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

[Escapay]

Wow, thanks once again for the info, fella!

I can't make out what's in the black box, though it does say Attention Mr. Exhibitor.

It's also interesting to note that the pressbook says the film runs 2 hours and 7 minutes, close enough to what we have on VHS, laserdisc, and DVD. Not exactly the 134-minute roadshow version, but I have a feeling that the extra 7 minutes in the roadshow version is probably an overture and exit music. Still, there is some footage missing from the film that likely still exists in the archives.

According to Disneyinfo.nl, the laserdiscs have all been 1.33:1 (except for two , but given that one is from 1982, it's likely that is 1.33:1 as well). The French laserdisc has a 101-minute runtime as well.

albert

[disneyfella]

It's also interesting to note that the pressbook says the film runs 2 hours and 7 minutes, close enough to what we have on VHS, laserdisc, and DVD. Not exactly the 134-minute roadshow version, but I have a feeling that the extra 7 minutes in the roadshow version is probably an overture and exit music. Still, there is some footage missing from the film that likely still exists in the archives.
albert

I totally forgot to mention that. I updated the list on the last page to include the time discrepency. I'm assuming, then, without buying the pressbook that this is NOT for the ROADSHOW premiere, but rather the general release of the film. Maybe the roadshow ratio is 1.66:1? I'd doubt it, but you never know. What we DO know is that the way it was shown to the general public in the theatre (and what it was framed for) has not been released.

[Escapay]

Maybe the roadshow ratio is 1.66:1?

It would be odd, though, for the roadshow to have a different ratio than the general release. The only other instance I can think of where that's apparent is Oklahoma! since the Todd-AO one was used for roadshow presentations while general release was the CinemaScope version. But I doubt Disney had changing ratios in mind for Pete's Dragon, especially since 1.66:1 and 1.75:1 are relatively close (then again, so are 2.20:1 and 2.35:1, but given the curve of the screen, Todd-AO looked bigger and better.)

Perhaps when Disney was making the DVD, they figured "1.66:1 is close enough".

In the TCM doc "The Age of Believing" they actually showed a clip of Pete's Dragon in open-matte, and did that with several other films that were known to be matted.

albert

[disneyfella]

In the TCM doc "The Age of Believing" they actually showed a clip of Pete's Dragon in open-matte, and did that with several other films that were known to be matted.

albert

I think Scott McQueen, one of the people in charge of preserving the Disney film catalog library, was in favor of the open matte transfers of the films, and that is why several noted films (which would have been given faithful theatrical DVD releases from other studios.....Warner Bros. *cough* *cough*......) were restored, but released 'fool screen'. My guess is that these open matte transfers will be the primary prints used by Disney for the next decade of promotional/ad/clip work.

Does Scott McQueen still work for Disney? I kind of remember reading somewhere that he was removed from his position....but maybe I just wanted it to happen so often that I finally started believing it. LOL!

[drfsupercenter]

Hmm.

I checked www.lddb.com (they have an amazing archive of laserdiscs), and one shows 4:3, the rest are "unknown".

So what was Pete's Dragon originally filmed in? Was it done in 1.66:1 and the 1.75:1 would have been matted from that, while the VHS print of 1.33:1 was pan-and-scanned? Or was it shot in Academy and both versions were matted?

I should compare my VHS to a GCC DVD I can easily rent... unless someone happens to have screenshots? LOL

So I guess the next step is to track down an actual film reel?

Now, I'm a bit curious about "theatrical matting" of films. I realize that for movies such as Robin Hood, it's not a simple tilt-and-scan... where they actually move the "camera" around vertically.
But say the original film aspect ratio is 1.66:1 as it was for all the CAPS films... but theaters were told to project it 1.85:1 (such as The Lion King), would they simply crop off an even amount from the top and bottom of the negative?
Because if so it's totally possible to recreate the theatrical OAR from just about any movie presented in its original negative ratio

[disneyfella]

So what was Pete's Dragon originally filmed in? Was it done in 1.66:1 and the 1.75:1 would have been matted from that, while the VHS print of 1.33:1 was pan-and-scanned? Or was it shot in Academy and both versions were matted?

The original negative ratio of the film depends on the camera lenses used to shoot the picture. Except for the Cinemascope films (listed elsewhere in other threads), I think that most of the Disney films shot from the early 1970s on were done with the Panaflex Panavision camera lenses. This same camera would shoot for both animated AND live-action films. This is based off the production research I've been doing in my spare time on 80s Disney films that has kind of spilled over into several 1970s pictures.

Anyway, this Panaflex Panavision camera would indeed film "Academy Ratio" full frame on the 35mm negative. The open matte prints would be made and sent to theatre houses and instructed to be matted according to the film-makers' intentions/wishes for optimal viewing of the film (1.75:1, 1.85:1, 2.35:1, etc.). Sometimes they would receive instructions to NOT matte the film at all because the film was framed for and supposed to be seen in "Academy Ratio".

The answer to your question depends on what camera was used to film "Pete's Dragon", but most likely it was filmed with a Panaflex lens which means that the full negative ratio would be 1.37:1.

Now, I'm a bit curious about "theatrical matting" of films. I realize that for movies such as Robin Hood, it's not a simple tilt-and-scan... where they actually move the "camera" around vertically.
But say the original film aspect ratio is 1.66:1 as it was for all the CAPS films... but theaters were told to project it 1.85:1 (such as The Lion King), would they simply crop off an even amount from the top and bottom of the negative?

In the early days of 'soft matting', there were a few different techqniues used. First there was the "take equal amounts off the top and bottom" approach. Then there was the "take the whole thing off the bottom" style. I believe a few films even were framed such that the matting should take place on the top of the film. However, after the first few years of flat widescreen (another term used for "matted widescreen" no matter which ratio it is matted to), it became the norm and common practice simply to change the projection aperture equally from the top and bottom so that the framed image in the center of the negative is all that would be projected.

Does that make sense? I just re-read what I wrote and I'm thinking that I'm way too tired to be making sense right now....lol.

[drfsupercenter]

Hmm, so if the original negative ratio of Pete's Dragon was likely 1.37:1, does that mean the VHS is open-matted from the 1.66:1 DVD?

As far as the soft-matting goes, yeah it makes sense... the last method you described of centering the picture... isn't that essentially cropping the same amount off the top and bottom?

Because I could take a film like Pete's Dragon, and set a filter to crop X pixels off each side... and bingo, you have a theatrically matted version. The problem occurs when they hard-matte it like they did with Aristocats, Robin Hood, etc... (And I think the only reason you get a few more pixels on the sides of the widescreen transfers is because they pan-and-scanned it just so very slightly from 1.37:1 to 1.33:1... if it were up to me I'd just use a few black pixels like they do for 1.85:1 films that are anamorphic)

[disneyfella]

Hmm, so if the original negative ratio of Pete's Dragon was likely 1.37:1, does that mean the VHS is open-matted from the 1.66:1 DVD?

It would need screencaps to verify......but yes, most likely.

[drfsupercenter]

I have the Masterpiece VHS, and I believe I have a copy of that DVD somewhere...

When I get a chance I can take some screenshots.

[disneyfella]

I got a few new pressbooks in today, and in some un-suprising (but still depressing) news apparently we have received ANOTHER Disney live-action film in the improper ratio. Way to go Disney for botching ANOTHER release.............




"The World's Greatest Athlete" premiere press information

"The aspect ratio to achieve the "World's Greatest Screen Image" is 1.75 to 1."

(NOTE: While the original framing of the film was 1.75:1, the DVD release of the picture is improperly framed at 1.85:1)






I'm going to go ahead and update that list on the other page and bump it to the bottom of this thread later tonight. I've got another one to update here a bit later too......it has some other very interesting stuff to mentionas well

[disneyfella]

Okay....this film's pressbook has several interesting things I wanted to post on here. I got the original pressbook for the premiere of "Follow Me, Boys!".

First of all, it is improperly framed (of course). Here is the quote from the pressbook:

"Mr. Showman; The Apsect ratio of "Follow Me, Boys!" is 1:75 to 1"

In print just below the ratio numbers it states......

"Adhere to this ratio to achieve the best screen image possible, and a quality image for your theatre."


While the theatrical framing of this film was 1.75:1, the DVD is 1.33:1. Hhhmmmmmmm big suprise that Disney gave us another fullscreen transfer of a catalog title :rolls:





Anyway, later in the pressbook was a really cool article I'm going to reproduce here:



A word about 'AN EVENING WITH WALT DISNEY' and a tribute to THE SHOWMEN OF AMERICA

The December 13th nationwide event called "An Evening With Walt Disney" is the added dimension that makes the "Follow Me, Boys!" campaign an unequalled Walt Disney Total Marketing Effort.

"An Evening With Walt Disney" is just what its name suggests - invited guests sharing an evening with the great showman and enjoying the first public performance of his newest motion picutre. In each theatre where the event took place, every guest received a personal invitation, special tickets of admission and a souvenir program. And at each theatre, Walt Disney appeared on the screen to welcome his guests personally.

This warm intimacy was complemented by impact on a grand scale, for "An Evening With Walt Disney" was presented in some 200 cities, and the audiences were drawn from those and 500 additional neighboring communities, making a total of 700 nerve centers of cumminication. The aggregate audience of approximately 250,000 representaed every influential segment of the population, with the emphasis onthose individuals vitally involved in comminications.

In all, "An Evening With Walt Disney" adds up to an event unequalled and unprecedented in the history of motion picture distribution.

There could be no successful nationwide event of this nature without ever last detail being 100 per cent right in each theatre. The scope of this event required a dedicated effort by many hands and minds, working in close unison. The majority of those hands and minds had to be those of exhibitors - owners, managers, and their staffs - in each city where "An Evening With Walt Disney" took place.

Therefore, the success of this effort - the very fact that it took place at all - is a tribute to the dedication, energy and enlightenment of all the exhibitor showmen who contributed so much to "An Evening With Walt Disney"...and to Walt Disney's "Follow Me, Boys!"

All of us at Walt Disney and Buena Vista extend to these men and women our sincerest thanks.











Now I thought that that was pretty cool. The big question of course is...why isn't that on the DVD? I mean, here Walt recorded a special introduction to this film and not only is it NOT included with the DVD release of the picture, but it isn't even mentioned on any of the supplements. For something so "grand" and "unequalled" it sure seems stupid of Disney not to even acknowledge this event. Here's hoping with a newly restored print in the original theatrical aspect ratio, we can see "Follow Me, Boys!" with it's original theatrical introduction from Walt Himself...............

[disneyfella]

This post has been updated and bumped to page 14.

[Escapay]

Fella, I have to say I am LOVING all these posts and information you're bringing and at the same time HATING Disney for being completely oblivious to it all when it came to making the DVDs.

for Aaron

for Disney

albert

[Flanger-Hanger]

Still need to ask Dave Smith about those missing 7 Family Band minutes. There's nothing in the film that feels like it was cut down.

And Watcher needs that release Anchor Bay intended to give it.

I have a feeling Something Wicked This Way Comes should also be 1.75:1. It's 1.85:1 print seems kind of squished.

[disneyfella]

Thanks, Albert. I've got some more stuff coming soon

I have a feeling Something Wicked This Way Comes should also be 1.75:1. It's 1.85:1 print seems kind of squished.

I was thinking the same thing. I looks as though the standard framing for Disney was 1.75:1. I don't have any pressbook for "Something Wicked This Way Comes", but I do have some production notes and things I can look through to find out about the camera lenses used and perhaps some notes on the framing of the film. Will keep trying to get pressbooks slowly and building a reference for future research

[drfsupercenter]

Hmm.

Well I know Mary Poppins had SEVERAL DVD releases, and a few on laserdisc. IIRC, the first two were non-anamorphic and 1.85:1, and the newest DVD is 1.66:1. And then the laserdiscs vary as well.

Now, the thing we need to figure out, is if they stretched some from say 1.85:1 to 1.78:1... or if they cropped them, whatever... how they got to be the wrong aspect ratio on DVD. In some circumstances it may be fixable.

As much as I'm pro-open matte, I would like to help "restore" the original theatrical ratio for the fans...

That's why I was curious about if the camera negative was a certain ratio (like 1.66:1), and theaters were told to make it a different ratio, how it got there. If it's just a matter of cropping a small amount off the top and bottom, it's easy enough to recreate that from the current releases.

And with Mary Poppins, I'm kinda curious. From what I can tell, the 4:3 VHS versions are definitely pan-and-scanned, but from what? The newest DVD has more picture on the top and bottom than the 1.85:1 older releases, meaning they cropped the top and bottom to make it 1.85:1. But then there's the Japanese laserdisc that has more picture on all four sides than the 1.66:1 DVD. Does anyone have any actual evidence as to what version was shown in theaters? It's confusing the heck out of me...

[Escapay]

Still need to ask Dave Smith about those missing 7 Family Band minutes. There's nothing in the film that feels like it was cut down.

Perhaps it was one of the five deleted songs? Either that or they shortened some songs and scenes. For example, there's a slight jump in "West o' the Wide Missouri" that I always notice - I don't have the DVD, Kram does so I can't give a specific timecode - where it seems like they cut out a portion of the dance sequence.

Also, going straight from "Drummin' Drummin' Drummin' " to Joe Carder talking about it seems like a scene could have gone in between the two (though it works well as is).

And Watcher needs that release Anchor Bay intended to give it.

Word. It's so frustrating to watch the film up to a certain point, stop it, and go to the special features to watch the Other World ending.

I have a feeling Something Wicked This Way Comes should also be 1.75:1. It's 1.85:1 print seems kind of squished.

It was 1.66:1 on the Anchor Bay DVD as well, though I don't have that so I can't compare. But I echo you and fella that it's apparent that 1.75:1 was the standard ratio for Disney matted widescreen.

Thanks, Albert. I've got some more stuff coming soon

Yay!

And with Mary Poppins, I'm kinda curious. From what I can tell, the 4:3 VHS versions are definitely pan-and-scanned, but from what?

It's been awhile since I've played my old Black Diamond VHS, but I remember trying to do a comparison some years ago to the VHS versus both the Gold Collection DVD and the 40th Anniversary DVD. Due to overscan I couldn't be positive on how much was really cut from the sides, though I know for certain that the VHS is not a P&S of the Gold Collection DVD, as that was a matted too close for comfort.

Does anyone have any actual evidence as to what version was shown in theaters? It's confusing the heck out of me...

There's the reliable What <IS> Poppins OAR? thread that has some comparison pics and a lengthy post by deathie mouse which puts speculation to rest (at least for me).

albert

[disneyfella]

Still need to ask Dave Smith about those missing 7 Family Band minutes. There's nothing in the film that feels like it was cut down.

Perhaps it was one of the five deleted songs? Either that or they shortened some songs and scenes. For example, there's a slight jump in "West o' the Wide Missouri" that I always notice - I don't have the DVD, Kram does so I can't give a specific timecode - where it seems like they cut out a portion of the dance sequence.

Also, going straight from "Drummin' Drummin' Drummin' " to Joe Carder talking about it seems like a scene could have gone in between the two (though it works well as is).

I always thought that the "Dakota" sequence went quickly into a montage and that their family move might've had some sequence cut.

As far as "West o' the Wide Missouri", the soundtrack album has the complete song on it as performed in the film. If the film was cut, then the soundtrack album represents the same thing (which typically didn't happen as the cuts to the film were late in the production and the soundtrack albums would be released prior). So I don't think that the cuts were made from that.

That "Drummin', Drummin', Drummin'" idea might be solid, though. There might be a sequence where some kid goes home and stands up to their parents and we see just how much trouble Grandpa actually caused. ::shrugs:: I wonder if we'll ever know.

And Watcher needs that release Anchor Bay intended to give it.

Word. It's so frustrating to watch the film up to a certain point, stop it, and go to the special features to watch the Other World ending.

I'll bet someone out there can make a fan-edit that is just the film with the 'pieced together' ending (even the though the real original ending is known to exist in the Disney vault and remains unreleased).

[drfsupercenter]

Someone said "fan edit" *cough*?

That being said, I'd actually need to OBTAIN the material(s) needed to remake it... LOL

Someone wanna go rob the Disney Vault for me?

[drfsupercenter]

OK, hm.

So that Japanese archive laserdisc actually IS the best version? Like, the most "open matte" you can get? I know deathie mouse matted the LD to 1.75:1... I could easily do the same for the movie proper if I can get my hands on that laserdisc.

I'll look around eBay and Yahoo! Auctions Japan.

Is that the general consensus, that the width on that Japanese laserdisc is good? I knew the GCC DVD and the "Masterpiece" DVD (You know, I think that's the only time the Masterpiece Collection bumper ever appeared on DVD!) were both tilt-and-scanned... since the OAR is not 1.85:1. I didn't realize that the new DVD was actually cropped on all four sides, as when I asked about it earlier someone said it was the theatrical ratio (I had heard rumors that it was n00b-cropped but wasn't sure)

Basically, I can take that 1.66:1 Japanese laserdisc and matte it to 1.75:1, it would look like the Gold Classics Collection version only not cropped as drastically. The only problem is that the laserdisc is basically "gutteboxed" to keep the Japanese subtitles (hey, at least they're not overlayed with the actual movie... that would suck, it's why Song of the South from the official laserdisc isn't worth too much with the hardsubs), so it would need a TON of denoising and filtering to make it look even remotely like an official DVD.