Aladdin (1992) (Diamond Edition)

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Yep, OAR is 1.85. 1.66 is just what the final animation was rendered by CAPS and like other full-frame presentations was not seen in theaters.


The CAV LD cover was absolutely gorgeous. Still have mine.

They got into trouble for that cover

[Justadoo444]

Originally Posted by dvdmike

They got into trouble for that cover

I wonder why?!?

It's not relating to Robin Williams' contract dispute, is it?

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by Justadoo444

I wonder why?!?

It's not relating to Robin Williams' contract dispute, is it?

Yes as I understand it

[Justadoo444]

Originally Posted by dvdmike

Yes as I understand it

It overshadowed his role in an earlier film he was proud of his performance in, so the voice of Homer Simpson filled in for him in ROJ and the TV series. After the CEO (or similar) left, a huge apology was made, and Robin Williams returned for KOT.

[Saturius]

Originally Posted by Justadoo444

As in, if you go to the computer edition, you get an error because the link is HTTPS instead of HTTP. When you actually get to it, it doesn't sync, no matter what you do. (Bd-Live is in need of fixing; I cannot get to the Virtual Vault either.)

BD Live isn't getting fixed cause it's not broken. Disney discontinued the service.

[MisterXDTV]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Yep, OAR is 1.85. 1.66 is just what the final animation was rendered by CAPS and like other full-frame presentations was not seen in theaters.

The theatrical ratio was 1.85:1 because of a technical "limitation" of the 35mm presentation. So there was no other choice than to crop.

But Blu-ray is digital and the movie is digital so the full frame presentation should have been preserved like it is on the Digital HD version.

1.85:1 is too tight for this movie....

[pikachufan1336]

Aladdin Diamond Edition Blu Ray Review & Unboxing - YouTube

Unboxing!

[Nico Darko]

Man, why do they have to crop it to 1.85:1? I really wanted to see every pixel of animation in 1.66:1. Even a 1.78:1 would have been acceptable (like The Little Mermaid).

But is it the exact same transfer as the UK/European Blu-Ray?


Disney really sucks when it comes to aspect ratios, they present Aladdin in 1.85:1 by cropping information, and when a movie like The Avengers is originally in 1.85:1, they crop it to 1.78.1. It makes no sense at all.

[MisterXDTV]

Originally Posted by Nico Darko

Man, why do they have to crop it to 1.85:1? I really wanted to see every pixel of animation in 1.66:1. Even a 1.78:1 would have been acceptable (like The Little Mermaid).

But is it the exact same transfer as the UK/European Blu-Ray?


Disney really sucks when it comes to aspect ratios, they present Aladdin in 1.85:1 by cropping information, and when a movie like The Avengers is originally in 1.85:1, they crop it to 1.78.1. It makes no sense at all.

The Avengers was open-matted to 1.78:1, I think...

Yes, Aladdin Diamond Edition has the same transfer as the european BD

[insomniac013]

How come Diamond in the Rough doc seems to be 40 minutes longer on the DVD compared to bluray? Is this an error in the review?

Originally Posted by Justadoo444

I was going off of the site's rating.
Also, I DO have TLK, and the second screen (PC/Mac) doesn't work, even you remove the S from the HTTPS of the link (It elicits an error otherwise). It needs to be fixed.

Yes it doesn't work anymore. Would it have killed them to just make a PiP feature? This was the time when Disney wanted everything connected to the internet, like BD-live (shudder)

[mgmoya]

The Genie Outtakes from my blu-ray of Aladdin Diamond Edition:

https://vimeo.com/141346297

Really funny.


Greetings from Chile.

[Nico Darko]

Originally Posted by MisterXDTV

The Avengers was open-matted to 1.78:1, I think...

Oh, that'd be less worse, although I don't see why they can't let movies in the OAR, or when it comes to animated movies, why they have to crop some of the animation.

But I can't find confirmation anywhere about The Avengers being open-matted.

[jpanimation]

Originally Posted by The_Iceflash

1:85:1 is the Original Theatrical Aspect Ratio. Not that hard to comprehend or is it that hard to wrap our minds around.

This is already understood. The question is as to WHY they chose to use the Theatrical Aspect Ratio for this release. The DVD was 1:66:1 and the other CAPS Diamond Editions were 1:78:1. The curiosity is as to WHY they chose to use 1:85:1 Theatrical Aspect Ratio when they didn't for the other CAPS Diamond Editions (or The Little Mermaid, the other Musker and Clements Diamond Edition release) and didn't for any of the past Aladdin releases. Just seems kind of random to crop the film for the first time with this release. Its not horrible but still

[MisterXDTV]

Originally Posted by Nico Darko

Oh, that'd be less worse, although I don't see why they can't let movies in the OAR, or when it comes to animated movies, why they have to crop some of the animation.

But I can't find confirmation anywhere about The Avengers being open-matted.

The source is simple: it was mainly shot with digital Arri Alexa @2.8K. The output resolution is native 16x9: 2880x1620 (confirmed by Arri)

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by MisterXDTV

The theatrical ratio was 1.85:1 because of a technical "limitation" of the 35mm presentation. So there was no other choice than to crop.

But Blu-ray is digital and the movie is digital so the full frame presentation should have been preserved like it is on the Digital HD version.

1.85:1 is too tight for this movie....

They storyboarded and composed the movie for 1.85 This is not up for debate. CAPS rendered at 1.66, if anything *that* was the "technical limitation".

[Show spoiler]

[BenjaminG]

Originally Posted by Justadoo444

a huge apology was made

Don't forget the Picasso they gifted him.

[CelestialAgent]

Originally Posted by jpanimation

This is already understood. The question is as to WHY they chose to use the Theatrical Aspect Ratio for this release. The DVD was 1:66:1 and the other CAPS Diamond Editions were 1:78:1. The curiosity is as to WHY they chose to use 1:85:1 Theatrical Aspect Ratio when they didn't for the other CAPS Diamond Editions (or The Little Mermaid, the other Musker and Clements Diamond Edition release) and didn't for any of the past Aladdin releases. Just seems kind of random to crop the film for the first time with this release. Its not horrible but still

Are there any other releases that have cropped the aspect ratio? Don't tell me I have to track down a bunch of DVD copies to get the intended experience.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by CelestialAgent

Are there any other releases that have cropped the aspect ratio? Don't tell me I have to track down a bunch of DVD copies to get the intended experience.

FFS. It's NOT CROPPED. It's in the INTENDED aspect ratio.


Thousands of 1.85 movies have extra top and bottom information as well. You want all those in 1.33???

[CelestialAgent]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

FFS. It's NOT CROPPED. It's in the INTENDED aspect ratio.


Thousands of 1.85 movies have extra top and bottom information as well. You want all those in 1.33???

I mean Disney in general, not this release specifically; I read the prior posts explaining the intended aspect ratio. I think The Sword in the Stone suffered from cropping (and also DNR) although I could be wrong on the former.

Anyway, yes, I am not averse to seeing films with the added information at 1.33. But is this the first time the film has appeared in home media in the 1.85 format? And if so why was it not like that during the DVD releases?

[The_Iceflash]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

FFS. It's NOT CROPPED. It's in the INTENDED aspect ratio.


Thousands of 1.85 movies have extra top and bottom information as well. You want all those in 1.33???

Only here do we complain when they release a film in its INTENDED aspect ratio.

God-forbid they actually release it as intended.