Sleeping Beauty is NOT in its original aspect ration
#1
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
check it out:
http://www.geocities.com/flynracoon/SleepingBeauty.html
#3
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
WSP&S -- the new standard
#6
DVD Talk Hero
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Hail to the Redskins!
Posts: 25,295
Likes: 0
Received 49 Likes
on
38 Posts
Re: Sleeping Beauty is NOT in its original aspect ration
Originally posted by ToddJamesPierce
It seems that some scenes have been cropped, enlarged, or framed.
check it out:
http://www.geocities.com/flynracoon/SleepingBeauty.html
It seems that some scenes have been cropped, enlarged, or framed.
check it out:
http://www.geocities.com/flynracoon/SleepingBeauty.html
#11
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Portland OR
Posts: 1,747
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Update: Here's the link if you can't find it at their site: Sleeping Beauty Review
Last edited by MEJHarrison; 12-11-03 at 03:39 PM.
#13
Senior Member
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.
The right one looks correct to me though.
#14
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Feathers McGraw
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.
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.
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.
#15
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Reading, PA
Posts: 1,155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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"?
#16
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Mpls, MN
Posts: 6,830
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
#17
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah - USA
Posts: 5,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"...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...
. . . . . .
...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...
. . . . . .
#19
DVD Talk Godfather
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.
"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.
Last edited by fumanstan; 12-12-03 at 12:23 PM.
#21
Senior Member
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?)
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?)
Last edited by digidoh; 04-21-07 at 10:39 PM. Reason: Link to article on image-cropping no longer works