|
Originally Posted by Chuck Pennington
Um, so THAT is why they are calling it a "never-before-seen wider version," which means they are showing the full negative aperture rather than what would ever have been projected. Hmmm.... Seems to negate the whole point of widescreen, which is often used to engage people with a wider frame, to present a version that pushes viewers further away from the action, exposing more photographic image area than was ever intended to be seen and was always cropped before intentionally.
What does anyone else think? |
\"My opinion is that (a) anyone who actually works in a video store and does not understand letterboxing has given up on life, and (b) any customer who prefers to have the sides of a movie hacked off should not be licensed to operate a video player.\"-- Roger Ebert
|
Originally Posted by Stephen_J_H
FWIW, 2.55:1 is not the full negative aperture of Technirama. Being an 8 perf horizontal format shot through a 1.5x squeeze anamorphic lens, the full aperture would have been 2.35:1. Reference here: Widescreen Museum - The Technirama Wing - Page 1
Had Disney gone back to the original elements and printed the full aperture, we probably would have seen unfinished artwork around the edges a la Yellow Submarine open matte, and the A/R would still have been 2.35:1. A transfer like that would have been a travesty. |
\"My opinion is that (a) anyone who actually works in a video store and does not understand letterboxing has given up on life, and (b) any customer who prefers to have the sides of a movie hacked off should not be licensed to operate a video player.\"-- Roger Ebert
|
Originally Posted by Stephen_J_H
2.55:1 was the CinemaScope A/R @ the time Sleeping Beauty went into production.
|
Roland Lataille
Cinerama web site:
http://cineramahistory.com
STOP THE MADNESS! STOP THE BUTCHERING AND ABANDONMENT OF TV SHOWS ON DVD!
My DVD List at DVD Aficionado, Now Featuring Blu-Ray
|
Originally Posted by Lord Dalek
See the thing about this is 2.55:1 is neither the film's neg ratio (2.25:1) or its intended ratio (2.20:1) so I really don't understand Disney's methodology behind this transfer. It just seems way too cramped on the top and bottom.
|
Roland Lataille
Cinerama web site:
http://cineramahistory.com
|
Originally Posted by RolandL
Have any of you seen the TV ad for this release? They show what looks like a 1.85:1 frame and a 2.55:1 frame below it. They say something like "For the first time on DVD and Blu-ray, the way Walt Disney intended it to be seen"
|
|
Originally Posted by Mark-P
Yeah, but the Technirama camera they would have used to photograph the cels would have rendered an aspect ratio of 2.25:1. Are you saying they photographed it with tiny unused bands above and below and then zoomed and cropped the image when optically converting it to 35 and 70mm film prints?
|
\"My opinion is that (a) anyone who actually works in a video store and does not understand letterboxing has given up on life, and (b) any customer who prefers to have the sides of a movie hacked off should not be licensed to operate a video player.\"-- Roger Ebert
\"My opinion is that (a) anyone who actually works in a video store and does not understand letterboxing has given up on life, and (b) any customer who prefers to have the sides of a movie hacked off should not be licensed to operate a video player.\"-- Roger Ebert
STOP THE MADNESS! STOP THE BUTCHERING AND ABANDONMENT OF TV SHOWS ON DVD!
My DVD List at DVD Aficionado, Now Featuring Blu-Ray
|
Originally Posted by Christian Preischl
When you check out the previous DVD release, make sure to compare the "Sleeping Beauty" title card. If I remember correctly the Technirama logo was actually cut off on the bottom on the old release.
|
\"My opinion is that (a) anyone who actually works in a video store and does not understand letterboxing has given up on life, and (b) any customer who prefers to have the sides of a movie hacked off should not be licensed to operate a video player.\"-- Roger Ebert
|
Originally Posted by Stephen_J_H
I think you're way off base.
|
|
Originally Posted by Chuck Pennington
Really? Well, in the pamphlet included in the new SLEEPING BEAUTY DVD is this note:
"For the first time ever, see Disney's masterpiece SLEEPING BEAUTY the way Walt envisioned it with a never-before-seen expanded version of the film, which reveals more picture than ever before. This expansive version unveils images that no one has ever seen in theaters or home entertainment!" In other words, this DVD does NOT represent the aspect ratio the film was EVER exhibited in at ANY theater. To claim that it represents "the way Walt envisioned it" is more than just a bit of a stretch, especially considering he isn't here to state that, and considering how he definitely was strict in having his wishes carried through (anyone remember the original roadshow of FANTASIA and the Fanasound equipment?). This "expanded version" is actually a marketing tool. The before and after images on the TV spots are even lies as the before is an altered image of its companion, NOT an image from a prior video release! When the commercial states "for the last time EVER on DVD and Blu-Ray" it is referring to this "expanded version" - and mark my words when the next reissue comes around (give it 8-10 years) we'll get a release with the proper aspect ratio as "the original theatrical format, for the first time ever on Blu-Ray!" Oh, boy.... The film has been released on video 4 times over the course of 22 years (1986-2008), three times billed as "digitally restored". To state that this new 2.55:1 version is the best just because of that aspect ratio is crazy to me as it is the same as claiming an open-matte release of a film is now revealing "more picture than ever seen before"! |
\"My opinion is that (a) anyone who actually works in a video store and does not understand letterboxing has given up on life, and (b) any customer who prefers to have the sides of a movie hacked off should not be licensed to operate a video player.\"-- Roger Ebert
|
Originally Posted by Stephen_J_H
It's not just because of the aspect ratio. This is the first time that Disney has gone back to the original successive exposure camera elements, revealing more detail than ever before, and not just in the wideness of the frame.
|
|
Originally Posted by Stephen_J_H
What becomes clear from the screencaps posted (yours included) is that Disney wanted the animators to compose their shots with a 2.55:1 frame in mind. Why 2.55, when 2.25 or 2.21:1 would have been the standard Technirama frame? Because Disney knew the majority of people who saw the film would see it on standard run, non-roadshow CinemaScope engagements, which, at the time the film went into production, would be showing an AR of (wait for it....) 2.55:1. Between the time Sleeping Beauty went into production and its release, Fox standardized CinemaScope to 2.35:1, so when CinemaScope release prints were made, that was the format to which they were printed.
That is really all we can suppose @ this time, short of conducting seances to contact Walt and get his answer. Not an area of research I'm willing to enter into. |
|
Originally Posted by Chuck Pennington
Revealing more picture info than was EVER seen at the theaters in the past 50 years is not correct or accurate.
|
|
Originally Posted by ScottHM
And yet it's neither 'incorrect' nor 'inaccurate'.
--------------- |
