The Fox and the Hound: 25th Anniversary Ed. DVD - Fact Sheet

All topics relating to Disney-branded content.
User avatar
DisneyFreak5282
Anniversary Edition
Posts: 1537
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 1:41 pm
Location: U.S.A.

Post by DisneyFreak5282 »

Oy! 'Scuze me!
UDer #3495 :D
Ktrek
Gold Classic Collection
Posts: 175
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2006 8:45 am
Contact:

Post by Ktrek »

I finally got around to watching the 25th Anniversary Edition last night and I agree that there is not much difference between it and the Gold Collection Edition. I was hoping for a better transfer and cleanup but the defects are still visible. Also, my copy, and I assume all copies, has a bad transition between layers at the point when the porcupine invites Tod to stay with him. It's very annoying because it makes it seem like something was missing.

As far as the film itself though I would say that I enjoy the film even in spite of it's kind of "preachy" tendency. I'm sure the nature conservationists just love this film. I'm, not a hunter myself but this film sure does not put hunting in a good light and would certainly plant negative thoughts in children about the sport.

Kevin
User avatar
SpringHeelJack
Platinum Edition
Posts: 3673
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 3:20 pm
Location: Boston, MA
Contact:

Post by SpringHeelJack »

Well, "Bambi" wasn't going to have kids reaching for a 12 Gauge, either...
User avatar
DisneyFreak5282
Anniversary Edition
Posts: 1537
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 1:41 pm
Location: U.S.A.

Post by DisneyFreak5282 »

brotherbear wrote:I did think that "Passing the Baton" featurette was interestng...
I may have to pick up a copy of the 25th Anniversary and check it out! I'll probably hold onto my GC disc for a little while, I'll waiit 'til it becomes worth something...or just hold onto it to make myself feel special :D

Haha, just kidding. :lol:
UDer #3495 :D
User avatar
MichaeLeah
Gold Classic Collection
Posts: 318
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2005 9:53 pm
Location: Tampa, FL

Post by MichaeLeah »

I talked to someone on the technical side of Disney today. He has access to information that is not available to the public. I asked him about the proper ratio of The Fox and the Hound because I agonize over this question on a weekly basis. :brick:

He looked it up and he said 1.33:1 is indeed the OAR for The Fox and the Hound. I know that sounds strange, but that is what he said. As for me, the case is closed. I believe Disney has released this film in the proper ratio.
My avatar is from Tony's Town Square Restaurant. What else would we do over a plate of spaghetti with meatballs?
Billy Moon
Special Edition
Posts: 524
Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 5:21 am

Post by Billy Moon »

MichaeLeah wrote:I talked to someone on the technical side of Disney today. He has access to information that is not available to the public.
What kind of information? Do they have a list of the specs of every film that they don't want the public to see? I don't understand.
User avatar
MichaeLeah
Gold Classic Collection
Posts: 318
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2005 9:53 pm
Location: Tampa, FL

Post by MichaeLeah »

I am not saying Disney is "hiding" information. I simply meant he had access to information not available to the general public. I have been wrestling with this question (about FATH's ratio) for several years because definitive answers have never been available to the general public.
My avatar is from Tony's Town Square Restaurant. What else would we do over a plate of spaghetti with meatballs?
TawnyFox
Member
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 9:34 am
Location: Munich, Germany

Post by TawnyFox »

Hello folks!

This is my first post here and a rather long one, too :D

I've read almost the entire thread and since I haven't come to a final conclusion about the aspect ratio of The Fox and the Hound, I decided to try something out, of which I'm amazed that no-one else has tried it yet...

It's about this picture here:
MichaeLeah wrote:
ichabod wrote:
Image
Does this picture provide us with some conclusive data concerning the OAR or F&TH?!? I am not sure, what does everyone think?


As can be easily proved, this projected frame is of a ratio of about 1:1.66, so definitely different from the ratio we've got on DVD. My idea of shedding some light in the aspect ratio issue was this: Why not search the frame in the DVD-transfer and compare, so we can almost certainly verify the correct aspect ratio.

Okay, I transferred the movie from DVD to my computer and browsed through almost each single frame of the movie TWICE. But I couldn't find it! I began to doubt on my sight, but I simply couldn't find the shot projected in the picture above in the movie. There are two possible reasons for that: I overlooked it, blind and dumb as I am (much probable), or the frame does not appear in the movie, for whatever reason (less probable).
I don't know if I have the mood to skim through the movie again, so I ask you: Does anyone know where this frame appears in the movie? I don't need the precise frame number, just a rough idea where it appears in the story, so I can have a closer look again. Man, that annoys me, I can tell you :D

But by browsing almost each frame of the movie I have come to one conclusion that is quite certain: The 1:1.33 ratio we get on DVD is definitely NOT Open Matte; I spotted many frames and sequences where matting would cut off far to much, so for me, the mystery is partly solved, because I'm now convinced that the DVD is Pan & Scan. The picture above presumable shows the correct aspect ratio which is most probably 1:1.66, but I want to confirm this assumption by seeking the frame in the movie, but I can't find it. Please help me :cry:
Best regards,
TawnyFox

Digital photography (and some bad fan art ;-)) on my deviantART account
User avatar
eap_44
Gold Classic Collection
Posts: 129
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 3:59 pm
Location: Surrey, B.C.

Post by eap_44 »

i have a copy of the Gold Collection and I'm thinking whether to keep it or exchange it with this 25th Anniversary Edition. I've read that there's not much of a difference between the two edition.

What do you think?
User avatar
Escapay
Ultimate Collector's Edition
Posts: 12544
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2004 5:02 pm
Location: Somewhere in Time and Space
Contact:

Post by Escapay »

It depends mainly if you want a 6 minute featurette and an art gallery.

If you're still having thoughts, check out UD's review.

Escapay
WIST #60:
AwallaceUNC: Would you prefer Substi-Blu-tiary Locomotion? :p

WIST #61:
TheSequelOfDisney: Damn, did Lin-Manuel Miranda go and murder all your families?
TawnyFox
Member
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 9:34 am
Location: Munich, Germany

Post by TawnyFox »

Sorry, it's me again retrieving this rather old thread.

As the issue of the OAR of the movie didn't stop bothering me I once more took thr time to scan the frames of the movie searching for the very shot blurredly visible on the picture of the scoring session. And, applause please, I finally found it!! I missed it twice because I was misled by the bad quality of the picture, so I took the dark mass at the upper right for a tree trunk, but it's actually part of the cave where Vixie and Tod spend their first night in... gee, I was really blind at the first two attempts :D. Here it is:
Image

It appears that I have to revise my theory, because comparing the two frames clearly shows that the DVD picture must be open matte. I roughly indicated the matted frame with the yellow box. Well, I'm a bit taken aback, because I couldn't believe that the DVD transfer was open matte, as matteing would result in some strangely arranged scenes, as can be seen here:
Image
Image
Image

On the contrary, most of the film looks okay to me when matted...

I don't know anything at all now, it's so confusing... I'm inclined to believe that the film was indeed made in 1:1.33 and matted to probably 1:1.66 or even wider. Regarding the three pictures I posted above I think I'll be happy with the 1:1.33 open matte version as it is on DVD and put the entire topic down until the miracle of a DVD release in widescreen happens... then I shall reconsider.

There, sorry for blabbering, but I wanted to show you the result of my efforts :)
Best regards,
TawnyFox

Digital photography (and some bad fan art ;-)) on my deviantART account
User avatar
brotherbear
Special Edition
Posts: 540
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 9:44 pm
Location: In the Jungles of India

Post by brotherbear »

Thank you for going through all the trouble to bring this news to us!!

Unfortunately, I dont think the answer is that simple. If it really was filmed in 1.33:1, then why does it say on the DVD case, "This film has been formatted to fit your television" with the 1.33:1 ratio??? That typically means that it has been formatted from widescreen to fullscreen.

-BB
MY "FAB FOUR": 1- FANTASIA, 2- THE LION KING, 3- BEAUTY AND THE BEAST, 4- THE JUNGLE BOOK

Image
TawnyFox
Member
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 9:34 am
Location: Munich, Germany

Post by TawnyFox »

If it really was filmed in 1.33:1, then why does it say on the DVD case, "This film has been formatted to fit your television" with the 1.33:1 ratio??? That typically means that it has been formatted from widescreen to fullscreen.
Typically, yes. But the fact that the film was made in 1.33:1 doesn't necessarily mean, it was intended to be seen that way. I suppose the matted version was shown in theaters, so the intended ratio is "widescreen". The open matte version on DVD can be regarded as modification of the intended wide ratio, so from that point of view, the note on the case is right. It has been modified from about 1:1.66 to 1:1.33, but the open matte version shows the entire frame, what the 1:1.66 doesn't.
I know that is only one way to argument, it works the other way round as well... that issue is truly mysterious... is there really no reliable information around? I can't believe that such a simple question can keep unanswered for such a long time... why doesn't Disney come up with information?
Best regards,
TawnyFox

Digital photography (and some bad fan art ;-)) on my deviantART account
User avatar
SpringHeelJack
Platinum Edition
Posts: 3673
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 3:20 pm
Location: Boston, MA
Contact:

Post by SpringHeelJack »

brotherbear wrote:Thank you for going through all the trouble to bring this news to us!!

Unfortunately, I dont think the answer is that simple. If it really was filmed in 1.33:1, then why does it say on the DVD case, "This film has been formatted to fit your television" with the 1.33:1 ratio??? That typically means that it has been formatted from widescreen to fullscreen.

-BB
The one dis version of "Singin' in the Rain" says that, too, but it is presented in 1.33:1, as it was filmed and orginally screened. So maybe it's just a mistake like that...
"Ta ta ta taaaa! Look at me... I'm a snowman! I'm gonna go stand on someone's lawn if I don't get something to do around here pretty soon!"
goofystitch
Collector's Edition
Posts: 2948
Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2003 1:30 pm
Location: Walt Disney World

Post by goofystitch »

With the "Mary Poppins" 40th Anniversary transfer presented in what Disney claims to be the original theatrical aspect ratio, we learned that the film wasn't a simple matt job of an already widescreen film into 1:71, but has the image moving around from shot to shot to frame the characters. Could it be that "The Fox and the Hound" wasn't open matted, but was adjusted to frame the characters? Here is an image example thanks to deathie mouse from this post
Image
ichabod
Diamond Edition
Posts: 4676
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2003 8:29 am
Location: The place where they didn't build EuroDisney
Contact:

Post by ichabod »

Just thought I'd throw this in:

R1 25th anniversary edition
Image

and R2 edition (both 2001 and 2007 editions have same print).
Image

In short, the UK edition has a wee bit more on the bottom.
goofystitch
Collector's Edition
Posts: 2948
Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2003 1:30 pm
Location: Walt Disney World

Post by goofystitch »

How interesting. Thanks Ichabod. This whole thing keeps getting more and more confusing. Somewhere at the Disney studios, there has to be at least one document stating the original intended aspect ratio and I really hope for Disney's sake that it gets sorted out before the next release. If there is "a wee bit more on the bottom" of the U.K. releases, than is that the full animated image, or is there still more missing? The image posted by Tawney Fox of the score being conducted to a widescreen frame that appears to be matted makes it very apparent that this film was animated to be matted into widescreen. But was it matted from a typical fullscreen aspect ratio? The other images posted show some strange cropping where characters eyes are getting cut in half. But if the U.S. image isn't the full picture, this would make sense. If we are missing image from the bottom (and possibly the top and a sliver on the sides) then it stands to reason that everything necessary would appear correctly in a widescreen transfer taken from the full animated image.
Post Reply