DVDizzy Forum

Posted: **Sun Dec 28, 2008 8:50 pm**

Yeah, I think they figured most of the parents who buy the DVDs for their kids wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

But I mean, it's not really that hard to release the OTV on a DVD...
It would have worked better having one disc only the SE and one disc only the OTV.

Same with Beauty and the Beast (Hey, at least Human Again is a good song, unlike *ugh* Morning Report)

So really, with the Disney DVDs, it's like a 50/50, some of them are really good (such as Snow White's PE) and some of them are just horrible (TLK and BatB... also movies like The Jungle Book where they *only* have it matted and not both ratios)

Posted: **Sun Dec 28, 2008 9:08 pm**

Even when it's not the OAR, or at least the original filmed ratio (OFR - I claim that acronym as mine!) and not the OTV but these (usually sucky) 'special editions' - the majority of the film is in tact so I just go with it. I don't have a laserdisc player (although my school has two sitting in the library - I've always considered asking for one) and I don't have wads of cash, so sometimes I just have to deal and get the modified DVDs. I'm not the type to just boycott the film altogether until the ideal release comes along, because with Disney, that may mean never seeing the film again!

Posted: **Sun Dec 28, 2008 9:30 pm**

Goliath wrote:
And disneyfella: isn't it true that the most recent DVD for Sleeping Beauty presents the original theatrical print?

Yes and no.

It gets a little tricky, but I'll try my best at explaining.

The most recent DVD for Sleeping Beauty presents the film in the 'original camera negative ratio' (but NOT the 'original theatrical aspect ratio'). It was never shown in theatres the way it is presented on the most recent DVD. NEVER.

When Sleeping Beauty was filmed, the original camera negative was extra wide. This was the result of using a new camera to shoot the animated film ("Technirama 70"). This means that when the cels were placed on the backgrounds and the camera took a picture for the animated film frame, the images on the actual camera negative were wider than what was going to be shown in theatres.

Walt himself even sent out memos telling theatre owners how to show the film. He specifically told them what ratio to display the film in (which would include covering up some of the animated film negative). Walt himself said that this was the optimal and best way to show the film. Here is a quote from that memo:

The most professional and clean exhibition of this film must be maintained, whether you are showing a 70mm print or a 35mm print (which must be displayed at a 2.35:1 ratio). This is of upmost importance. My studio will personally assist you to be sure that your theatrical run is a top-rated experience.

At the bottom of the memo is a big black box that reinforces the importance of the aspect ratio to the performance of the picture:

IMPORTANT!
The 35mm print of "Sleeping Beauty" must be projected at an aspect ratio of 2.35 to 1

Enter the controversy

Upon the latest restoration of Sleeping Beauty, it was found that there was more image on the original camera negative than had been shown before in any release (theatrical, laserdisc, vhs, television, etc.). This was due to the camera that was used to film Sleeping Beauty (mentioned above). Also, despite documentation dated around the time of the release of the picture clearly stating the intended ratio, some documents from the beginning of preproduction (which was actually going on during the filming of Lady and the Tramp years and years earlier) indicated that a different ratio may have been contemplated at the beginning of the production of Sleeping Beauty.

Either as a marketing ploy or the complete hubris in Disney's restoration team, for the first time ever (without the input of any of the original film-makers or people involved with making the film.....and against Walt's own instructions) Disney has begun to state this extra wide ratio is the original aspect ratio of Sleeping Beauty.

Film purists would argue for whatever aspect ratio was shown in theatres (regardless of intent) be shown on the DVD. Movie geeks would argue for the intended aspect ratio to be offered on the DVD (regardless of what was shown in theatres). And then there is a crowd out there who wants the complete camera negative, often called 'open matte', to be shown on the DVD (regardless of what the film maker intended AND what was shown in theatres). Which group do you belong to? Perhaps you can belong to more than one? Are we allowed to pick and choose which group we belong to depending on the movie?

Personally, I believe that the film should be presented as it was shown in theatres. Supplemental to that should be offered the intended ratio (if it differs from the theatrical presentation). Even more supplemental to that would be any 'open matte' or 'camera negative ratio'.

Wherever you stand, it is safe to assume that we can all agree that Disney has let down the consumer. The mere fact that there is discrepency on the presentation of the film (not even on any bonus content but the film itself) in the Platinum Edition line...and in the beginning of Blu Ray presentations...shows that Disney has not done a good job. Any other studio states things loud and clear, but Disney acts like it really doesn't have a clue when it comes to how to make a DVD (or Blu Ray).

I think the consensus is that ALL versions should have been offered......at least on the Blu Ray. Lord knows there's enough room on that thing. I mean, isn't that part of the whole selling point for Blu Ray?

Posted: **Sun Dec 28, 2008 9:37 pm**

Brava, fella, brava.

albert

Posted: **Sun Dec 28, 2008 9:44 pm**

Personally, I see film as art and when a director makes a film, he or she frames what they want you to see. Obviously, any film made from the 50's on was framed for some form of widescreen, be it 1.66:1, 1.78:1, 1.85:1, 2.35:1, etc... At the same time, television sets have been 1.33:1 until recently and many movies are actually filmed in that ratio or something close to it for the ease of playing the films later through televised broadcast or VHS.

However, even if the film was made in 1.33:1 or any odd ratio close to it (such as Escapay has pointed out with his comparisons of The Rescuers), what the director wanted in the frame should be considered the real original aspect ratio. Therefore, if a film like The Jungle Book was filmed in 1.33:1, but Woolie Reitherman framed every scene in 1.75:1, then that is the OAR. Regardless of what was animated, that's what you were meant to see.

If you can't wrap your head around that concept, think about Lady and the Tramp and Sleeping Beauty. One was framed for Cinemascope and the other for Technorama70. Both films were simultaneously made in 1.33:1 for small theaters that couldn't display the wide format and for television (and home entertainment) use later. That original fullscreen version was missing much of the background, but had most of the character animation in frame. That's pretty expensive to film two versions of the same movie, so with subsequent animated features, the compromise was to film in 1.33:1 with the intentions of cropping it into a wider ratio. The 1.33:1 version was meant to be seen on fullscreen TVs, which are almost obsolete (many brand names have stopped making them and Wal-Mart is the only store in the US that still readily stocks them). So if 1.75:1 is the modern television ratio, why not release everything in its original intended aspect ratio? Do we really need two versions of every film that was matted?

Posted: **Sun Dec 28, 2008 10:36 pm**

goofystitch wrote:The 1.33:1 version was meant to be seen on fullscreen TVs, which are almost obsolete (many brand names have stopped making them and Wal-Mart is the only store in the US that still readily stocks them).

I saw 4 or 5 different models of standard tvs in Target the other day - even more than Wal-Mart had!

So if 1.75:1 is the modern television ratio, why not release everything in its original intended aspect ratio? Do we really need two versions of every film that was matted?

It would be nice to give consumers a choice. Personally, I'd choose open-matte whenever available, especially with animation, even if and when all my tvs break and I eventually may have to get around to getting a wide tv!

Just like I prefer Sleeping Beauty in 2.55:1 even though that obviously fills up less of ANY display size-wise.

For me, more info in the picture = more of a sense of being surrounded by, and immersed in, the world of the film!

And while the display dimensions are NOT the number one factor for me, in the case of films like Aristocats, JB, and Robin Hood, it makes no sense from my point of view to be happy about black bars replacing picture that COULD and SHOULD be there on the top and bottom, that I have seen in these films for my entire life, while gaining nothing (or almost nothing if the open-matte is zoomed too tightly) on the sides.

It all boils down to what even people on the opposite side of the debate have often said - if Disney merely gave the consumer a choice, everyone would be happy.

PS. This post is not intended to be argumentative in any way, I am just explaining my views!

Posted: **Mon Dec 29, 2008 7:41 am**

drfsupercenter wrote:Why would it be any less expensive to animate it in 4:3? It's not like standard pieces of paper come in that size... LOL...

Um, how about it costs more and takes more time, material and effort to draw and paint a picture of a larger size. Any artist could tell you that. if you don't believe me I'll give you two separate canvas sizes and you tell me how much longer one took over another to fill. In the case of animation, a larger image would require more paint to fill the cell, more drawings of characters to fill the larger frame, more detail in the background art possibly if the larger screen would show more detail. And as I've said before you'd have to have a camera capable of photographing more than a 4x3 shape, and cameras that do such are more expensive.

drfsupercenter wrote:Why would they release it as a flipper at all? That costs more than just releasing a widescreen version... (Hey, two-sided media is really expensive, more so than dual layer if I'm not mistaken)

So they can please the group of people who want a "fullscreen" copy of a film. Two separate releases of the same film are also expensive but they got made to please two crowds, it's all about marketing and pleasing people who can't be bothered to watch a film in it's intended shape.

Posted: **Mon Dec 29, 2008 7:48 am**

David S. wrote: it makes no sense from my point of view to be happy about black bars replacing picture that COULD and SHOULD be there on the top and bottom, that I have seen in these films for my entire life, while gaining nothing (or almost nothing if the open-matte is zoomed too tightly) on the sides.

And their lies pretty much the entire argument on your side of the issue. YOU want open matte, YOUR used to seeing it that way. YOU think it should be that way. It's all personal with no regard for how the film was intended to be displayed in theaters or what the filmmakers wanted or what way described in press books at the time of the film's release. Your used to watching open matte home video prints, does that make it right? Don't answer because you don't know! As far as I'm concerned you can't go wrong with the theatrical ratio because that's where the movie was first released and that's where it was first displayed and seen by audiences. I'll trust that further than any TV or VHS showing of a film.

We ca argue about this until the cows come home (and I don't even have any cows) but now we've both put forward the basic arguments of our sides.

Now everybody put on your helmets and proceed to the trenches.

Posted: **Mon Dec 29, 2008 10:24 am**

I think the consensus is that ALL versions should have been offered......at least on the Blu Ray. Lord knows there's enough room on that thing. I mean, isn't that part of the whole selling point for Blu Ray?

And now you understand why I'm not so eager to start buying Blu-Ray. It's hardly better than the DVD releases now, it just has a larger resolution. (and who knows, maybe in a few years they will have films in higher than 1080, and even THAT resolution will be obsolete!)

If you can't wrap your head around that concept, think about Lady and the Tramp and Sleeping Beauty. One was framed for Cinemascope and the other for Technorama70. Both films were simultaneously made in 1.33:1 for small theaters that couldn't display the wide format and for television (and home entertainment) use later.

Wait, what? As far as I know there was no legit fullscreen version of Sleeping Beauty... only for the VHS, and they just pan-and-scanned it. (and ew, they vertically stretched the opening credits... do you have any idea how horrible that looks?!)
And Lady and the Tramp has *two* OARs... anyone saying 4:3 is not a correct OAR of LatT is neglecting the fact that they MADE a version in that ratio.

So if 1.75:1 is the modern television ratio, why not release everything in its original intended aspect ratio? Do we really need two versions of every film that was matted?

Just for the reference, the modern TV ratio is 1.78:1, also known as 16:9 </nitpicking>

It would be nice to give consumers a choice. Personally, I'd choose open-matte whenever available, especially with animation, even if and when all my tvs break and I eventually may have to get around to getting a wide tv!

Same here... though isn't 2.55:1 for Sleeping Beauty technically open matte?
And you know what I can't stand, is the fact that the factory default of most HDTVs is to STRETCH out 4:3 ratio stuff to fill the screen. As it's been stated here numerous times, the aspect ratio is part of the artwork of the film... Why would you stretch it out? I know people don't like pillarboxes for the same reason they don't like letterboxes, but I honestly can't stand that. If anything, have it zoom in on 4:3 stuff, it's less noticeable than stretching! (Though when we get a 16:9 TV, of course I'm gonna set it up to pillarbox 4:3 stuff)

Um, how about it costs more and takes more time, material and effort to draw and paint a picture of a larger size. Any artist could tell you that.

This is another thing I have yet to understand. Why people assume widescreen has "more" picture than fullscreen. Ultimately, 1:1 (a square) is the MOST picture possible... so 4:3 would be closer, yes, but not necessarily more picture than 16:9.

Look at this example (I tried to do it in text... hopefully it will look right on the forum)

A B C

D E F

G H I

Now, say your fullscreen aspect ratio is just the letter E. Then you add the letters D and F for a super-wide 2.35:1 ratio and say you have "more picture". Now add ABC, and GHI, to make it 4:3 again. All the sudden you now have EVEN MORE picture. It just keeps going and going and the consensus would be that a square has the most picture possible. (So the closer to a square you are, the more space you have to fill)

Correct me if I'm wrong... I just don't get why people think widescreen = more when it clearly isn't if you just add the top and bottom where the letterboxes would be.

And as I've said before you'd have to have a camera capable of photographing more than a 4x3 shape, and cameras that do such are more expensive.

Couldn't they just stick cardboard in the lens? Like they nowadays? That's what I was saying... they actually took the time and effort to DRAW the entire frame, not just stop where the 1.78:1 or whatever frame would end...

So they can please the group of people who want a "fullscreen" copy of a film. Two separate releases of the same film are also expensive but they got made to please two crowds, it's all about marketing and pleasing people who can't be bothered to watch a film in it's intended shape.

Well, not every movie has a fullscreen version... look at Transformers, Iron Man, etc... they're only available in widescreen. And yet, plenty of people bought them.

Posted: **Mon Dec 29, 2008 12:17 pm**

Um, how about it costs more and takes more time, material and effort to draw and paint a picture of a larger size. Any artist could tell you that.
This is another thing I have yet to understand. Why people assume widescreen has "more" picture than fullscreen. Ultimately, 1:1 (a square) is the MOST picture possible... so 4:3 would be closer, yes, but not necessarily more picture than 16:9.

Look at this example (I tried to do it in text... hopefully it will look right on the forum)

A B C

D E F

G H I

Now, say your fullscreen aspect ratio is just the letter E. Then you add the letters D and F for a super-wide 2.35:1 ratio and say you have "more picture". Now add ABC, and GHI, to make it 4:3 again. All the sudden you now have EVEN MORE picture. It just keeps going and going and the consensus would be that a square has the most picture possible. (So the closer to a square you are, the more space you have to fill)

Correct me if I'm wrong... I just don't get why people think widescreen = more when it clearly isn't if you just add the top and bottom where the letterboxes would be.

That makes NO SENSE whatsoever !

If you have a 10 inch square paper. And a 10 inch tall, 18 inch wide rectangle paper... I do believe the rectangle would be larger. Not the square. IF the square happened to be 18x18 sure... then it would be bigger.. But you can't just say the square will always be bigger... That's simply not the case.

Your example was as random as me saying... Say E is fullscreen... Now add B and H... now you have tallscreen.... now add all the other letters... SEE ! Now you have even more picture !! Widescreen shows more picture !!

Also 1:1 would be a square... but that doesn't mean it's bigger than 1.78:1
That just means that it's .78 (cm, pixels, feet... whatever means of measurement you happen to be using) wider than it's height... .78 wider than a square... .78 MORE than a square.

Posted: **Mon Dec 29, 2008 12:27 pm**

Yeah, but what film uses "tallscreen"?

Say you have a 10x10" paper... and that's the biggest you can go (no adding anything). Say you cut 2" off the top and 2" off the bottom... now you have a 6x10 paper, which would be widescreen.

But say you only cut off half an inch on each side, so you have 9x10. The fullscreen ratio would have more space than the widescreen.

See what I'm saying? You can add on to the sides, add on vertically, you can keep ADDING to any direction and go on forever. But ultimately if you start with a set size, the wider you go, the less you'll have.

Posted: **Mon Dec 29, 2008 1:02 pm**

OK, stop bickering!

I'm just going to say that I sort of know what drfsupercenter means with the "fullscreen is actually more than widescreen" proposition. I don't feel like explaining why. I just do.

Posted: **Mon Dec 29, 2008 6:07 pm**

drfsupercenter wrote:Well, not every movie has a fullscreen version... look at Transformers, Iron Man, etc... they're only available in widescreen. And yet, plenty of people bought them.

That's because now more people either want widescreen or understand the concept of OAR better and studios don't feel the need to spend the money to either pan and scan a movie or make a separate release of the film.

Posted: **Mon Dec 29, 2008 6:12 pm**

drfsupercenter wrote:See what I'm saying? You can add on to the sides, add on vertically, you can keep ADDING to any direction and go on forever. But ultimately if you start with a set size, the wider you go, the less you'll have.

Your talking about flat widescreen vs real widescreen, that's why people are confused with your argument. Real widescreen has more picture because your using a rectangle that has the same hight as your "set square". You don't have less if you add more to the sides and don't change the hight.

Posted: **Mon Dec 29, 2008 6:14 pm**

Flanger-Hanger wrote:The most recent SB release is the original animated ratio, not the theatrical one.

So there's a difference also between animated ratio and theatrical ratio? But why then do theatres show films in a different ratio than the animated one? And I guess it would make sense to only put the intended ratio (animated) on the DVD, no?

drfsupercenter wrote:That number, such as 1.66:1 is the width-to-height ratio of the movie. Traditional TVs are 4:3 (also called 1.33:1), meaning for every 4 inches across, it goes 3 inches up. (Measure a TV if you don't believe me ) [...]

As far as how it's being put on DVD - open matte is the way it was drawn, or originally filmed... the widescreen is how it was presented in theaters. Both are technically "original"... which is why there's a sorta argument among UD members as to what the "original aspect ratio" is... [...]

Thank you. Your post has been very helpful to me. I'm a huge movie fan, yet I didn't know all that 'technical stuff', which made me feel a little dumb. Anything even remotely techincal just isn't something I'm good at, nor do I care for it much. But it is important to know whether the DVDs present the original version... and I would say 'original' is how they animated/filmed it.

The only thing that isn't helpful to me (but that's not your fault), is the information about inches, since we (meaning here in Europe) use a different metric system, so...

disneyfella wrote:[...] Film purists would argue for whatever aspect ratio was shown in theatres (regardless of intent) be shown on the DVD. Movie geeks would argue for the intended aspect ratio to be offered on the DVD (regardless of what was shown in theatres). And then there is a crowd out there who wants the complete camera negative, often called 'open matte', to be shown on the DVD (regardless of what the film maker intended AND what was shown in theatres). Which group do you belong to?

First of all: thanks for the information. Despite being a fan of Disney animation, this was all new to me (believe it or not). I would say I prefer the version the creator (in this case Walt Disney) had in mind. So if that one differs from the theatrical release, bump the latter. I want to see it the way it was intended by Walt!

One other question: What does 'pan and scan' mean?

Posted: **Mon Dec 29, 2008 6:33 pm**

My God, your a noob Goliath

Oh well

Why would their be two ratios? Mostly for economic reasons, you make a film in one ratio and matte or cover (or "chop" to use a more extreme word) to create a wider frame since theaters are only capable now of showing films with wider ratios, if you can't afford a fancy camera to capture a truly wider image you opt for a one with a less wide ratio and change the ratio at the exhibition stage. In the case of the 90s animated features one ratio was made so that it could result in minor picture loss for both matting it in theaters or pan and scanning (where they zoom in on a portion of a wider image to make a 4x3 shape to fill a standard TV screen). What was animated may not necessarily be what was intended to be seen, in the case of both Batb and Hunchback the director's wanted to see the releases be matted so I take their word over any fans opinion any day.

What would Walt want? I'd say whatever publications he approved to send to theaters owners on how far to matte certain films. Like it or not movies are meant to be displayed in theaters and if the "creator in mind" wants to see a film matted that's how it should be. Also, Walt was dead by the time stuff like Aristocats, Robin Hood etc came out so I doubt he had much of an opinion on those releases.

Posted: **Mon Dec 29, 2008 7:01 pm**

Flanger-Hanger wrote:My God, your a noob Goliath Oh well

I know you don't intend to be mean about it and you're making a joke, but still I don't care for it...

Flanger-Hanger wrote:What was animated may not necessarily be what was intended to be seen, in the case of both Batb and Hunchback the director's wanted to see the releases be matted so I take their word over any fans opinion any day. What would Walt want? I'd say whatever publications he approved to send to theaters owners on how far to matte certain films. Like it or not movies are meant to be displayed in theaters and if the "creator in mind" wants to see a film matted that's how it should be.

Yes, I agree with you on that. I want the version the director had in mind.

Flanger-Hanger wrote:Also, Walt was dead by the time stuff like Aristocats, Robin Hood etc came out so I doubt he had much of an opinion on those releases.

You don't say...!

Anyway, thank you for being so patient with a 'noob' like me. I like discussing the substance of a film far more than formats or aspect ratio's.

Posted: **Mon Dec 29, 2008 10:17 pm**

Your talking about flat widescreen vs real widescreen, that's why people are confused with your argument. Real widescreen has more picture because your using a rectangle that has the same hight as your "set square". You don't have less if you add more to the sides and don't change the hight.

Well yes, I'm talking about "flat widescreen"... I didn't know it had a name.

Stuff like Grappler Baki was done that way, rather than being done in "real widescreen". No idea why, they probably just didn't have a high budget.

As far as your "set square"... before the digital age, did that even matter? Yes, I realize there's a difference between 640x360 (flat widescreen in NTSC) and say 854x480... but if you were just drawing it on canvas, couldn't you just move the camera accordingly?

One other question: What does 'pan and scan' mean?

That's a process to make a film fit in a 4:3 aspect ratio... basically where you cut the sides off of the movie. (If it's open matte, it's NOT pan-and-scan, but the opposite.)
Here's a page I archived from StarWars.com that I think really illustrates the point.
http://drfsupercenter.net/HTML/Star%20W ... Screen.htm
(If the link doesn't work, copy and paste it in your browser... I had to turn hotlink protection on to prevent people from stealing my bandwidth)

And for that matter, "Tilt and scanning" is the reverse of pan-and-scanning... where you crop off the top and bottom to make a film wider. You could say they've done that to movies like Robin Hood... "matting" is the more widely used term, but it's the same concept.

Yes, I agree with you on that. I want the version the director had in mind.

I respect that, but at the same time I like the way it was originally filmed.

I mean, using Star Wars as an example... George Lucas constantly wants to update his films, making them look brand new. But now they're far from the original. So much so that I'd rather use an old laserdisc release than the 2004 DVD. Same with The Lion King or Beauty and the Beast... I have a hunch Don Hahn didn't know what he was talking about when he said The Lion King would be released "in its original theatrical version".

If it were up to me, it would have both the original NEGATIVE ratio (1.66:1 for BatB and TLK) and the original THEATRICAL ratio (1.85:1 for both, if I'm not mistaken).
Hopefully some day Disney will stop being cheap and actually do that. For now, I'll stick with the laserdisc versions I have and whatever restorations I can manage.

Posted: **Tue Dec 30, 2008 6:40 pm**

drfsupercenter wrote:Here's a page I archived from StarWars.com that I think really illustrates the point.
http://drfsupercenter.net/HTML/Star%20W ... Screen.htm
(If the link doesn't work, copy and paste it in your browser... I had to turn hotlink protection on to prevent people from stealing my bandwidth)

Unfortunately, even then the images don't work. But I appreciate the trouble you've gone through to 'educate' me.

drfsupercenter wrote:
Goliath wrote:]Yes, I agree with you on that. I want the version the director had in mind.
I respect that, but at the same time I like the way it was originally filmed.

Well, that's what I meant. I mean, I'm sure the director has it filmed the way he had it in mind, right? So...

Posted: **Wed Dec 31, 2008 10:54 am**

Goliath wrote:
drfsupercenter wrote: I respect that, but at the same time I like the way it was originally filmed.
Well, that's what I meant. I mean, I'm sure the director has it filmed the way he had it in mind, right? So...

Actually no. Most of the time the director has it filmed on a camera negative with much more picture than they wanted.

You see, a director will frame a scene for a widescreen image (they will have the principle actors in the middle of the frame and stagger them across left to right). That scene will be filmed by a camera which, due to budgeting expenses, films the scene with a bunch of empty space on the top and bottom of the camera negative. When this film reel is played back, the result is a 'square' movie instead of a 'widescreen' one with a bunch of extra background image above the actors and below them.

In order for the directors' original visions to be seen, they send out instructions on how to show the films in theatres.....how to exhibit them the way they were intended to be seen. In order to see the film the way the director intended it to be seen, you have to 'crop' the projected image. In other words, you have to set up the film projector so that it blocks the empty space above and below the actors so that it isn't projected on the movie screen. The result is the widescreen movie that the director was trying to tell, but it was filmed with a less expensive camera that had a fullscreen camera negative.

Here are some links to a website that I think is really good when it comes to understanding aspect ratios:

WHAT IS WIDESCREEN?
http://www.widescreen.org/widescreen.shtml

WHAT ABOUT THE ASPECT RATIOS?
http://www.widescreen.org/aspect_ratios.shtml

EXAMPLES COMPARING WIDESCREEN AND FULLSCREEN:
http://www.widescreen.org/examples.shtml

A COLLECTION OF VIDEO/AUDIO LINKS (check out the one on The Princess Bride which describes some of the dangers of releasing open matte transfers of films that the director intended to be seen in widescreen):
http://www.widescreen.org/multimedia.shtml

DVDizzy Forum

the fox and the hound ratio