DVDizzy Forum

BATBFan1 wrote: What's your favorite Disney movie? I know you would be ticked if that happened to you.

It just happens to be Beauty and the Beast, and I'm fine with the 1.85:1 aspect ratio, because it's the intended aspect ratio. I dont' give a rat's ass about the matting because I enjoy the movie enough without worrying about the unnecessary bit at the top and bottom.

Think about it like this: Joe Bob is working on a scrapbook and he comes across a picture he took of him and his friends dumping a body into the lake. But he sees that it can't fit in the space he wants it to in his scrapbook. So he cuts off a bit at the top (it's just the sky anyway), and a bit at the bottom (it's just some grass). Then he glues it onto a page and present it to his friends.

One of them says, "Hey! You cut the top and bottom off!"

And Joe Bob says, "I know, it wasn't necessary, and this is how I wanted it to look in scrapbook!"

The friend then says, "But we're missing part of the picture!"

And Joe Bob says, "This is how I want the picture to look! MY PICTURE! I took it, I have a right to show it how I want to!"

The friend would then say, "Okay" and accept it and move on.

Now, substitute the scrapbook for a film, Joe Bob for Don Hahn, the cut off pieces of the picture for matting the animated cel, and the friend as you. Understand now?

Escapay

Escapay wrote:BTW, the mad man's name is Taylor.

No, his name is Charlton! HTH.

TLK

The Lizard King wrote:

Escapay wrote:BTW, the mad man's name is Taylor.

No, his name is Charlton! HTH.

TLK

Yeah, but his character is Taylor!

Escapay

toonaspie wrote:to explain the 1.66 aspect thingy, I think this was because a few years ago Disney went a little nuts and insisted that all the films released to dvd strictly use the "family friendly widescreen" which was the 1.66 ratio. As recent DVD releases have shown, Disney decided to care less about the 1.66 thing and just stick with whatever aspect ratio the film originally came in.

But 1.66:1 isn't even more "family friendly" than 1.78:1 or 1.85:1. You get the same amount of primarily auto-generated black bars at top and bottom (ever so slightly less than 1.85:1) plus more black bars on the sides (though they're covered by overscan, most of the time). One thing I'll never understand is why <i>Brother Bear</i> was cropped to 1.66:1 on Disc 1 of its DVD. I doubt it's because Disney assumed that people would think 1.66:1 isn't so wide. (They rarely expect that much from "families".) It could be for uniformity's sake or that 1.66:1 is the preferred CAPS aspect ratio. But it certainly isn't any more friendly than 1.78:1 would have been. The hypothetical conversation I imagine must have went something like this: "Let's put tiny black bars on the sides instead of butchering the picture a bit less." "Great idea!" In any event, it's nice to have it in its original aspect ratio, as is true of most Disney animated features/shorts.

The 1.66:1/1.85:1 debate is not the biggest of deals, and I can see the validity of each. Like Lars, the range of 1.66:1 and 1.85:1 opens you up to a pretty negligible amount of difference that's probably not worth getting mad about. I tend to prefer the 1.66:1 ratio on Disney 'toons as it is the only chance to see the CAPS-framed animation, but the theatrical ratio is good if that's what the filmmakers wanted. However, in the case of <i>Beauty and the Beast</i>, I think it's a big assumption on our parts that 1.85:1 is what the directors and producer desired. In fact, with the way Disney operates, I'd be surprised to think the film's creative folks had any say in what ratio was chosen unless they specifically went out of their way to do so.

Luke, movies in America are made in 1.85. Composed in 1.85. Shown in 1.85.

The problen with opening the matte is that it changes the TYPE of shot for every scene. Film language is based in that. It's a basic tenet of film. Long shot, medium shot, close up, extreme close up. When you change the matte height you're second guessing the directors intentions. Director: "I want this scene to be this amount of tense, Cameraman, frame it exactly this way." Telecine operator/DVD producer: "Hey lets open the matte and show more pic! Don't matter if we're a couple feet back from the Villian in these shot now. We got more pic! more animation! more everything!" More of everything, except for the original dramatic choice the director wanted us to see.

Luke wrote: But 1.66:1 isn't even more "family friendly" than 1.78:1 or 1.85:1. You get the same amount of primarily auto-generated black bars at top and bottom (ever so slightly less than 1.85:1) plus more black bars on the sides (though they're covered by overscan, most of the time).

It took me a little time before I realized that you are talking about a standard TV (4 : 3), not a widescreen one (16 : 9). Widescreen TV doesn't suffer from the multiple black bars with 1.66 : 1 aspect ratio if the image is anamorphic — only thin bars at left and right. (Confer the Mulan screenshots I posted earlier elsewhere.)

One thing I'll never understand is why <i>Brother Bear</i> was cropped to 1.66:1 on Disc 1 of its DVD. I doubt it's because Disney assumed that people would think 1.66:1 isn't so wide.

I agree. I don't understand why CinemaScope isn't considered family-friendly.

Actually, curiosity killed the cats, so i actualy went deep into my magazine vault and found Widescreen Review magazine's review of the CAV Collectors Editions of Beauty and the Beast and Beauty and the Beast: Work In Progress Laserdiscs (Widescreen Review Volume 2, Number 6, page 76. Awesome Belle and Beast cover) and Widescreen Review is the authority of cutting edge widescreen tech, so in that time they were using an NTSC scanning line counter (equivalent of today's capturing the RAW data from a DVD and counting the pixel lines, but in the analog domain) and guess what? the Beauty and the Beast Laserdisc is not in 1.66.

It's 1.61



(Coincidentally, wasn't that near the number i came up when i composited the total images of the open matted+pan scanned 4:3 trailer and the 16:9 widescreen film on the PAL DVD on the International forum once, to maybe be the total actual CAPS rendering ratio? i'm too lazy to searchi )

So mmm are you all gonna start clamoring for a 1.61 version that shows all the animation now?
Or Demand that Back To the Future be open matted in 1.37 for the live shots and letterboxed 1.66 on the SFX shots, instead of its proper composed for ratio of 1.85? What about Tim Burton's Batman? Or any of the 20,000 movies shot for 1.85 with an Academy sound camera since 1955 without a metal aperture 1.85 plate screwed in between the camera lens and the negative burning the black bars permanently on the original camera negative? (99% of all of them!) It's "missing image", the photons struck the negative! Must see material!

So again, the Laserrdisc showed the whole render with more than you're suposed to see to prevent children from crying too much and parents to complAin from black bars they don't understand. The taller the open matted area the slimmer the bars. If you could, you bet they would open it all the way up to 1.33 if the render had created it and people would be complaining about even more background and shot animation being "missing"

On a 10% overscanned 4:3 TV the 1.61 Laserdisc filled 92% of the TV's screen height (or 96% of the TV screen area) with image

A proper 1.85 would would only fill 80% of the height, (and that's on a 10% overscaned TV)

80 vs 92 is a B vs an A in the average Joe's eyes

Anyway this "It's not 1.85!" conversation would mean that all the millions of people in the world who love this movie have never seen it like it was made cus either you saw it:
A: 1.85 on the Theater
B: Pan scanned 1.33 on the VHS or TV
C: 1.85 on the DVD

*gasp! only those lucky souls that had a Laserdisc got to see it proper then? Ever?

No don't tell me Europe, hey, if the Laserdisc is 1.61, that means: Nobody!


Rubbish


_________________

Luke wrote:However, in the case of <i>Beauty and the Beast</i>, I think it's a big assumption on our parts that 1.85:1 is what the directors and producer desired. In fact, with the way Disney operates, I'd be surprised to think the film's creative folks had any say in what ratio was chosen unless they specifically went out of their way to do so.

Well, the only films released at 1.85 in the past have been Hunchback (Trousdale/Wise), Beauty and the Beast (Trousdale/Wise) and Mulan (Bancroft/Cook).

I think looking at those stats, its fair to say creative input has something to do with the choices, especially when Beauty and the Beast was taken directly off the CAPS system and the LD was 1.66:1. To me, the New Mulan seems to be the release where the creative staff weren't consulted.

As for Trousdale/Wise, they also did Atlantis: The Lost Empire, which had it's full 2.35:1 aspect ratio retained on screen, despite still being producted in CAPS (although the full 1.66 are was not animated in Atlantis' case)

2099net wrote:Well, the only films released at 1.85 in the past have been Hunchback (Trousdale/Wise), Beauty and the Beast (Trousdale/Wise) and Mulan (Bancroft/Cook).

Netty of course means the only films released at 1.85 in the past on DVD.


Cus all the US films of the last 3 decades were released at 1.85 (or Scope 2.40, if anamorphic printed)

People, you have to keep in perspective that films are FILMS, not DVDs, the Film, and the way it's done is for Film. As in Theatrical. Apparently we're so DVD crazed on UD that most people keep forgetting the reality is they are 35mm FILMS. Not DVDs. And we end up thinking the DVD is the real thing instead of the Film. And it's not. The Film is the real thing. Don't confuse the copy with the real object. The DVD is a paperback edition of the deluxe illustrated 12" hardcover coffee table book.

When the director makes the film he makes it FOR theatrical presentation. He judges it on a 1.85 screen. This might change soon enough but Hollywood people - directors, cinematographers, producers - they think in FILM terms and aspect ratios. That's why Sony and others are trying to come up with Digital Cinema solutions like 2160 x 4096 pixel projection (btw that's 1.90) to make them satisfied fully.

A filmmaker makes a Film. We get a personal downrezed paperback edition copy of it on DVD. or a VHS. or a Laserdisc.

All the Disney movies I've seen on theaters have been 1.85 except for the pre 60's Academy ones and the Scope/Technirama ones of course. And if you live in all of America, so have you.

I understand everyone's point but I dont think no one is understanding mine?

I just want to see all the animation, thats all!

I would rather have the bars on the sides than top and bottom matted.