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

[2099net]

OK, regarding 101 Dalmations, did anyone notice the Scope trailer on the disc?

Thanks to DeathieMouse and Paka, I have these images:



Yes, the widescreen trailer contains MORE information. So what if this was extended to 1.75 (as was according to IMDB The Sword in the Stone). You'd get something like this



Or taking the full width and making it 1.37: 1?


which if matted to 1.75 from the above full frame would be:

hardly unpleasing to the eye.

I'll let Deathie himself explain his conclusion:

As you can see the missing vertical area of the 4:3 DVD probably falls in between those two extremes as would be normal for an image that someone is transfering from a open matte frame. We can't be certain exactly where till we saw a pic with the whole vertical area, but looking at those I'd think the vertical framing center would be something close to this

I made a few tries shifting them a couple of pixels up or down and that's probably the one that looked best lookig up towards a big screen at 2 picture heights seating, which looks different to seeing it smaller at a farther distance. That thing probably can withstand being cropped to 1.85 too, which would make the 1.75 true (As I'm sure they knew it wouldn't be shown at full 1.75 everywhere in the US, same as they knew it would be shown at 1.66 in Europa) (That's why Diney Ratio is "1.75")

I think we have a case Watson. Any more Scope wider captures?

There might be even some area cropped on the left of the 4:3 DVD which would lead to a 1.75 image with even more vertical area showing.

So are you sure that [a] 101 Dalmations Academy is showing all of the picture and it was never intended to be matted?

[David S.]

So are you sure that [a] 101 Dalmations Academy is showing all of the picture and it was never intended to be matted?

That's very interesting. I hadn't seen those. I don't consider myself an expert on these things by any means, and gather most of what I've learned from this by reading a lot from credible sources, like UD

I was just going by several sources, including the reviews here, which always state that the 1.33:1 "includes the entire frame of cell animation" for the films in question.

Perhaps the fullscreen 101 in that pic is zoomed too tightly and not the true 1.33:1?

I've seen other comparison pics from these films, such as the caps on the UD reviews like Robin Hood Most Wanted edition, where the open matte version did NOT lose any info on the sides, but gained on the top.

As for question B, I don't think I've EVER said it was NEVER intended to be matted. What I've been debating with Always AOR was his view that ONLY the matted was "intended", and I was making a case that the open-matte could also have been the primary "intended" ratio, and if not, that IMO BOTH ratios were "intended" to be a viable way of viewing the films, which I've said all along was what I viewed to be most likely the case

I've also acknowledged that the ratio of the films from this era is a complex mystery that probably only those who are sadly no longer with us (Reitherman, etc) could definitively resolve.

[2099net]

I've updated my Kurbick post, which should solve the issue on at least one of his movies! But it reinforces my view, you can only ever have one true "intended" ratio. You can't compromise "art". It's either as you want it, or its not. All you can do is reduce the effect of the unintended composition on the final product.

As for this intended ratio, it still doesn't make any logical sense. The whole argument is they wanted to stop their artwork being cropped for Television which panned and scanned widescreen films when shown on TV.

So why not just compose the matted shots with no vital information at either side? Just like on the whole their 4:3 shots have no vital information at the top or the bottom?

Either way, you lose artwork - be it matted at the cinema with their current choice, or side-cropped on television with the solution I suggest above.

It's totally impossible to have two different ratios without losing information on one of them.

And again, although not impossible, I find in hard to believe Disney could insist its newly animated films were projected unmatted from around 1959 onwards, when the whole world was expecting widescreen movies of some sort. Just like some more recent projections of Snow White etc have been matted, I would expect those contempoary Disney films to be matted, regardless of Disney's request (if they ever did make a request - the jury is still out on that).

Perhaps the fullscreen 101 in that pic is zoomed too tightly and not the true 1.33:1?

I think this is what it may be. But if the non-visible area was visible on the 1.33: 1 frame (and moreso if a similar width was also available on the left-hand side) it would mean that a matting of the full frame to 1.75 would not be as drastic as doing so from DVD screen caps would imply.

So who knows, perhaps thats what happened to The Jungle Book - its being matted to 1.75: 1 from a somewhat zoomed in 1.33: 1 image, resulting in the cropping being "tighter" than originally intended?

[drfsupercenter]

Like I stated before, I have no problem either in having the animated ratio along with the theatrical ratio on DVD releases, just not at the expense of not having the matted version.

The problem with that is having 2 separate movies titles on one disc, even with it being dual layer, requires one to be far less quality due to compression. Look at Beauty and the Beast's PE... that "Work in Progress" isn't the real work-in-progress, nor is the OTV the real OTV. They're just a bunch of videos crammed in there, before Disney knew about seamless branching... that's a nightmare to put into seperate video tracks.

[gl2686]

omg get over it people!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[disneyfella]

[quote="David S] After my last post I re-read a lot of the UD reviews for the films in question, and found them very interesting and relevant to the discussion at hand. Here are some quotes, with bold areas highlighted by me and not the initial review:

In contrast to the widescreen treatment given fellow '60s Disney cartoon The Jungle Book on its Platinum Edition DVD just five months ago, 101 Dalmatians is presented exclusively in the 1.33:1 "full screen" aspect ratio. The film's Limited Issue DVD claim (that 1.33:1 is "the original theatrical aspect ratio") is not reiterated anywhere on the Platinum DVD's case. No doubt that will lead some (especially those who blindly subscribe to the "wider is better" belief) to think that the ball has been dropped here.

It's not easy to confirm or deny that, because Dalmatians was born out of that twenty-year period where Disney animated features seem to be viably watched in either matted 1.75:1 widescreen or unmatted 1.33:1 fullscreen. Indeed, since the framing doesn't seem cramped (as it was vertically on Jungle Book) or padded, one can assume that the makers of Dalmatians intended for the film to be seen in this way, at least on television if not also in theatrical exhibition.

full review: http://www.ultimatedisney.com/101dalmat ... ition.html

Some issue was made regarding the aspect ratio for The Sword in the Stone. This DVD is presented in 1.33:1 Fullscreen and the packaging contains the standard "This film has been modified to fit your screen" warning that is put on Pan & Scan DVDs. Well, fortunately, this is not a Pan & Scan transfer. The 1.33:1 frame presented is the full frame of cell animation. Some theaters likely matted this film to a ratio of 1.75:1 or so, but like The Jungle Book and 101 Dalmatians, the DVD provides the entire cell animation which just happens to be in Academy Ratio. While some may still cry foul at this, I believe this DVD presentation is fine, as 1.33:1 is the ratio in which the film was created in and intended to be seen.

full review: http://www.ultimatedisney.com/sword.html

The Jungle Book is part of the class of animated films released by Disney from 1961 to 1981 whose "original aspect ratio" comes into question. Animated in the Academy Ratio with television broadcasts in mind, but matted widescreen for theatrical exhibitions, the movie seems to have two intended ratios, each with its own merits. The film's 1999 Limited Issue disc presented it in 1.33:1 fullscreen and the studio handled DVDs of other films from this period (like 101 Dalmatians, The Sword in the Stone, and The Aristocats) similarly.

Recently, though, Buena Vista Home Entertainment seems to have undergone a change of heart; last fall's "Most Wanted Edition" DVD of 1973's Robin Hood presented it exclusively in 1.75:1 widescreen. That's also the route that has been taken for this 16x9-enhanced Jungle Book Platinum Edition.

There is no question that putting Jungle Book in widescreen introduces some compromise to the film's compositions. Quite often, elements flirt dangerously close to the top or bottom edge of the 1.75:1 frame. On occasion, they do indeed get chopped off in part. Were Disney animators actively directing for both aspect ratios and not merely safe-guarding for theatrical matting, I don't think this would be occurring. Alas, there's very little argument for the DVD not including both the featured widescreen presentation and the open-matte 1.33:1 presentation, either on the same disc or on separate ones accompanied by an even half of bonuses. More than ever before, studios cater to viewers' preferences today with the release of multiple screen formats. On a film like Jungle Book, the issue is more complicated than disliking black or gray bars. Wishing to see the fullscreen version -- not merely because it shows more but because it was consciously designed for it -- is a valid desire and the set should definitely have included both formats. While many of those with televisions in the increasingly common 16x9 dimensions will appreciate the decision that was made, it sets a poor precedent for others in this group. We won't have to wait long to see if others will have 30% of their imagery altogether dropped; Dalmatians and Aristocats are due to be rereleased next spring.

full review: http://www.ultimatedisney.com/jungleboo ... ition.html

The Aristocats joins its immediate predecessor (The Jungle Book) and successor (Robin Hood) by having its second DVD release treat it to a matted 16x9-enhanced widescreen transfer that purportedly upholds a 1.75:1 theatrical aspect ratio. Though we've been trained to think "widescreen good, fullscreen bad" on any movie from the late-1950s on, Disney animated features present less of an open-shut case.
As on Jungle and Robin, comparing the framing reveals that it's the earlier fullscreen presentation, not this subsequent widescreen one which displays more of the movie's visuals. Of course, "more" isn't always better, but it's harder to dismiss when it's referring to an additional 25% of classic Disney animation intended to be seen in TV broadcasts and not some boom-mic-intruding empty space on an open matte Steve Guttenberg comedy.

This phenomenon is clearly becoming more common, much to the delight of 16x9 television owners who would otherwise choose to distort or zoom to fill their widescreen displays. Personally, I cringe a little every time part of a character disappears at the now-tightened top or bottom of the frame. Disney isn't even being consistent with their decisions; of the seven animated films for which this is clearly an issue, 3 have been reissued in widescreen, 3 remained in 1.33:1 fullscreen on their second DVD (including the imminently-resurfacing 101 Dalmatians), and it's anybody's guess what will happen to the 7th (Sword in the Stone) when its number is inevitably called for a new release.

full review: http://www.ultimatedisney.com/aristocat ... ition.html

The most noticeable difference between the two releases is the aspect ratio. The Gold Collection DVD presented Robin Hood in 1.33:1 fullscreen, as has been the case for the DVDs of most animated Disney films post-Sleeping Beauty (one of the studio's two CinemaScope feature-length cartoons released in the 1950s) and pre-The Black Cauldron (which in 1985 rang in an era when all animated Disney films began clearly being composed for widescreen, though some minor ratio discrepancies still exist). Here, the film is presented in 1.75:1 anamorphic widescreen. To achieve this, 25% of the picture seen in the vertical direction has been lost from the Gold Collection transfer while the movie retains the same width. In other words, the Most Wanted Edition offers a matted widescreen presentation of Robin Hood, which is what at least some (and maybe most) theaters would have done in 1973 and 1982 (the movie's re-release) to screen the film.

Matting occurs on a majority of live action films today, which are often shot "flat" (filling an approximately 4x3 frame) but framed for widescreen (approximately 16x9) so that the excess space at the top and bottom of the filmed frame are never intended to be seen. Animation is a different story, and for Disney's features (and some shorts) from 1960 through 1984, this issue has been the source of questions with no easy, definitive answers emerging. Just a few weeks ago, 1981's The Fox and the Hound was re-released and treated to the same 1.33:1 standard TV screen-filling dimensions it previously had, even though the majority of films made then were framed for and exhibited in one of two widescreen aspect ratios.

Clearly, Disney animators took the time to animate Robin Hood for the full 1.33ish:1 frame; whether they did this to achieve the ratio of most of the studio's past cartoon features or to ensure that television broadcasts would not require cropping is unclear. But matting the film does result in a loss of about 25% of artwork, which is no unsubstantial amount. We cry foul when movies are cropped to fill the standard television dimensions; now that 16x9 televisions are becoming more common, is matting a film like Robin Hood tantamount to the dreaded pan-and-scan procedure? It's tough to say and the DVD is little help; the issue is not addressed anymore than it was for Fox and the Hound's recent still-fullscreen reissue. The package doesn't even define 1.75:1 as the movie's original, intended, or theatrical aspect ratio. IMDb claims that Robin Hood's intended ratio is 1.75:1, but you or I could submit a change just for kicks and giggles. The one person who could probably put an end to speculation -- director Wolfgang Reitherman -- has been dead for over twenty years, so I know he didn't tell IMDb the intended ratio.

Of course, looking at the two DVD presentations and comparing the framing does shed a fair amount of light on the subject. In the fullscreen Gold Collection version, the action often stays vertically in the center of the screen, which might suggest that the top and bottom of the frame were considered disposable. But, this is not always the case, as some elements do feel slightly cramped in the vertical direction, and also it's just natural to keep focal action in the middle of the screen, look at Walt's early films (which were obviously intended for the one and only Academy Ratio) and you'll notice the same thing. For the most part, the matted framing looks okay, but not enough to convince me it is the only correct ratio. Naturally, the best solution would have been to include both open matte and widescreen versions in the set to let people decide; there's nearly enough room for both on the disc with compression the way it is.

full review: http://www.ultimatedisney.com/robinhood-mostwanted.html[/quote]

It's important to point out, though, that these are subjective reviews and reflect the reviewers opinion about what they THINK the intended ratio "might" be (which is basically what we've all been doing here anyway...lol).

I'm still on the lookout for some first release presskits. I think that it would be important to distinguish primary theatrical screenings from subsequent rereleases because the matting "norms" may have changed (i.e. BatB was released in 2 different ratios theatrically); and I'm interested to know (and HAVE) the intended theatrical format....or as close as we can get these days



@netty - I absolutely love your posts, and am very, VERY interested in the transition between widescreen and fullscreen. I recently got my copy of "The Journey of Natty Gann" in PAL widescreen and I think that most of it is pan and scanned, but some of the shots might be completely reformatted. Once I work out a few programs on how to capture images and stuff I'll post them and see what you all think.

[Escapay]

omg get over it people!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why? Because it isn't discussions about which slipcovers we have or what Princess we should admire more? If you're that bored with what we're discussing, don't read it.

I'm thoroughly enjoying the posts here, and can't believe I completely overlooked the extra artwork in the 101 Scope trailer. Certainly adds another "okay, now what?" to the whole "to matte or not to matte" debates.

Albert

[2099net]

@netty - I absolutely love your posts, and am very, VERY interested in the transition between widescreen and fullscreen. I recently got my copy of "The Journey of Natty Gann" in PAL widescreen and I think that most of it is pan and scanned, but some of the shots might be completely reformatted. Once I work out a few programs on how to capture images and stuff I'll post them and see what you all think.

Ichabod will be your best bet for that - he has compared several US to UK DVD framing issues in the past. And I know he dips in and out of this thread too.

[disneyfella]

As I said before I'm doing research on the film "Baby...Secret of the Lost Legend", an early Touchstone Pictures film. Now the article I'm about to quote is in regards to this film, but I thought it was extremely pertinent to the current discussion as far as matting and such. This is from the March 1985 "American Cinematographer" magazine. There are several feature articles on the film "Baby", but this is an interview with John Alcott (the cinematographer on the film) NOTE: Sorry for any typos, but this was a long article to transcribe...lol.


American Cinematographer, March 1985 "Baby, an Interview with John Alcott by Mitch Tuchman"


........."Picture, as he did, a dusky jungle clearing (where up to half of Baby was shot), and bear in mind his goal: a wide-screen adventure (about an American couple who find a family of living dinosaurs) with the "glory of what's here" established in every long shot. For that he needed depth of field, which anamorphic lenses at low light levels cannot povide. Alcott's solution (as it was on Greystoke, shot earlier in nearby Cameroon) is Super-Techniscope, which yeilds an anamorphic print based on flat photograpy. Super-Techniscope permits Alcott to use his favorite Arriflex lenses with wide-open apertures and still to achieve, as he did in the cadlelit sequences of Barry Lyndon and the snowy, moonlit maze of The Shining, that depth of field crucial to the narrative. Ater all, when the title character of your picture is a baby brontosaurus, it must be completely credible as a jungle denizen.".......

The article continues later on to say:

....."With reference to his camera system Alcott talked about Techniscope: "Years ago, about the 1950s, they came out with a system called Techniscope. Techniscope was a two-perf-pull-down system, which was within the Academy aperture, not using the soundtrack. That was then squeezed, on a two-to-one squeeze, onto a full Academy aperture. By doing this, one created in those days what might be called an anamorphic print. At the same time it was possible for certain producers and certain production companies to use less film; they were only using half of the quantity. They were therefore saving on their costs in that area, and they weren't in for expensive camera rentals, as Cinemascope systems were in those days. This helped the independant, small producer to have an anamorphic print on the screen without getting into a high budget.

"With this Super-Techniscope system, what happens is, I'm using a full frame. I'm using the sound track, the full aperture of the camera. I'm using more negative. I'm still using the four-perf-pull-down. And what I'm also using is the head room of the anamorphic ratio as the head room of the 70mm print and also as the head room of the television print. Then I'm making a two-to-one sqeeze with a 2.35 ratio.

"The trouble with shooting anamorphic pictures I found years ago when they first started, is that 70mm prints were made, and therefore one had to compromise when composing the shot. One had to think of the 70mm print and would lose on each side a certain portion. Also when one is televising any anamorphic print, one has to scan, and sometimes if it's not done properly and nobody cares, you see half of one face and half of another. It's ridiculous.

"This way of shooting eliminates all those problems. One has a perfect anamorphic composition, one has a perfect 70mm composition, and all one's having really on the TV print is additional room at the bottom of the frame.

"The thing that's most important is that the depth of field is far greater shooting anamorphic this way than shooting it with an anamorphic lens."





I think it is also interesting to note that this cinematographer worked with Kubrick on FOUR features (and in the article is quoted as saying that 'years ago he learned about 70mm prints being made from Techniscope film'....and his first feature was working on 2001 A Space Odessy).

I also ordered the Press Kit for Baby, so I'm anxious to see if there are any instructions about the aspect ratio of the film. Once I get the widescreen PAL DVD and the fullscreen NTSC DVDs I'd also like to make some comparisions and see if the US. version is open matte or P&S. Either way, I'm sure I'm going to want the 'intended' theatrical ratio.

[Jules]

1) I'm not sure I understand what going on. Do you guys mean that we're looking at the possibility that the post-1959 Disney animated features have been presented slightly zoomed in on DVD resulting in a loss of information on the right side? And does this mean that they may have also lost some info from the top and bottom and hence the matted presentations look a little tighter than they should?

2) Netty, isn't it ironic, then, that Kubrick films like Full Metal Jacket and Eyes Wide Shut have been presented in 1.33:1 on DVD? I'm assuming they're open-matte presentations ...

[Escapay]

1) I'm not sure I understand what going on. Do you guys mean that we're looking at the possibility that the post-1959 Disney animated features have been presented slightly zoomed in on DVD resulting in a loss of information on the right side? And does this mean that they may have also lost some info from the top and bottom and hence the matted presentations look a little tighter than they should?

It's odd, isn't it? For years the animation community believed that everything from 101 Dalmatians to The Great Mouse Detective was 1.33:1 animated and 1.75:1 matted (or 1.66:1 for those who believe that). Then something like the 101 Dalmatians Scope Trailer comes along and we learn there's even more to the picture that no one's known about.

I wonder what will happen now, will people start asking for the 60s/70s films to not be 1.33:1 zoomed, and to show the unshot drawn artwork?

I'm assuming they're open-matte presentations ...

Yes, they are.

Albert

[Poppins#1]

As I said before I'm doing research on the film "Baby...Secret of the Lost Legend"...
... is Super-Techniscope, which yeilds an anamorphic print based on flat photograpy...

Interesting stuff there from American Cinematographer. In case anyone didn't recognize it, Super-Techniscope is actually the same process that would just a year later be called "Super-35" with the movie Top Gun. It originated in the 1950s as "SuperScope" then "SuperScope 235"

[AlwaysOAR]

The JB, SitS, and the films for this era, keeping in mind that theatres here and there were still transitioning to have the capability to matte, were animated with that in mind. But they were intentionally framed for wide-screen, all of the action taking place in the framed area.

I'm not disagreeing with AlwaysOAR here as he agrees with me, but following up on part of his post with more information (I do think is explaination about transition is wrong though):

Yeah, I guess I was trying to recall an article, website escapes me, where they were speculating about the mid 1950's time frame when theatres were making the transition to being able to matte films. I don't know how long this took, more rural areas being the last to make the transition. Of course, this was before the beginning of the era of films in question

Considering the first widescreen format was created in the 1950's, and The Sword in the Stone came out in the early 60's, I don't think cinemas were still in transition.

Note that even by 1959 (Sleeping Beauty) Walt didn't see the need to create a seperate academy ratio version of the movie - where he did just 4 years earlier for Lady and the Tramp.

Try and find a popular film made in, say, 1959 to continue with the Sleeping Beauty theme, that was academy ratio. It's hard. Most are "super wide" too - meaning if any theatres couldn't screen widescreen, the film was to all intents and purposes, useless. I don't think 10 years later, the industry could still be considered transitional.

Going through IMDB listings for 1959 and picking out titles I recognise I see:

Ben Hur was 2.76: 1
The Blue Angel was 2.35: 1
Expresso Bongo was 2.35: 1
Gidget: 2.35: 1
House on Haunted Hill: 1.85: 1 (Yes, the Vincent Prince one)
I'm All Right Jack 1.66: 1
The Killer Shrews 1.85: 1
Night of the Ghouls 1.85: 1
Our Man in Havana 2.35: 1
Pillow Talk 2.35: 1
Plan 9 From Outer Space 1.37:1
Rio Bravo 1.85: 1
Sleeping Beauty 2.20: 1
Some Like It Hot 1.66:1
Teenagers from Outer Space 1.85: 1
Wasp Woman 1.85:1

and Disney's own Darby O'Gill and the Little People and The Shaggy Dog are listed as 1.75: 1. And of course Sleeping Beauty was "superwide" yet still shown in cinemas across the nation - across the world even.

Admittedly there are Academy ratio movies listed, but they are shorts (either live action or more frequently cartoon) and some with no aspect ratio listed (such as Attack of the Giant Leeches). However lots of other titles made famous by Science Mystery Theatre and/or repeated Public Domain releases are listed as 1.85: 1. From my brief clicking around IMDB, it seems only 1 legitimate movie was found with an academy ratio; co-incidently the one movie regarded by many as the worst movie of all time - Plan 9 From Outer Space!

Its also worth noting several of these movies are B/W (such as Expresso Bongo, Our Man in Havana) but still "super wide". Widescreen seems to have caught on faster than colour in movies! Clearly widescreen took off in a big, big, way.

I really don't see how anyone could expect ten years or more later when Jungle Book came out, that any theatre would show the Disney animated films unmatted. I really don't see how anyone can expect Disney could even make a request for the films to be shown unmatted. By 1969 surely the public were (for want of a better word) "conditioned" into expecting a widescreen experience when visiting the cinema?

If people complain about small pictures now on their TVs, wouldn't the public complain about small pictures at the theatre if they saw an academy animated movie back-to-back with a 1.85 live action movie. And remember, they did double bills in those days - in the 70's I can clearly remember seeing Candleshoe [1.85: 1] with The Rescuers - listed as 1.66 :1). No I can't remember the aspect ratios of those screenings!

So once again we come down to the word intended, and I cannot believe a film made for release in 1963 (before the age of home video) was intended (or even co-intended) to be seen in academy ratio. Surely the animators were primarily animating for the theatre?

They may have had one eye on future television airings, but considering the numbers of "super wide" movies released in the late 50's early 60's which were pre-destined to be pan and scanned on television, I'm not convinced even that was a major consideration for the Disney Animators.

If they had an eye on future television airings, we can consider the open-matte animated ratio the intended 4:3 television version, and of course the matted version the intended theatrical version, the one most of us want.

I think its just as simple as their equipment - which remember was still making animated shorts at the time - was academy ratio, had always been academy ratio and always would be academy ratio until replaced by CAPS* so the animators just did what they were used to, and filled up the paper area.

I really don't see why this is so much of an issue - all logical evidence as well as studying other films at the time, points to the matted format being the cinematic format. And as they were made for Cinema that must be the ratio the animators and directors worked to. (I mean look at the scorn placed on the DTVs today - surely some people aren't claiming these films were made primarily for television are they? )

David S - I think it is by definition to have two intended ratios for a movie without one or both being compromises. Shots are framed not only to tell the story, but to highten and enhance the emotion of the story. So if one or the other format was co-intended, one or both compositions are still, to my eyes, compromised.

As for Kubrick (who was brought up earlier by someone), he was reportedly appalled by a P&S job on 2001 when it was shown on television and vowed to film his films to that they could be simply opened up for television or home video. But he always intended the matted format to be the main format - because he made films for cinema, not for television.

No motion picture director should make films for television!

[AlwaysOAR]

After my last post I re-read a lot of the UD reviews for the films in question, and found them very interesting and relevant to the discussion at hand. Here are some quotes, with bold areas highlighted by me and not the initial review

Looking at those reviews, and they are subjective, all but one suggest also that they were most likely animated with an eye towards television broadcasts, IMO undercutting your argument that the open-matte is a co-intended theatrical ratio. More likely, the 1.33:1 ratio was intended for those television broadcasts, and the matted ratio the intended theatrical version. However, again, we can agree to disagree.

[David S.]

Looking at those reviews, and they are subjective, all but one suggest also that they were most likely animated with an eye towards television broadcasts, IMO undercutting your argument that the open-matte is a co-intended theatrical ratio. More likely, the 1.33:1 ratio was intended for those television broadcasts, and the matted ratio the intended theatrical version. However, again, we can agree to disagree.

They were also animating open-matte for theatres that couldn't or chose not to matte. IMO undercutting your argument that the 1.33:1 was only "intended" for television broadcast and not also those theatres . But at least you acknowledge they were "intended" for something, and it logically follows that watching the open matte is therefore a valid way of watching these films!

But of couse the biggest thing that undercuts your argument is that some of these films in question were released ***THEATRICALLY*** open-matted on some 90's reissues.

Somewhere a while back (I think in the Home Theatre forum) I remember reading a projectionist stating Snow White AND 101 Dalmatians were re-released in ACADEMY in the 90's. I think he said this was accomplished by windowboxing the film print itself, so theatres would have to respect the open-matte. Now, would Disney have gone through that trouble if at least a faction of the people at the studio DIDN'T consider 1.33:1 the INTENDED THEATRICAL ratio?

I haven't re-located that post (yet), but what follows is a quote and link to a review in which the reviewer states he saw Jungle Book in theatres in the 90's.... in open matte. Again, the bold emphasis was added by me:

Well, now…here’s where we hit a snag. From 1955 onwards, the vast majority of Hollywood movies were produced in a dual aspect ratio that allowed a standard Academy 1.37:1 image to be cropped to widescreen in the theater and shown with extra head room (and sometimes unwanted picture area at the bottom) in later TV airings. From One Hundred And One Dalmatians in 1961, Disney followed this route, formatting his films from a 1.37 negative ratio which allowed the cropping of the image top and bottom for theatrical exhibition and revealing this information for television screens. Since TV was the intended medium that would run the film forevermore after the initial cinema release – VHS being little more than a blink in JVC’s eye at the time – it could be argued that the majority of shots were created more with this eventual presentation in mind. However, with the move to widescreen sets that approximate theatrical screen dimensions, and especially the native widescreen high-definition formats, companies are now looking at how much content they can “re-purpose” to fill the newer, wider home displays.

Already we’ve seen the 1.37:1 ratio of Robin Hood cropped to the 1.75:1 aspect ready for Disney’s eventual Blu-Ray Disc releases, and The AristoCats looks to be going the same way next spring. The Jungle Book is likewise – after years of being available on home video in nothing less than its “original theatrical ratio” of 1.37:1 – presented here in its “original theatrical ratio” of 1.75:1, actually a weird aspect that never officially existed in movie houses to begin with. And I would even contend any use of the term “original theatrical ratio” since I saw the 1993 reissue of The Jungle Book in a theater and it was windowboxed within the wide frame, the same way as a standard 1.33 image is shown on widescreen displays, with black bars running vertically down along the sides.

Certainly the argument would be moot if we could actually choose for ourselves which version to run. However, after years of offering up truly redundant pan-and-scan transfers (Lady And The Tramp’s pointless “half a movie” springs to mind), what does Disney do when there’s a true need to present both versions of a dual aspect production? It ditches the original negative version, leaving us only with this new, hi-def ready picture. I would doubt this is even the original, as intended theatrical framing. It’s true that we see a little more on the sides, a beneficial trade off between actually seeing the full width of the 1.37 image instead of the 1.33 fullscreen framing we’ve had all these years, but at the loss of too much information north and south.

Framing is, at times, very tight, especially at the top, and I noticed several instances of retrospective re-framing to balance out the image that strays from what we’d get if this was a true 1.75 matted image. Mostly, reframing has taken place so as not to lose character’s heads, even though they still remain far too close to the top of frame. I also noted at least two or three counts of new camera moves – tilts vertically up and down the frame to take into account the needed height to properly show all the intended action. All of this wouldn’t be as noticeable or problematic if we had simply had the choice of the original fullframe edition on the same disc, just as Disney has done so in the past.

full review: http://animated-views.com/2007/jungle-b ... vd-review/

Open matte would of course also be a valid way to present these films in IMAX, and I would bet money there would be a lot fewer people complaining about an open-matte Sword, Jungle Book etc, in IMAX, than there are who complain when films of this era aren't matted on DVD! I know you and others on the boards here like Disneyfella, Escapay, and 2099net want the matted for pure reasons regarding preserving what you feel is the intended "theatrical" dimensions, and I deeply respect that, but the "target market" and majority of people in the general public who want these matted versions just want to fill their 16:9 screens.

The review above seems to echo my belief that if 16:9 tvs didn't exist, Disney would never even consider taking the matted version of these films to market.

I can only hope that this "re-purposing as much material as possible for 16:9 TVs" doesn't eventually include films like Snow White and classic tv shows - material which should NEVER be presented in widescreen from ANY aspect ratio point of view (negative, theatrical, or intended).

I suspect we will sadly see more of these things happen - there are already documented instances. The same "Joe Sixpacks" who demanded fullscreen Sleeping Beauty when they had fullscreen tvs are now demanding widescreen Bambi when they buy the new widescreen tvs. I would not be surprised one bit if matting becomes the pan and scan of the new millenium.

I suspect they, and not the segment of movie buffs who want animated films matted to preserve how SOME theatres screened them, are the real reason Disney experimented with matting the 60's/70's DACs. Unlike Snow White, Dumbo, Bambi, Peter Pan, etc., it was easier to get away with this because the aspect ratio of these films is up for debate and less cut-and-dry.

When the studios try matting material that has no buisness on ANY level being matted, it will be up to the same home theatre community who raised awareness about the value of widescreen letterboxing to also raise awareness about the importance of windowboxing to preserve anything in Academy ratio.

So many people are clueless, or worse, half-informed. When I tracked down one of the open-matte Gold Collection DVDs (I think it was Robin Hood) the girl behind the counter said "just to let you know, they reissued this in widescreen, and you see more of the picture that way".

I told her that this was usually the case, but since the widescreen Robin Hood was created by vertically cropping the original frame, the Gold Collection DVD actually preserved the entire width of the image and actually showed more vertically. She then looked at me like I was stupid and said "Widescreen ALWAYS shows more picture!"

Another funny story I read in a post somewhere - some people were having a party to celebrate their new widescreen tv and showing Star Wars. But - since they once had a fullscreen TV - they had the pan and scan version. Disapointed that it no longer filled their screen, they pressed a few buttons to stretch the image, and POOF! - they were now happily watching Star Wars in "widescreen"!

What's your take on the matting of IMAX films on DVD?

IMAX theatres have a ratio that is MUCH closer to Academy ratio than even the least wide of widescreen ratios. (I read somewhere it was 1.33:1 and another source said 1.43:1. I honestly don't know which it is but in any case it is CLEARLY not 1.66:1 or the all-important 16:9 aka 1.78:1)

Yet, it has come to my attention that some (though admitedly not all) IMAX films have been matted on DVD!

One guess as to why! (hint: "thou must fill the 16:9 screen")

Sadly, I even read a review (NOT on UD) of a matted IMAX blue ray where the reviewer was praising the matting which "nicely filled his display" and allowed for an "animorphically enhanced" picture. I guess he was willing to overlook not only the original negative ratio, but ALSO the original theatrical ratio AND, AND, AND, get this - the original "intended" ratio!

I wonder why? (hint: "fill the screen, fill the screen!")

I don't believe this is the case for anyone in this thread, but I have noticed a double standard in some segments of the "home theatre" community, where the "uneducated masses" are mercillessly mocked and ridiculed for wanting to crop the sides of a widescreen film to fill their standard TVs. Yet, there seems to be a LOT less of a stigma about vertically cropping an image in order to fill a 16:9 monitor, even in some cases where this cropping betrays EVERY possible interpretation of a film's correct "aspect ratio", such as the IMAX review mentioned above.

[disneyfella]

Again, though, you're referencing amateur reviews and opinions (much like we're all discussing here). And one person's possibly flawed memory of how a film was framed over 15 years ago in one theatrical reissue hardly justifies as proof of framing intent.

I also think you misjudge the widescreen community. I may misunderstand you here, but it seems like you imply that the only reason people want widescreen is to "get more picture" or "fill their widescreen TVs". If anything my experience has been the other way around. The argument for the fullscreen release of the 60s/70s DACs has always been to "get more picture", rather than any respect for original framing. Several people HAVE tried to draw the conclusion that since the full frame was animated then it stands to reason that it was intended to be seen that way, but there is no justification or evidence yet to support that.

On the contrary, the widescreen community wishes to maintain artistic integrity by wanting the films in the intended ratio (matted or unmatted; widescreen or fullscreen). The problem becomes when the intended framing ratio is not clearly stated....then we get some pretty nice discussions trying to reason our way into why a certain ratio is preferred. Clearly, no one here wants a widescreen image simply to "fill their widescreen". For the record I merely have a 26" 4:3 TV.

I'm not trying to say that Disney's presentations of these DACs is flawless or the perfect intended ratio. But simply wanting a fullscreen image becase we know there is more there is not demonstrating analysis or evidence of intended framing. We know it was matted in theatres upon initial release, and yes...despite Woolie Reitherman's death there are a handful of people left alive to who could be referenced (less famously, though), as well as all theatre owner materials which might explain the proper presentation of the film.

I'll eat my hat if these films were not intended to be seen in theatres. Which we know (and the animators knew while making the film) implies a matted format. If Disney disregarded the theatrical format and framed the film for a fullscreen television airing years down the road (I don't think most of the DACs from this era ever made it to television until The Disney Channel in the 1980s), then that is how I would want the film to be presented. But I have no reason to justify this...even if there is more image to the frame.

[drfsupercenter]

What's your take on the matting of IMAX films on DVD?

IMAX theatres have a ratio that is MUCH closer to Academy ratio than even the least wide of widescreen ratios. (I read somewhere it was 1.33:1 and another source said 1.43:1. I honestly don't know which it is but in any case it is CLEARLY not 1.66:1 or the all-important 16:9 aka 1.78:1)

I have "Walking on the Moon: Magnificent Desolation", and that's widescreen (I think 1.78 but don't quote me)... and I have Space Station which is 4:3. Space Station has the "This film has been modified from its original version..." tag on it... but dang it why can't I get the original then? I saw that movie in IMAX 3D and totally loved it!

I'll eat my hat if these films were not intended to be seen in theatres. Which we know (and the animators knew while making the film) implies a matted format. If Disney disregarded the theatrical format and framed the film for a fullscreen television airing years down the road (I don't think most of the DACs from this era ever made it to television until The Disney Channel in the 1980s), then that is how I would want the film to be presented. But I have no reason to justify this...even if there is more image to the frame.

Well, I think possibly they never intended movies like The Jungle Book to be widescreen, and it ended up being that way due to many theaters switching over to widescreen. The Disney company probably said it and thought "Oh crap, stuff was totally lost that was meant to be seen", so animated all the action a little bit tighter to the middle. Just that it was shown widescreen in theaters because it *had* to be doesn't mean they wanted it that way... and direct-to-video movies didn't exist back then. Why do you think the majority of direct-to-video sequels are fullscreen? Even with the rise of "Family-friendly widescreen" (which is a joke BTW), the direct-to-videos are still 4:3 unless it's something like Aladdin 3.

I think they animated them so that it COULD be matted without losing much (The Jungle Book excluded!) but still wanted it to be Academy. Hence what David was saying about runs in the 90s being Academy.

[disneyfella]

Well, I think possibly they never intended movies like The Jungle Book to be widescreen, and it ended up being that way due to many theaters switching over to widescreen. The Disney company probably said it and thought "Oh crap, stuff was totally lost that was meant to be seen", so animated all the action a little bit tighter to the middle. Just that it was shown widescreen in theaters because it *had* to be doesn't mean they wanted it that way... and direct-to-video movies didn't exist back then. Why do you think the majority of direct-to-video sequels are fullscreen? Even with the rise of "Family-friendly widescreen" (which is a joke BTW), the direct-to-videos are still 4:3 unless it's something like Aladdin 3.

I think they animated them so that it COULD be matted without losing much (The Jungle Book excluded!) but still wanted it to be Academy. Hence what David was saying about runs in the 90s being Academy.

Remember, though, that widescreen was a thing that started in the 1950s, and by 1959 almost all of the theatrical films were widescreen aspect ratio. And by 1967 (for the Jungle Book for example) matting was not something new. In fact, in the 1950s some "widescreen" films were actually shot on Academy apertures, but matted in the theatre...and that's how they were always intended to be seen.

I know that there are two version of these DACs. 1) a matted theatrical version, and 2)an open matte version which wasn't televised until the mid 1980s. I'm not sure that the Disney animators were animating their films in the 1960s with the intent of how they would look on television or home video in the 1980s. I am sure that these films were made for theatre venues (probably matted) and framed as such.

[Escapay]

I'm not trying to say that Disney's presentations of these DACs is flawless or the perfect intended ratio. But simply wanting a fullscreen image becase we know there is more there is not demonstrating analysis or evidence of intended framing. We know it was matted in theatres upon initial release, and yes...despite Woolie Reitherman's death there are a handful of people left alive to who could be referenced (less famously, though), as well as all theatre owner materials which might explain the proper presentation of the film.

I'll eat my hat if these films were not intended to be seen in theatres. Which we know (and the animators knew while making the film) implies a matted format. If Disney disregarded the theatrical format and framed the film for a fullscreen television airing years down the road (I don't think most of the DACs from this era ever made it to television until The Disney Channel in the 1980s), then that is how I would want the film to be presented. But I have no reason to justify this...even if there is more image to the frame.

I think possibly they never intended movies like The Jungle Book to be widescreen, and it ended up being that way due to many theaters switching over to widescreen. <snip> Just that it was shown widescreen in theaters because it *had* to be doesn't mean they wanted it that way...

Dude, like disneyfella said, by 1967 the majority of movie theatres were already transitioned over to widescreen. If there were any theatres that were still doing Academy, it likely would have been in small remote towns that hadn't caught up to the times yet. Widescreen (be it Scope or matted) had been the Hollywood norm for about 10 years by now, so there would be no reason why a major studio like Disney would intentionally make a 1.37:1 animated film if they knew that most theatres would be projecting in widescreen.

Albert

[David S.]

Again, though, you're referencing amateur reviews and opinions (much like we're all discussing here). And one person's possibly flawed memory of how a film was framed over 15 years ago in one theatrical reissue hardly justifies as proof of framing intent.

Well, why the heck would they have reissued some of these films to theatres in the 90's in 1.33:1 if at least someone in the Mouse House didn't consider that the correct THEATRICAL "framing intent" ?

As I stated, this isn't based on one person's allegedly "flawed" memory. I've read other posts where people have stated that Dalmatians was re-released in the 90's with the full Academy print preserved by surrounding the open-matte version within the frame by windowboxing the sides and letterboxing the top. And I've also read posts by people who remember seeing open-matte presentations of some of these films on their initial theatrical release!

Also, I don't think it's very polite to refer to the work of people who study film and are obviously published, intelligent reviewers "amateur"

I also think you misjudge the widescreen community. I may misunderstand you here, but it seems like you imply that the only reason people want widescreen is to "get more picture" or "fill their widescreen TVs". If anything my experience has been the other way around. The argument for the fullscreen release of the 60s/70s DACs has always been to "get more picture", rather than any respect for original framing. Several people HAVE tried to draw the conclusion that since the full frame was animated then it stands to reason that it was intended to be seen that way, but there is no justification or evidence yet to support that.

And there is not a greater amount of evidence to support that they weren't! And they wouldn't even bother to draw things if they were NEVER intended to be seen.

And yes, you did misread my meaning. If you go back and look again, you will see that I aknowleged that many of the movie buffs who want the DACs from the 60's and 70's matted want them for the right reasons - because they believe those versions are correct. What I said was that the majority of the MASSES (who outnumber the film buffs) who want them matted want them that way so they can fill their screens. Just as they complain that there is no widescreen Bambi and USED to want Sleeping Beauty in fullscreen, when they had 4:3 tvs.

Thus, I stand by my statement that if widescreen tvs didn't exist (and this is making me wish that they didn't !), and if they weren't becoming more mainstream, Disney would have NEVER EVER NEVER EVER NEVER EVER even CONSIDERED releasing Jungle Book, Aristocats, and Robin Hood bloody HACKED and vertically HATCHETED on DVD!

On the contrary, the widescreen community wishes to maintain artistic integrity by wanting the films in the intended ratio (matted or unmatted; widescreen or fullscreen). The problem becomes when the intended framing ratio is not clearly stated....then we get some pretty nice discussions trying to reason our way into why a certain ratio is preferred. Clearly, no one here wants a widescreen image simply to "fill their widescreen". For the record I merely have a 26" 4:3 TV.

Like I acknowledged, I understand that the people in this thread who want to matte these films have pure reasons based on their opinion of the correct ratio.

As far as the "widescreen community", I was referring to things like this: I have read more than one review of IMAX films that were vertically cropped from their negative, theatrical, and intended ratio in order to conform to the 16:9 sets and get "animorphic enhancement". Yet, many reviews don't make an issue out of this, others don't aknowledge it, and I remember one that praised this decision!

Now, as I said I've seen the IMAX ratio listed as 1.33:1 in some places and 1.44:1 in others.

If 1.44:1 is correct, than Academy ratio is not the answer either for these DVDs (although it is at least closer than 1.66:1 or 16:9!) and they should be presented on home video in 1.44:1. But unfortunately 16:9 versions of these films are becoming more and more common as blue ray and wide tvs are becoming more mainstream

What I was getting at is it seems in some segments of the "home theatre" community, there seems to be less outrage when things are vertically cropped than horizontally, and they are both equally bad in my eyes.

I'm not trying to say that Disney's presentations of these DACs is flawless or the perfect intended ratio. But simply wanting a fullscreen image becase we know there is more there is not demonstrating analysis or evidence of intended framing. We know it was matted in theatres upon initial release

We know that they were matted in some theatres on initial release, but not all.

But this still doesn't completely proove theatrical "intent" to me.

You know why? Because if I made a movie in Academy ratio in the 70's and stated 4:3 as my intended ratio, most theatres would have matted the ****ing thing anyway!

The idea that EVERYTHING created at that time can be assumed to be designed for a certain dimension just because that's what the majority were doing (and would have been done to the films in many theatres anyway REGARDLESS of intent) is what I disagree with.

Let's say I would have made a movie in the 70's and INTENDED it to be 4:3. Some theatres who could honor that would have, but most probably would not have, either to conform to the "wider is better" fad or because they were simply not equiped to honor my intended ratio.

Now, when it is time for my movie to come out on DVD, "theatrical ratio purists" will insist that only the matted ratio is correct even though it ISN'T. And anyone who tries to even suggest that the 4:3 framing WAS intended will be told that this isn't true because by then everything else was in widescreen.

In the case of the DACs in question, there is not enough concrete evidence to prove open-matte is the SOLE intended ratio, but there is also not enough concrete evidence to prove that it isn't! And it is clear to me that is is valid as AN intended ratio, and NOT just for television. There is enough evidence that BOTH ratios are valid for different reasons, depending on one's point of view of the correct way of defining "intent" or "aspect ratio".

Therefore, anyone who wishes to deny themselves the entire animated frame and watch cropped versions, that is their business and right, as it is mine to support open matte. I will go to my grave feeling that matted widescreen SUCKS, especially for animation, and requesting that open-matte tranfers be made available on DVD for films protected for it.

Perhaps my letters and phone calls to Disney expressing disapointment about the matted Robin Hood, Jungle Book, and Aristocats may have helped do some good after all - in that Sword and Dalmatians were thankfully NOT hacked and butchered on their subsequent re-releases

I agree that both versions should be made available, but since Disney just seems to want to put out one version these days, I am very happy and thankful that they at least got 101 Dalmatians, Sword In the Stone, and Many Adventures Of Winnie the Pooh CORRECT and UNBUTCHERED on all of their DVD releases!

Thanks, Disney!