DVDizzy Forum

Probably no one else will say it, but a lot will agree with me.

Mickeymouse Boy, get a F'n life.

Luke wrote:Hey folks, just remember that it's fine to attack arguments made, but there's no need to attack the people making them or get personal. Thanks.

Clearly, some people need to be reminded yet again. Not a very cool thing to say.

From Joe Carioca's post:

Sleeping Beauty was originated in Technirama, which uses 35mm film running sideways in the camera. The image was then blown up to create the 1959 70mm theatrical prints with six track audio (five front channels and a mono surround channel). The original aspect ratio on these release prints was approximately 2.21:1. Therefore, to arrive at the slightly wider 2.35:1 aspect ratio on the DVD, some of the image is unfortunately cropped off the bottom of the frame.

But the difference between 2.21:1 and 2.35:1 is tiny at best. I'm not sure about this (not being a projectionist myself) but don't all cinemas do form of soft-matting when projecting? None of them project the whole image onto the entirity of the exposed screen? If you leave the film to project the whole of the frame, doesn't the line around the edge become blurred?

Most often this is done by framing the projected image so that it "overscans" the visible screen by a small amount. (Cinema screens are actually specially designed to be reflective, while their surroundings are designed to absorb light - this results in any part of the image not projected on the screen to be hidden). I would imagine most cinemas in the 1950's showed Sleeping Beauty the same, with the extreme top and bottom of the image cut off.

This framing issue is nothing special. Most 1.85:1 films are actually reframed as 1.78:1 on DVDs. Check it out. They state 1.85:1 but the actual image is 1.78:1. To present enhanced for widescreen television 1.85:1 images would require black bars to be hardmatted onto the image. This is because the natural shape an widescreen television screen is 1.78:1. A DVD image can only be 4:3 or 1.78:1 - everything else is created by black bars, either at the top and bottom, left and right or all around the image. But most 1.85:1 films (90%+ I would say) have no hardmatting.

If anybody's got the equipment and the time to do the calculations I suggest you try it on a few Disney 1.85:1 films. Beauty and the Beast is most likely 1.78:1, making it even closer to the full frame 1.66:1 then people think.

I don't really see what the issue it. You would loose most of the extra image information anyway due to overscan. No filmmaker expect the entirity of the exposed frame to be visble either in the cinema or on home viewing. Check out Luke's excellent aspect ratio explainations and also the 1.66:1 section of his FAQ
http://www.ultimatedisney.com/oar.htm
http://www.ultimatedisney.com/FAQ.htm

That's a very good point, 2099net. Almost all 1.85:1 films are released as 1.78:1, and that's literally a couple of lines of resolution we're talking about, not an issue.

Even the ratios that Disney gives aren't always accurate. The Lion King (stated as 1.66:1) was 1.71:1. Beauty and the Beast was actually closer to 1.85:1 than most; it was 1.83:1. I only know those from doing screencaps for the reviews on this site. Cool Runnings was 1.74:1, not 1.85:1. It's fuzzy math sometimes, and those aren't even composed and then shot the way animated cels are.

This isn't a case like with Apocalypse Now being theatrically shown at 2.35:1 and then being intentionally cropped (mildly) to ~2.0:1 for widescreen home video release.

Yeah, the movie hasn't been mis-framed but fitted to the 2.35:1 DVD proportions. It has been done to just about every widescreen DVD.

this is sort of off topic but it has to do with the way cinemas matt films. when i went to go see brother bear at the movie theater, the movie started playing and there were two giant black bars on both sides of the screen, and i though the guy would draw the curtains in a little to correct it then somewhere with out me noticing, the film was going from edge to edge. i thought this was kinda wierd.

I'm not sure how Sleeping Beauty was generally matted in its theatrical run, but I'd guess that it was pretty close, if not exactly, the 2.35:1 ratio of the DVD.

wizzer wrote:this is sort of off topic but it has to do with the way cinemas matt films. when i went to go see brother bear at the movie theater, the movie started playing and there were two giant black bars on both sides of the screen, and i though the guy would draw the curtains in a little to correct it then somewhere with out me noticing, the film was going from edge to edge. i thought this was kinda wierd.

Well, there was no problem with the movie theater - the aspect ratio of the film changes after Kenai is transformed into a bear, from the conventional 1.85:1 to the wider 2.35:1.

to the get a life faction. Not a personal attack MMBoy, but I am not sure why this matters.

It's ok there's not point to reply with someone that apparantly has poor english skills and it's so vulgar and common.

MickeyMouseboy wrote:It's ok there's not point to reply with someone that apparantly has poor english skills and it's so vulgar and common.

I don't think you should be criticizing people's English skills.

MickeyMouseboy wrote:It's ok there's not point to reply with someone that apparantly has poor english skills and it's so vulgar and common.

I have poor English skills? You have a lot of nerve. Take a look at the above quote that you wrote.

Error 1: "there's" should have a capital "T".
Error 2: "not" should be "no"
Error 3: "with" is the wrong preposition to use in that context, a proper word would be "to". You don't "reply with" someone, you reply to them.
Error 4: Spelling is a big part of English. "apparantly" is spelled "apparently"
Error 5: "enlglish" is capitalized as "English"

You need to touch up on your own English skills before criticizing other people's skills.

I think this thread has run its course. There must be slime building up under the UltimateDisney streets that's giving off bad vibes and causing people to be mean.