
Disney aspect ratio conundrum
02-12-2006 17:18 | 13960 views | Michael Mackenzie | Show Backlinks
In Disney fandom, there is a long-running debate surrounding the intended aspect ratios of a number of the studio's animated features, including everything from One Hundred and One Dalmatians (1961) up to and including The Fox and the Hound (1981). For a long time, the eight films encompassed by this 20-year period were all available on DVD in a 1.33:1 Academy aspect ratio, barring The Rescuers (1977), which was released in 1.66:1. No-one could really decide exactly which ratio these films were meant to be shown in: theoretically, they were all released at a time when cinemas equipped to display Academy material were no longer common, so it makes sense to assume that they would have been exhibited in a ratio somewhere between 1.66:1 (European widescreen) and 1.85:1 (American widescreen). This was substantiated somewhat by the admittedly unreliable IMDB, which listed an intended ratio of 1.75:1 for these titles.
The DVDs, however, suggested otherwise. Many argued that Disney would not have released these films in 1.33:1 on DVD if that was not their intended ratio, especially given their otherwise solid track record for presenting the other Animated Classics on DVD properly. Opponents of this theory pointed to The Rescuers as the odd one out, wondering why Disney would have made this film in widescreen and then gone back to the Academy ratio for their next project. Likewise, the obviously cropped DVD and VHS releases of The Fox and the Hound strongly indicated that something foul was afoot in Neverland.
The release of a new edition of Robin Hood, however, goes some way towards answering these various questions. Previously, this film was, like its counterparts from the 1961-1981 period, released on DVD in a 1.33:1 aspect ratio, which showed no obvious cropping. Personally, I always suspected that, barring The Rescuers and The Fox and the Hound, all the films of this 20-year period were being released in an open matte format - substantiated by the fact that zooming the DVDs in on a widescreen TV generally resulted in few if any framing problems. Now, Robin Hood has been released in a new "Most Wanted Edition" (how on earth do they come up with these titles?), and it turns out to be a 1.75:1 anamorphic presentation (i.e. with very thin black bars on either side of the widescreen frame). The Ultimate Disney review, which includes a screenshot comparing this release to its 1.33:1 predecessor, clearly shows that the earlier version was open matte. Indeed, flicking between the two captures of the same frame from both releases, it's clear that, on the left and right hand side of the frame, there is barely even a pixel's worth of difference. At the top and bottom, however, the new release obscures a considerable amount of the dead space that was present on the previous release.
The reviewer admittedly does have some reservations about this new presentation, pointing to the fact that "some elements do feel slightly cramped in the vertical direction", and a few of the screen captures accompanying the review do substantiate this. I'm not particularly convinced, however, by the various arguments he puts forth in favour of 1.33:1 being the intended presentation (although, to his credit, he doesn't attempt to claim one or the other to be the "correct" way to view the film). It seems, to me at least, clear that Robin Hood (and, therefore, presumably also One Hundred and One Dalmatians, The Aristocats and so on) were exhibited theatrically at around a ratio of 1.75:1 (which falls fairly squarely between 1.66:1 and 1.85:1), therefore making this new DVD an accurate representation of its intended appearance. I consider Robin Hood to be one of the worst films from a generally poor period in the Disney studio's history, but I'm sorely tempted to pick up this new version and bin (or, more likely, eBay) my old fullscreen disc.
The only question now is why did they go to the effort to get Robin Hood right, but weren't willing to take this extra step for The Fox and the Hound?
The DVDs, however, suggested otherwise. Many argued that Disney would not have released these films in 1.33:1 on DVD if that was not their intended ratio, especially given their otherwise solid track record for presenting the other Animated Classics on DVD properly. Opponents of this theory pointed to The Rescuers as the odd one out, wondering why Disney would have made this film in widescreen and then gone back to the Academy ratio for their next project. Likewise, the obviously cropped DVD and VHS releases of The Fox and the Hound strongly indicated that something foul was afoot in Neverland.
The release of a new edition of Robin Hood, however, goes some way towards answering these various questions. Previously, this film was, like its counterparts from the 1961-1981 period, released on DVD in a 1.33:1 aspect ratio, which showed no obvious cropping. Personally, I always suspected that, barring The Rescuers and The Fox and the Hound, all the films of this 20-year period were being released in an open matte format - substantiated by the fact that zooming the DVDs in on a widescreen TV generally resulted in few if any framing problems. Now, Robin Hood has been released in a new "Most Wanted Edition" (how on earth do they come up with these titles?), and it turns out to be a 1.75:1 anamorphic presentation (i.e. with very thin black bars on either side of the widescreen frame). The Ultimate Disney review, which includes a screenshot comparing this release to its 1.33:1 predecessor, clearly shows that the earlier version was open matte. Indeed, flicking between the two captures of the same frame from both releases, it's clear that, on the left and right hand side of the frame, there is barely even a pixel's worth of difference. At the top and bottom, however, the new release obscures a considerable amount of the dead space that was present on the previous release.
The reviewer admittedly does have some reservations about this new presentation, pointing to the fact that "some elements do feel slightly cramped in the vertical direction", and a few of the screen captures accompanying the review do substantiate this. I'm not particularly convinced, however, by the various arguments he puts forth in favour of 1.33:1 being the intended presentation (although, to his credit, he doesn't attempt to claim one or the other to be the "correct" way to view the film). It seems, to me at least, clear that Robin Hood (and, therefore, presumably also One Hundred and One Dalmatians, The Aristocats and so on) were exhibited theatrically at around a ratio of 1.75:1 (which falls fairly squarely between 1.66:1 and 1.85:1), therefore making this new DVD an accurate representation of its intended appearance. I consider Robin Hood to be one of the worst films from a generally poor period in the Disney studio's history, but I'm sorely tempted to pick up this new version and bin (or, more likely, eBay) my old fullscreen disc.
The only question now is why did they go to the effort to get Robin Hood right, but weren't willing to take this extra step for The Fox and the Hound?


Comments
Member
Posts: 82
I for one shall be very interested to see what they do with Jungle Book, which was 4:3 in its previous DVD release.
Contributor
Posts: 370
In 1961 in the USA and UK, commercial cinemas which could show Academy Ratio films properly were non-existent, not just "no longer common" - tho only ones that could being arthouses and repertory cinema clubs. Let's not forget that Disney has always marketed its films for wide commercial release and its prime market is the USA - there, you'd have to search hard to find a commercial cinema that could show anything other than 1.85:1 and 2.35:1, so it seems pretty clear to me that these films are intended to be shown at 1.85:1 without any undue problems. To do otherwise makes no sense, especially as video did not exist at the time, and the films were not sold to TV either.
As with other filmmakers, what ratio they prefer to display their films in on the smaller screen is another matter. Maybe the earlier releases in 4:3 open-matte had more to do with lesser takeup of widescreen TV sets in DVD's earlier days, especially in the USA. (This is a similar reason to Criterion's not releasing anamorphic DVDs early on.)
Member
Posts: 126
1.75:1 may have been the intended theatrical ratio, but in these cases I prefer the unmatted version, even when they aren't what was intended to be seen. When I compare the screenshots from the new version and my old full screen dvd, the new widescreen just looks cramped, not to mention lots of heads and other body parts are gonna be cut off.
A shame they weren't consistent to begin with, that way we wouldn't have to be discussing it now :(
The very thought of them matting features like 101 Dalmatians and Jungle Book gives me the shivers. I just can't imagine anything in them being superfluous. I guess I just prefer the animation ratio and them changing their minds all of a sudden for this releases might not be a good sign at all.
Spiny Anteater
Posts: 181
Member
Posts: 515
BTW, is the current DVD of Fox And The Hound pan'scan/cropped or is an open matte version
Contributor
Posts: 1647
Originally Posted by James Lee:
BTW, is the current DVD of Fox And The Hound pan'scan/cropped or is an open matte version
It definitely looks pan and scanned to me. The compositions are often extremely tight on the left and right, and on a few occasions you can actually see the camera sliding very slightly to either side in order to accommodate important information in a way that doesn't look organic to the cinematography itself.
------
Reviews | DVDs | My Web Site
Member
Posts: 10
Member
Posts: 4
If ever a movie was shot with the widescreen in mind it was this - the entertainment value was severely compromised while watching it.