Sleeping Beauty is NOT in its original aspect ration
 

It seems that some scenes have been cropped, enlarged, or framed.

check it out:

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

I'm curious where the "original print" comes from. How do we know that was correct?

it could be that there was some intended framing for that first example. But examples 2 and 3 are two significant of an enlargement to simply be a "border." Also one is off center. So this is basically widescreen pan and scan, nothing more. Pan and scan, with little black bars at the top and bottom of the screen.

WSP&S -- the new standard

I have check out my widescreen laserdisc copy of the film, the 2.35 AOR should be correct, something seems amiss here.

Mmm...rations.

Re: Sleeping Beauty is NOT in its original aspect ration
 

Completely stolen post from the ultimatedisney forums. Next time, give credit where it is due.

The web site you are trying to access has exceeded its allocated data transfer.

Damn geoshitties! Why do people still use it?

I think both posts simply point to the website where the information is located. It's also on a lot of animation sites.

ok fine - so give us a link that works... ;)

The link does work ;)

If you go track down David Boulet's review at Home Theater Forum, this was discussed months ago. Seems that Robert Harris was the one who either discovered or verified the problem. It also seems that the general consensus is that it wasn't worth getting up in arms over. But I could be remembering wrong. Just look up the original review if you're curious. It should be in the Review Archives section.

Update: Here's the link if you can't find it at their site: Sleeping Beauty Review

Does anyone know if the widescreen VHS that was released about 6 years ago is correct or does it suffer from the same 'problem' as the DVD?

It's not just a border or scan, it's been squashed or stretched. Look at the second example, with Flora et al. The Blue one (can never remember which is which) is severely squashed downwards in the left picture, compared to the right one. Or, the left one is stretched vertically. She's much shorter and fatter on the left.

The right one looks correct to me though.

That's because the pictures aren't like-for-like comparisons. The ones on the left are taken from a non-anamorphic transfer and the ones on the right are from the DVD (which of course is anamorphic), and yet the images have been resized to the same dimensions. I very much doubt the stretching/squashing problem is actually an issue with the sources of the screencaps.

At least, that's my recollection from when I looked it earlier today. Now the data transfer has been exceeded, so I can't look.

Why do the pictures from the dvd look 1:85:1 & the comparisons are either 2:35:1 or 1:85:1? I thought I remembered that Lady & The Tramp had 2 versions made at once- one 2:35:1 & one full-frame. Maybe Sleeping Beauty did too? Anyway, the differences are pretty minor. Companies are going to stop trying to make great dvds if everyone complains about something on every single one. Everytime a new movie comes out there's always a "glitch" or problem thread right away. I mean who said "you know I think when I saw this in the 50's I could see a few more trees in this shot"?

I seem to recall something explaining the 2.35 and the FS versions on the DVD. Or on the packaging, perhaps. I was actually surprised to see the WS version because of the age and my lack of knowledge on this particular film, then the info with the movie mentioned it was Disney's first WS animated film.

I'd have no idea if the framing is wrong. But this is a hand-drawn animated Scope film. How could there be any extra to one side or the other in order to misframe? Boulet's review said it's just a couple pixels, which he accurately (IMO) assumes is partly due to the player and display used. I can't get to Geocities, of course, to compare that commentary.

This really isn't like the BTTF issue where you have the OAR as the middle part of a larger original film pane and shifting (and therefore incorrect shifting) is quite possible when transferred to DVD or tape.

"...the info with the movie mentioned it was Disney's first WS animated film..."

...erm... if the info with the movie mentioned that, then the info with the movie was wrong: LADY AND THE TRAMP was Disney's first WS (CinemaScope) animated film...

. . . :o . . .

No, it doesn't.

From the insert:

"Sleeping Beauty was produced in a widescreen process called Technirama 70, a first for Walt Disney and his team of animators."

Edit: In other words, it's the 70mm process, not the widescreen.

Gotcha.

Still, what framing issues can there be with animation from that era? Or any era, most likely?

A review, by Felix E. Martinez, at DVD Angle, claimed that Beauty's OAR for its 70mm release prints was actually 2.20:1, and was slightly cropped to 2.35:1 for 35mm prints. Martinez also noted the MPAA logo in the opening credits for the DVD's widescreen presentation is partially lopped off.

EDIT, April 2007: The original link to Martinez's article is dead. I was unable to find it at Rotten Tomatoes (DVD Angle's successor?)