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

KubrickFan · Post by **KubrickFan** » Sat Feb 21, 2009 11:39 am

Well, in Europe perhaps. The 1.66:1 was pretty common even in those years.
But what proof do you have that Fox and the Hound is open matted? It says that the aspect ratio is 1.75:1, but is it matted as well?

disneyfella · Post by **disneyfella** » Sat Feb 21, 2009 12:35 pm

I'm not sure I understand what you're asking. Let me explain...

The projection instructions specifically state that the film is to be shown in 1.75:1 aspect ratio.

Film reels would show up at a movie theatre and the movie houses would put the films in the projectors. The projectors have exchangable apertures which convert full frame Academy Ratio images on 35mm film to various widescreen ratios that they are instructed to be shown on the movie screen.

For example, "The Fox and the Hound" would be printed in full frame Academy Ratio on the 35mm print released to the movie houses. Then the projector would splice the reels together in the projection booth and attach one of these ( http://cgi.ebay.com/35MM-APERTURE-PLATE ... dZViewItem ) in front of the projection lense. This would matte the film upon projection so that the movie could be made/shown in widescreen without the added expense of having to pay for new cameras.

When a film came to movie houses, they came with instructions on how to promote the film, and how to screen the film. I have such instructional information for "The Fox and the Hound" as reported earlier in this thread which states just that......"The Fox and the Hound" was instructed to be matted to a ratio of 1.75:1. This is how it was intended to be seen.

Flanger-Hanger · Post by **Flanger-Hanger** » Sat Feb 21, 2009 12:35 pm

KubrickFan wrote:Well, in Europe perhaps. The 1.66:1 was pretty common even in those years.
But what proof do you have that Fox and the Hound is open matted? It says that the aspect ratio is 1.75:1, but is it matted as well?

This was discovered while viewing a special from the time of the films released which showed clips with a wider image. When compared with the DVD it proved that the film was indeed released open matted and now we know how far the films was to have been matted too. Do a search for that thread as the mystery of that films ratio is now fully solved thanks to Disneyfella.

For Pooh, don't forget the new animation that was added for the compilation that was likely to be designed matted.

I find that odd that 101 Dalmatians would have no exhibition instructions. Nobody was releasing unmatted academy prints in 1961 and they must have known that it would have been cropped in all likelihood. The re-release instructions sound more reasonable.

As for the ratio mystery it is of my opinion that 1.75:1 was the common ratio for all DAC from Sword in the Stone to The Little Mermaid (minus, obviously the 2.20:1 Black Cauldron). Now hear me out, we know that Aristocats to Fox and the Hound were 1.37:1 matted to 1.75:1 and that Great Mouse detective was a matted movie too. It would make sense for them to use a common ratio thought and not just do some random minor switch. However, after Mouse I think they started to actually animate in the 1.75:1 ratio. This would explain why 1.33:1 clips of Oliver show less on the sides and why a 1.78:1 release of Mermaid would show more on the sides than a 1.66:1 release (IMO, the slight increase in mating was done to match the ratio of 16x9 displays exactly. I find it hard to believe that a movie in the 80s would be made in the exact ratio of modern widescreen TVs). Then with CAPS they chose the 1.66:1 ratio for minor picture loss in both theatres and home video.

disneyfella · Post by **disneyfella** » Sat Feb 21, 2009 12:54 pm

I don't know, Flanger. I kind of remember reading somewhere that with the new Xerox process that "101 Dalmatians" was intended to be full frame. The animators went back to the 'original' way after "Sleeping Beauty" and "Lady and the Tramp". I think it also had something to do with the Xerox process itself.

This doesn't make sense because the matting would be regardless of the production of the film, but I'm still not as sure about the aspect ratio for "Dalmatians" premiere release as I am about some of the other unknown framings.

I would be extremely interested to read about the projection instructions for "The Sword in the Stone". If that film was matted than we know that Jungle Book was most likely matted, and the chances for 101 would be greatly increased to be matted as well.

As for "Pooh". I also think that the film was probably matted for its theatrical compilation presentation, but it could be 1.66:1 instead of 1.75:1. Disney may have instructed this against their norm because the shorts were already framed for a specific ratio and a 1.66:1 matting wouldn't compromise as much. I think an interesting revelation would be the projection of "The Best of Walt Disney's True Life Adventures", which was a compilation feature of known Academy Ratio filming......I'll be it was matted for its 1970s Premiere, though.

There-in lies an interesting conundrum. Several Disney properties made many theatrical appearances. For example the Pooh shorts were released and later were compiled for a feature. The True Life Advnetures were released and later were compiled for a feature.

My thought would be that both framings were equally viable since both formats saw theatrical release. I think it would be prudent of Disney to give us the Pooh shorts in their OAR, and then also give us "The Many Advnetures of Winnie the Pooh" in its OAR (even if it differs from the shorts). That seems like an obvious solution to the problem.....releasing films in their OAR, but Disney apparenlty is the only studio left who is still releasing films in Non-OAR fullscreen.

KubrickFan · Post by **KubrickFan** » Sat Feb 21, 2009 2:44 pm

Thanks for replying, both of you

.

Disneyfella, your statement only mentioned the fact that The Fox And The Hound had a theatrical aspect ratio of 1.75:1. You didn't mention it being matted or not.
I actually didn't know it was confirmed already that it was supposed to be matted, but at which AR was still unknown.
Well, I'm glad the mystery is now solved.

disneyfella · Post by **disneyfella** » Sat Feb 21, 2009 3:23 pm

No problem. As with most mysteries, though, there is always another unsolved mystery around the corner. So perhaps the ratios for "Sword in the Stone", "The Great Mouse Detective", and "Jungle Book" should be the next big target mysteries.......

One of these days (when I've finished school and have a job..lol), I'm going to try and compile as much information on these aspect ratios as possible so that there will be ONE definitive source of what these aspect ratios are supposed to be. Unfortunately, Disney shows complete disregard for their film library, and imdb.com and wikipedia cannot be trusted as mistakes have already been found on all of these. The search will only end with the source itself.

drfsupercenter · Post by **drfsupercenter** » Sat Feb 21, 2009 8:55 pm

I'm pretty sure that "The Jungle Book" was released in 1.75:1 in theatres (despite the DVDs matte job of 1.85:1).

The DVD was actually 1.75:1, not 1.85. But I'm skeptical, that one has tons of framing issues that make it look cramped for space - unlike Robin Hood or The Aristocats. I still think that was meant to be shown in 1.37:1, or not specified like 101 Dalmatians.

As for Winnie the Pooh, what the heck?! Last I checked the newest DVD (Friendship Edition) was 4:3... and surely since those were turned into TV shorts in 4:3 it was intended for that ratio?

Now, I'm kind of curious. I know the "matted" versions of films tend to have a tiny tiny bit more picture on the sides than the open matte (like a percent or two). My question is: WHY? At first I thought it was because Academy is 1.37:1, and "fullscreen" is 1.33:1, so they were pan-and-scanning it ever so slightly hence the lack of that small amount on the sides.
But then someone told me all that was on that side area of the frame is the sound information. In which case it doesn't make sense. The visible area of picture on the original negative equates to about 1.33:1, right? And all they did for matting was cut a set amount off of the top and bottom? Where's the extra on the sides come from then? Does that mean open matte DVDs actually took the original negative and cropped them *on all four sides*? Sorry if I'm overlooking something obvious... I guess it just doesn't make sense to me.

disneyfella · Post by **disneyfella** » Sat Feb 21, 2009 10:03 pm

Your friend who told you about the sound taking up the extra space is both right and wrong.

When sound was first introduced as an optical portion of the film, it WAS included on the 1.37:1 framed 35mm film. This caused the full frame image of 1.37:1 to lose some information from the sides. Therefore a full frame film with an optical sound track was indeed 1.33:1.

However, in 1927 or 1928 (somehwere around there), the distance between each frame above and below on the film strip widened. This resulted in the ratio of the film frame itself returning to a 1.37:1 ratio (even with the optical sound track on the side). When this new change occured, it was coined "Academy Ratio" for the newly formed Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences a few years before. All full frame films before this were NOT called "Academy Ratio", because the term wasn't even coined until after they adjusted the film frame with the optical soundtrack for a picture image of 1.37:1.

Does that make sense or did I totally confuse everyone? It's kind of late and this is a technical topic.

The point is, ever since the late 1920s, Academy Ratio films are INDEED 1.37:1 even WITH an optical soundtrack on the side of that 1.37:1 image. Therefore your theory as to why matted films show more on the sides than the open matte transfers is probably correct. The "open matte" transfers are in a 1.33:1 ratio (technically slightly matted on the sides), while the theatrical ratio 1.75:1 mattes the top and bottom leaving the original width of the film frame.

drfsupercenter · Post by **drfsupercenter** » Sat Feb 21, 2009 10:12 pm

Ah, OK, that makes sense.

I suppose it would be too much to ask that they just put a couple black pixels on the top and bottom to encompass the full Academy frame? They do it with 1.85:1 movies, why not 1.37? (It gets lost due to overscan, anyway...)

disneyfella · Post by **disneyfella** » Sat Feb 21, 2009 10:50 pm

It probably won't get lost to overscan much longer. Aren't the new high def TVs and projectors all supposed to be without overscan? Not mention pretty much every computer monitor on the planet.....

KubrickFan · Post by **KubrickFan** » Sun Feb 22, 2009 4:07 am

That's right, most new tv's (yet not all) can do that. It's a revelation, you can toggle between overscan on and off, and you actually miss a lot of image with overscan on.
The only problem with this is that some dvd's aren't authored properly. My version of Tarzan has a small black band at the bottom, as well as two bands on the sides. It's in 1.66:1, so those on the sides are supposed to be there, but the one on the bottom is only distracting.

drfsupercenter · Post by **drfsupercenter** » Sun Feb 22, 2009 10:42 am

My HDTV does have that option.

But only for HDMI inputs... it seems. It's between "size 1" and "size 2", and I just discovered it when skimming the manual. My friend thought it was weird, we were watching some 2.35:1 movies and he thought the bars were just exceedingly large. But now finally I can see the pillarboxes on Aladdin, I was always mad how you couldn't see them *at all* using an HDTV with overscan on. Unfortunately, though, with the TV tuner it still overscans so half of our FOX logo gets chopped off since it's right near the bottom

and I hate the concept of picture being cropped off (Partially why I'm in favor of open matte)

Then of course DVDs like Beauty and the Beast now have bars on all 4 sides since I think they encoded it that way to combat overscan (or because they're stupid, I think the latter... since there's already a large argument over that DVD anyway)

But I was saying on a typical 4:3 TV, you wouldn't notice tiny black bars because overscan would still make it look "fullscreen". But then on a computer monitor it wouldn't have any cropping, and thus nobody could argue that the theatrical matted versions have more picture on the sides. (And here's another reason why I prefer open matte to cropped if I have to choose between one: It's pretty easy to matte stuff yourself... just use the "Zoom" feature on a HDTV, or on a computer just set the cropping filters in your software player. So I could turn a 1.37:1 Academy version of say Aristocats into the 1.75:1 very easily. But I can't turn that cropped version back into Academy.)

KubrickFan · Post by **KubrickFan** » Sun Feb 22, 2009 12:19 pm

drfsupercenter wrote:(And here's another reason why I prefer open matte to cropped if I have to choose between one: It's pretty easy to matte stuff yourself... just use the "Zoom" feature on a HDTV, or on a computer just set the cropping filters in your software player. So I could turn a 1.37:1 Academy version of say Aristocats into the 1.75:1 very easily. But I can't turn that cropped version back into Academy.)

Yes, but then you wouldn't have the added resolution of the dvd being anamorphic. The difference would be even greater when you consider HD.
I'm not going into the whole 'matted/open matted' minefield again. I just want to say the films were shown matted theatrically, and they look fine to me that way. That's all I need to know.

drfsupercenter · Post by **drfsupercenter** » Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:15 pm

Even The Jungle Book looks "fine" to you?

As for anamorphic or not anamorphic... Both are 720x480 (talking DVD only). Yes, it would become "flat widescreen"... but I don't know that it's THAT big of a difference... look at Robin Hood... the Gold Classics Collection disc is easily the same quality as the new one despite the new one being anamorphic.

As for Blu-Ray, there's no such thing as "anamorphic". It's inherently widescreen by nature. So the matted one would be better quality, yes, but then again with Blu-Ray storage they could just as easily fit both versions.

Who wants to bet Pinocchio will be 1.33:1 and not 1.37:1?

(Especially considering it's 99.9% likely to be the same Lowry restoration that Europe got a few years ago, and that was 4:3)

KubrickFan · Post by **KubrickFan** » Sun Feb 22, 2009 2:04 pm

drfsupercenter wrote:Even The Jungle Book looks "fine" to you?

As for anamorphic or not anamorphic... Both are 720x480 (talking DVD only). Yes, it would become "flat widescreen"... but I don't know that it's THAT big of a difference... look at Robin Hood... the Gold Classics Collection disc is easily the same quality as the new one despite the new one being anamorphic.

As for Blu-Ray, there's no such thing as "anamorphic". It's inherently widescreen by nature. So the matted one would be better quality, yes, but then again with Blu-Ray storage they could just as easily fit both versions.

Who wants to bet Pinocchio will be 1.33:1 and not 1.37:1? (Especially considering it's 99.9% likely to be the same Lowry restoration that Europe got a few years ago, and that was 4:3)

I meant the difference between 1.77:1 anamorphic and zooming in an image that's 1.33:1. And yes, Jungle Book looks fine to me matted.

And I know there isn't such a thing as 'anamorphic' with Blu-Ray. I simply meant using the entire 1980x1080 resolution when a picture is widescreen, instead of using only 1440x1080 if it is a Academy ratio.
Of course they could put both versions on it. They just don't want to. I want both versions just as much as you do, we're both completists. It's the same thing to want the original soundtrack included too (and that doesn't happen too much either). I'm just saying the widescreen version looks good to me.

The difference between 1.33:1 and 1.37:1 is almost negligible. I don't hear anyone complaining if a 1.85:1 film has been opened up to 1.78:1, and that happens almost always nowadays.

drfsupercenter · Post by **drfsupercenter** » Sun Feb 22, 2009 5:40 pm

I don't mind when 1.37:1 gets turned into 1.33:1 either.

But what I'm saying is some people argue that the matted versions have a little more image on the sides (like that widescreen trailer of 101 Dalmatians) - when that's really only caused by the fact that they're pan-and-scanning the Academy frame.

But we'll see what happens with Pinocchio, maybe the Blu-Ray will be 1.37:1 since the vertical will be 1080 either way and a few extra pixels never hurt anyone.

Escapay · Post by **Escapay** » Tue Feb 24, 2009 7:14 pm

disneyfella wrote:Finally, after a MONTH of "back and forth" with a pretty dead beat ebay seller I got my copy of "The Fox and the Hound" pressbook in today. As I had guessed, the aspect ratio for the film was in fact widescreen, and actually the pretty common Disney aspect ratio of 1.75:1

"The Fox and the Hound" 1981 Premiere Release Press Information:

"The Aspect Ratio For A Sparkling Image Is 1:75 To 1"

(NOTE: While the Theatrical framing of the film was 1.75:1, the DVD release is 1.33:1)

That makes 2 verified animated films that were premiered in a matted widescreen aspect ratio. This means that from almost day 1 the animators knew what ratio to frame the film in, and the theatres knew what ratio to project the film in. This was the ratio intended to be seen at least for "The Aristocats" and "The Fox and the Hound".

As always, thank you for the very useful information, Aaron!

albert

drfsupercenter · Post by **drfsupercenter** » Wed Feb 25, 2009 12:45 pm

OK, so the pan-and-scanning of Academy makes sense to me, but this doesn't.

The early prints of say Beauty and the Beast were in 1.66:1, the original CAPS resolution. The newer DVD releases are cropped vertically from those. Where'd the extra bit on the sides come from? In order for a 1.85:1 to have more on the sides than the 1.66:1 it was cropped from, it would mean the 1.66:1 version was actually cropped on all four sides...

Now some of those (including the DVD of Hercules) are more like 1.60:1 than 1.66:1, when you actually look at the way they're encoded. But I still don't get it. Even The Little Mermaid, which I believe is actually pretty close to 1.66:1 on the LI, has more on the sides in its cropped PE version.

disneyfella · Post by **disneyfella** » Mon Mar 02, 2009 7:39 pm

While I'm not sure if this is the original aspect ratio for the premiere, I did find that a 1979 pressbook for "101 Dalmatians" released the film in 1.75:1. I choose not to exclude this information simply because it may be false projection instructions intended for it's premiere theatrical display (because we still don't know what that is), but rather because I want this list to be as complete as possible which includes the later reissues of films being shown misframed (even though we don't know for sure if this is the case).

"101 Dalmatians" 1979 Re-release Press Information:

"The Aspect Ratio for a Spot-tacular Screen Image is 1.75 to 1"

(NOTE: While this re-release press information instructs the film to be shown at 1.75:1, the Platinum Edition DVD release and all other release formats are in 1.33:1)

I got another pressbook in too, and will post the specs later.

disneyfella · Post by **disneyfella** » Mon Mar 02, 2009 7:58 pm

Alrighty, here is another misframed Disney film for all of us to roll our eyes at:

"The Biscuit Eater" 1972 Premiere Release Press Information

"The Aspect Ratio for "Biscuit Eater" is 1.75 to 1."

(NOTE: While the projection instructions are to matte the film to a 1.75:1 ratio, the DVD release of the film is in 1.33:1)

I'll update the list and repost in a few minutes.

DVDizzy Forum

Latest Movie Reviews

🎬 DVDizzy Top Stories️️

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