'Lady And The Tramp' Aspect Ratio in Europe

[Jordan]

Hey guys !
I've just noticed something weird and I wanted your opinion about it.

Walt Disney's Classic "Lady And The Tramp" was originally created in widescreen ratio of 2.35:1, the same really large ratio as "Sleeping Beauty".
I have learnt that the Region 1 Limited Issue DVD of the film released in 1999 correctly displayed the film in its widescreen ratio.
Now, I was a little shocked by the news bacause I have the Region 2 version of that DVD, and I didn't remember seing the film in that aspect ratio. So I check on my copy, and I was right : the Region 2 DVD version of 'Lady And The Tramp' presents a ratio of 1.33:1, the 4x3 standard TV set ratio.

Does anyone know why the hell Disney Europe did that ?? For the first time we would have been able to enjoy this classic the way it were created, Disney doesn't respect the original threatical aspect ratio.

I know I figured this out 4 years after the release of the DVD, but I think it's a shame. I only hope that the Platinum Edition release of the film will be presented in the 2.35:1 aspect ratio.

Well, apprently, this is was not the first time that Disney did that in Europe. A friend of mine live in Belgium, and he told me that the belgium DVD version of 'Sleeping Beauty' was only presented in fullscreen, contrary to the other countries's version in Europe (France, England..) or even to the Region 1 version which permit to choose between the widescreen format and the fullscreen. However, in Belgium (and in France) the equivalent of the 2-disc set Special Edition of the USA, was available 2 years before so.... it's all relative . But in the French set, the orignal aspect ratio was conserved though.

[ichabod]

the original single disc release of sleeping beauty is fullscreen too. it's only the 2 disc edtion that presents sleeping beauty in the widescreen aspect ratio.

[Sethp]

I dunno if this information is worthless but anyway.

Some pages claim that the film (Lady and the Tramp) was composed for both 1.33:1 and 2.35:1, perhaps that's true but when it comes down to it it's nothing but Pan&Scan tramp actually looks kinda stretched too.

[2099net]

It's Pan and Scan for two resons:

1) Most of the scenes are 1.33:1 scrnes are P&S - only a limited number of scenes on the academy ratio release were actually recomposed (just like Pixar only recompose a certain number of scenes on their "full screen" versions of their films)

but most importantly

2) The proper 1.33:1 transfer has never been released on home video. It's always been a P&S transfer of the 'scope version. Why this has been done is unknown, I doubt Disney have "lost" their original academy print after all. Perhaps it's just cheaper to make a P&S transfer of the widescreen transfer than go to the expense of creating a new master?

[Jordan]

Thanks you guys for answers and comments and thank you Sethp for your comparison pic.
I really want to see the orignial aspet ratio of 'Lady And The Tramp' and by the US Limited Issue DVD. But, on the other hand, maybe I could wait for the Platinum Edition release. Plus, the second hand DVD that we can find are rather expensives.
I'm going to think about it.
Thanks anyway !

[Joe Carioca]

It's Pan and Scan for two resons:

1) Most of the scenes are 1.33:1 scrnes are P&S - only a limited number of scenes on the academy ratio release were actually recomposed (just like Pixar only recompose a certain number of scenes on their "full screen" versions of their films)

but most importantly

2) The proper 1.33:1 transfer has never been released on home video. It's always been a P&S transfer of the 'scope version. Why this has been done is unknown, I doubt Disney have "lost" their original academy print after all. Perhaps it's just cheaper to make a P&S transfer of the widescreen transfer than go to the expense of creating a new master?

If I'm not mistaken, according to IMDb, the reframed version has been released on laser disc. I'm sure that the Platinum edition will have a full-frame version... Let's hope it is the correct one!

[Anders M Olsson]

If I'm not mistaken, acording to IMDb, the reframed version has been released on laser disc.

I doubt it. IMDb have been wrong so often about aspect ratios that I don't think they should be entirely trusted about that.

IMDb says "This disc was newly mastered from the original academy ratio version of the movie, which has not been seen for over 40 years."

There's a review of that disc here:
http://www.dvdlaser.com/search/detail.cfm?ID=21571

From the review, I would come to the conclusion that it's a reasonably good p&s job, but not the real academy version.

[Jordan]

Gosh, I really hope the Platinum Edition will include the widescreen version which is the original one. At lesat, the choice between fullframe and widescreen, jsute like Sleeping Beauty Special Edition in the US.

[deathie mouse]

checking some old topics i had read in the past but in which i never posted cus i hadn't registered yet I found this one.

Since 2099net posted in it, I'm assuming the R2 UK release was 4:3 but, then, why does the AmazonUK.com blurb and some of the comments posted by customers give you the impresion that the UK DVD is in 2.35 Cinemascope? I just want to be 100% sure it's a mistake.

The proper 1.33:1 transfer has never been released on home video. It's always been a P&S transfer of the 'scope version. Why this has been done is unknown, I doubt Disney have "lost" their original academy print after all.
Perhaps it's just cheaper to make a P&S transfer of the widescreen transfer than go to the expense of creating a new master?

I also think (and hope!) that Disney still has the sequential RGB b/w Technicolor negatives. Your guess is probably right, that since it's a totally separate negative, the cost of doing a real 4:3 transfer from it is higher, similar of making a new from scratch transfer (You have to check for physical damage, splices, etc, check that every part of the soundtrack stems are in sync, color-time every scene, etc, and in the case of sequential b/w negatives either strike a new interpositive or low contrast print if there's not one in good condition, or go the Lowry "ultra-resolution" route, instead of simply using the Cinemascope print with all the same settings and electronically pan/scaning it (which is more or less as complicated as running it again in the telecine and reframing it (the pan/scaning). The same is done when creating PAL and NTSC masters. (unless the machines would scan/spit out the two video formats sequentially simoultaneously) . That's my guess. I hope for the Platinum edition they go to the extra trouble and do both negatives.

[mvealf]

If I'm not mistaken, acording to IMDb, the reframed version has been released on laser disc.

I doubt it. IMDb have been wrong so often about aspect ratios that I don't think they should be entirely trusted about that.

IMDb says "This disc was newly mastered from the original academy ratio version of the movie, which has not been seen for over 40 years."

There's a review of that disc here:
http://www.dvdlaser.com/search/detail.cfm?ID=21571

From the review, I would come to the conclusion that it's a reasonably good p&s job, but not the real academy version.

No, the laserdisc they are referring to is the REAL academy version, which was shown in 1955 in theaters that couldn't handle Cinemascope. There were more than a few re-composed scenes. Any time there were characters on the far left AND the far right of the screen, they were re-positioned to be more in the center. This happened all throughout the film. Here is an example, Cinemascope on top, pan and scan in the middle, and re-composed version on the bottom<p align="center"><img border="0" src="http://www.geocities.com/disney_laserdiscs/pics/T2.JPG" width="400" height="517"></p>Only the rare laserdisc has the bottom image. I have noticed one scene where you can see more picture on the top of the re-positioned version (the thumb that is holding the mirror). You cannot see the thumb on the Cinemascope print or the pan and scan print, only on the Academy ratio version on laserdisc.<p align="center"><img border="0" src="http://www.geocities.com/disney_laserdiscs/pics/T1.JPG" width="400" height="336"></p>

[deathie mouse]

I love this place!

Thanks mvealf.

Ok. So the Academy 1.37 has BEEN transfered to video. So why wasn't it used for the DVD's? Well, apart from the video division "forgetting" they had a master from the Academy print (or even worse, misplacing it) I see no reason why they wouldn't have used it. In that case making a pan scan (in the case that the pan/scan is not a recycling of an earlier video master) would be more costly than just recycling the Laserdisc 1.37 Academy master.

(One reason why the PAL Lady & Tramp release might been fullscreen only could be that the only widescreen master ever made was the one made for the (NTSC) laserdisc)

And is it me or the widescreen 3 dogs shot looks cropped on one side?
Could this mean that the negative was shot for the original wider magnetic track Cinemascope format (2.55 to 1) instead of the later optical track Cinemascope prints? (2.35 to 1)


I still would like confirmation of the Amazon UK web site being in total error saying the UK DVD was widescreen tho...

[2099net]

It's been a while since I've seen it in the shops, but I'm pretty sure the UK Lady and the Tramp was full-frame.

Sendit seem to confirm this too:
http://www.sendit.com/video/item/7000000055960

Myealf, it depends on what you call 'few'. I believe the number of actual recomposed shots in Pixar's A Bug's Life was about 20% of the total (the majority of the full-frame transfer simply being electronically "opened up" most of the time, and no I haven't actually checked to confirm this). I have been informed that the academy Lady and the Tramp has a lower percentage of reformatted shots than this, with the Academy version still including pans not present on the Cinemascope version. I would be interested in your analysis of this.

I'm basing this answer in part on this post in Animated-Movies

I've done some checking into the L&TT Academy print. Apparently, for the most part, this was Walt's own pan-and-scan version (since he was thinking of the DisneyLand TV showing), and is pretty much an optical film-based pan-and-scan version as opposed to the later electronic versions we see today. I phoned a contact I have at Disney Video UK, and they told me that that version has never been restored in anyway, though the original neg should be in pretty good shape, since it wasn't used that much after the initial run (although it would be subject to being kept well). This pan-and-scan version was created from the widescreen artwork on the original animation stand camera, with slightly different (intentional) pans than in the 2.35:1 version. There was no actual "re-compositing" (ex: moving characters around to fit them in frame), though a very few shots were actually anamorphically squeezed (mainly title cards and any "sign" shots).

Hope this clarifies things. Sounds like an interesting thing to see someday, but not actually too different than a video-based crop.

Of course some this (in italics) seems to be wrong given your screen grabs, but perhaps that's just because the Disney employee hadn't seen the 4:3 film and was basing the reply on fuzzy memories only?

Sorry, but I cannot find my other references online, but one stated a number of scenes were recomposed, but the bulk was done with centre shots and pans.

[Luke]

Very interesting screencaps, mvealf!

[mvealf]

And is it me or the widescreen 3 dogs shot looks cropped on one side?
Could this mean that the negative was shot for the original wider magnetic track Cinemascope format (2.55 to 1) instead of the later optical track Cinemascope prints? (2.35 to 1)

Keep in mind that the above photo is the first frame of that scene. It is supposed to show how the mean dogs are closing in on Lady, so they begin out of frame, then move in closer. In the Academy version, the 3 dogs faces eventually overlap. In the Cinemascope version they never touch.

The IMDb is correct, the laserdisc was the first time in over 40 years that this version has been released. They obviously found the negative, and restored it since it is a THX release. Why they released a pan and scan VHS at the same time is a complete mystery.

[mvealf]

Myealf, it depends on what you call 'few'. I believe the number of actual recomposed shots in Pixar's A Bug's Life was about 20% of the total (the majority of the full-frame transfer simply being electronically "opened up" most of the time, and no I haven't actually checked to confirm this). I have been informed that the academy Lady and the Tramp has a lower percentage of reformatted shots than this, with the Academy version still including pans not present on the Cinemascope version. I would be interested in your analysis of this.

20% is a lot in my opinion. I'm sure it's a lower % for Lady because it's much easier to re-compose A Bug's Life using a computer than it was back in the day when they basically had to film 2 seperate versions. I think both versions are valid since there are scenes that are "opened up" and show more picture than the widescreen or pan and scan version.

I've done some checking into the L&TT Academy print. Apparently, for the most part, this was Walt's own pan-and-scan version (since he was thinking of the DisneyLand TV showing), and is pretty much an optical film-based pan-and-scan version as opposed to the later electronic versions we see today. I phoned a contact I have at Disney Video UK, and they told me that that version has never been restored in anyway, though the original neg should be in pretty good shape, since it wasn't used that much after the initial run (although it would be subject to being kept well). This pan-and-scan version was created from the widescreen artwork on the original animation stand camera, with slightly different (intentional) pans than in the 2.35:1 version. There was no actual "re-compositing" (ex: moving characters around to fit them in frame), though a very few shots were actually anamorphically squeezed (mainly title cards and any "sign" shots).

Hope this clarifies things. Sounds like an interesting thing to see someday, but not actually too different than a video-based crop.

Well, Ben is wrong on practically everything. He says it has never been restored in anyway, yet there is a THX laserdisc. The Academy version is better described as a combination of the light panning and scanning, and re-formatting when necessary. The characters have definately been moved around to fit the frame, which is not at all the same as panning and scanning.

[2099net]

Well, just for the sake of argument, I don't think a THX release guarentees a restoration. There's been some pretty crummy THX DVD releases, especially when they first started certifying DVDs (the appaling first Highlander DVD anyone?) and one would expect the same transfer as the THX Laserdisc was used on the grain infested Little Mermaid DVD (released at a time when THX didn't certify DVDs).

As far as I know, THX certification means "Best presentation of the material as supplied (to the mastering process)" which doesn't mean it has to be restored.

[mvealf]

Well, just for the sake of argument, I don't think a THX release guarentees a restoration. There's been some pretty crummy THX DVD releases, especially when they first started certifying DVDs (the appaling first Highlander DVD anyone?) and one would expect the same transfer as the THX Laserdisc was used on the grain infested Little Mermaid DVD (released at a time when THX didn't certify DVDs).

As far as I know, THX certification means "Best presentation of the material as supplied (to the mastering process)" which doesn't mean it has to be restored.

Right, THX doesn't mean restoration, but Lady was restored. It's in Dolby Digital sound, so it had to have been restored. It was released the same day as the THX restored Cinemascope laserdisc. Has Disney ever re-released an animated movie on a home video format that wasn't somehow restored from the previous version?

[2099net]

Well, they could just have taken the soundtrack from the 'scope version. It seems odd that Disney would have restored the Academy print, but not used it since.

Do you have the Japanese DVD release being as that would be from a NTSC master. Was that the 'true' Academy release, the 'false' Academy release or the Cinemascope version?

[mvealf]

Well, they could just have taken the soundtrack from the 'scope version. It seems odd that Disney would have restored the Academy print, but not used it since.

That's what they did. It has that beautiful flawless look. Since the scope and academy versions both have the same soundtrack, I'm sure that once it was re-mastered in Dolby Digital, they used it for both versions. They have also restored Song Of the South and not used it, because you can see the song Zip-A-De-Do-Dah on the Alice In Wonderland 2 DVD set (from "One Hour In Wonderland"). It was originally in black and white, but they inserted a color version, noticably restored when compared to the digital sound laserdisc from 1990.

Do you have the Japanese DVD release being as that would be from a NTSC master. Was that the 'true' Academy release, the 'false' Academy release or the Cinemascope version?

When you say false Academy, do you mean pan and scan of the Cinemascope? The first Japanese laserdisc was the same as the first U.S. laserdisc, pan and scan. The second release had 2 laserdiscs, both Cinemascope, 1 bilingual and the other subtitled.

[deathie mouse]

you don't wanna know what I think THX really means


btw thanks guys for all the answers I've received from you here and on other posts (i haven't done so on each topic cus i don't wannna clog the forums with endless thank you thank you posts It's all very appreciated)

Today I learn that the Academy LatT still exists for sure, tomorrow the world!


false academy true academy heh, it would be funny if they used those terms on the disc covers