-

Jump to content



Photo

Lady and the Tramp OAR


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
33 replies to this topic

#1 of 34 OFFLINE   ScottR

ScottR

    Screenwriter

  • 2,650 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 01 2000

Posted March 24 2003 - 05:18 PM

What is the OAR of Lady and the Tramp? Is it 2.35:1 or 2.55:1? It seems that since it was made in the early days of Cinemascope that it would be the latter.

#2 of 34 OFFLINE   Jeff Kleist

Jeff Kleist

    Executive Producer

  • 11,286 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 04 1999

Posted March 24 2003 - 05:22 PM

It's 2.35:1 OR 1.33:1

The cels were shot twice, and in some cases different backgrounds used for each AR

#3 of 34 OFFLINE   SteveP

SteveP

    Second Unit

  • 274 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 06 2001

Posted March 24 2003 - 06:26 PM

A 1955 CinemaScope release would have been 2.55:1 on 4-channel magnetic stereo prints and 2.35:1 only on prints with optical sound only.

#4 of 34 OFFLINE   DaViD Boulet

DaViD Boulet

    Lead Actor

  • 8,805 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 24 1999

Posted March 25 2003 - 04:02 AM

Here's to hoping for a future remastered 16x9 DVD SE...*whatever* the aspect ratio happens to be (and a dual 1.33:1 release in a 2-disc set would be awesome given it's "dual nature" upon theatrical release).
Be an Original Aspect Ratio Advocate

Supporter of 1080p24 video and lossless 24 bit audio.

#5 of 34 OFFLINE   Lyle_JP

Lyle_JP

    Screenwriter

  • 1,007 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 05 2000

Posted March 25 2003 - 04:34 AM

The 1.33:1 prints were seldom seen. Really, they were produced only for theaters incapable of properly showing Cinemascope. The 2.35:1 version of the film was the "preferred" aspect ratio of the animators.

Also, it was not until the late 90's that the composed-for-1.33 version even showed up on home video. All previous video releases had been pan and scanned from 2.35:1 prints, which seems to re-enforce the notion that the 1.33:1 prints were exceptionally rare.

Also, the 1.33:1 prints were only shown during the film's first run. They were never used for any of the multiple re-releases.

-Lyle J.P.

#6 of 34 OFFLINE   DaViD Boulet

DaViD Boulet

    Lead Actor

  • 8,805 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 24 1999

Posted March 25 2003 - 04:55 AM

I don't think that anyone would deny that the 2.35:1 composition was intended to be the "premiere" version. However, it doesn't negate the historical value of the 1.33:1 composition, nor does Disney's ineptitude in past 4x3 video incarnations (which were P/S of the WS version) somehow bear testimony to their lack of value. Disney has let many other items in their vault disappear or be destroyed (original optical sound elements for Fantasia, for example) and so the present rarity of those 1.33:1 film stocks is an effect, not a cause. Road-show cuts of films which were shown sparingly upon release (and never again during re-release or wide-spread theatrical release) get lots of respect among collectors...why shouldn't a 1.33:1 version of a film that was animated specifically for theaters not equipped for WS presentation?

If presented on DVD in a special edition, the WS should certianly be presented first and foremost with the greatest of quality. However, it's more than a mere novelty that a 1.33:1 composition *was* created...it's an effort by the studio worth preserving on DVD and certainly one worth offering to those wishing to fill their 4x3 screen as a "native 1.33:1" choice that has undeniable historical precedence.

As a film collector, I'd like to have the opportunity to view both versions, as I'm sure would most other film-collectors and Disney-buffs alike.
Be an Original Aspect Ratio Advocate

Supporter of 1080p24 video and lossless 24 bit audio.

#7 of 34 OFFLINE   Peter Kline

Peter Kline

    Screenwriter

  • 2,409 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 09 1999

Posted March 25 2003 - 06:33 AM

The 1.33:1 version was shown overseas when there was no Cinemascope installations. I believe all US theatrical showings were in 2.35:1 (although I could be wrong). MGM did this as well with some musicals, "Brigadoon", "Seven Brides" that I know of.

#8 of 34 OFFLINE   DeeF

DeeF

    Screenwriter

  • 1,676 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 19 2002

Posted March 25 2003 - 07:04 AM

Peter,

The difference between LATT, and the other live-action musicals you've mentioned, is that in order to get two versions of "Brigadoon" and "Seven Brides...", they had to be filmed twice, once using 'Scope cameras, for Widescreen, and once 'flat,' for 4x3 presention.

But Lady and the Tramp wasn't done twice, it was simply cropped for the Widescreen version.

In many ways, I'd rather have the 4:3 version, because it is more picture.

P.S. I could be wrong...

#9 of 34 OFFLINE   DaViD Boulet

DaViD Boulet

    Lead Actor

  • 8,805 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 24 1999

Posted March 25 2003 - 07:17 AM

Dee,

You are wrong. Posted Image From every source that I have read, Lady and the tramp was animated separately for a 1.33:1 version (I'm sure they used many of the same cels and animation source material to save costs...but there were indeed 2 distinct versions that were created...a 2.35 and a 1.33). It's very similar to what Pixar did with their 2 versions of A Bug's Life...where there the 4x3 version was "recomposed". The WS version wasn't "cropped" from the 4x3 but neither was the 4x3 a true P/S of the WS...they were 2 distinct versions.

This is why making both versions available on DVD (as they were on LD) is a worth-while endeavor.
Be an Original Aspect Ratio Advocate

Supporter of 1080p24 video and lossless 24 bit audio.

#10 of 34 OFFLINE   LukeB

LukeB

    Screenwriter

  • 2,179 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 26 2000

Posted March 25 2003 - 08:07 AM

DaViD is correct...it was filmed for both ratios. I've seen the 1.33:1 version and the frames are composed with skill and accuracy. I agree that putting both versions on the Platinum Edition would make sense. I think Disney will probably do that anyway, given the "unfriendly" nature of 2.35:1...Posted Image

#11 of 34 OFFLINE   Peter Kline

Peter Kline

    Screenwriter

  • 2,409 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 09 1999

Posted March 25 2003 - 09:36 AM

I believe that when the film first came out on VHS they simply panned and scanned it. Obviously none of the people at Disney knew of the flat version!

P.S. I may be wrong...... (but I think you're wonderful) Posted Image

#12 of 34 OFFLINE   Dick

Dick

    Producer

  • 4,156 posts
  • Join Date: May 22 1999
  • Real Name:Rick

Posted March 25 2003 - 11:02 AM

Yes, all video incantations of L&T were pan and scan prior to the late 90's re-issue. Finally, there were separate laser disc releases (2.35 and, now somewhat rare, the re-framed 1.33 version), and the Image Entertainment laser magazine which promoted them gave the details. One of fewer than a half-dozen times to my knowledge (including BRIGADOON, etc) that a movie was filmed twice from scratch in order to accomodate theaters with 1.33:1 screens.

#13 of 34 OFFLINE   Brian W.

Brian W.

    Screenwriter

  • 1,958 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 29 1999
  • Real Name:Brian
  • LocationLos Angeles

Posted March 25 2003 - 12:42 PM

Yeah, to this day I don't understand why Disney made the DVD 2.35 non-anamorphic and did not also include the 1.33 version of the film.

#14 of 34 OFFLINE   Jeff Kleist

Jeff Kleist

    Executive Producer

  • 11,286 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 04 1999

Posted March 25 2003 - 12:48 PM

because they just rehashed their LD masters on all of them

#15 of 34 OFFLINE   Brian W.

Brian W.

    Screenwriter

  • 1,958 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 29 1999
  • Real Name:Brian
  • LocationLos Angeles

Posted March 25 2003 - 03:24 PM

Right, but they had a laserdisc master for the 1.33 version also, and didn't use it. It just surprises me that with their early aversion to OAR they didn't use the 1.33 master.

#16 of 34 OFFLINE   Tim Glover

Tim Glover

    Lead Actor

  • 7,661 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 12 1999
  • Real Name:Tim Glover

Posted March 25 2003 - 03:33 PM

At the risk of offending someone here :b has anyone ever done a real comparison of the two versions? Which is better or which better serves the film?

#17 of 34 OFFLINE   alan halvorson

alan halvorson

    Screenwriter

  • 2,021 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 02 1998

Posted March 25 2003 - 03:56 PM

I happen to have both version on LD - if I get time (maybe this weekend), I will try to compare them
They're coming to take me away, ha-haaa!!
They're coming to take me away, ho-ho, hee-hee, ha-haaa To the funny farm. Where life is beautiful all the time and I'll be happy to see those nice young men in their clean white coats and they're coming to take me away, ha-haaa!!!!!
- Napoleon XIV

#18 of 34 OFFLINE   DaViD Boulet

DaViD Boulet

    Lead Actor

  • 8,805 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 24 1999

Posted March 26 2003 - 01:41 AM

Tim,

Given that the studio was producing the cinemascope version as their "definitive" statement and the 1.33:1 version only as a "backup" for theaters that couldn't project the widescreen...it's fair to say that from Walt Disney's team of artists point of view that the WS version "better serves" their vision for the film. Don't get me wrong...I feel very strongly that the 1.33:1 version should get all the credit it deserves and be preserved on an SE DVD for generations to enjoy.

Quote:
Yeah, to this day I don't understand why Disney made the DVD 2.35 non-anamorphic and did not also include the 1.33 version of the film.

That was the early days when Disney was into supporting DIVX and was shafting movie fans on a regular basis with their sub-par DVD transfers. Heck...they didn't even give us a 16x9 version of A Bug's Life until the SE was released at a later date!!!

Other (some horrid) early Disney DVDs that recycled laserdisc masters (some of which were "ok" 4x3 lbx transfers and some of which were HORRIBLE!!!)

Pocohontas
Little Mermaid
Mulan
Hurcules
Lady and the Tramp
Black Caulron
Black Hole
Nightmare before Christmas
James and the Giant Peach
Be an Original Aspect Ratio Advocate

Supporter of 1080p24 video and lossless 24 bit audio.

#19 of 34 OFFLINE   Colin Jacobson

Colin Jacobson

    Producer

  • 5,235 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 19 2000

Posted March 26 2003 - 01:56 AM

Quote:
Other (some horrid) early Disney DVDs that recycled laserdisc masters


Mulan and Black Cauldron never had a laserdisc release - at least not in the US...
Colin Jacobson
http://www.dvdmg.com

#20 of 34 OFFLINE   Ken_McAlinden

Ken_McAlinden

    Producer

  • 6,070 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 20 2001
  • Real Name:Kenneth McAlinden
  • LocationLivonia, MI USA

Posted March 26 2003 - 02:22 AM

Brian wondered:
Quote:
Yeah, to this day I don't understand why Disney made the DVD 2.35 non-anamorphic and did not also include the 1.33 version of the film.
Jeff answered:
Quote:
because they just rehashed their LD masters on all of them
Hmmm. Flippant, but also misleading and inaccurate in the context of the entire question. The last release of Lady & the Tramp on laserdisc was available in both 2.35:1 (separate CLV and CAV SE editions) and the recomposed 4:3 (CLV only) aspect ratios. The DVD was a rehash of neither in at least one respect. The 5.1 track on the DVD corrected a handful of errors on the audio remix of the laserdiscs including bits of missing dialog and music.

Regards,
Ken McAlinden
Livonia, MI USA


Back to DVD



Forum Nav Content I Follow