DVDizzy Forum

I don't understand why this is so hard to grasp.
Matted widescreen is NOT "fake", because those films were meant to be seen that way. The picture is (supposed to be) composed so that the top and bottom of it is mostly empty background, and cropping it won't take anything important off the picture. The cropped widescreen looks better and more dynamic with less looseness in the picture.

However, since some theatres probably still had a 1.37:1 shaped screen in the 60's, and also possibly with future TV showings in mind, but most importantly, because it must have been easier and cheaper, they did animate these films in the 1.37:1 fullscreen format. Because of this, the most logical and best solution would have been to include both on the dvd.

But for the record, I prefer the widescreen format and am very glad they've finally decided to release these films as they were first shown.

Because I'm over 35, have to get up most mornings at 5am-ish (and even if I don't I wake up at that time), and don't get home from work on most days until about 7:45-ish.

oh ok i can understand how you fell a sleep then.

Fantasia can put you to sleep lol

David S. wrote:

BVHE wrote: "DARBY O'GILL AND THE LITTLE PEOPLE is presented as it was originally shot, in a 1.33:1 aspect ratio. When released to theaters in 1959, the studio recommended projecting the image at 1.75:1, to satisfy the public's growing appetite for widescreen movies. To give the illusion of this wider image, theaters often needed to crop films at that time, and some of the picture was not seen. The following presentation has not been cropped, and none of the original image has been lost."

Notice the key word here is "to give the ILLUSION of this wider image"

With this intelligent, well written explanation on this DVD, BVHE showed that they actually GOT IT back then. Sadly, they don't get seem to "get it" anymore now. With their OWN WORDS, they offer indisputable PROOF that the recent "matted" transfers of Jungle Book, Robin Hood, and Aristocats are FLAWED, FLAWED, FLAWED!

But 1959 is not the late 60s or mid to late 70s. The time has to be put in context. In 1959, cinemas were converting from the academy ratio (approx 1.33:1, but actually 1.37:1 I believe) to various forms of widescreen in order to compete with television.

Cinema had to compete with television, and the method chosen was widescreen - and indeed lots of different widescreen configurations were experimented with, from VistaVision, to Cinemascope to Panavision. All had different ratios, and all had different filming techniques, from matting to anamorphic lenses. These days, although some films choose differently, there's only two basic formats: 1.85:1 and 2.35:1.

By the mid-60s though, it was almost certain all cinemas would have been not only capable of screening widescreen movies, but would be optimised to do so. Thus it would be EXPECTED for films released then to be projected widescreen, hardly any films were made to be shown in the Academy format.

Don't forget, apart from Disney's two 'scope films, ALL of the disney equipment, from drawing boards to camaras basically mandated an Academy sized exposure, just like CAPS mandated 1.66:1. (CAPS' ratio was probably selected as a compromise between 1.85 for theatrical display and 1.33 for television display so neither was drastically compromised when shown in that format).

David S is just anonying and needs to stop preaching about Full Screen being the right ratio for everything.

SwordInTheStone777 wrote:David S is just anonying and needs to stop preaching about Full Screen being the right ratio for everything.

We all have our opinions....

SwordInTheStone777 wrote:David S is just anonying and needs to stop preaching about Full Screen being the right ratio for everything.

David S is not annoying. In the end, I may disagree with him as I am of the belief that the Disney artists were aware that the film would be matted to achieve the widescreen effect, and hence composed the scenes accordingly. However, David S's posts are intelligent and well thought out and I enjoyed reading them. It's also refreshing to see someone who actually looks beyond the forum and explores the site, so kudos to our relatively new UD poster.

Perhaps, you, SwordInTheStone777, should write meatier posts with more thought. Make the "7" in your username proud. After all, the number seven is considered the perfect number.

Julian Carter wrote:

SwordInTheStone777 wrote:
David S is just anonying and needs to stop preaching about Full Screen being the right ratio for everything.


David S is not annoying. In the end, I may disagree with him as I am of the belief that the Disney artists were aware that the film would be matted to achieve the widescreen effect, and hence composed the scenes accordingly. However, David S's posts are intelligent and well thought out and I enjoyed reading them. It's also refreshing to see someone who actually looks beyond the forum and explores the site, so kudos to our relatively new UD poster.

Perhaps, you, SwordInTheStone777, should write meatier posts with more thought. Make the "7" in your username proud. After all, the number seven is considered the perfect number.

Thanks for the tips

7 is a lucky number, I choose 777, because of the band UnderOath.

The restored film will be shown on the big screen at the El Capitan Theatre in Hollywood from 1/11-17.

Anyone going?

dizfan wrote:The restored film will be shown on the big screen at the El Capitan Theatre in Hollywood from 1/11-17.

I find this surprising. Does this mean Disney actually gave the film a full-blown restoration and didn't just adjust the sharpness and colors slightly ala Fox and the Hound, Robin Hood, and Pooh? I would imagine that if they didn't do an extensive restoration, the results would look pretty ghastly on the big screen.

Disneykid wrote:

dizfan wrote:The restored film will be shown on the big screen at the El Capitan Theatre in Hollywood from 1/11-17.

I find this surprising. Does this mean Disney actually gave the film a full-blown restoration and didn't just adjust the sharpness and colors slightly ala Fox and the Hound, Robin Hood, and Pooh? I would imagine that if they didn't do an extensive restoration, the results would look pretty ghastly on the big screen.

That's what I'm thinking too. If so, it would be a pleasant surprise. A Lowry Digital (OK, OK ... DTS Digital Images. Happy?) restoration would work wonders on The Aristocats, and bring back the lustre to its Xeroxy yet entirely pleasing and fluid animation. I think my worst looking Disney DVD is The Fox and the Hound. I have the 25th Anniversary UK Release, and I believe ichabod said it had the same transfer of the old release (unlike the US rerelease). Really ... it looks horrible. Not only do I feel like I'm watching murky and beaten up film, but somehow it also gives the sensation of magnetic tape. Anyone else feel the same?

Whatever. I've deviated from the main subject.

SwordInTheStone777 wrote:Robin Hood in Widescreen is right, you can see the whole the picture, you can read the poster and see the roster up close instead of being away.

Your just one of those Full Screen fanatics.

What an assinine and UNTRUE, not to mention IGNORANT assumption.

No, I am not one of those "fullscreen fanatics". But if YOU think you can see the "whole picture" in the Robin Hood FAKE FALSE ARTIFICIALLY CREATED SUCKY "matted widescreen" Edition, then you are OBVIOUSLY BLIND AS A BAT.

If I am a "fullscreen fanatic", why in Hades do I ALWAYS choose the widescreen option for Lady and the Tramp and Sleeping Beauty?

Because you see MORE of the picture that way.

Same as you see MORE picture in Robin Hood unmatted at 1.33:1

Look closely at those Robin Hood screencaps again. Tell me with a staight face that there is MORE info below the rooster's feet in the sucky matted widescreen version and I will concede defeat.

If you continue to pronounce that there is more info in the matted version, you will just be revealing yourself as a "widescreen at all cost" fanatic, with no respect for how a film is drawn or filmed. I bet you watch Snow White matted so you can fill your screen!

I mean, COME ON. Even the people here who like "matted widescreen" will admit that there is MORE INFO IN THE FULLSCREEN VERSION.

And your argument that there is not is therefore lacking in credibility.

See, you still don't get that you already HAD Robin Hood in widescreen on the first release. The widescreen is a SUBSET of the fullscreen print.

If it was the other way around, I'd be ALL FOR widescreen on these titles. But it isn't, so I'm not.

sorry, double post, please feel free to delete

SwordInTheStone777 wrote:David S is just anonying and needs to stop preaching about Full Screen being the right ratio for everything.

Once again you show complete childish ignorance, and would apparently prefer to make this personal rather than engage in intelligent discussion. Find where I "preached" that fullscreen is the right ratio for "everything". The FACT is I never said that, and I don't believe that. I was referring specifically to the films animated in fullscreen in the 60's and early 70's that were cropped in some theatres.

You are being the "annoying" one because you refuse to read or absorb ALL of the evidence I've presented via links to this very site (apparently written by the webmaster!) that make a pretty darn compelling, well-written case that a fullscreen transfer should AT LEAST be made available for these films!

Billy Moon wrote:I don't understand why this is so hard to grasp.
Matted widescreen is NOT "fake", because those films were meant to be seen that way. The picture is (supposed to be) composed so that the top and bottom of it is mostly empty background, and cropping it won't take anything important off the picture. The cropped widescreen looks better and more dynamic with less looseness in the picture.

However, since some theatres probably still had a 1.37:1 shaped screen in the 60's, and also possibly with future TV showings in mind, but most importantly, because it must have been easier and cheaper, they did animate these films in the 1.37:1 fullscreen format. Because of this, the most logical and best solution would have been to include both on the dvd.

But for the record, I prefer the widescreen format and am very glad they've finally decided to release these films as they were first shown.

Well, you make a more intelligent argument for the case than some

I guess what I meant by "fake" was that in my opinion, the purpose of going the "black bars"/widescreen route is so the viewer can see more picture on the sides of what I was terming a "true" widescreen film.

In other words, for Sleeping Beauty, the fullscreen is the "fake" because the viewer is not seeing the left and right of the frame. Thus, widescreen is correct and preferred, yet they still made a fullscreen transfer available.

For Robin Hood, I was calling matted widescreen the "fake" because it was merely a subset of all of the info actually included on the 1.33:1 frame.

Everything found in the Robin Hood widescreen version has ALWAYS been included in the fullscreen version, with MORE info on the top and bottom to boot.

I know they were matted in theatres that were no longer equipped to show fullscreen, but some theatres still showed the print open matte.

Obviously, these films WERE protected for open matte which would make that the preferred ratio for many fans, and at the very least make the ratio equally valid as the OAR.

After all, one of the reasons they were protected for open matte viewing was television, and I am buying these DVDs to watch on television!

And since the open matte was traditionally what was available on home video, it seems kind of wrong to me to suddenly give fans who are used to seeing the ENTIRE frame less info in the transfer and expect them to be happy with it. And I think the argument is also very compelling that these transfers are ESPECIALLY insulting if you are watching on a standard TV and suddenly black bars are replacing picture you have ALWAYS seen on past transfers, with no gain on the sides to justify the bars. (but I must stress that even on a wide TV, I would choose open matte to see more picture).

But I don't think we have an argument, Billy Moon, because we agree that the open matte should be made available, either on the same disc or a seperate alternate purchase with identical bonus features (like Cars)

Here's a hypothetical question to keep intelligent discussion going about this issue, particularly for people who like the matted versions:

Disney has (hypothetically) decided to reinstate the program of reissuing the DACs to IMAX theatres, which have a 1.33:1 ratio, and they are preparing Robin Hood, Aristocats, and Jungle Book for release. They have put you in charge of making creative decisions regarding format. Do you:

a) present the matted versions currently available, leaving empty space on the top and bottom of the IMAX screens.

b) present a "pan and scan" version of the matted print, in order to fill the screen, OR

c) present the original full-frame print as it was originally drawn and photographed, filling the IMAX screen nicely as well a preserving everything from the original print

I think you all know what I would do here, but what would YOUR choice be?

2099net wrote:
Don't forget, apart from Disney's two 'scope films, ALL of the disney equipment, from drawing boards to camaras basically mandated an Academy sized exposure, just like CAPS mandated 1.66:1. (CAPS' ratio was probably selected as a compromise between 1.85 for theatrical display and 1.33 for television display so neither was drastically compromised when shown in that format).

Well, like Billy Moon, I thank you for the intelligent, rather than childish, reply. Rather than restate everything in my reply to Billy, which could also apply here, I'll just restate that I am buying these DVDs to watch on television!

And since we seem to agree that the animated open matte transfers from the 60's and 70's were "protected" for television - meaning they made sure no unwanted info made it into the frame - surely it makes sense - especially if one is viewing on a standard television - to want to watch the open matte print with more vertical information and no black bars, since you are not losing anything on the sides.

And since you mentioned CAPS, for the record (for those like Sword who are clearly missing my point, thinking I like fullscreen for everything which is total BS) even though I have a standard TV, I like my CAPS films to be shown in... 1.66:1, the way they are drawn. NOT 1.33:1, which WOULD fill my screen but cost me the sides, NOR 1.85:1 which would be true to theatrical matting but cost me the tops and bottom, NOR 1.78:1 which would pander to WS tv "fill the screen" sensibilities but also lose some on top and bottom.

I guess I'm less of a theatrical purist than many of you. I don't see these films as just being works of cinema, I see them as moving drawings, valid for cinematic exhibition, or on television, or to be projected on the side of a building for all I care.

The only factor I use to determine MY prefered ratio for these films is "what was the ratio that the films were drawn and photographed in". After all, theatrical aspect ratio trends were a product of the times, that the Disney artists had no control over really, but IMO how they chose to draw their own films should at least be a valid "co OAR," as that is the ONLY version which will consistantly show the most picture!

That's just my opinion, though.

Well, I believe that if The Santa Clause 3 can have both aspect ratios on one disc, then so can The Jungle Book which has a shorter run-time.

But like I said, I don't think these decisions are EXCLUSIVELY to cater for the widescreen tv owning crowd (but I am surprised they didn't choose the family friendly 1.66:1 ratio - it's "family friendly" after all, just like Disney!)

I was surprised how The Jungle Book (what I saw of it - I only saw about half) looked. I would say a number of the compositions were improved. Not all of them, and some were certainly compromised (but these were I think in the minority).

My personal opinion is there is no "official" ratio. I doubt theaters were ever told an official ratio for projecting. If they were, I'm sure that there wouldn't be all this debate now - and indeed on this forum for the past 5 years off and on - Disney would just outright state what the ratio was intended to be.

I get the impression it was pretty much left-up to the projectors. It's only my personal impression, but there seems to be far to much confusion and ambiguity for me to believe anything was set in stone. Which, if true, sort of makes a mockary of any claim of any definitive artistic composition.

All in all, without any official conformation, it comes down to personal preference I suppose. At least previous DVDs are 1.33:1.

Julian Carter wrote: However, David S's posts are intelligent and well thought out and I enjoyed reading them. It's also refreshing to see someone who actually looks beyond the forum and explores the site, so kudos to our relatively new UD poster.

Thanks for the kind words Julian. I enjoy reading your posts as well! Sorry if that first post was a little on the angry side. I was soooo excited that the Platinum 101 Dalmatians was announced as 1.33:1, and there was some speculation on here that this was due to complaints about the matted versions. Then I'm out of town for a week, come back and well - my knee jerk reaction to the Aristocats news came right as I read it, you could say.

But anyway, just so everyone knows I'm not here to complain, I did post some VERY positive praise about the decision to release Dalmatians in 1.33:1, right before I left.

Thanks again for the compliment. I'm new to the boards as a poster but have been reading them for about a year before I finally signed up, and have been reading the actual content of the site itself almost from the beginning.

The reviews are really what drew me in. The meticulous level of detail given to EVERY facet of the releases, particularly how various editions of the same title compare to each other, is without parrallel anywhere on the net!

A House Hasn't Fallen On You Yet David?

I've got some bad new for you David, looks like 101 is going to be Widescreen

http://www.hmv.co.uk/hmvweb/displayProd ... sku=687784

I finally got home after Thanksgiving and I watched "The Aristocats" when it was shown on Toon Disney from last week on my DVR. It was not that bad, but it was fun, this was right before the Special Edition DVD which will be coming out next year.

"The Aristocats", does have the 1990 Walt Disney Pictures logo, but it does not have the Buena Vista logo on it, I guess the Buena Vista logo should belong on this upcoming Special Edition DVD. It was taken from the "Masterpiece" edition on VHS and it was later shown on Toon Disney.

I got it taped on a DVD-R for keeping my movie, but I have to avoid the commercials for that. If there is a commercial coming on during the movie, I might as well pause it.

musicradio77 wrote:

I finally got home after Thanksgiving and I watched "The Aristocats" when it was shown on Toon Disney from last week on my DVR. It was not that bad, but it was fun, this was right before the Special Edition DVD which will be coming out next year.

"The Aristocats", does have the 1990 Walt Disney Pictures logo, but it does not have the Buena Vista logo on it, I guess the Buena Vista logo should belong on this upcoming Special Edition DVD. It was taken from the "Masterpiece" edition on VHS and it was later shown on Toon Disney.

I got it taped on a DVD-R for keeping my movie, but I have to avoid the commercials for that. If there is a commercial coming on during the movie, I might as well pause it.

Buena Vista will be on the DVD, since Buena Vista released the movie when it first came out back in 1970.