Sleeping Beauty DVD not so special! (everyone please read!!)

MickeyMouseboy · Post by **MickeyMouseboy** » Wed Dec 10, 2003 3:48 am

This has been talked about in another thread. but here's proof Sleeping beauty on DVD is not the right framing! we are getting fooled again by Disney! I guess they like to mess with their films! I'm so angry! Here's a page i just did with snapshoots from the original 1959 transfer of the film VS the 2003 DVD transfer the difference in framing is scary!

http://www.geocities.com/flynracoon/SleepingBeauty.html

Tell me what you guys think about this issue! Luke you should put this on the main page!

Swiss · Post by **Swiss** » Wed Dec 10, 2003 4:27 am

Terrible! Annoying! I will call them later today, and tell them of my dissapointment. Still waiting on Muppets in Widescreen too.

Here we go, another reason for Disney to release a Platinum Edition of SB.

Anders M Olsson · Post by **Anders M Olsson** » Wed Dec 10, 2003 4:40 am

This is really a very difficult subject, and I'm not sure it's such a big deal.

Where did you get the frames from the 1959 film print? I would have liked to see a scan covering the whole width of the film, including the edges and perforation. That way, it would have been possible to determine what kind of print it is, and how much would have been masked off at a theatrical screening of that print. There's quite a lot of masking going on in theatres, both by the projector aperture and by the velvet frame around the screen. So the scans you provide aren't enough to determine just how much more picture (if any) would have been visible at the theatre.

The thing that makes this a particularly tricky question is the fact that Sleeping Beauty was made in a special process called Technirama. It was filmed on a 35 mm film running sideways. It was then transfered to either 35 mm Cinemascope or 70mm for exhibition. In both cases, parts of the original negative had to be masked off, but not by the same amount.

Some very enlightening articles can be found here:
http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/lbx.htm
http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/special ... emptor.htm
http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/wingtr1.htm

MickeyMouseboy · Post by **MickeyMouseboy** » Wed Dec 10, 2003 4:47 am

sleeping beauty was shot on a super technirama 70 MM film and those snap are from the 1959 Theatrical Trailer

Anders M Olsson · Post by **Anders M Olsson** » Wed Dec 10, 2003 5:00 am

MickeyMouseboy wrote:sleeping beauty was shot on a 70 MM film and those snap are from the 1959 Theatrical Trailer

Nope, it was not shot on 70mm film.

It was shot on 35mm film running sideways (Technirama), please see this link:
http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/wingtr1.htm
It was then printed to either 35mm scope or 70 mm for exhibition.

So do you have the actual piece of 70mm trailer in your posession? If so, perhaps you can make a scan of the entire width of the film, including the perfs and edges. Then it would be easier to compare it to a reference frame of what's actually being projected on screen.

Edit: The term Super Technirama refers to the exhibition format (70mm). It has nothing to do with the way the film was shot.

MickeyMouseboy · Post by **MickeyMouseboy** » Wed Dec 10, 2003 5:15 am

if you look at disc 2 of sleeping beauty, walt disney shows the 70 mm print that sleeping beauty was shot on

plus you're drifting from the subject of this thread which is: the 1959 theatrical trailer is showing more picture than the DVD transfer so please stay on subject here

Anders M Olsson · Post by **Anders M Olsson** » Wed Dec 10, 2003 6:05 am

MickeyMouseboy wrote:if you look at disc 2 of sleeping beauty, walt disney shows the 70 mm print that sleeping beauty was shot on plus you're drifting from the subject of this thread which is: the 1959 theatrical trailer is showing more picture than the DVD transfer so please stay on subject here

Yes, I know that Walt Disney shows a piece of 70mm film in that sequence. I don't remember his exact words, but it's clear that he simplifies things a bit. His message is that Sleeping Beauty was shot with a larger frame size than normal 35mm film, which is true. Describing the actual Technirama process might have confused the audience. The film he shows is obviously not the film Sleeping Beauty was shot on. It's a 70mm print, yes. But a print is by definition a copy which can be any format.

Trying to stick with the subject, though: I may agree with your initial claims, but I think we need further evidence before jumping to conclusions. If you read the articles I linked to, you will agree that matters are more complicated than just comparing screenshots of dubious origin. Disney may very well have done the best possible job under the circumstances.

Udvarnoky · Post by **Udvarnoky** » Wed Dec 10, 2003 6:58 am

I don't see any evidence of misframing here. First of all, the framing of a theatrical trailer should never be trusted. Secondly, that page shows no difference between the shots in all of the examples. Whoever made it appears to be confused about the stretched anamorphic image. They all show the exact same picture, it's just that he's stretching the DVD one.

It could very well be that the PREVIOUS editions were the misframed ones.

Post by **Luke** » Wed Dec 10, 2003 11:37 am

I have to agree with Udvarnoky. I see additional image on the sides of the trailer shots, but that doesn't mean it's the right image. And all the anamorphic screenshots are distorted. With the black bars they should be 1.78:1. If you want to simulate the picture on a 4x3 TV to compare with the trailers you'll have to add more black to the top and bottom.

Anders' information is applicable, too.

And even if there is misframing, it seems like it'd just be the edges, which are covered up by overscan most of the time, anyway.

It's an interesting find, MMB, but I don't know that it means anything or certainly shouldn't be reason for outrage, I don't think. Not without more information.

MickeyMouseboy · Post by **MickeyMouseboy** » Wed Dec 10, 2003 11:44 am

well if you guys dont believe then you get your sleeping beauty DVDs and check those scenes cause this the DVD transfer looks way of than the theatrical trailer's framing with the theatrical trailer been more wider than the DVD framing. Udvarnoky I don't know if you're blind or what but check the first two shot of aurora in the forest all the sides are missing meaning Disney made a 2:35.1 frame within the original 2:35.1 frame.

and to Anders the print walt disney shows is from sleeping beauty if you see it closely is the scene in the main hall with king stephen. and according to your website sleeping beauty was shot on a 70mm print using Super Technirama 70.

MickeyMouseboy · Post by **MickeyMouseboy** » Wed Dec 10, 2003 12:16 pm

get your DVD and check this print with the DVD on top and bottom. this is a print from the trailer which was recomposed from 2:35.1 to a non-anamorphic 1:66.1 it looks like.

Here's more shots

http://guni.no-ip.com/simon/sb2.jpg

http://guni.no-ip.com/simon/sb1.jpg

MickeyMouseboy · Post by **MickeyMouseboy** » Wed Dec 10, 2003 12:31 pm

Here's a original animation cell from the movie the black square resembles what's seen on the DVD transfer the rest is not seen on the DVD what happened to the rest of the animation?

Anders M Olsson · Post by **Anders M Olsson** » Wed Dec 10, 2003 12:48 pm

MickeyMouseboy wrote:and to Anders the print walt disney shows is from sleeping beauty if you see it closely is the scene in the main hall with king stephen.

Yes it is. I never said that it wasn't. But it is still a PRINT. Print as in copy.

(A print can by its nature be in any format. For example: I own a 16mm print of the film "It's a Wonderful Life", and I'll be happy to show it to you. But even though I have a 16mm print of that film, it's wrong to conclude that the film was shot on 16mm film stock. Films can be reduced as well as blown up by optical printing.)

So what Walt is showing is not the original camera negative. That scene does not really reveal anything about how that film was shot.

and according to your website sleeping beauty was shot on a 70mm print using Super Technirama 70.

I can see that the confusion is total, so it's quite understandable that Walt didn't have time to discuss all the finer details of how Technirama really works.

A film is never ever shot on a "print". Can't happen.

A film is (almost) always shot on a "camera negative". A "print" is something you make by copying the negative, either directly by contact printing, or by various optical processes.

In this case (quoted from the website I referred to):
http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/wingtr3.htm
"In 1959, Walt Disney used Technirama in the production of his animated feature Sleeping Beauty. Disney wanted to participate in the 70mm roadshow presentation format used on a number of contemporary films. Using optics developed by Panavision, Inc., Technirama's 35mm horizontal negative was printed in Todd-AO compatible 70mm with six track magnetic stereophonic sound."

I have highlighted a few words to stress the fact that Sleeping Beauty was indeed shot on 35mm film running horizontally (sideways) through the camera. That makes it possible to get a much larger image area on the film than with a standard camera where the film runs vertically. The Technirama negative is then printed (copied) to 70mm film for the theatres to run. Or regular 35 mm Cinemascope prints can be made for theatres that do not have 70mm equipment.

herman_the_german · Post by **herman_the_german** » Wed Dec 10, 2003 4:35 pm

I don't know if it applies here, but no film is ever (meant to be) shown completely (full image) even in theatrical projection. The projectionist mattes part of the image out. For example, sometimes you get to see booms and other things you are not meant to because of wrong theater matting. See Edward Scissorhands for an example. The disc release shows the full unmatted image, and thus you see this kind of stuff you are not meant to (like microphones and offscreen stagehands).

Next thing you know, you will want to see the sprocket holes!

The missing stuff may be some leeway for the projectionist to matte.

But I know what you mean, on my Hoppity Goes To Town DVD, the credits, at least, are shown with a blue border where there is no image, the whole thing is shown completely, down to the rounded corners of the film frame. It's nice to know you are seeing the whole thing.

Udvarnoky · Post by **Udvarnoky** » Wed Dec 10, 2003 6:11 pm

I still don't see any real evidence here, but if you wanna see some mis-framing, check out the whole Back to the Future situation.

Captain Hook · Post by **Captain Hook** » Wed Dec 10, 2003 7:18 pm

Grr, I think that everyone should also know that Beauty and the Beast is not in it's orginal aspect ratio, it was made as 1.66:1, but is presented on the DVD as 1.85:1. MMB, I would suggest adding another page to your site on this mistreatment of another great Disney fairy tale!!!

Hook

Udvarnoky · Post by **Udvarnoky** » Wed Dec 10, 2003 7:25 pm

Well, the DVD of Beauty and the Beast isn't in the original ratio, but it is in the INTENDED ratio, which was projected in theaters.

Captain Hook · Post by **Captain Hook** » Wed Dec 10, 2003 7:31 pm

Udvarnoky wrote:Well, the DVD of Beauty and the Beast isn't in the original ratio, but it is in the INTENDED ratio, which was projected in theaters.

That is the worst thing I have ever read on this forum in my entire life. To think that people agree with cropping movies!

What is this world coming to!!! AAAH!!! Why is the VHS a pan and scan of the 1.66:1 version instead of the 1.85:1 then? Sorry if this doesn't make sense, but in all reality, I think that both movies should be rereleased in their original formats.

wizzer · Post by **wizzer** » Wed Dec 10, 2003 7:37 pm

MickeyMouseboy wrote:

Here's a original animation cell from the movie the black square resembles what's seen on the DVD transfer the rest is not seen on the DVD what happened to the rest of the animation?

well, i checked out a comparison shot from the dvd and i would say your black lines on the cell are fairly acurate but if you look at that sceen there is alot of other art work going on. that is the cell and i don't think any movie would shoot from the extreme edge of the cell to the other. and as for your screenshots they are deceiving because when you save a screenshot on power dvd or whatever it doesn't preserve the shot in its natural aspect ratio. if you put those dvd shots into a better perspective there may be a little clipped off the edges but when i viewed this movie, i was blown away at the presentation especially compared to the pan and scan version. while there may be a weed or 1/4 of a brick missing from the shot, i don't think it's anything to complain about.

Maerj · Post by **Maerj** » Wed Dec 10, 2003 7:42 pm

Captain Hook wrote:
Udvarnoky wrote:Well, the DVD of Beauty and the Beast isn't in the original ratio, but it is in the INTENDED ratio, which was projected in theaters.
That is the worst thing I have ever read on this forum in my entire life. To think that people agree with cropping movies! What is this world coming to!!! AAAH!!! Why is the VHS a pan and scan of the 1.66:1 version instead of the 1.85:1 then? Sorry if this doesn't make sense, but in all reality, I think that both movies should be rereleased in their original formats.

What they are saying is that the DVD is in the aspect ratio that the filmmakers wanted. They actually requested it and it is how the film was shown theatrically.

As far as this whole Sleeping Beauty DVD goes... I think the DVD is still very special and so is MMB... and that is enough for me!

DVDizzy Forum

Latest Movie Reviews

🎬 DVDizzy Top Stories️️

Sleeping Beauty DVD not so special! (everyone please read!!)

Sleeping Beauty DVD not so special! (everyone please read!!)

Matting by projectionist.