WS: Is Disney cheating? (1 Viewer)

[Marc_E]

Is Disney pulling a fast one on us who demanded OAR? 1.66:1 on my 103" FP gives bars on the sides. Are they trying to compromise between FS and WS?
I just bought The Lion King and saw that it is 1.66:1 (Family friendly WS) after seeing that Treasure Planet and Stitch the movie are also that way.
Any thoughts?
Marc

 

[ThomasC]

IIRC, Lion King was 1.85:1 in theaters, then opened up to 1.66:1 for the DVD. David Boulet said in his review that opening it up made it better, and rewatching the LD made it seemed cramped, and I find no reason to disagree. Perhaps TP and Stitch are the same way, I'm not sure though.

 

[alan halvorson]

1.66 done right produces bars on the sides. Anything narrower than 1.77 produces bars on the sides; anything wider than 1.77 produces bars on the top and bottom. Normally, bars on the sides are not seen due to overscan. Apparently, your system has none/very little overscan - a good thing most of the time.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Every Disney film since The Little Mermaid has been composed in the 1.66:1 ratio.

 

[Jonathan_]

Every Disney film since The Little Mermaid has been composed in the 1.66:1 ratio.

Atlantis has an aspect ratio of 2.35:1.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

...with that notable exception.

Forgot about that clunker.:b My point was that the animation system Disney used was a 1.66:1 based system.

I just don't understand this need to fill one's widescreen TV, while leering at Joe Six Pack for wanting the same on his 4x3.

 

[Marc_E]

I just don't understand this need to fill one's widescreen TV, while leering at Joe Six Pack for wanting the same on his 4x3.

I did not mean to come across like this. Let me profess that I do not know everything. My hypothesis was: Is Disney trying to compromise between J6P and WS advocates by scoping WS movies to 1.66 to reduce the top/bottom while making it WS?
Marc

 

[Mark Zimmer]

I don't think so. 1.66:1 is the standard ratio for European releases, and they may just be wanting to capitalize on the worldwide market.

 

[LukeB]

1.66:1 anamorphic widescreen isn't a compromise between Widescreen and Fullscreen, because the black bars on top and bottom will be the same as if it were 1.78:1 (which most "1.85:1 in theory" widescreen DVDs are). Like Adam said, 1.66:1 is the aspect ratio they create their films in, and DVD has become the only way to see the entire animated frame as it was created, since both theatrical matting to 1.85:1 and VHS cropping to 1.33:1 loses some of the frame.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

I did not mean to come across like this. Let me profess that I do not know everything.

Not a problem. Wasn't talking about you specifically; it's just a viewpoint becoming more and more prevalent, one which I happen to be venemently opposed to. I try to take every opportunity I can to vent.

 

[Julian Lalor]

Lion King was composed for 1.85:1 but hard matted at 1.66:1. The DVD shows the full apperture.

 

[Joshua_W]

I think I read somewhere that the animators create a 1.66:1 image, which is protected and matted to 1.85:1 at the theater.

The DVDs are released at 1.66:1 (technically "open matte") at the request of the animators, as they prefer that ratio.

 

[Sean Frost]

What ratio was Spirited Away created in? On the DVD it looks like 1.85:1

 

[LukeB]

I thought that the Spirited Away DVD was supposed to be 2.0:1. But I have no idea what the Ghibli people animated it for.

 

[Bryan Tuck]

I thought that the Spirited Away DVD was supposed to be 2.0:1. But I have no idea what the Ghibli people animated it for.

The transfer is about 2.0:1, but the actual picture area is windowboxed at about 1.85:1. This was done (I believe at Miyazaki's request) to allow for overscan.

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

Most of the 1.66:1 Disney films are layed out to be matted to 1.85:1. Certain special presentations of the films (such as the "Pocohantas Summer Spectacular") were projected at 1.66:1 in some venues.

The 1.66:1 "fluff" area allowed for different framings between the two ratios and less egregious panning and scanning for 4:3 presentations. It doesn't bother me too much either way.

Regards,

 

[Marc_E]

Does bother me terribly because I can just adjust my side surtains around the screen and looks perfect. I was just curious in the wake of the flood of phone calls/emails if this was a 'give them this to shut them up' solution.
Marc

 

[Stephen_J_H]

It's a software thing. Every film completed with the Pixar-developed CAPS (Computer Assisted Painting System), with the exception of Atlantis:The Lost Empire and the upcoming Brother Bear, is outputted in 1.66:1. Since the average megaplex (and I know this from experience, since I work in one) is only equipped to show films in either 1.85 or 2.35:1, of course concessions have to be made in framing, and sometimes the directors actually prefer that framing (as was the case with Beauty & the Beast). BTW, the first Disney film to use CAPS was The Rescuers Down Under. The Little Mermaid was the last hand-painted film released.

 

[Sean Frost]

Bryan do you know if Spirited Away was animated to 1.85:1? Or was it animated in some other ratio and they had reframe it for theaters.

Also on the DVD it seems that the picture quality for the movie on the first disk doesn't look as good as the trailer picture quality on disk two. The trailer image looks more colorful and crisper.

 

[Howard S]

1.66:1 anamorphic widescreen isn't a compromise between Widescreen and Fullscreen, because the black bars on top and bottom will be the same as if it were 1.78:1

I've been trying to understand this discussion, but this has lost me. Are you saying that the shape of the anamorphic image is actually 1.66:1, so that the viewable image, when converted back from anamorphic, is actually close to a standard widescreen format and on my 16x9 television I won't see any black bars? I thought that it was being suggested that I would see black bars left and right?