Well welcome back to another entertaining posting here on Contribution Discussion.
Tonight we are going to get to the bottom of my quest I am currently engaged .. 

All jokes aside,, I recently submitted a contribution for the 2006 release of Walt Disney's Lady and The Tramp 2 Diisc DVD (#786936284058)., I submitted that the two versions on the disc 1 part should be labeled Widescreen & Fullframe as there seems to be a large amount of information on the Net about Disney making and releasing a standard academy ratio release of that film back in 1955, But the question has arose about whether or not the 50th anniversary used the old pan and scan from the 2:35.1 -1999 dvd release, or actually released this 1.33:1 Reformatted Fullscreen ??
The animated options in the DVD menu guide refer it as Full Frame (as well as different reports say Full frame here and P/S there.)
The article found at this site is confusing as the writer him self doesn't know and is unsure as he uses phrases such as :
"There is also the 1.33:1 fullscreen transfer, which under most circumstances wouldn't be worth saying much about, but seeing as how Lady was filmed in the Academy Ratio for its initial theatrical run, doubtlessly requires observational comments. Is the DVD's fullscreen presentation to the original Academy print? I can't say definitively, but it does not appear to be. Nor does it appear to be the same old Pan & Scan presentation that showed upon earlier international DVDs. Close examination reveals a slight gain (about 5%) in picture at the top and bottom of the frame and a severe loss (ranging from about 40-45%, more on that in the next paragraph) in picture in the horizontal aspect. I was unable to notice any instance where characters have been moved closer together (similar to, but long before, Pixar's reformatting of A Bug's Life) like they have in screencaps from the apparently true Academy Ratio laserdisc. Only the tiny gain in the vertical dimension suggest that anything differently would have been achieved through a second filming (if this is indeed it) rather than a pure Pan & Scan of the Scope presentation; even that gain might be attributed to the disc's mastering process, not the sources being used. "

plus - he goes on to say -

Curiously enough, in some widely-composed scenes that would suffer dearly from cropping, vertical stretching appears to have been performed to make less cropping necessary. In these scenes, to get the presented Scope version to look like the 1.33:1 version, you need to leave a tiny bit of the black bars that are there at top and bottom, crop heavily (though true to the name "Pan & Scan", this is not limited to the center of the screen) to somewhere between 1.4-1.5:1 and stretch to 1.33:1. The fullscreen version fills in those tiny black portions with picture (as it seems to do regardless of the stretching),but otherwise resembles your makeshift image precisely.

"Losing 40 to 45 percent of the frame with minimal gain, coupled with the fact that it probably is not an accurate representation of what can be considered the film's secondary original aspect ratio (1.37:1 Academy), few should find use in the Pan & Scan transfer for anything but illustrating the beauty of widescreen with comparisons. Of course, coming from the same drastically remastered source, the picture quality on this compromised transfer is also stunning, albeit it's obviously far less satisfying than the Scope presentation. If, as it appears, the fullscreen transfer did not stem from the original Academy Ratio filming, one can assume it is due to the fact that this would have required an entire second print of the movie to be remastered, a timely and costly procedure which at best would have satisfied curiosity or made for a reasonable alternative viewing experience. Still, doing a Pan & Scan on the remastered Scope print also would have been a timely and costly procedure which only satisfied the poor few who still haven't grasped the idea that most movies are wider than standard TVs. "

So .. This is the assignment.,, I'll check back tomorrow..

Is that Jonny Quests' uncle??

I'm going to have to say it is a Pan and Scan since the 1.33:1 image was taken from the 2.55:1 Widescreen Image remaster.  Any kind of croping or streching the 2.55:1 image to fit a 1.33 image would be a Pan and Scan.

I wouldn't go by the menus or booklet, there are many times I've seen the packaging call a (Pan & Scan) Full Frame and seen (Full Frame) called Pan & Scan.

Since this isn't the original 1.37:1 verison that was created for the theaters not equiped to handle Cinemascope.  I would just leave it as (Pan & Scan).

looks like I'm getting real close to pulling my contribution,, ..still waiting for the Skipster's notes on this, as I know he has DVD in his library, and he has been very busy getting to the bottom of this as well..

Patience is a virtual...

Terry:

I am still digging on this title trying to find infromation one way or the other, it seems to be a mixed bag,so far, but still looking.

Skip

While I would also like to see one of the old laserdiscs or VHS tapes that used but, comparing the screen shot I took from the 1972 trailer.  It appears that they didn't use the original OAR Academy Ratio print for the 1.33:1 version on the Platinum release, if they did use the Academy Ratio print they did a bad crop job on the original print.