DVDizzy Forum

I still find it stupid that PE is going to have the wrong aspect ratio. I thought that every Disney DVD had the OAR, but apparently, I'm wrong.

TheSequelofDisney wrote:I still find it stupid that PE is going to have the wrong aspect ratio. I thought that every Disney DVD had the OAR, but apparently, I'm wrong.

Well, I thought that the BatB PE had a slightly wrong aspect ratio....I mean, the DVD presents the film in 1.85:1, where the OAR is 1.66:1. So, technically, BatB isn't in it's OAR either...

Also, don't forget the questionable Fox and the Hound GC dvd....

-BB

I hate that, that's so stupid. Wouldn't we want to see them in the aspect ratio that they were made in? I would.

TheSequelofDisney wrote:Wouldn't we want to see them in the aspect ratio that they were made in? I would.

We see them the way the directors intended us to. You may not like it, but I think it's the most logical choice, since, after all, it is their movie.

TheSequelofDisney wrote:I thought that every Disney DVD had the OAR.

If you don't include the Aladdin & the King of Thieves DVD, A Goofy Movie, Mickey's Once Upon a Christmas, the short film The Prince and the Pauper on the Timeless Tales: Vol. 1 DVD, and numerous live action films, which were all presented with incorrect aspect ratios on DVD, then you'd be right in saying that.

But seeing the Little Mermaid in 1.78:1 isn't that big of a deal anyways. The difference between 1.78:1 and 1.66:1 is hardly noticable, at worst. Once you see screencaps from the DVD when it's released, I bet some of you won't even see a difference.

Pasta67 wrote: If you don't include the Aladdin & the Kind of Thieves DVD

How many kind of thieves are there? Are there mean ones, nice ones, boring ones? Are there ones that steal Aspect Ratios, ones that steal food, ones that steal money, ones that steal...

Timon/Pumbaa fan wrote:

Pasta67 wrote: If you don't include the Aladdin & the Kind of Thieves DVD

How many kind of thieves are there? There ones that steal Aspect Ratios, ones that steal food, ones that steal money, ones that steal...

GAH! You got to me before I could edit it!

Pasta67 wrote:But seeing the Little Mermaid in 1.78:1 isn't that big of a deal anyways. The difference between 1.78:1 and 1.66:1 is hardly noticable, at worst. Once you see screencaps from the DVD when it's released, I bet some of you won't even see a difference.

I would like to know what that difference is, anyway! I'm personally interested in films that can show us the most that is possible to be shown from the original drawing. So, are we going to see more or less -or the same- quantity of picture, compared to the Limited Issue version?

I understand the concern over the OAR but when you watch a 1.66:1 film it ends up getting matted down to 1:78:1 or so because of the overscan, so there isn't really a big difference. Pan-and-scan is a much bigger crime.

Aladdin from Agrabah wrote:I would like to know what that difference is, anyway! So, are we going to see more or less -or the same- quantity of picture, compared to the Limited Issue version?

Well, the Limited Issue release was presented in the 1.66:1 ratio. The Platinum Edition will show the movie in the ratio of 1.78:1, so we will be getting less picture on the Platinum Edition, but it's a VERY, VERY small loss. Let's see, if you do the math, we will be losing about 7% of the picture when the Platinum Edition is released.

In my opinion, 7% isn't that much of a loss. MichaeLeah is right, if it were pan-&-scan, it would be a much bigger loss.

Remember, the 1.78:1 ratio is probably how the directors want it to be seen.

Also, The Little Mermaid was more than likely shown in a 1.85:1 ratio in theaters, which means that even though the DVD image won't show the complete frame as animated, it'll be showing more than what was in theaters. Like everyone's saying, the directors have the final say on these matters. If it's like that on the DVD, that's how the filmmakers want you to see it. If you don't like it that way, complain to John Musker and Ron Clements, not Buena Vista.

Disneykid wrote:If it's like that on the DVD, that's how the filmmakers want you to see it. If you don't like it that way, complain to John Musker and Ron Clements, not Buena Vista.

Hmph! At least I've got the Limited Issue, thank God.

Pasta67 wrote: Remember, the 1.78:1 ratio is probably how the directors want it to be seen.

1.78:1 sounds like a mistake on the PR to me, being as the display on a widescreen TV is this ratio. (Waits for The Grim Squeaker to interject)

So even if the encoding is technically 1.78:1, it will probably have hard-matting at the top and bottom making it 1.85:1 (likely) or at the sides making it 1.66:1 (just as likely).

Ok first of all to the people who say "it's what the director wanted us to see"

WHY in a prevese DVD release give us 1.66:1 and not follow up on that?
Yeah, it's what they want us to see but we get a little more picture with 1.66:1 not with 1:78.1! If they drew the film in 1.:66.1 why not let us see it all since the theater mats it to 1:85.1 anyway. It honestly doesn't make sense to me! They had the money to make it, and I am sure Disney is the last Comany without money! They have enough to had done it right the first time!

Sorry it just ticks me off we sit back and let them say these things because they are to cheap to give it to us the way it SHOULD be and we know it deep inside!

PEOPLE WAKE UP! Disney, the directors, the staff, etc. are making up excuses! Don't buy into them!

Sorry, I had to vent!

BATBFan1 wrote:Ok first of all to the people who say "it's what the director wanted us to see"

WHY in a prevese DVD release give us 1.66:1 and not follow up on that?
Yeah, it's what they want us to see but we get a little more picture with 1.66:1 not with 1:78.1! If they drew the film in 1.:66.1 why not let us see it all since the theater mats it to 1:85.1 anyway. It honestly doesn't make sense to me! They had the money to make it, and I am sure Disney is the last Comany without money! They have enough to had done it right the first time!

Sorry it just ticks me off we sit back and let them say these things because they are to cheap to give it to us the way it SHOULD be and we know it deep inside!

PEOPLE WAKE UP! Disney, the directors, the staff, etc. are making up excuses! Don't buy into them!

Sorry, I had to vent!

I SO MUCH agree with you!! And, sorry to say that, but most people here seem to close their eyes and just go where DisneyCo. leads them. WAKE UP!

Aladdin from Agrabah wrote:

BATBFan1 wrote:Ok first of all to the people who say "it's what the director wanted us to see"

WHY in a prevese DVD release give us 1.66:1 and not follow up on that?
Yeah, it's what they want us to see but we get a little more picture with 1.66:1 not with 1:78.1! If they drew the film in 1.:66.1 why not let us see it all since the theater mats it to 1:85.1 anyway. It honestly doesn't make sense to me! They had the money to make it, and I am sure Disney is the last Comany without money! They have enough to had done it right the first time!

Sorry it just ticks me off we sit back and let them say these things because they are to cheap to give it to us the way it SHOULD be and we know it deep inside!

PEOPLE WAKE UP! Disney, the directors, the staff, etc. are making up excuses! Don't buy into them!

Sorry, I had to vent!

I SO MUCH agree with you!! And, sorry to say that, but most people here seem to close their eyes and just go where DisneyCo. leads them. WAKE UP!

I agree with both of you. Disney just gives us cheap-o stuff. I mean, Dumbo should have had a 2-disc edition, but instead we got a 1-disc with a stupid "Know Your Animals from the Circus" We should have TLM in it's OAR, not something that the directors want us to see. I personally would rather have the OAR, so I could see what I should see. I don't want to see a 7% loss. That'll be a 7% that I will never see on a Platinum Edition for TLM. Disney, why are you doing this?

TheSequelofDisney wrote:We should have TLM in it's OAR, not something that the directors want us to see.

That's pretty much a contradiction, since what the directors want us to see basically defines a film's OAR (original aspect ratio). Of course, in this case, 1.85:1 is a valid AR (original theatrical aspect ratio), as is 1.66:1 (CAPS aspect ratio). Then 1.78:1 is nearly smack in the middle of the two, and the differences between all three is miniscule enough to make the length of this debate mind-baffling.

How many studios release films projected theatrically at 1.85:1 in 1.78:1 16x9-enhanced transfer? A lot and this is barely different. Then, there's overscan (present in just about every TV), and so many other minor issues during the mastering process to take into account (which deathie mouse could explain more thoroughly than anyone) that when you're talking about such a tiny difference, it hardly seems worth dwelling upon a few lines of pixels. But everyone can continue butting heads over this.

In cases of the modern animated Disney films, I tend to side with the "let's see what was composed for the CAPS system" sect, but anyone arguing he or she should have more say in the matter than the directors themselves is being somewhat unrealistic. There are cases (after a film is released) where a director needs to step back and realize the film isn't just his/hers/theirs anymore. But this is isn't an instance of things being reanimated, guns being turned into walkie talkies, or Hayden Christiansen being digitally edited in. It's a matter of pixels and what was intended to be seen and without hard visual proof (which none of us have at this point), it seems silly to complain so loudly.

Luke wrote:it seems silly to complain so loudly.

How do you know how loud I was typing? Oh yeah, why can't I PM anyone? I'd like to answer some questions to juliancarter, but I can't, because I can't PM.

TheSequelofDisney wrote:

Luke wrote:it seems silly to complain so loudly.

How do you know how loud I was typing? Oh yeah, why can't I PM anyone? I'd like to answer some questions to juliancarter, but I can't, because I can't PM.

why dont you email him then?

TheSequelofDisney wrote:How do you know how loud I was typing? Oh yeah, why can't I PM anyone? I'd like to answer some questions to juliancarter, but I can't, because I can't PM.

1) I wasn't referring solely to you.

2) Because you sent me a PM saying simply "I don't like you very much." I went ahead and assumed that you are sending more personal attacks to other members via PM, which is a grave misuse of the privilege. So rather than banning you altogether, I just removed your PM privileges. Besides, I figure enough bandwidth is being consumed by your non-stop posts that you've plenty exceeded your personal limits. If you want to communicate with other forum members, you can make use of the e-mail buttons than members can choose or not choose to display. I will not condone PMs being used to attack forum members and since members are encouraged to only use PMs for rare communication, I figure it is not at all a big deal for any member abusing the privilege to take to e-mail. But, if similar instances of harrassment are reported, such a member would be asked to leave. Hypothetically.