I think we are still getting terms like open matte and the various widescreen formats (like flat and anamorphic) mixed-up. So forgive me if i do this all over again
It would, however, be nice to access the open matte version that is presented above.
And Aaron wrote:
Deathie, I understand why the DVD didn't go with open matte. I just wonder why Disney went to shooting in 1.33:1 in the '60s after using widescreen for SB and Lady and the Tramp. Was it just the cost?
The dvd IS the open matte version.
The dvd SHOWS what's on the open matte image made by the Technicolor Academy camera on the 1.375 camera negative.
The dvd SHOWS the image WITHOUT the masking or "matte" which it would have covering the "non-widescreen" areas in a normal theater screen, hence the "matte" (or masking) is said to be left "open"
The dvd doesn't LOOK like the movie looks on a theater screen (the OAR)
The dvd shows MORE than you would have seen in a normal theater, more above and below.
The normal theater would have shown the OAR image seen on the top part of my avatar image by masking ("matting") the top and bottom of the 1.375 image in the 35mm print with the projector aperture metalic plate and projecting the resulting widescreen image on the screen. Depending on the configuration of the theater, you'd see something around 1.66 wide to 1.85 wide which is under tolerance of the 1.75 OAR.
As disneyunlimited and I have mentioned, in many "open matte" transfers if you have a 16:9 widescreen display with zoom (or use masking tape/cardboard for 4:3 displays ) you can get the theatrical OAR again, more or less, from the dvd.
Aaron, I think what you really meant is why did Disney stop shooting in "anamorphic/cinemascope/70mm/large" formats after LatT and SB, not "widescreen".
Cus most of the movies made after the 50's are ALL shot in "widescreen". And most of them kept being shot in "1.33" cameras
One Hundred and One Dalmatians is a widescreen film and so is Sword and the Stone. And Batman and the Matrix and Sleeping Beauty and Lady and the Tramp.
The diference is how the widescreen image is made. (And for us, how it is presented on video):
A: Shoot the image in the projected widescreen ratio
B: Shoot the image in the center of a larger aperture standart Academy sound or original Silent aperture "squarish" camera and "compose/mask" the image for rectangular widescreen projection. These films are said to be shot in "open matte". Other way they are called is flat (spherical) lens widescreen photography.
Of the 6 films i mentioned above, 4 are "B", but ALL are widescreen movies.
Sleeping Beauty and Lady and the Tramp both were shot in method "A"
Method A gives you the greatest image quality and the largest widest images in theaters.
But it has to be cropped for "non widescreen" presentations (like for normal TV)
Method B lets you make an alternate non-widecreen version without having to chop the sides of the images by letting you show more of the "extraneous" image above and below on the non widescreen "presentation" (like TV), so that's one reason most widescreen films are still shot that way today. Even many "Cinemascope wide" films like T2, T3, Matrix, LOR, I Robot etc etc. are being done in open matte "1.33" cameras (i've already seen some 1.78 "open matte" versions of these 2.39 wide films on HDTV .)
Other reasons to shoot "open matte" are:
You don't need to modify the cameras from Academy/Silent to widescreen as the Widescreening is done in the projector/lab (and now you can do it on your zoomed 16:9 display) so the cameras can do double duty and be used for both widescreen movies and "old square" tv
SFX are much easier to make on spherical (flat) lens photography than with anamorphic ("scope" or squeezed image) lens photography so to do that in widescreen movies you have to use the open matte method (or go to spherical 70mm/VistaVision for the effects which is costlier (what Lucasfilm and Douglas Troumbull used to do in the good ol' days)
And of course large format movies like Technirama, VistaVision and 70mm use special cameras, and more film in negatives and prints (cus they are bigger wider) so it cost more too, and are projected in fewer theaters than 35mm prints
So Walt Disney must have realized that by shooting in hard masked widescreen/large formats he would be both spending more and limiting his markets specially when he just had a new Television market open to him, so he must have taken a bussiness descision to have most of his films shot in "open matte" COMPOSED for widescreen 1.66-1.85 (it's principal artistic showcase) but PROTECTED for 4:3 presentations like future TV showings or maybe overseas or educational markets that still used Academy wide 1.375 screens or 16mm projectors by just animating a little more at the bottom and showing more of the painted backgrounds at the top than shown on modern theaters
So he basically kept shooting them with "1.33" cameras (remember, they are 1.375) and composing them for widescreen like most other widescreem movies did.
With computer rendered CAPS film they are doing the same but in 1.66 so no modern theater shows black letterboxed bars and it helps on 4:3 video transfers. Why not make the CAPS 1.33? About 25% savings in computer rendering time/costs? It HAS to be a minimum of 1.66 cus unlike in video, the 1.66 theaters can't zoom and pan/scan the black bars. When i measured all the xtra top and bottom image in the 4:3 CAPS rendered music video of Beauty and the Beast against the 16:9 version i got something closer to 1.60... but i haven't double checked
As far as I know Disney has made just 5 of it's animated classics (Lady And The Tramp, Sleeping Beauty, The Black Cauldron, Atlantis, and Brother Bear) in a difficult to "Full Frameize" format (And he actually made an Academy 1.375 version of Lady and the Tramp to avoid that)
I don't know how many of the Live Action films were made this way. (20,000 Thousand Leagues, The Black Hole, Tron, a few more)
Hope this answers your questions
If they can make Timon and Pumba sequels, i'm sure they could do Merlin/Madam Min/Archimedes prequels/sequels set on those magical times apart from the main Arthurian theme
Actually, if DisneyCo. REALLY wanted to be creative they could make a duel of magicians, witches, etc etc film by pooling from all its magical/villanous characters that would be better or more interesting than cheapquels if they had someone who made an intelligent brainy script ;P
A good wizards and witches movie to go against LOR and Harry Potter type movies now in vogue, showcasing Disney animation and quality
deathie for Disney Advisor with Steve Jobs for CEO