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

[podman]

I would love to see a poll taken on framing preference for movies like Robin Hood, The Jungle Book, and Aristocats. But it would have to be a poll of only people who understand aspect ratios and do not have a preference of aspect ratios other than what looks good for a particular movie. In other words, only people that have no desire to "fill their screen", but only want to see a film presented at the best ratio possible for an artistic look. Obviously this is pretty much impossible.

I consider myself to be among that group, and generally ALWAYS prefer whatever aspect ratio the film was actually intended for.

However, in these cases I feel that the widescreen compositions are clearly compromised. There are enough scenes where the framing is completely inappropriate in obvious ways that I never want to see any of these three films presented in widescreen again. I have both versions of each.

I don't have a good explanation for these recommendations you have found. I suspect Disney decided that it was better to design these films for television, feeling that was how the majority would experience them. And perhaps they felt that widescreen in the theater would be a revenue generator, even if the material wasn't particularly well suited for it. Either way, it seems really clear to me after watching them that these films are not designed for widescreen cropping.

I know this is an endless debate, but I just wanted to throw my opinion out there on the other side.

[podman]

BTW, I should have made clear that regardless of my feelings I'm not hoping to derail anyone's pursuit of the "correct" aspect ratios.

Just wanted to remind people that there is much debate as to what "correct" really means in these cases.

Hopefully with future releases they will attempt to offer both ratios on the discs, and people can decide their preferences themselves. Though I believe they will prefer fullscreen, and I'm a little worried that people who are not properly educated on the subject may get the wrong idea on the whole "widescreen" debate in general, and attempt to buy fullscreen movies whenever possible.

[disneyfella]

BTW, I should have made clear that regardless of my feelings I'm not hoping to derail anyone's pursuit of the "correct" aspect ratios.

Just wanted to remind people that there is much debate as to what "correct" really means in these cases.

Hopefully with future releases they will attempt to offer both ratios on the discs, and people can decide their preferences themselves. Though I believe they will prefer fullscreen, and I'm a little worried that people who are not properly educated on the subject may get the wrong idea on the whole "widescreen" debate in general, and attempt to buy fullscreen movies whenever possible.

You're the type of media consumer for whom Disney should make the fullscreen transfer of films available for. I agree. But for what it's worth, consider if Disney were to start reframing all of their films.....

It should also be noted that the Walt Disney Feature Animation titles were in absolutely no way protected for television exhibition. If you go through the Disney archives, you will see all the money and publicity that went into each every title (including "The Aristocats" and "The Fox and the Hound"....less popular titles by today's standard) and you might have an idea of how 'grand' and 'special' and 'eventful' that a Disney animated feature release was. A new Disney Animated Feature was not a yearly occurence. Imagine once every 3 or 4 years the hype that would explode to hail the arrival of what the Disney Company hoped would be the next classic.

To put that into perspective, aside from "Dumbo" and "Alice in Wonderland", two films that were already 1.33:1, Disney did not start releasing their animated films to television until the mid 1980s: and even then they were singular showings on the new pay cable station The Disney Channel and hardly re-aired.

No, these films were precious to the Disney company. If you read the book "The Disney War" by James Stewart, the start up of the Home Video market is chronicled and shows just how hard it was for Disney to even release their films to the successful VHS Home Video Format as Disney was afraid that such consumerism would degrade the high art that was The Disney Animated Feature Film (Cinderella was almost never released on video!).

I suppose my point is that I find it frustrating when people suggest that the Disney Animated Feature films were made with television exhibition in mind...because they weren't. I find it frustrating when people argue that these Disney Animated Feature films were framed for a 1.33:1 exhibition...because they weren't. I find it frustrating when people think that their opinion about film presentation should become the standard at the expense of proper film preservation.

I wholly understand and suppor the presentation of an open matte presentation of these Animated Disney Films for the Home Video Market because there are people out there who would prefer that aspect ratio. However, the actual aspect ratio of these films is not up for discussion. They were made, framed, and exhibited in 1.75:1. This is the original theatrical aspect ratio. This is how the films were intended to be seen. The open matte print is a 'special feature' and should not be made available at the expense of the original Disney classic. A dual offering would be the most marketable product for Buena Vista Home Entertainment. If both the Original Theatrical Aspect Ratio and Open Matte Ratio were made available then everyone would be happy and everyone would feel good buying a Disney Blu Ray.

But suggesting that public opinion should dictate how these Disney films should be framed rather than the integrity of the filmmakers to present their work as they see fit is downright ludicrous and irresponsible.

On a side note, with the increase in popularity of widescreen televisions I have the feeling that Disney will be releasing all films widescreen from here on out. Whether that widescreen ratio is the original theatrical ratio (i.e. 1.66:1 vs 1.75:1, etc), is unfortunately uncertain. I have a feeling, though, that most people wouldn't expect a full screen film from the 1970s and would be upset if "Robin Hood" or "The Jungle Book" didn't fill their nice new expensive widescreen television.

[disneyfella]

I just got the obscure 1983 Disney film "Trenchcoat" pressbook and it's no suprise that the film was in the typical Disney ratio of 1.75:1.

"Trenchcoat" 1983 Premiere Release Information

"The Aspect Ratio For a Super Image is 1.75 to 1"

(NOTE: This film is unavaiable. Tell Disney you want it and in the proper aspect ratio of 1.75:1. Call Disney at at 1-800-72-34763)

[podman]

Definitely good points on Disney and their attitude towards television. So that's not the reason. Doesn't mean there isn't another, of course. And they clearly were thinking about television presentation in some way or form, or else they simply would have animated them in widescreen only in the first place. Obviously they wouldn't change their mind after all the work had been completed, as it happened many times.

Animator carelessness seems like a potential option, though it seems out of character for them. Perhaps they just forgot on some scenes that the top and bottom would be stripped away in some cases?

Believe me, I am usually the one on the other side of this argument. I have to say I'm a bit resentful of phrases like "people like you"... I fought long and hard for this cause and I'm not crazy about being dismissed like I'm some Walmart parent that doesn't understand why his TV isn't working correctly. I was a huge laserdisc collector (over 400 discs) and extolled the virtues of a widescreen presentation to every person that would listen. Still do... but in this case, there is simply something wrong with these films when presented in widescreen. (EDIT: ok, I see you actually used the phrase "You're the type of media consumer"... that's a little better. )

I'm not sure if you are familiar with the animated Justice League television series... this is another similar case on the surface. It was shot in a 1.33:1 aspect ratio during production of the first season, but the creators (Bruce Timm, etc) wanted it shown in widescreen and preferred that version. On television, it was shown both ways on different nights. In that case, I fully support the widescreen presentation (which has never happened on home video). There are very few instances where the framing is too cramped and I agree that it looks much better in widescreen.

I am not attempting to question the creator’s artistic sensibilities and saying “it looks better opened up, so they should just show it how I want to see it”. I am literally saying this can’t be right that the original intent was to show these widescreen.

What is the explanation for the many scenes in The Jungle Book where characters are clearly cut off at the top in aesthetically unpleasing ways for relatively long periods of time? The same thing happens many times in Robin Hood.... one of the opening scenes where Robin is talking to Little John up in the tree after being shot at by arrows has nearly constant framing issues that can't be on purpose IMO. I'm pretty sure that if the original animators saw their work on these films being presented widescreen they would feel that THIS presentation is the one that violates their artistic integrity.

Thanks

[disneyfella]

I have a couple of thoughts on this.

1) Is Disney offering a widescreen version matted from the original negative framing, or are they matting an already cropped version thereby seriously chopping up the film?

2) Perhaps the idea that a character is too big to fit in the frame (i.e. Little John from Robin Hood) when shown on the big screen in theatres creates an impact on the audience that the animators intended. Something akin to the idea of "Wow, those vultures are standing on each others' shoulders and are so tall next to Mowgli that they cannot fit in the frame. This can create a perspective allowing the audience to sympathize with Mowgli more.

3) Was Disney simply trying to save on money and not purchase new desks, new animation paper, new cameras, new film stock, etc. and therefore continued to film movies full frame and then matte them in theatres saving all the headache of worrying if one or two peoples' measurements were slightly off. Remember that the aniamted celluloid is actually painted and extends outside the full frame ratio as a safety precaution in case this happens too (in other words....there's even more art that the audience isn't seeing that is completed by the artists)


I would caution you, though, if you intend to go down a train of thought that begins with, "this looks better open matte therefore the animators actually DID intend it to be open matte". For anyone who has done research, this is like working backwards and making science fit your design. In other words you have biased your thinking before you begin and adjust your facts to fit what you think the hypothesis should be.

I respect your opinion that you think it should be 1.33:1, but several people have researched and verified that in fact these films should be 1.75:1 (perhaps not Jungle Book, or Sword in the Stone, though as those aspect ratios have not been verified). Personally, I like the widescreen image and its framings in these films. I don't promote the widescreen image because I enjoy it, though. Rather I try to argue for its prominence because that is how it was supposed to be seen. That is how the film makers told theatres to project it. That is the framing that they wanted to show.

Far be it for me to dictate that I know history was wrong in showing these films the way they were instructed to be shown.

[podman]

Your points are well taken.

Perhaps I will give the Most Wanted Edition another try and see if I am "overremembering" the issues I had with it.

But at least everyone can agree that hopefully Disney will provide both options in the future.

[AlwaysOAR]

I just got the obscure 1983 Disney film "Trenchcoat" pressbook and it's no suprise that the film was in the typical Disney ratio of 1.75:1.

"Trenchcoat" 1983 Premiere Release Information

"The Aspect Ratio For a Super Image is 1.75 to 1"

(NOTE: This film is unavaiable. Tell Disney you want it and in the proper aspect ratio of 1.75:1. Call Disney at at 1-800-72-34763)

On that note, I came across movieposter, not movieposters, .com and they have the following original pressbooks all in the $5 to $20 range...

1959 Third Man on the Mountain
1960 The Jungle Cat
1962 Moon Pilot
1962 Bon Voyage!
1963 Miracle of the White Stallions
1964 The Misadventures of Merlin Jones
1964 A Tiger Walks
1964 The Three Lives of Thomasina
1965 Those Calloways
1965 The Monkey's Uncle
1967 The Adventures of Bullwhip Griffin
1967 The Gnome-Mobile
1973 One Little Indian
1975 One of Our Dinosaurs is Missing
1978 Hot Lead and Cold Feet
1981 Herbie Goes Bananas
1983 Never Cry Wolf

also these re-issues...

1940 Pinocchio (1978)
1941 Dumbo (1972)
1950 Cinderella (1982)
1951 Alice In Wonderland (1974)
1955 Lady and the Tramp (1980)
1957 Old Yeller (1965)
1960 Kidnapped (1971)

as well as ones already on this thread...

1964 Mary Poppins (1973 reissue)
1968 The One and Only, Original Family Band
1973 Charley and the Angel
1974 The Island at the Top of the World
1975 The Strongest Man in the World
1980 The Watcher in the Woods
1981 Amy
1981 The Fox and the Hound
1983 Trenchcoat


Anyway, I'll be waiting on these I ordered...

1968 Winnie the Pooh and the Blustery Day
1974 Winnie the Pooh and Tigger Too!
1975 Escape to Witch Mountain
1983 Something Wicked This Way Comes

I didn't know they made pressbooks for the Pooh shorts, and I'll be on the hunt for The Honey Tree one as well.

p.s. I'm still waiting on the Sword and Poppins originals...

[AlwaysOAR]

I'm not sure if you are familiar with the animated Justice League television series... this is another similar case on the surface. It was shot in a 1.33:1 aspect ratio during production of the first season, but the creators (Bruce Timm, etc) wanted it shown in widescreen and preferred that version. On television, it was shown both ways on different nights. In that case, I fully support the widescreen presentation (which has never happened on home video). There are very few instances where the framing is too cramped and I agree that it looks much better in widescreen.

I am a fan of the Timmverse as well, from Batman: The Animated Series through Justice League Unlimited. As far as Season 1 of Justice League is concerned, it was originally broadcast in 1.33 ratio, then later on shown in the 1.78. For me, since it was shown initially in the 1.33, I go with that. Of course, Warners should have offered both ratios on the release, and they are usually good about that sort of thing. Subsequent seasons were animated and shown in the 1.78.
Also, there have been other instances of inaccurate ratio releases by other studios. Paramount has yet to release Apocalypse Now in it's theatrical ratio, and Criterion released The Last Emperor in a 2.00:1 ratio instead of it's 2.35:1, because it's director said he always wanted it shown in the 2.00. Though not revisionism ala Lucas, I believe that the version initially shown in theatres or television is the one that should be presented first and foremost on DVD releases.
But back on topic, Disneyfella pretty much said everything I would want to say in the previous posts to your concerns/questions, only better than I could articulate. But I agree that Disney in the future should release both the theatrical and animated ratios.

[podman]

Actually, I believe Justice League was shown from the beginning in widescreen for the first season, but the widescreen showings debuted a few days after each was shown fullscreen and in a later timeslot. (at least that's what I remember from my recordings at the time)

And, from what I have read, that was directly against the wishes of Bruce Timm and company. It was Cartoon Network that wasn't ready to show it first in widescreen, and insisted on a slight delay and the later showings for the widescreen version.

Perhaps that's what you meant by "later shown in 1.78"... it just sounded like you meant more than a few days later...

For me, I think that the aspect ratio should be what was preferred and intended by the creators. So if they wanted it in widescreen it should be widescreen, regardless of what Cartoon Network's opinion was at the time.

But it does get muddled when there are what appear to be some obvious framing issues from time to time in widescreen, and even moreso when the passage of so many years have clouded the issue. I'm just not sure what to think at this point... there are shots in the Disney movies I hate in widescreen, but I agree that the majority are actually better framed in widescreen. I guess I will have to file my opinion as "undecided" at this time. But you guys have swayed me a bit and gotten me to give the widescreen presentations another chance.

[AlwaysOAR]

Actually, I believe Justice League was shown from the beginning in widescreen for the first season, but the widescreen showings debuted a few days after each was shown fullscreen and in a later timeslot. (at least that's what I remember from my recordings at the time)

And, from what I have read, that was directly against the wishes of Bruce Timm and company. It was Cartoon Network that wasn't ready to show it first in widescreen, and insisted on a slight delay and the later showings for the widescreen version.

Perhaps that's what you meant by "later shown in 1.78"... it just sounded like you meant more than a few days later...

For me, I think that the aspect ratio should be what was preferred and intended by the creators. So if they wanted it in widescreen it should be widescreen, regardless of what Cartoon Network's opinion was at the time.

But it does get muddled when there are what appear to be some obvious framing issues from time to time in widescreen, and even moreso when the passage of so many years have clouded the issue. I'm just not sure what to think at this point... there are shots in the Disney movies I hate in widescreen, but I agree that the majority are actually better framed in widescreen. I guess I will have to file my opinion as "undecided" at this time. But you guys have swayed me a bit and gotten me to give the widescreen presentations another chance.

I think that for most of us, having grown up watching Jungle Book, Robin Hood, etc. on VHS in the open matte, then seeing them matted, especially if only from stills, it didn't seem right. But upon subsequent viewings, they seem fine to me. Also, if you watch any widescreen movie, there are occasions when someone's head or whatever is cut off, but it's only for a few seconds, and hardly noticible.
As far as what Disneyfella mentioned earlier, I think it's possible that Jungle Book, and perhaps 101 Dalmations, are zoomed in from the open matte, but until proven so, I assume they're ok. I just don't know.

[KubrickFan]

Actually, I believe Justice League was shown from the beginning in widescreen for the first season, but the widescreen showings debuted a few days after each was shown fullscreen and in a later timeslot. (at least that's what I remember from my recordings at the time)

And, from what I have read, that was directly against the wishes of Bruce Timm and company. It was Cartoon Network that wasn't ready to show it first in widescreen, and insisted on a slight delay and the later showings for the widescreen version.

Perhaps that's what you meant by "later shown in 1.78"... it just sounded like you meant more than a few days later...

For me, I think that the aspect ratio should be what was preferred and intended by the creators. So if they wanted it in widescreen it should be widescreen, regardless of what Cartoon Network's opinion was at the time.

But it does get muddled when there are what appear to be some obvious framing issues from time to time in widescreen, and even moreso when the passage of so many years have clouded the issue. I'm just not sure what to think at this point... there are shots in the Disney movies I hate in widescreen, but I agree that the majority are actually better framed in widescreen. I guess I will have to file my opinion as "undecided" at this time. But you guys have swayed me a bit and gotten me to give the widescreen presentations another chance.

I think Warner Bros. was also against it. Timm wanted the show to be in widescreen from the beginning, but Warner said no. So they made an open matted version, where the widescreen portion was the preferred one. To make matters worse, Warner hasn't released season 1 in widescreen. Not on DVD, and not when they released it on Blu-ray.
Oh, and about The Last Emperor and Apocalypse Now, that's actually Vittorio Storaro's decision (The director of photography). He devised a system in which the aspect ratio was 2.00:1 in 1998. Now, that's fine with me, although most of them are cropped in the theaters and subsequently on home video, so the system doesn't entirely work as envisioned (plus nobody else uses it). But he also wants to change the aspect ratio of most movies he made before. So, Apocalypse Now, which was made 20 years before he came up with the Univisium system, is now cropped because the DP says he either envisioned it that way, or that it looks better that way. I don't buy that. The sad part is that the directors don't care/agree with him.

[disneyfella]

I just got the obscure 1983 Disney film "Trenchcoat" pressbook and it's no suprise that the film was in the typical Disney ratio of 1.75:1.

"Trenchcoat" 1983 Premiere Release Information

"The Aspect Ratio For a Super Image is 1.75 to 1"

(NOTE: This film is unavaiable. Tell Disney you want it and in the proper aspect ratio of 1.75:1. Call Disney at at 1-800-72-34763)

On that note, I came across movieposter, not movieposters, .com and they have the following original pressbooks all in the $5 to $20 range...

1959 Third Man on the Mountain
1960 The Jungle Cat
1962 Moon Pilot
1962 Bon Voyage!
1963 Miracle of the White Stallions
1964 The Misadventures of Merlin Jones
1964 A Tiger Walks
1964 The Three Lives of Thomasina
1965 Those Calloways
1965 The Monkey's Uncle
1967 The Adventures of Bullwhip Griffin
1967 The Gnome-Mobile
1973 One Little Indian
1975 One of Our Dinosaurs is Missing
1978 Hot Lead and Cold Feet
1981 Herbie Goes Bananas
1983 Never Cry Wolf

also these re-issues...

1940 Pinocchio (1978)
1941 Dumbo (1972)
1950 Cinderella (1982)
1951 Alice In Wonderland (1974)
1955 Lady and the Tramp (1980)
1957 Old Yeller (1965)
1960 Kidnapped (1971)

as well as ones already on this thread...

1964 Mary Poppins (1973 reissue)
1968 The One and Only, Original Family Band
1973 Charley and the Angel
1974 The Island at the Top of the World
1975 The Strongest Man in the World
1980 The Watcher in the Woods
1981 Amy
1981 The Fox and the Hound
1983 Trenchcoat


Anyway, I'll be waiting on these I ordered...

1968 Winnie the Pooh and the Blustery Day
1974 Winnie the Pooh and Tigger Too!
1975 Escape to Witch Mountain
1983 Something Wicked This Way Comes

I didn't know they made pressbooks for the Pooh shorts, and I'll be on the hunt for The Honey Tree one as well.

p.s. I'm still waiting on the Sword and Poppins originals...

Nice find! I 'll have to check that website out In the meantime, I'll be anxious to see what those ratios come up as (particularly I'm interested in Something Wicked This Way Comes...I haven't gotten those books yet because they tend to be more expensive).

I've also got "Return From Witch Mountain" on the way to me, so we'll have both the Witch Mountain films figured out soon (I'm assuming they are properly framed in their special editions).

[AlwaysOAR]

Okay...I've received the Sword In The Stone pressbook........

No projection instructions whatsoever in it, no notice to exhibitors, nothing, nada...very frustrating. So now we have the following pressbooks that I know of, Disneyfella might know of some more, that have no projection instructions in them...

1963 Savage Sam
1963 The Sword In The Stone
1967 The Jungle Book
1968 The Horse In The Gray Flannel Suit
1969 The Computer Wore Tennis Shoes

I'm pretty much convinced that The Jungle Book is correct on it's latest DVD release being at the 1.75:1 ratio, and to quote myself from earlier in this thread...

"Disney has released 10 live-action and 3 DACs in the 1.75:1. These which have had pressbooks showing the ratio instructions so far have proven this ratio to be correct, and the one that didn't have ratio instructions, TJB pressbook being the one so far of these not having the info, I don't think Disney would have released it in 1.75:1 on it's last DVD release if it had not been shown in theatres in that ratio.

Sure, Disney will screw it up the other way in releasing a title p&s or open matte instead of the theatrical ratio, but I don't think they have the other way around insofar as releasing a title 1.75:1 and it not being correct."

Now, the SITS is another matter, as it has only been released at 1.33:1 on it's DVD releases, and I'm not quite sure what to think for it.

Disneyfella had mentioned that the Xerox process for 101 Dalmatians might have been a reason for it to be premiered/ framed for Academy ratio, and I have this article from the SITS pressbook I'm going to quote verbatim as it talks about that process...

XEROGRAPHY USED BY WALT DISNEY IN HIS NEWEST CARTOON FEATURE

Xerography, the most recent technical development to be introduced into the production of animated-cartoons, has proved to be a real boon to the Walt Disney Studios, which employed full use of this revolutionary process in Disney's newest cartoon feature, "The Sword in the Stone." The advantages of Xerox, as the process is called, are two-fold. It cuts actual production time in half, thus reducing the stratospheric costs of animated cartoon films. Then, too, it enables the animator's creative drawings to be transferred directly to the "cels" that are photographed by the animation color cameras. The result gives a feeling of roundness to the cartoon characters and a fluidity to the action, that in the past was often lost.
Previously, the animator's drawings were traced onto the sheets of celluloid by girls with pen and ink in hand. Although the girls were artists in their own right, the copying had a tendency to lose much of the feeling originally imparted by the creators.
Now the ink and paint girls are involved with the Xerox cameras and other steps of this technical process.
The Xerox Corporation, a division of the Haloid Company of Rochester, New York, describe their process as " a clean, fast, dry, direct, positive, electrostatic copying process."
The Disney system amounts to an expanded, automation version of the Xerox process, adopted to mass production. This automation process makes it possible to turn out 60 cells of exact photographic duplicates of artists' drawings in one hour as compared to four hours with "old-fashioned" methods.
Enthusiastic Disney technicians already claimed pioneering success with the use of this original animation formula on the earlier animated-cartoon feature, "One Hundred and One Dalmatians."
For "The Sword in the Stone," the process has been expanded and improved by Disney's director of technical research, Ub Iwerks, who was a recent recipient of the Herbert T. Kalmus Gold Medal Award for achievements which included his further development of the Xerography process.
Filmed in brilliant Technicolor, "The Sword in the Stone" was directed by Wolfgang Reitherman. This mirthful accounting of King Arthur's young life and his adventures with Merlin, the magician is released by Buena Vista.

There's not much useful information from this as far as I can tell, but wanted to post something from the pressbook. Whether or not the Xerox process has anything to do with the aspect ratio, my knowledge is limited to what I've read on this thread concerning this. Also, I don't remember at the moment whether JB also used this process.


For Mary Poppins, well the seller misadvertised, and I received a program book, about the size of an old LP record sleeve, instead of a pressbook, so I'll be sending it back and getting a refund.

So a big strikeout as far as apect ratio info on those two are concerned.

I should be receiving Something Wicked This Way Comes, The Last Flight of Noah's Ark, Escape to Witch Mountain, and two of the three Pooh shorts soon. So hopefully I'll have some better luck with those...


Scott

[AlwaysOAR]

After I posted about SITS and Poppins last night, for me anyways, it was 11 am east coast time and I'm 9 1/2 hrs ahead here, I received the following...


"Escape To Witch Mountain" 1975 Premiere Release Information

The Aspect Ratio for "Escape to Witch Mountain" to achieve the best screen image is 1:75 to 1.

...and it has been released in it's proper ratio on DVD...

(also there's no running time info in the pressbook)



"The Last Flight of Noah's Ark" 1980 Premiere Release Information

THE ASPECT RATIO TO CAPTURE ALL THE ADVENTURE IS 1.75 to 1.

...both the Disney and Anchor Bay releases are overmatted to 1.85 and have an open-matte 1.33 version on them

(running time info from pressbook is 98 min, which matches the Disney release, don't know for the Anchor Bay one)


"Something Wicked This Way Comes" 1983 Premiere Release Information

THE ASPECT RATIO FOR A SUPER IMAGE IS 1:75 to 1

...the Disney DVD is overmatted at 1.85 and has an open-matte 1.33 version, and the Anchor Bay DVD is undermatted at 1.66 and has a pan & scan version as well

(running time info from pressbook is 97 min, while the Disney DVD has a running time of 95 min, and I don't know for the Anchor Bay one)



Also, I received The Rescuers original pressbook, for $5 I couldn't pass up and was one of my favorites growing up. From earlier in this thread I remember that the ratio info was taken from a scan from ebay I believe, and on page 3 of this pressbook it actually says...

To make the world's smallest secret agents the right size to vanquish the world's wickedest woman,
THE ASPECT RATIO is 1.75 to 1

on page 4, from which the scan was probably taken from, it also reitirates
ASPECT RATIO 1:75 to 1

Interesting that one will say 1.75 and the other 1:75, not that it matters, but have noticed on other pressbooks that both ways are used.

(Also, the pressbook says a running time of 76 min, while the DVD has 77 min)

I need to look at the running time for SITS later today to see if it matches...

EDIT: the pressbook for SITS says 80 min running time, while the DVDs are at 79 min.

It's doubtful if a 1 or 2 min discrepency means anything, probably just a rounding up or down on the total time, just a hunch.

Anyway, the two Pooh shorts pressbooks were shipped separately, so I'll be waiting on those still...


Scott

[MattDean]

AlwaysAOR,

Just want to say thanks to you, and the other posters on this thread, for all your research to clarify aspect ratios. It really is something that continues to be questionable and inconsistent.

My knowledge of ratios and understanding of the technical issues is limited so maybe you could answer a question for me: I believe my releases of Snow White, Pinocchio and Dumbo (French release) on Blu are presented 1:33 (they are labelled as this), but if they were made 1:37 why are they not released like this if this is their OAR? Would there be any visible difference?

I'm with you anyway, Original Aspect Ratio EVERY TIME!

Thanks again,

Matt

[AlwaysOAR]

AlwaysAOR,

Just want to say thanks to you, and the other posters on this thread, for all your research to clarify aspect ratios. It really is something that continues to be questionable and inconsistent.

My knowledge of ratios and understanding of the technical issues is limited so maybe you could answer a question for me: I believe my releases of Snow White, Pinocchio and Dumbo (French release) on Blu are presented 1:33 (they are labelled as this), but if they were made 1:37 why are they not released like this if this is their OAR? Would there be any visible difference?

I'm with you anyway, Original Aspect Ratio EVERY TIME!

Thanks again,

Matt

Well, the thanks really goes to Disneyfella for letting us know about the pressbooks that have this info. I know I wasn't aware of them till he started posting.

As far as academy ratio goes, and someone correct me if I'm wrong, because of the soundtrack put on the side of the film, the ratio goes from 1.37 to 1.33. So when you see 1.33 or 1.37 talked about or on the back of a DVD case, it basically is the same thing.

[disneyfella]

I've updated the list with your new verifications OAR, and will bump it when we get our next shipment of pressbooks in.

I was very curious about the OAR from "Something Wicked This Way Comes", because I got an email from someone who worked on the film stating that he spoke with the DP about the ratio and he knew that the Disney released version (1.85:1) was all wrong and he didn't know for sure what it was supposed to be. Now we know, though, and unfortunately neither DVD release has been correct. Here's hoping that Disney can fix its "aspect ratio" issue problem for its Blu Ray library.



Also, to comment on the previous questions. OAR is totally right. By the time Disney got into the feature business, the "Academy Ratio" of 1.37:1 was actually reduced to 1.33:1 when the soundtrack became optically printed on the side of the screen (this happened I think sometime around the late 1920s....I posted an article about it somewhere). Therefore the 1.33:1 ratio is actually the correct ratio.

[AlwaysOAR]

I've updated the list with your new verifications OAR, and will bump it when we get our next shipment of pressbooks in.

I was very curious about the OAR from "Something Wicked This Way Comes", because I got an email from someone who worked on the film stating that he spoke with the DP about the ratio and he knew that the Disney released version (1.85:1) was all wrong and he didn't know for sure what it was supposed to be. Now we know, though, and unfortunately neither DVD release has been correct. Here's hoping that Disney can fix its "aspect ratio" issue problem for its Blu Ray library.

Agreed there, and there shouldn't be any reason for them not to, though I fear they may go with the 1.78 TV ratio on future releases.

Also, what's your take on the SITS pressbook, does the Xerox process for that film make it possible that it was released to theatres at 1.33. I'm kinda 50/50 on whether or not it was released at academy ratio. I just don't know, though I lean towards the 1.75 ratio.


Scott

[disneyfella]

The xerox process wasn't just used on 101 Dalmatians, but rather was FIRST used on 101 Dalmatians. At some point, though, the practice of matting animated films for a widescreen theatrical release became regular practice with the animation department.

My personal thoughts on this are that when 101 Dalmatians was released to theatres in 1961 in the Academy Ratio (1.33:1), the picture was probably noticably square to the point that Disney decided they needed to come up with an alternative for the next animated film which was already in production. The practice of matting films (which began in 1953 with "Shane") had already become commonplace at the Disney studios by that time (Even before Disney went widescreen with Cinemascope, there were matting options for some of their British feature films). My guess is that someone came up with the idea of framing the animated film on a 1.33:1 negative for a 1.75:1 ratio (which was ultimately established as a "Disney" ratio to projectionists) and thus the sequence of matting animated films followed.

That being said, I'm prone to think that TSITS was most likely matted to 1.75:1, though I refuse to add it to the list until some definitive proof is found (and unfortunately simply asking Disney is out of the question as they tend to 'change' the aspect ratio at random).