Sleeping Beauty DVD AND BLU-RAY Discussion Thread Vol. II

[DarthPrime]

Finally got around to getting this. I got the Blu-Ray. The pictures here don't do it justice. The Blu-Ray is absolutely freaking *stunning* I actually put in the normal DVD after and there was a huge noticeable difference (this was on my HD-TV, though). The dragon encounter shook the walls and rattled my room!! I loved that!

One thing I noticed on my smaller TV is that the DVD is perhaps a little too wide -- on my small TV the black bars took up almost 70% of the screen -- and I'm not complaining, I just have to wonder how the "black bar haters" will react! LOL

Still though ... excellent release overflowing with bonus features. Good job Disney!

I have a 27 inch and 25 inch 4:3 CRT sets here in different rooms. 2.55:1 is pretty bad on these screens. The black bars are huge. I see a lot of people zooming this DVD that don't have big widescreen sets. Even on my widescreen monitor the bars are huge. I usually have no problem with widescreen releases, and always buy them... this just feels too wide.

Anyway I still think for this release they should have went the same route as Lady and the Tramp and offered a pan and scan version as well. DVDs are cheap, they could have included it on another disc so it wouldn't cause problems with the widescreen version on disc 1.

[pap64]

I know what's wrong...Lasseter said it. And its common knowledge that Lasseter=Satan.

Very immature for you to post that.

You know, all John is doing is helping Disney out, okay? You make it sound like he is against Disney. We all don't know what really goes on behind those walls but only word of mouth and the media. Give John more credit, he is doing his very best. Disney is in the best position it has been in a LONG time. If it weren't for him, I would have no faith in the company anymore. Seriously, I am sick of only seeing ads for movies being rereleased from the vault, or HSM/Camp Rock/Hannah movie, or yet a new Pixar film. I want to see ads for a new Disney film! I don't want people to be excited for movies that were released more than a decade ago (fab four, Tarzan, Emperor's...) John was originally at Disney first before Pixar so he knows what goes on there. I am sick of hearing all these negative comments about him. It's funny really, I hear good stuff of him from filmmakers but hear hatred and whining from the public. Yet, who are the ones that work with him and know him? So don't go around calling Lasseter the devil when you don't even know the guy!

Scaps said it best. I was being sarcastic. I was just making fun of the fact that if you read any news about Bolt and now Rapunzel you'll see TONS of comments saying how the movie will suck because Lasseter interfered, but when something Pixar is mentioned the trolling comments follow.

So chill. Remember, I defended the guy in the Rapunzel news thread .

[MadonnasManOne]

There's still one thing wrong that nobody picked up on yet, and it's related to my second clue:

Something isn't as wide as they believe it is.

albert

Well, the answer to this would have to be Lasseter saying "And this movie was made in the widest of widescreen formats. You know, Super Technirama.". The truth of the matter is Super Technirama 70 isn't the widest of the widescreen formats. I know that Ultra Panavision 70 is actually wider, which yielded an aspect ratio of approximately 2.76:1.

Some history on Ultra Panavision 70 (from Wikipedia):

Ultra Panavision 70, also known as MGM Camera 65, was the marketing brand used to identify 65/70 mm movies photographed with Panavision anamorphic optics between 1957 and 1966.

The frame dimensions and six-track stereo soundtrack configuration of Ultra Panavision 70 were virtually identical to those established for the Todd-AO 65/70 mm process in 1955. However, the optics incorporated a 1.25X anamorphic "squeeze," yielding, at its widest, an ultra-wide projected aspect ratio of approximately 2.76:1.

History

The special optics were initially developed in association with Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, who used it to photograph two movies, Raintree County (1956) and Ben-Hur (1959). These were advertised as being produced in MGM Camera 65.

MGM Camera 65 is a wide-screen film format developed by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer in the 1950s, as a single-strip substitute for Cinerama. However, the screens used for showing Ben-Hur and Raintree County were not curved, as Cinerama and Todd-AO's were, but rectangular, in the manner of Cinemascope, and Raintree County was ultimately only shown in a 2.35:1 reduction print - the first film shown in Camera 65's full 70mm width was Ben-Hur. The process used 65 mm film stock and a special anamorphic lens developed by Panavision, which imparted a slight horizontal squeeze by a factor of 1.25x. This yielded an aspect ratio of approximately 2.76:1, which was similar to three-strip Cinerama. It was only used on fewer than a dozen films due to the extremely large and heavy cameras and its unusually wide aspect ratio, which was incompatible with most theaters. 35 mm anamorphic prints made from Camera 65 negatives were usually cropped to 2.35:1, and were indistinguishable from Cinemascope films. However, when Ben-Hur was originally released on laserdisc and DVD, it was issued in its original 2.76:1 ratio, giving it for a time the "widest" letterboxing ever seen on a home video release, with very large "black borders" on the top and bottom. Warner Bros' 2008 video release of How the West Was Won is now the widest release on home video, at 2.89:1.

The process was subsequently refined, re-named Ultra Panavision 70 and used to photograph seven additional features.

Many of the films advertised in Ultra Panavision 70 were presented in 70 mm Cinerama in selected theaters. Special lenses were used to project a "rectified" (optically pre-distorted) 70 mm print onto a deeply-curved screen to mimic the effect of the original 3-strip Cinerama process.

Portions of the 1962 Cinerama feature How the West Was Won were photographed using Ultra Panavision 70, and then optically converted to the 3-strip format.

Films:

* Raintree County (1957) - credited as MGM Camera 65; released only in 35 mm CinemaScope prints
* Ben-Hur (1959) - credited as MGM Camera 65, with "Photographic Lenses by Panavision"
* How the West Was Won (1962) - selected scenes only
* Mutiny on the Bounty (1962) - the last Ultra Panavision film using the full 2.76: 1 aspect ratio.
* It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World (1963) - presented in 70 mm Cinerama
* The Fall of the Roman Empire (1964)
* To Be Alive! (1964) - 70 mm version created from original 3-strip format
* The Greatest Story Ever Told (1965) - presented in 70 mm Cinerama
* The Hallelujah Trail (1965) - presented in 70 mm Cinerama
* Battle of the Bulge (1965) - presented in 70 mm Cinerama
* Khartoum (1966) - presented in 70 mm Cinerama

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Am I correct, Scaps? Do I get a dancing pink elephant?

[drfsupercenter]

I said that like 8 posts ago... (And I also mentioned that Technirama isn't actually 2.55:1, according to Wikipedia)

And yeah. I ended up just buying the DVD as Blockbuster didn't stock up on them like they did Iron Man and other movies (They only had one copy to rent, that replaced the 2003!)
I was at Wal-Mart and it was only $15, so I bought it outta curiosity. And since they DID have a large display case I was able to find the one with a perfect slipcover... as a lot of them had ones that were dented. I haven't watched it on my TV yet, but on my computer it's pretty wide. Keep in mind, though, that it's the same aspect ratio as the Lady and the Tramp PE. (Only that one offered a pan-and-scan version)

[Fflewduur]

There's so much bad information in this thread it's embarrassing.

<a href="http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=1906">Here's the real story.</a>

To which I'll add:

A Technirama 35mm reduction print for theatrical release could be shown through the same projector lenses as Cinemascope, so when production began on Sleeping Beauty in 1953 there was no reason to believe that presentation at 2.55:1 would be unavailable to them---after all, they were still two years away from premiering Lady & the Tramp. But theatre owners tired of the hassle & expense incurred in meeting Fox's contractual insistence on magnetic audio facility for Cinemascope theaters, and in 1957 the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers (SMPTE) issued their first standard for anamorphic 35mm projection, which called for an optical soundtrack and a max projected aspect ratio of approximately 2.35:1. Sleeping Beauty took too long in production...
quelle surprise.

Seriously, before you start calling out professionals for bogus information, you might want to weigh decades of experience in the industry against what information you can pick up online.

[BrandonH]

Escapay, are you referring to the fact that the typical IMAX aspect ratio is narrower than 2.35:1, even though the screen surface area is huge?

The 2.55:1 ratio didn't bother me at all. I've got a 26" 4:3 display, and I sit about eight feet away from the screen. The movie is as beautiful and powerful as it ever was.

I enjoyed the new bonus features quite a bit, especially the Sleeping Beauty Castle Walkthrough. I'm anxious to experience that when the revival is finished.

[CampbellzSoup]

The only thing I really missed from this was the Blue Castle that they stuck onto the rereleases from the 90's...just something small that makes you feel like a kid again ;p

[nunval]

Wow the article on bluray.com about the restoration is great, thanks!
Yes I think Sleeping Beauty was the only Technirama feature to be filmed in successive exposure black and white negative ( and that's the reason why the negative has not faded like the "Spartacus" one or "The Leopard" one, which were Technirama films made on single strip Eastmancolor negative, in this case the restoration has been made from Technicolor color separation masters and not the original negative) and in an italian book I have about the cinema tecnical aspects ( "Cinema" by Paolo Uccello, published by Edizioni Paoline) I've found the technical specs for the 35mm positive Technirama print in the 2,55: 1 ratio, that was the one with ONLY the magnetic stereo audio tracks, apparently never used for the release of Sleeping Beauty!

[drfsupercenter]

That bluray.com article didn't seem to be all that informational... if they're showing a "then and now" using some pan-and-scan copy they obviously don't know what they're doing as there have been several widescreen releases.

And they make the DEHT mixes sound like a good thing. Ugh.

[CampbellzSoup]

The DEHT aren't THAT bad ;p

[supertalies]

OMG!!
Look what I just discovered!

Seems here we're also getting the box set!
Cant wait!

(Yes, we haven't got the Platinum here yet...)

[Jack Skellington]

Is there anyone here that's disappointed about the aspect ratio of the movie ?
I mean I do realise that it is impossible to present a movie like that into fullscreen without Pan and scan, but it still pisses me off when I see how small everything looks and the blackbars, God I hate blackbars.
I think I'm gonna buy an HD projecter (if you compare the price with a big screen t.v, you'll find that it's the most logical thing to do), hopefully they'll drop the price soon.

[Paka]

That bluray.com article didn't seem to be all that informational... if they're showing a "then and now" using some pan-and-scan copy they obviously don't know what they're doing as there have been several widescreen releases.

And they make the DEHT mixes sound like a good thing. Ugh.

Well, just to clarify, the blue slides are images from the web conference itself. You'll have to blame whoever cooked up that PowerPoint file. In any case, it's to illustrate home video releases of the past, not theatrical presentations.

I also thought about using this slide, but I didn't want to spend a paragraph explaining aspect ratios and what the shaded areas were, etc.

Also, the Blu-ray's 7.1 lossless track isn't a DEHT mix per se. It's a proper "immersive" experience, and the audio sounds much better when it is not compressed, as on a DVD.

[drfsupercenter]

Yeah, but it didn't have 7.1 channels originally. Where do you think the other channels came from? Point being, their upmixed audio versions generally suck.

And I was saying earlier, Disney rigs it so the "restored original soundtrack" always sounds worse than the DEHT... it's probably some evil scheme to get people to like their DEHTs. And to which I say making your own versions using pre-DEHT audio mixes for the win

[Paka]

No, Sleeping Beauty did not have 7.1 channels originally. Neither have you seen (or heard) the Blu-ray. To be fair, not even I have heard the full 7.1 mix, as I have a 5.1 system. But even on the latter, the film sounds superb. And like I said, the uncompressed sound really makes a difference.

[Blu_Gamma]

Yeah, but it didn't have 7.1 channels originally. Where do you think the other channels came from? Point being, their upmixed audio versions generally suck.

And I was saying earlier, Disney rigs it so the "restored original soundtrack" always sounds worse than the DEHT... it's probably some evil scheme to get people to like their DEHTs. And to which I say making your own versions using pre-DEHT audio mixes for the win

What are you talking about? A recording doesn't have to have "7.1 channels originally", as you state, to be mixed to 7.1. All it needs is a certain number of discrete multitracks. You do realise that most of the 5.1/7.1 mixes we hear today are probably recorded to 24, 48 or more tracks, right? The number of multitracks does not directly correlate to how many channels your final mix will have. In the case of Sleeping Beauty, it was recorded to 6-tracks. In 1958, those multitrack masters were mixed down to 4-track stereophonic mix. For the restoration, those multitrack masters were returned to, cleaned up, and remixed to 8 discrete channels. There's no "upmixing" involved. It's not like they took a 2-channel stereo mix and reprocessed it into 7.1. When you have the original multitracks or "stems", you can place those sounds into as many channels as you wish.

Here's a picture of the surround panner from Apple's Logic Pro 8 (this shows 5 channels, but imagine it shows 7, the same rules apply):

Now, imagine you take Briar Rose singing in the forest. Most likely that was recorded to one track, or bounced to another track with vocal. You'd take that track, and, according to how it is mixed on the PE of Sleeping Beauty, pan it 360 degrees, thus, upon playback, it would circle through 7 main channels. The LFE is set differently, either the mixing engineer sets a roll off frequency and sends that signal from each channel to the LFE or leaves that completely up to the bass management of the user's system.

[Blu_Gamma]

Is there anyone here that's disappointed about the aspect ratio of the movie ?
I mean I do realise that it is impossible to present a movie like that into fullscreen without Pan and scan, but it still pisses me off when I see how small everything looks and the blackbars, God I hate blackbars.
I think I'm gonna buy an HD projecter (if you compare the price with a big screen t.v, you'll find that it's the most logical thing to do), hopefully they'll drop the price soon.

Black bars? What black bars? Watch it in a dark room and you won't see any black bars -- and sit closer.

[drfsupercenter]

It's still being up-mixed quite a bit... 6 channels to 7.1 (which is basically 8, just that one of them is only bass) is duplicating them to more than originally created.

I highly doubt they just took the 4 and duplicated them to make 8... why not just keep it 4.0 then? They definitely REDID it, moved the vocals around, etc. I'm not saying it sounds BAD - but anyone who says the DEHTs are the OTV would be wrong. And you know how I am with OTV...

5.1 would be a bit more reasonable really... which is why I like the 2003 audio. I know the DVD has 5.1 and not 7.1, but still. Knowing Disney, they probably took the 7.1 and just downmixed THAT to 5.1, not making it from scratch.

No I haven't watched the movie on Blu-Ray, I haven't even watched it at all. It's the concept, not what it sounds like. Again, Disney is appealing to the typical "Look at how pretty the colors look!" audience... I don't think they could care any less about the preservationists.
And it's not necessarily Sleeping Beauty I'm talking about. I mean the OLD movies, like Pinocchio (of course they'll have this "new" audio on the upcoming PE...), Cinderella, Peter Pan, Bambi, etc. They were originally released in mono... Now, making 5.1 channels from that is a HUGE stretch... and it's not like it sounds that much better! (Again, they tend to mess up their "original audio" tracks... but listen to a laserdisc or something and it sounds pretty darn good.)

Also, some of them were "upside down", or just plainly weirdly mixed. Aladdin is one I just can't stand - listen to the music in DEHT (and keep in mind the music is most of the movie!)... and it's just bizarre where they put the vocals. The normal 5.1 mix is far superior... the vocals are centered where they SHOULD be, not off in the middle of nowhere.

I'm certainly not against having 5.1 or 7.1 surround sound... but what I AM against is just ruining the original score to make it sound "good". If they had the original track and it sounded AS GOOD AS THE RESTORED ONE I wouldn't mind so much. But it really pisses me off when they have movies like Peter Pan having these "restored original soundtrack" that sound like crap, next to the "new and improved" DEHT. Why can't they restore them both the same? It's just their evil marketing to get people to buy stuff with their home theater mixes...

[Mollyzkoubou]

Disney's like George Lucas. Forget the purists, just cater to the "ooh shiny!" crowd. >_<

Then they'll come out with a "fully restored" edition, just to release another restoration a few years later </Cinderella>. It's insane.

[Blu_Gamma]

It's still being up-mixed quite a bit... 6 channels to 7.1 (which is basically 8, just that one of them is only bass) is duplicating them to more than originally created.

I highly doubt they just took the 4 and duplicated them to make 8... why not just keep it 4.0 then? They definitely REDID it, moved the vocals around, etc. I'm not saying it sounds BAD - but anyone who says the DEHTs are the OTV would be wrong. And you know how I am with OTV...

5.1 would be a bit more reasonable really... which is why I like the 2003 audio. I know the DVD has 5.1 and not 7.1, but still. Knowing Disney, they probably took the 7.1 and just downmixed THAT to 5.1, not making it from scratch.

No I haven't watched the movie on Blu-Ray, I haven't even watched it at all. It's the concept, not what it sounds like. Again, Disney is appealing to the typical "Look at how pretty the colors look!" audience... I don't think they could care any less about the preservationists.
And it's not necessarily Sleeping Beauty I'm talking about. I mean the OLD movies, like Pinocchio (of course they'll have this "new" audio on the upcoming PE...), Cinderella, Peter Pan, Bambi, etc. They were originally released in mono... Now, making 5.1 channels from that is a HUGE stretch... and it's not like it sounds that much better! (Again, they tend to mess up their "original audio" tracks... but listen to a laserdisc or something and it sounds pretty darn good.)

Also, some of them were "upside down", or just plainly weirdly mixed. Aladdin is one I just can't stand - listen to the music in DEHT (and keep in mind the music is most of the movie!)... and it's just bizarre where they put the vocals. The normal 5.1 mix is far superior... the vocals are centered where they SHOULD be, not off in the middle of nowhere.

I'm certainly not against having 5.1 or 7.1 surround sound... but what I AM against is just ruining the original score to make it sound "good". If they had the original track and it sounded AS GOOD AS THE RESTORED ONE I wouldn't mind so much. But it really pisses me off when they have movies like Peter Pan having these "restored original soundtrack" that sound like crap, next to the "new and improved" DEHT. Why can't they restore them both the same? It's just their evil marketing to get people to buy stuff with their home theater mixes...

You're just completely missing the point -- there is no "upmixing" It was not recorded to 6 "channels" it was recorded to 6 tracks, there's a difference. You can mix those tracks into as many channels as you wish. If you record dialogue, you can mix it all into the centre channel or you can mix it into 7 channels, but that dialogue could have been recorded onto only 1 track. I don't think you understand what "upmixing" even means.

Maybe Pinocchio was mixed to mono, but if there are discrete multitracks it can be mixed into anything. Haven't you ever heard albums from the 1960's that were released in both mono and stereo (with now, some of them re-released in 5.1)? What do you think, all mono recordings were recorded to just one monaural track? Most of them were not, I'm sorry to tell you. They were just mixed to one channel because of the limits of the technology of the day.