OAR for Disney films?

[disneyfella]

No, there is no evcidence to suggest that Walt ever intended Sleeping Beauty to be shown any wider than 2.35:1. On the contrary, there are several published records that show that Walt agressivelly instructed the film to be shown in 2.35:1.

Lady and the Tramp and 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea were originally presented in theatres in an early Cinemascope ratio of 2.55:1. Because of the visual distortion created with an anamorphic lense, the soundtrack was not able to be squeezed onto and overlayed on the picture. By the late 1950s, however, Cinemascope had developed a process that allowed that to happen. Technirama 70, a scope format as such, had also developed a format that allowed the soundtrack to be photographed through an anamorphic lense and overlayed on the 2.55:1 image, thus creating a 2.35:1 aspect ratio.

I repeat, there is no evidence that Walt ever intended Sleeping Beauty to be exhibited wider than 2.35:1. On the contrary, there is evidence that exists that shows he aggresively wanted the picture to be in 2.35:1. The Blu Ray presentation...."never before seen"...was never an intended format. It is more of an "open matte" transfer.....another presentation that I don't support.

[KubrickFan]

No, there is no evcidence to suggest that Walt ever intended Sleeping Beauty to be shown any wider than 2.35:1. On the contrary, there are several published records that show that Walt agressivelly instructed the film to be shown in 2.35:1.

Lady and the Tramp and 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea were originally presented in theatres in an early Cinemascope ratio of 2.55:1. Because of the visual distortion created with an anamorphic lense, the soundtrack was not able to be squeezed onto and overlayed on the picture. By the late 1950s, however, Cinemascope had developed a process that allowed that to happen. Technirama 70, a scope format as such, had also developed a format that allowed the soundtrack to be photographed through an anamorphic lense and overlayed on the 2.55:1 image, thus creating a 2.35:1 aspect ratio.

I repeat, there is no evidence that Walt ever intended Sleeping Beauty to be exhibited wider than 2.35:1. On the contrary, there is evidence that exists that shows he aggresively wanted the picture to be in 2.35:1. The Blu Ray presentation...."never before seen"...was never an intended format. It is more of an "open matte" transfer.....another presentation that I don't support.

I'm quoting Theo Gluck here, who supervised the restoration:

TG: Well... there were multiple signs pointing us to presenting the film in a 2.55:1 aspect ratio for this Blu-ray release.

First and foremost - once our partners at Lowry Digital scanned the full image area on the Technirama negative and we started viewing dailies it became immediately apparent that we were not looking at a 2.35 AR. We normally do not have any crop applied when screening dailies so we knew we were seeing everything possible that is on the negative.

In addition - when we were looking at surviving cels and backgrounds at the Studio's Animation Research Library (which is an invaluable resource), it was quite obvious that the layout design and camera marks were set for 2.55.

Then there is the fact that in a memo dated July 28, 1953, the Studio green lit the CinemaScope version of Lady and the Tramp, while it also established a "Standard Version" and a CinemaScope Version production number for Sleeping Beauty -- #2082 and #2083. As the CinemaScope standard at the time was 2.55, (and that is clearly evident in Lady and the Tramp) Sleeping Beauty too would have been designed at 2.55.

In the end, Lady was adapted for CinemaScope but it was truncated on the left side of the screen when it went out with an optical track since the CinemaScope presentation spec had changed by the time the film was ultimately released in 1955. Sleeping Beauty fared far better as it had been designed to be in CinemaScope and thus could be trimmed to meet the requirements of 2.35 CinemaScope 35mm prints. But in the final analysis, there is animation all the way out to the far edges of the frame that had not been seen. It is this full 2.55 version that is coming out on Blu-ray on October 7.

Of course there would be no reason to animate all that for it not to be seen. It just happened that way. There's a difference between this and an 'open matted' transfer, because the full frame animation was done for television viewings. The full 2.55:1 would've been seen if the CinemaScope ratio hadn't changed from 2.55:1 to 2.35:1.

[disneyfella]

I'm not sure there is a difference between the open matted transfer and the 'opened up' Sleeping Beauty transfer.

You assume that the animators animated in Academy Ratio for protection for television airings. I disagree. Never mind that Disney was already filming his television programs widescreen (some from the 1960s tv programs were filmed in 1.66:1). And never mind that the animated films didn't air on pay cable television until the late 1980s....and most still haven't had network television airings (even on the anthology series). Also, there were no indications that Disney was going to get into any home video market since it hadn't been invented yet. Not to mention the reluctance for Disney to release any of the animated classics on VHS for fear that it would be stooping too low for such classic film making.

Again, there is no evidence that these films were 'protected' or 'intended' for anything other than their theatrical exhibition (until the late 1980s). We can guess and speculate and try to use logic to explain it.........but a simple hypothesis or theory is all that results.

On the contrary, instead of looking at pre-production Sleeping Beauty art from 1953, when a different aspect ratio may have been considered due to the development of Cinemascope at that time....let's look at a special letter that Walt sent out to exhibitors:

I'm quoting Walt Disney here,

From the Desk of Walt Disney

Dear Exhibitor,

.....

Please be advised that I am personally urging you to make sure your running print remains in pristine condition and should any problems occur, to please contact our studio for a replacement print. The most professional and clean exhibition of this film must be maintained, whether you are showing a 70mm print or a 35mm print (which must be displayed at a 2.35:1 ratio [emphasis added]). This is of utmost importance. My studio will personally assist you to be sure that your theatrical run is a top-rated experience by your audience. Teams will be available to discuss any issues with your projectionists, promotional managers or sound engineers at your showhouse. Projector manuals for settings and sound specifications accompany this letter and we advise you to study these materials for the best possible run of the film at your theater.

Sorry if I'm getting on a soap box again, but I just feel like when people ask for OAR they are talking about the original aspect ratio. The original aspect ratio of Sleeping Beauty was (and is) 2.35:1. Walt Disney aggressively urged this ratio and instead of looking back on film history and toying around with it, I support the preservation of film history. I don't support censorship, I don't support colorizing black and white films, and I don't support the presentation of films in anything other than their original theatrical aspect ratio. These are simply my opinions, but the fact remains that Sleeping Beauty was originally shown in 2.35:1 and that is the original aspect ratio. If another version exists and people would like it (be it an open matte print, an 'opened up' print, a director's cut, a producer's cut, an extended edition, etc.) then there is certainly a place for that as well. However, I feel that nothing from the original theatrical version should be lost at the expense of one of those 'other' versions.

::gets down off of soap box and gently places the wet noodle on the ground::

I don't know why I get so vocal about this issue.

[KubrickFan]

I'm not sure there is a difference between the open matted transfer and the 'opened up' Sleeping Beauty transfer.

You assume that the animators animated in Academy Ratio for protection for television airings. I disagree. Never mind that Disney was already filming his television programs widescreen (some from the 1960s tv programs were filmed in 1.66:1). And never mind that the animated films didn't air on pay cable television until the late 1980s....and most still haven't had network television airings (even on the anthology series). Also, there were no indications that Disney was going to get into any home video market since it hadn't been invented yet. Not to mention the reluctance for Disney to release any of the animated classics on VHS for fear that it would be stooping too low for such classic film making.

Filming open matted was simply the cheapest way to get widescreen. Anamorphic shooting needed special lenses, while open matted filming could use the standard spherical lenses. The programs that were shot in 1.66:1 were released in theaters in Europe, if I remember correctly. I doubt they were shown with black bars on television.

Again, there is no evidence that these films were 'protected' or 'intended' for anything other than their theatrical exhibition (until the late 1980s). We can guess and speculate and try to use logic to explain it.........but a simple hypothesis or theory is all that results.

On the contrary, instead of looking at pre-production Sleeping Beauty art from 1953, when a different aspect ratio may have been considered due to the development of Cinemascope at that time....let's look at a special letter that Walt sent out to exhibitors:

From the Desk of Walt Disney

Dear Exhibitor,

.....

Please be advised that I am personally urging you to make sure your running print remains in pristine condition and should any problems occur, to please contact our studio for a replacement print. The most professional and clean exhibition of this film must be maintained, whether you are showing a 70mm print or a 35mm print (which must be displayed at a 2.35:1 ratio [emphasis added]). This is of utmost importance. My studio will personally assist you to be sure that your theatrical run is a top-rated experience by your audience. Teams will be available to discuss any issues with your projectionists, promotional managers or sound engineers at your showhouse. Projector manuals for settings and sound specifications accompany this letter and we advise you to study these materials for the best possible run of the film at your theater.




Sorry if I'm getting on a soap box again, but I just feel like when people ask for OAR they are talking about the original aspect ratio. The original aspect ratio of Sleeping Beauty was (and is) 2.35:1. Walt Disney aggressively urged this ratio and instead of looking back on film history and toying around with it, I support the preservation of film history. I don't support censorship, I don't support colorizing black and white films, and I don't support the presentation of films in anything other than their original theatrical aspect ratio. These are simply my opinions, but the fact remains that Sleeping Beauty was originally shown in 2.35:1 and that is the original aspect ratio. If another version exists and people would like it (be it an open matte print, an 'opened up' print, a director's cut, a producer's cut, an extended edition, etc.) then there is certainly a place for that as well. However, I feel that nothing from the original theatrical version should be lost at the expense of one of those 'other' versions.

Again, because 2.55:1 couldn't be projected anymore because of the added optical mono track. The majority of the screens only could project 2.35:1 when the film was released, so of course that's going to be the ratio he wanted it to be displayed in. The fifties are quite problematic for aspect ratios, I've heard it said. Technically, Sleeping Beauty could've been released in a 2.20:1 ratio too, and it still would've been a correct ratio. That's the problem (if you could call it one) with the beginning of widescreen. Films shot in VistaVision (The Searchers, Vertigo) were shown in 2.20:1 too, while the true aspect ratio is 1.85:1. Would you like those to be in 2.20:1 on the dvd and Blu-ray too?

[disneyfella]

I'm not sure there is a difference between the open matted transfer and the 'opened up' Sleeping Beauty transfer.

You assume that the animators animated in Academy Ratio for protection for television airings. I disagree. Never mind that Disney was already filming his television programs widescreen (some from the 1960s tv programs were filmed in 1.66:1). And never mind that the animated films didn't air on pay cable television until the late 1980s....and most still haven't had network television airings (even on the anthology series). Also, there were no indications that Disney was going to get into any home video market since it hadn't been invented yet. Not to mention the reluctance for Disney to release any of the animated classics on VHS for fear that it would be stooping too low for such classic film making.

Filming open matted was simply the cheapest way to get widescreen. Anamorphic shooting needed special lenses, while open matted filming could use the standard spherical lenses. The programs that were shot in 1.66:1 were released in theaters in Europe, if I remember correctly. I doubt they were shown with black bars on television.

Those programs were released theatrically in Europe, however, they were matted from the 1.33:1 to 1.66:1 for the European theatrical market. And no, when broadcast on television they did not have black bars.

The point is that often times there is more image than was meant to be seen. Just because it's there doesn't mean that it should be presented. I think we can both agree on a couple of issues....

1) There are facts. Proven facts. These include aspect ratios for original exhibition.

2) There are opinions. Varying opinions. These include speculated intended aspect ratios, and personal preference.

The fact remains that the OAR for Sleeping Beauty was 2.35:1 (and/or 2.20:1) depending on the exhibition.

Where we differ is our opinion on which version we prefer. I simply prefer the OAR....which regretfully was left off of the Platinum Edition Blu Ray.

[KubrickFan]

The point is that often times there is more image than was meant to be seen. Just because it's there doesn't mean that it should be presented. I think we can both agree on a couple of issues....

1) There are facts. Proven facts. These include aspect ratios for original exhibition.

2) There are opinions. Varying opinions. These include speculated intended aspect ratios, and personal preference.

The fact remains that the OAR for Sleeping Beauty was 2.35:1 (and/or 2.20:1) depending on the exhibition.

Where we differ is our opinion on which version we prefer. I simply prefer the OAR....which regretfully was left off of the Platinum Edition Blu Ray.

But there are also facts that say that the aspect ratio should be 2.55:1. Enough facts, actually, to let the restoration team conclude that that should be the ratio for their restoration. You could say it's a matter of preference, but we don't decide. The people who do the restoration do that. But it's naive to think that Disney would offer two aspect ratios for one film, when those ARs aren't that different from each other.
I can also think of many instances of films that were altered for theatrical distribution from their original aspect ratio. But you've clearly made up your mind, so I won't bother.

[disneyfella]

The point is that often times there is more image than was meant to be seen. Just because it's there doesn't mean that it should be presented. I think we can both agree on a couple of issues....

1) There are facts. Proven facts. These include aspect ratios for original exhibition.

2) There are opinions. Varying opinions. These include speculated intended aspect ratios, and personal preference.

The fact remains that the OAR for Sleeping Beauty was 2.35:1 (and/or 2.20:1) depending on the exhibition.

Where we differ is our opinion on which version we prefer. I simply prefer the OAR....which regretfully was left off of the Platinum Edition Blu Ray.

But there are also facts that say that the aspect ratio should be 2.55:1. Enough facts, actually, to let the restoration team conclude that that should be the ratio for their restoration. You could say it's a matter of preference, but we don't decide.

You are 100% exactly right...except for the notion that 2.55:1 is the factual original aspect ratio of Sleeping Beauty. Even the restoration team indicated that this is speculation. Speculation based off of research to be sure, but speculation nonetheless. I agree that the restoration team should preserve the entire frame, which would include the 'opened up' portions. And I might even take an interest and enjoy the wider version on my own....so long as it did not take the place of the original version (which it did). Also, Disney has now created confusion among many of their fans. People don't know what aspect ratios of their films are and they don't know if they are watching a film properly framed or not. Sleeping Beauty, according to Walt himself, was instructed to be exhibited in 2.35:1.....and the execs at Disney (who are always looking at tampering with old Disney films to make a few bucks....'Morning Report' for The Lion King, Bambi II, Make Mine Music edits, etc.) jump at the opportunity to advertise a Sleeipng Beauty that no one has ever seen before.

I think we both agree to disagree about this. We each have our preferences, and neither of us is trying to change the other person's mind. I'm just saying that this thread is about the original aspect ratios: and the original aspect ratio of Sleeping Beauty is 2.35:1 and/or 2.20:1.

[ajmrowland]

Isn't the 2.55 AR what the original 1st generation film was printed in?

[disneyfella]

Yes, as all scope pictures were at the time. They were framed as such so that an optical soundtrack could be printed onto that 2.55:1 image, thus creating a 2.35:1 screen image.

The restoration of Sleeping Beauty found a print of the film that hadn't had this opitcal soundtrack overlayed yet, and that was the source of the 'opened up' Blu Ray disc.

[KubrickFan]

Yes, as all scope pictures were at the time. They were framed as such so that an optical soundtrack could be printed onto that 2.55:1 image, thus creating a 2.35:1 screen image.

The restoration of Sleeping Beauty found a print of the film that hadn't had this opitcal soundtrack overlayed yet, and that was the source of the 'opened up' Blu Ray disc.

Wouldn't the new aspect ratio only have added picture to one side? Just one optical mono track would be placed at one side of the film print. But the 2.55:1 version has new image on either sides, and on the top and bottom.
And it's not like they created extra info just to fit the mono track. Cutting off some image was the only way to do that.

[disneyfella]

What a lot of people don't know or realize is that even scope pictures need to have the aperture plates put on the front of the projector. For example, The Swiss Family Robinson was shot in Cinemascope, but still needed a 2.35:1 aperture placed in front of the camera for proper projection. There is going to be information lost around the edge of the picture on all films. The director(s) frame the action in the center of the film with an aspect ratio in mind. It is this aspect ratio that is represented during exhibition.

This is what I meant when I referred to the Sleeping Beauty Blu Ray print as an 'open matte' print.

[Disney Duster]

What was Sleeping Beauty presented in on television when Walt Disney showed clips of it in black and white for TV before the movie came out?

Anyway, Disneyfella, you are saying OAR when actually you mean original theatrical ratio.

The film's original aspect ratio would actually be the one it was animated in, right? And then the original theatrical ratio would be the one seen in theaters.

Anyway, I agree that if only one could be shown, it should have been the original theatrical ratio, for every single film, because it is about owning what was in theaters, the original, just like Beauty and the Beast should have it's original...everything.

But what they should have done was provide both ratios...because there is a lot of evidence that Walt Disney originally wanted Sleeping Beauty to be shown in the wider ratio, the one it was animated in.

Didn't the restorers find notes that said the film was to be shown in this wider ratio, before Walt's letter instructing to show the changed ratio?

But since there is so much evidence that the wider aspect ratio was the one intended, and since it shows more picture intsead of less picture (seeing more work is not bad like seeing less work), I am perfectly fine with how they did it unless someone shows me evidence that Walt Disney never ever wanted people to see that ratio. That letter only says to me that he changed the ratio because the ratios in theaters in changed!

[2099net]

But what they should have done was provide both ratios...because there is a lot of evidence that Walt Disney originally wanted Sleeping Beauty to be shown in the wider ratio, the one it was animated in.

Didn't the restorers find notes that said the film was to be shown in this wider ratio, before Walt's letter instructing to show the changed ratio?

But Beauty and the Beast was intended to have Human Again in it throughout most of its creation. It was also supposed to have an animated prologue but this was dropped due to time and money. Should these be put back in for home video release? Didn't people object to Human Again?

Stephen Sommers (for example) intended the Scorpion King CGI at the end of The Mummy Returns to be better. It wasn't, mainly because it was rushed to meet the release date. Does that mean he should have re-done it for home video?

Indeed many film makers may not want to cast somebody in a role, but they're not available at the time. Does that mean they should go back an re-film those sequences with their original choice later for home video release?

At the end of the day, what's released to the theatres IS the film. Because that's what was presented at the time. It's what film critics saw, commented on, voted for at the Academy Awards (if the film was worthy) and its how its preserved.

But since there is so much evidence that the wider aspect ratio was the one intended, and since it shows more picture intsead of less picture (seeing more work is not bad like seeing less work), I am perfectly fine with how they did it unless someone shows me evidence that Walt Disney never ever wanted people to see that ratio. That letter only says to me that he changed the ratio because the ratios in theaters in changed!

But film makers have to deal with unforeseen circumstances all the time - cost, money, time, technology... I'm afraid I would need more than a "we wanted it this way" type letter to convince me. As DisneyFella said, every film is show with a certain amount of leeway to allow image bleed to the edge of the frame. Saying it shows more artwork doesn't convince me, just like I'm not convinced Robin Hood (for example) was "intended" for 4:3.

Edited: Whoops it was DisneyFella, not Goofystitch!

[Disney Duster]

I am slightly confused Netty.

I was saying the original theatrical version is the one that should be presented, because this is what audiences saw, audiences loved, and audiences want to fork over their money for.

Disney not letting audiences have what they fell in love with and making them buy something without even telling them it's changed from the original (they call it the original when it's not) is shameful not to mention the possible lying and false advertising. Though apparently if they call it the original theatrical cut and not original theatrical version it means only the cut is the same?

But anyway, I think we agreed the theatrical one should be released most importantly. Unless it's one of those big artistic reasons that the original creator is extremely embarassed or thinks his work is bad for people, etc. Which I could see in Scorpian King's defense.

Anyway, as I said, I am fine with the Blu-ray's ratio and don't think it's near travesty or blasphemey simply because of the evidence suggesting it could have been what Walt wanted and I don't think he would have minded. However, I think the theatrical one should be shown if only one was to be, and even further, that both versions should have been shown since they can both fit on Blu-ray (right?), and if bonus features (aside from commentaries) on that disc must be forgone move them to the second disc!

[ajmrowland]

^Who are you to represent people who probably don't even know what the term "Aspect Ratio" means? We, here, who even dare to argue about this are a minority.

This is a minor issue that, quite frankly, we're treating as if it were the next Health Care debate.

[KubrickFan]

^Who are you to represent people who probably don't even know what the term "Aspect Ratio" means? We, here, who even dare to argue about this are a minority.

This is a minor issue that, quite frankly, we're treating as if it were the next Health Care debate.

Just because the rest of the people don't care, doesn't mean we shouldn't. In fact, that's an even better reason to do it.
If the majority had their say when aspect ratios were concerned, we would be watching every movie to fit our television screens. And that's not what you want too.

[disneyfella]

^Who are you to represent people who probably don't even know what the term "Aspect Ratio" means? We, here, who even dare to argue about this are a minority.

This is a minor issue that, quite frankly, we're treating as if it were the next Health Care debate.

Just because the rest of the people don't care, doesn't mean we shouldn't. In fact, that's an even better reason to do it.
If the majority had their say when aspect ratios were concerned, we would be watching every movie to fit our television screens. And that's not what you want too.

Here, Here!

[disneyfella]

Didn't the restorers find notes that said the film was to be shown in this wider ratio, before Walt's letter instructing to show the changed ratio?

But since there is so much evidence that the wider aspect ratio was the one intended, and since it shows more picture intsead of less picture (seeing more work is not bad like seeing less work), I am perfectly fine with how they did it unless someone shows me evidence that Walt Disney never ever wanted people to see that ratio. That letter only says to me that he changed the ratio because the ratios in theaters in changed!

Here's what I don't understand. At some point during the production of Sleeping Beauty, the aspect ratio changed because Walt said so. And you think that because he started out with a different aspect ratio in mind that is the definitive intended ratio? This is just my personal opinion, but Walt could have made a film with any ratio he wanted......he chose 2.35:1, and intended that one to be seen.

I think Martin Scorsese said in an interview once that film-makers are given a budget and a deadline. They take what they have and make the best film they can. He says the film is what it is....a product of those demands and pressures. As a cinephile purist (probably more extreme then I am), he does not believe in director's cuts, or special editions.

Steven Spielberg, on the other hand, went back and tweaked "Close Encounters of the Third Kind", and "E.T.". He feels like he never got to make the film he originally wanted with the contraints of that time. However, Columbia and Universal both have made the original version available alongside the special editions.....not so with Disney.

I'd like to point out that I'm not against the wider version of Sleeping Beauty as a product. I am against the wider version of Sleeping Beauty being called the 'original aspect ratio' or 'definitive version'....because it is neither of those. It is an 'original production ratio', 'original animated ratio', or 'special edition version'. It is an extra: a marketing ploy: a triviality: a bonus. And the original has been lost or pushed aside because of it. It is now unavailable.

[Disney Duster]

Well, not exactly quite. I think it is the definitive version because, well, it shows the whole possible picture, and usually definitive means all that there can be, but also, because: The ratio didn't merely change within Walt's notes. The ratio for widescreen changed in theaters. It just makes so much sense that Walt changed the ratio because, well, um, the ratio he would be able to show it in changed. I mean, I don't see how that doesn't make sense.

And I have a feeling when the Diamond Edition comes out...we may still get the original theatrical ratio...

[AlwaysOAR]

Sometime between 1961 and 1970, Disney began the business of animating the film in "Academy Ratio" with instructions to matte the film upon theatrical release. By then the common ratio was 1.75:1. In fact, since Disney was the studio that utilized this ratio the most, it became known among projectionists as 'the Disney ratio'. Again, there are several reasons why Disney may have animated more than was intended to be shown, but they are also speculation.

In the 1980s, Disney was experimenting with several new processes in an attempt to invigorate the animation department. The Black Cauldron (1985) was produced in 70mm widescreen and again held the ratio of 2.35:1 in theatres. Sometime between the next year, however, and 1991 Disney changed the 'normal' ratio for their animated films. It could be because of a change in leadership in the company and a need to distance itself from past movie-making, it could be because of new animation techniques such as the CAPS system....but again this is all speculation.

What is known is that by the 1990s, Disney was matting their CAPS animated films to 1.85:1 ratio for theatrical release. With the advent of widescreen televisions and digital projection, though, I've lost track of how the latest Disney films are being presented in theatres. To summarize everything that GoofyStitch said in an earlier post, I'm making a list here for easy use to see what the verified aspect ratios are for the Disney Animated Features.


1. Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs - 1.33:1
2. Pinocchio - 1.33:1
3. Fantasia - 1.33:1
4. Dumbo - 1.33:1
5. Bambi - 1.33:1
6. Saludos Amigos - 1.33:1
7. The Three Caballeros - 1.33:1
8. Make Mine Music - 1.33:1
9. Fun and Fancy Free - 1.33:1
10. Melody Time - 1.33:1
11. The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad - 1.33:1
12. Cinderella - 1.33:1
13. Peter Pan - 1.33:1
14. Lady and the Tramp - 2.55:1 (and) 1.33:1
15. Sleeping Beauty - 2.35:1
16. 101 Dalmatians - 1.33:1
17. The Sword in the Stone - ????
18. The Jungle Book - ????
19. The Aristocats - 1.75:1
20. Robin Hood - ????
21. The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh - ????
22. The Rescuers - 1.75:1
23. The Fox and the Hound - 1.75:1
24. The Black Cauldron - 2.35:1
25. The Great Mouse Detective - ????
26. Oliver & Company - ????
27. The Little Mermaid - ????
28. The Rescuers Down Under - ????
29. Beauty and the Beast - 1.85:1
30. Aladdin - 1.85:1
31. The Lion King - 1.85:1
32. Pocahontas - 1.85:1
33. The Hunchback of Notre Dame - 1.85:1
34. Hercules - 1.85:1
35. Mulan - 1.85:1
36. Tarzan - 1.85:1



As you can see, when it comes to anything other than fullscreen, Disney doesn't have a great track record for presenting their films on DVD or Blu Ray with the original theatrical aspect ratio. But that is for another thread

I hope this helps!!

I had thought that 101 Dalmations was animated in the Academy Ratio, and matted at 1.75:1 for theatrical exhibition. If I remember correctly from another thread, in that thread it showed a scene from the Platinum DVD of 101D, with a shot of that scene superimposed over it showing more picture on the side of what was shown on the DVD. Which I assumed meant that either the DVD didn't even show the full animated ratio, and/or that 101D was supposed to have been matted.

Also, in regards to Winnie-the-Pooh, were the original shorts displayed in theatres at the academy ratio, or matted for exhibition? If the former, I'm waiting for a proper release on DVD of TMA of WTP with the shorts in their proper academy ratio exhibition, and the movie itself in the proper matted exhibition of 1.75.1, as the animation linking the shorts, I think, having been matted along with the shorts for the release in 1977.

btw, I just wanted to show my support for Disneyfella in regards to Sleeping Beauty, as I agree with him on everything concerning the aspect ratio for that film. Luckily, I got the SE DVD of it in it's proper theatrical ratio.


I've been away from the boards for awhile now. I work overseas, I'll just say I'm 8 1/2 hours ahead of east coast time, and I don't get as much time on the internet as I used too, let alone have time to post, so I may be a bit behind on the latest aspect ratio debates.