "this film has been modified..." tag

The fourth version - same as the third, except the metallic banner on the front isn't metallic anymore. In addition, the "Your Satisfaction is Guaranteed" box that was in the previous three, is no longer there.

The fifth version - same as the fourth (no metallic banner), only now the aspect ratio reads "1.33:1 Original Theatrical Aspect Ratio". And like the fourth version, no more "Your Satisfaction is Guaranteed" box. This is likely the *last* version before it went OOP to be replaced by the SE.

I wish I took pictures of each back cover but I didn't have a digital camera with me when I was doing the comparisons.

It's interesting to note that The Fox and the Hound had the same variations (but their booklet was called "Let's Be Friends").

If a catalog title can have up to 5 different versions over the course of 6 years (2000-2005, which is when I did the comparisons), what does that say about the stability of BVHE - er, WDSHE? Then again, Aristocats and Fox and the Hound aren't exactly high priorities for Disney to get people to buy, so repeatedly changing the back cover probably doesn't get noticed except by hardcore fanatics...and me.

Think about the Back to the Future DVD mistake, and imagine how easy it would be to do something like that when you a projectionist repeatedly adding, removing or adjusting the matte between performances of different films (and sometimes between the previews and the movie itself).

What exactly is that mistake? I have the "v2" versions that fixed the matting problem apparently.

Mistakes, plural.

BTTF DVD Framing Fiasco

I've been meaning to get the v2 versions for awhile, but never got around to replacing them, and it's been 6 years already!

Albert

[drfsupercenter]

The fourth version - same as the third, except the metallic banner on the front isn't metallic anymore. In addition, the "Your Satisfaction is Guaranteed" box that was in the previous three, is no longer there.

That's because no one was satisfied with the messed up boxes
Didn't Robin Hood have that same thing? (as I mentioned earlier)

I think, maybe it has to do with the films that have a questionable intended ratio... Aristocats and Robin Hood were both released in two ratios on DVD. Fox and the Hound, was that matted in theaters? I did see the version with the "this film has been modified" text, in fact I haven't seen one without it (but that could just be because I'm looking at libraries and not stores)

I've been meaning to get the v2 versions for awhile, but never got around to replacing them, and it's been 6 years already!

If you do, you might wanna keep the v1 packaging... The one I have has no paper insert, just a slipcover that looks exactly like the box. I got a fullscreen set from the library (for open matte comparison) and theirs had a more expensive box, along with an insert that had director's comments and a chapter list. I almost want to track down that paper insert so I can put it in mine...

[Escapay]

The fourth version - same as the third, except the metallic banner on the front isn't metallic anymore. In addition, the "Your Satisfaction is Guaranteed" box that was in the previous three, is no longer there.

That's because no one was satisfied with the messed up boxes

Didn't Robin Hood have that same thing?

I didn't get a chance to compare the back covers for Robin Hood, though I do know that the first version and the fourth version exist (I've got the first version, and I saw the fourth version for quite awhile in stores before it went OOP to make room for the MWE. I was surprised that I haven't yet found the fifth version yet.

I've been meaning to get the v2 versions for awhile, but never got around to replacing them, and it's been 6 years already!

If you do, you might wanna keep the v1 packaging... The one I have has no paper insert, just a slipcover that looks exactly like the box. I got a fullscreen set from the library (for open matte comparison) and theirs had a more expensive box, along with an insert that had director's comments and a chapter list. I almost want to track down that paper insert so I can put it in mine...

I was just planning on doing the disc exchange program that Universal had for it, but since it's been 6 years, I honestly don't know if that program is still running.

If not that, then I can just go to a store and buy the trilogy again (since by now they're all v2), exchange the discs in there, then (if possible) return it to the store. Or just give it to my brother since he doesn't seem to mind the framing fiasco (and probably would just watch the first movie only anyway.).

Albert

[drfsupercenter]

I haven't come across a store that'll let you just return an open DVD... since people can obviously copy them and return.

Something strange about my set - only the second movie says "v2" on the disc... I wonder if that was intentional or if I have some messed up version with only one disc fixed? (That shouldn't be the case, though, as I just got it in 2006)

So basically, the movies that were matted in theaters falsely stated that the 1.33 was modified from its original. I seem to sense a pattern here...

[KubrickFan]

I haven't come across a store that'll let you just return an open DVD... since people can obviously copy them and return.

Really? How do you return a disc with scratches on it?

Something strange about my set - only the second movie says "v2" on the disc... I wonder if that was intentional or if I have some messed up version with only one disc fixed? (That shouldn't be the case, though, as I just got it in 2006)

Look at Escapay's link and compare your version with the screenshots posted there. If they look like the red lined portions, your third disc is still faulty.

So basically, the movies that were matted in theaters falsely stated that the 1.33 was modified from its original. I seem to sense a pattern here...

Well, it would still be modified from the theatrical version (if you consider that the original). Otherwise, Open Matted movies that are put on dvd matted would still be modified, since they have less information than the original picture.

[drfsupercenter]

Really? How do you return a disc with scratches on it?

That's exchanging, not returning. Around here they say "Same title only" for anything CD/DVD.
I meant that you can't just get your money back on an open DVD.

Look at Escapay's link and compare your version with the screenshots posted there. If they look like the red lined portions, your third disc is still faulty.

Yeah I would if I wasn't so lazy... I hated BTTF3 anyway, so I don't really care... as long as the first 2 are good I'm happy.

Well, it would still be modified from the theatrical version (if you consider that the original). Otherwise, Open Matted movies that are put on dvd matted would still be modified, since they have less information than the original picture.

Uh, you mean more? If it's open-matte, it has MORE info than the original theatrical picture... And technically the theatrical one is modified from the open matte.

I looked at my VHS tapes... The Jungle Book and The Aristocats say nothing of aspect ratios, while The Fox and the Hound and Robin Hood say they have been modified. I don't have The Sword In the Stone on VHS... could someone check one though? (By the way, I have the WDC F&H, the WDMC Robin Hood, GCC Aristocats and WDC Jungle Book.)

[Escapay]

Well, it would still be modified from the theatrical version (if you consider that the original). Otherwise, Open Matted movies that are put on dvd matted would still be modified, since they have less information than the original picture.

Uh, you mean more? If it's open-matte, it has MORE info than the original theatrical picture... And technically the theatrical one is modified from the open matte.

As hard as it is to believe, the full frame of an open-matte film isn't the same as the frame of a TV, so an amount of image will still be lost on the sides. It's not as drastic as pan-and-scan, but there will still be image lost.

It's mentioned in several UD reviews, among them...

Something Wicked This Way Comes:
Disney has included two viewing formats on this DVD. Viewers can choose from the original theatrical aspect ratio (1.85:1 anamorphic widescreen) or a reformatted transfer designed to fill 4x3 televisions. The reformatted fullscreen transfer adds a little bit of picture at the top and bottom of the frame, but more significantly lops off part from the sides.

And this one has comparison caps...

Freaky Friday
Freaky Friday is presented in its original theatrical aspect ratio of 1.85:1, been enhanced for 16x9 televisions. There is a fullscreen presentation on the same disc, which is a mix of cropping (in which a portion of the picture is lost) and open matte (in which you gain some image that wasn't intended to be seen). Picture quality is, not surprisingly, flawless. The print is, as it should be for such a brand new film, entirely clean and clear. For the most part, it's pretty sharp and detailed as well. Including both versions of the film did not result in anything less than first-rate video quality, so kudos to Disney for this decision, provided that it came after a shortage of bonus features and that a reformatted fullscreen presentation didn't mean extras (like the trailer) were discarded.

<center>

</center>

Note how in the open-matte version, the camera woman disappears (except for her arm) as well as an old man in the lower right corner. Conversely, additional railings are found at the bottom, as is the studio ceiling on the top.

Albert

[drfsupercenter]

Hmm, that's interesting.

But in the animated movies like SitS and The Jungle Book, surely nothing is lost from the open matte transfers.

And speaking of The Jungle Book... I encoded the two sources and put them side-by-side... Basically the PE is cropped the exact same amount on the top and bottom for the entire film. The camera never pans, as far as I can tell. (The elephant scene is questionable... though that looks more squished than anything)

Surely in theaters it was a bit more... professionally done? And not just shoddily cropped? Literally, if you took a fullscreen version and cropped enough pixels off the top and bottom to make it 1.77:1, you have the PE. It's really disappointing, and further goes to show that that DVD was a complete n00b job and most likely not even the way it was seen in theaters! (Unless of course someone would like to show me a telecine or camera rip of it in theaters )

Sometime later on I'll provide screenshots and possible even offer the end-result video in a separate thread. Oddly enough, though, by the end of the film, the two sources differ by about 2 seconds... so one of them had to have lost something, even if it is minimal (Most likely one frame here, one frame there, and it all adds up)

[ToyStoryFan]

I just want to chime in that I disagree with those who say there is only one and can only be one true ratio. I fully believe both the open matte and the widescreen versions of Jungle, Sword, Aristocats, and Robin Hood are BOTH valid presentations.

This got me thinking -- when Zelda: Twilight Princess came out, there were two versions released: one on GameCube and one on the Wii. The GameCube was the true, original intended version of the game. The Wii version is the same game, but everything is flipped (so on the Wii version, a house intended to be on the right would be on the left). Now if the game designers approved such a drastic change, surely there can be two for films too.

[2099net]

Hmm, that's interesting.

But in the animated movies like SitS and The Jungle Book, surely nothing is lost from the open matte transfers.

This post earlier in this thread shows that information was most likely lost from the side[s] of the 101 Dalmatians Open Matte presentation
http://www.ultimatedisney.com/forum/vie ... 832#393832

And speaking of The Jungle Book... I encoded the two sources and put them side-by-side... Basically the PE is cropped the exact same amount on the top and bottom for the entire film. The camera never pans, as far as I can tell. (The elephant scene is questionable... though that looks more squished than anything)

Surely in theaters it was a bit more... professionally done? And not just shoddily cropped? Literally, if you took a fullscreen version and cropped enough pixels off the top and bottom to make it 1.77:1, you have the PE. It's really disappointing, and further goes to show that that DVD was a complete n00b job and most likely not even the way it was seen in theaters! (Unless of course someone would like to show me a telecine or camera rip of it in theaters )

Well you don't have to centre crop academy exposures to matte them. Perhaps Jungle Book isn't meant to be centre matted. It looks like 101 Dalmatians' (again earlier on this thread) optional matting is off-centre.

Sometime later on I'll provide screenshots and possible even offer the end-result video in a separate thread. Oddly enough, though, by the end of the film, the two sources differ by about 2 seconds... so one of them had to have lost something, even if it is minimal (Most likely one frame here, one frame there, and it all adds up)

Why would a cropped/matted version have frames missing? Whatever the reason I doubt it has anything to do with the ratio.

[KubrickFan]

Uh, you mean more? If it's open-matte, it has MORE info than the original theatrical picture... And technically the theatrical one is modified from the open matte.

I meant the matted version (the widescreen version) in comparison of the original print. It has less information, and is basically modified. But as it's the intended aspect ratio (let's assume that for the Disney films) it's not really modified. It's the original version.

And yes if you look closely, Jungle Book PE shifts the frame to the right, revealing some information that was not there in the fullscreen version, so the fullscreen version wasn't the complete frame either.

[2099net]

And yes if you look closely, Jungle Book PE shifts the frame to the right, revealing some information that was not there in the fullscreen version, so the fullscreen version wasn't the complete frame either.

Interesting, as thats what the 101 Dalmatians seems to do if you look at the academy vs cinescope trailer. My guess is the soundtrack is down the left-hand side.

[drfsupercenter]

Hm, I'll have to take a look at that comparison then... I didn't see any evidence that there was more image on the sides.

In certain shots, I superimposed the two pictures... and the PE clearly fits inside the LI with no cropping issues. Maybe that was just for a few shots and I got lucky?

Now, about video games... that I've always wondered about... since I have a Wii but only a CRT TV, and thus my games are all played in 4:3 mode. With games such as Super Smash Bros. Brawl, doesn't the widescreen presentation have more picture? So what happens when I play my friend online who has an HDTV? Is he getting a bigger arena? I don't mind as much for the gaming, as it's not really about a cinematic experience there... as much as for the fun of playing it. With Twilight Princess, I have it for the Wii and it's played in 4:3 mode... and I actually prefer the Wii version since I'm right handed and so is that version of the game.

[KubrickFan]

Hm, I'll have to take a look at that comparison then... I didn't see any evidence that there was more image on the sides.

In certain shots, I superimposed the two pictures... and the PE clearly fits inside the LI with no cropping issues. Maybe that was just for a few shots and I got lucky?

Now, about video games... that I've always wondered about... since I have a Wii but only a CRT TV, and thus my games are all played in 4:3 mode. With games such as Super Smash Bros. Brawl, doesn't the widescreen presentation have more picture? So what happens when I play my friend online who has an HDTV? Is he getting a bigger arena? I don't mind as much for the gaming, as it's not really about a cinematic experience there... as much as for the fun of playing it. With Twilight Princess, I have it for the Wii and it's played in 4:3 mode... and I actually prefer the Wii version since I'm right handed and so is that version of the game.

Look at this review. It is in Dutch, but the pictures speak for themselves.
I thought that all games especially made for the Wii (and I also thought Zelda was one of them) are made in widescreen, so you pan&scan them when played in 4:3 mode. I don't know if Zelda is one of them (since it's basically a port) but Super Smash Bros. Brawl should be gaining information.

[disneyfella]

Uh, you mean more? If it's open-matte, it has MORE info than the original theatrical picture... And technically the theatrical one is modified from the open matte.

I meant the matted version (the widescreen version) in comparison of the original print. It has less information, and is basically modified.

I actually think of it the other way around. The open matte version is a modified version. The director framed the film for a certain ratio. The only reason there is any more image (i.e. open matte) is because the camera negative had more space to fill. Believe me, if the filmmakers could afford it, they would have shot with more expensive cameras and used more expensive film so that the only way to view the film is in the aspect ratio it was framed and intended to be seen in.

Therefore, the open matte transfer is modified from its original version. And so some of the open matte VHS transfers state, btw.




It is interesting to note that while studios own the distribution rights to most films, films that have auteur ownership get distributed only in their intended aspect ratio (i.e "A Boy and His Dog"). When someone is looking to share a film experience and present art, rather than simply trying to make money off a market driven economy, great care in the actual framing of the film is taken care of. Look at all the wonderful Criterion Collection films (which only offer inteded ratio prints...often trying to get cinematographer/director approval). Any thing else is modified from its original version.

[drfsupercenter]

I realize with Wii games, the widescreen has more picture. Once we get an HDTV (we will in a couple weeks) I'll switch it over to that mode. What I'm saying is, some games have online play features like Super Smash Bros. Brawl.

If I'm playing someone online and they have widescreen... How does that work? Usually if you walk off the edge you die... but which "edge" is it using in that case? I haven't had two TVs on at once to compare... I know Brawl uses a combination of cropping and letterboxing, though... if you watch the intro, it's letterboxed... but some of the in-game videos are pan-and-scan. (Though much of the Subspace Emissary stuff is also letterboxed)


The open matte transfer is not modified from its original version... it IS the original version. Again, this could bring up a large argument about intended ratios and the like... But the reason that only some tapes state it and others don't is because it's not set in stone. Even some movies like The Aristocats and Robin Hood had several cases on DVD that read a variety of things regarding the aspect ratio. I will stand by my "Disney DVDs are n00b" theory until someone can prove otherwise.

[gregmasciola]

The open matte transfer is not modified from its original version... it IS the original version.

I disagree. It may be the original negative, but to me, the original version is the intended version. I get where you're coming from, but because the matted widescreen version is usually the way the film was meant to be seen, I consider that to be the original version. So that's why I think some open matte DVDs still say that the film has been modified.

Also, I have a question: what the heck does n00b mean?

[disneyfella]

I will stand by my "Disney DVDs are n00b" theory until someone can prove otherwise.

Ha ha ha Ha ha ha

I will stand right there next to you!