Sleeping Beauty Confirmed for DVD AND BLU-RAY in 2008 !!!

[Marky_198]

Curiouser and curiouser...It looks like the 2003 SE matches the actual cels more than the 2008 PE...





The only exception seems to be Maleficent, whose color scheme in the new restoration matches the cel better.



I can only assume that Lowry decided to consult the color models (which indicate how each color would appear on film once transfered to Technicolor) after the complaints they got for using cels as a basis for their other restorations.

The new retsoration matches the cells.
Look at the red in Flora's dress. Look at the reds in Philip's clothes.
Look at Maleficent, the yellow things, etc. For example, the blue background in the fairies screenshot when they decide to bring Aurora to the forest. It's supposed to be purple.

I've never really liked the 2003 version.
It seems like they just recolored it, very childish, cartoonish.
It has lost the Disney classic feeling. But the've got it back now.

The feeling I get from the 2003 version is the same as I get from Cinderella. I wish they could to the same thing to Cinderella as they did with Sleeping Beauty now. And make it a Disney classic again.

[yukitora]

^the trailer is a pan and scan of the 2.55:1 aspect ratio as the video appears to have a full screen AR.

Also disneykid's 2003 screenshots aren't the full image either. The sides are cropped off.

trailers never represent the aspect ratio of films.

[Escapay]

I don't really have anything to say, just something I noticed...

2003 SE was the official restoration, after intensive research.
Even the people involved said that was exactly how the film looked in 1959.
Unless the movie looks completely the same in October, the word "restoration" can't be used. I'm going to call it "modernisation".

Now, here we are a couple months and a few before-and-after-but-not-as-accurate-as-one-would-think-screencaps later...

Post 1:
The 2003 version looks like an overly bright sequel.
And I think the lines are way too thick.
If you take a look at Aurora walking in the woods on the grass, it doesn't look right in the 2003 version. The new version looks like she's actually walking on the grass. The colors of the fairies, Aurora's hair and the red in Philip's clothes are perfect.

Also, the difference in the Maleficent screenshots is huge. I like the yellow eyes and ball on the stick much better than the green ones.

And in general, I think the 2003 restoration looks cartoonish and dead.
The new restoration actually looks alive. The difference in feeling is huge.

Post 2:
I've never really liked the 2003 version.
It seems like they just recolored it, very childish, cartoonish.
It has lost the Disney classic feeling. But the've got it back now.

The feeling I get from the 2003 version is the same as I get from Cinderella. I wish they could to the same thing to Cinderella as they did with Sleeping Beauty now. And make it a Disney classic again.

Albert

[supertalies]

The Japanese Cover.
But it looks like it isn't final!

Also, Can someone upload the IMBD clips on Youtube or something?
I can't see them...

[Atlantica]

This may have been mentioned before, but the website is fully up and running ! I just discovered it today.

One of Disney's best for their Platinum Editions I think !

[Ariel'sprince]

Which website,Atlantica? the US one wasn't upated yet since it was first lunched (I found it in February).

[Atlantica]

The US Sleeping Beauty website ! It's been updated !

Go and take a look

[steven132]

A short clip about the restoration
http://disney.go.com/videos/#/videos/cl ... ent=167325

[Ariel'sprince]

Oh,I have been there today and it wasn't updated! .
Anyway I"m glad it is it's wonderful! it looks really great! best Disney website ever! .
But where's the sweepstakes? I wanna the video game already oh well,thanks so much Atlantica for telling me .

[Marky_198]

I don't really have anything to say, just something I noticed...
Albert

Hi Albert, thanks for your post.
I guess I have to explain a few things here

First of all, what I said about the 2003 restoration, back then it was presented as the officially restored version. They used the newest techniques and everyone (including people involved) said that it matched the original movie and that it was like what was originally intended. Restored to it's original brilliance. I believed that, or at least, I wanted to believe that as Sleeping Beauty is my favourite Disney Classic.

To be honest, every time I watch the film, it's the vhs which I recorded on dvd with the original dub. The quality is very good, and the whole image and look of the movie is just better and more authentic. Although I couldn't really tell why. I thought it had something to do with the crisp and clean quality of the 2003 dvd back then. I liked the dvd, but on the other hand, the vhs I've copied to dvd looked far more authentic and less cartoony.

But hey, the people involved said it was how it's supposed to be so who was I to disagree? (back then )

The years after that, other films came out, with (in my opinion) shocking "restorations", like Cinderella.
I find Cinderella completely unwatchable.
So in a way I was glad that Sleeping Beauty hadn't had (is that English?;))the same treatment, although I thought that the 2003 Sleeping Beauty dvd couldn't match the feeling, colors, atmosphere of the vhs version. Or actually, that original Sleeping Beauty Disney classic feeling.
But, like I said, I thought that was probably just the way films look on dvd instead of vhs. And that that's the reason the film looked more cartoony, bright and crisp. And I accepted that.

But now, after I've seen the screenshots of the 2008 restoration, I must admit that they look much more like the old books I have, and the vhs I have. Suddenly I see the look of the movie that I remember.
No cartoony look, but the look of a Disney classic.
So that original feeling CAN be put on dvd (or blu ray).
And that makes me glad.

Of course this is just based on the screenshots and I wonder what the actual dvd will look like.

But they said the 2003 dvd was restored to how it was when it came out, and now, in 2008 they're saying the same thing.
So when was it a lie?
It's the same thing with Cinderella, try telling some people here that it's not what it originally looked like. They won't believe you until it comes out in 7 years again, with the newest techniques and a completely different look than the 2005 version, and of course, restored to it's original brilliance again.

So, we have 2 versions now, the 2003 version (exactly like it was when it came out in the 50's) and the 2008 version (exactly like it was when it came out in the 50's) and they both look very different.

Everyone has a different taste, but when I compare the 2 versions now, I think the 2008 version looks much more authentic, beautiful, less cartoony, and really like a restored movie that was made in the 50's.

[Fflewduur]

But they said the 2003 dvd was restored to how it was when it came out, and now, in 2008 they're saying the same thing.
So when was it a lie?

Without the opportunity to screen an answer print---or the original theatrical presentation (in this case, coupled with extraordinary visual memory)---I'm not sure how one could judge the authenticity of ANY home media release.

But the simple fact of the matter is that what WAS the state of the art is now dated technology, even if it's only five years old. Disney's started new high resolution scans of animated catalog titles because previous restorations were screened on displays that were less revealing than many consumer HD displays now on the market for the general public.

[Flanger-Hanger]

Actually that restoration was done in 1997 for the laserdisc/VHS release then. The 2003 DVD was just that restoration with an anamorphic enhancement.

And the only lies about restorations are the ones you come up with yourself Marky.

[Disney Duster]

I actually was wondering about that, too, Albert. Glad you brought it up.

Well Marky, I would say you were afraid the new restoration would look completely different from the film, but since it actually matches what you've seen before of the film, it feels right. By the way...where did you hear the people who made the film say it looked how it was supposed to?

And the only lies about restorations are the ones you come up with yourself Marky.

That was uncalled for! If you want to prove it, give me some examples of the lies he made, because he never lied about restorations ever. And if someone makes a statement with information they had every right to believe was true, and it turns out it wasn't, that's not really lying. And...you honestly believe Disney is honest to the public all the time?

Regarding the whole thing, I'm worried about paleness and disappearing lines, but the 2003 SE does look too bright or saturated and something's wrong with it. And if Marky likes the restoration of his favorite film, that will help convince me to like it, too, as one of my favorite films.

[yukitora]

^you know... the screens of the 2003 S.E. version disneykid posted are almost completely different to mine in terms of it's color. (I don't want to use the wrong words here, because I know a lot of people get huffed and puffed over that!) but Disneykid's screens appear a lot brighter and more saturated then my DVD.


The overall "washed out" look of the blu-ray compared to what I'm used to watching isnt much of a difference. Of course there still is a difference, and so far I'm preferring the 2003 DVD simply because it looks more magical, mysterical, and romantic. Like a fairytale should be.

I don't quite see why people want it looking less cartoony. That would make it more realistic... and I thought we were talking about a fairytale made by a company made famous for its strength in animation.

[Flanger-Hanger]

And the only lies about restorations are the ones you come up with yourself Marky.

That was uncalled for! If you want to prove it, give me some examples of the lies he made, because he never lied about restorations ever...

I was merely pointing out Marky's ability to so quickly judge and change his views on restorations and how it always seems he's so sure of himself even if he doesn't have proof to go with his opinions. He implied that Disney lied, which in itself is a lie. Disney never lied about Sleeping Beauty's restoration not being as perfect as it can be because times have changed. 11 years ago, the then current restoration for the film was highly praised and...oh hell arguing about film restorations on this site is like banging your head against a brick wall. It gets you no where are your head hurts no matter how much reasoning, logic and facts you bring in.

[Disneykid]

^you know... the screens of the 2003 S.E. version disneykid posted are almost completely different to mine in terms of it's color. (I don't want to use the wrong words here, because I know a lot of people get huffed and puffed over that!) but Disneykid's screens appear a lot brighter and more saturated then my DVD.

I checked my screencapping settings, and it turns out you're right. I had my picture setting set on vivid, which pumped up the colors, especially the reds. Thanks for pointing that out to me! I'll fix those caps later tonight.

In the meantime, here's a (more accurate comparison) between the DVD and the restoration featurette steven linked to (thanks, steven!). Again, I must stress that since one is off of a DVD and one is from a low-quality flash video, we can't judge the detail of the 2008 restoration. The sake of this comparison is to judge color and framing. The 2003 SE is on the left while the 2008 PE is on the right.










Corrected screencaps from two pages ago will be coming soon.

[2099net]

I checked my screencapping settings, and it turns out you're right. I had my picture setting set on vivid, which pumped up the colors, especially the reds. Thanks for pointing that out to me! I'll fix those caps later tonight.

I think this shows the folly of compating screenshots to other screenshots - its just not possible to do so on a like-for-like basis. Everybody has different settings.

If you want a more valid comparison you need to configure your display (preferably your TV) with either a special AV calibration disc or one of the optimisers on many discs (such as the THX calibration screen on The Lion King and some other THX certified Disney discs).

As I pointed out in another thread, those who often complain about colours on restorations apparently can't actually be bothered to do this.

It's not asking much is it?

They have the decency to work on the film's restoration and provide tools so that you can view the said work to it's best, they just want you to spend 5-10 mins setting your display up to see it at it's best.

A final note: the colours on the 2003 restoration of Sleeping Beauty have long been acknowledged to be inperfect by the restorers themselves - mainly due to the "flickering" and "throbbing" - which implies to me, that the restoration used on the 2003 DVD wasn't taken from the original three-colour negatives. After all, how many times are we told the original three-colour negatives don't fade? Any yet, the colours on that restoration obviously were in the process of fading.

[Marky_198]

Without the opportunity to screen an answer print---or the original theatrical presentation (in this case, coupled with extraordinary visual memory)---I'm not sure how one could judge the authenticity of ANY home media release.

But the simple fact of the matter is that what WAS the state of the art is now dated technology, even if it's only five years old. Disney's started new high resolution scans of animated catalog titles because previous restorations were screened on displays that were less revealing than many consumer HD displays now on the market for the general public.

True,

but you CAN tell what kind of image works better, feels more authentic, and looks more like a restored movie from the 50's (like what it is).

[Marky_198]

.

Well Marky, I would say you were afraid the new restoration would look completely different from the film, but since it actually matches what you've seen before of the film, it feels right. By the way...where did you hear the people who made the film say it looked how it was supposed to?

And the only lies about restorations are the ones you come up with yourself Marky.

That was uncalled for! If you want to prove it, give me some examples of the lies he made, because he never lied about restorations ever. And if someone makes a statement with information they had every right to believe was true, and it turns out it wasn't, that's not really lying. And...you honestly believe Disney is honest to the public all the time?

Regarding the whole thing, I'm worried about paleness and disappearing lines, but the 2003 SE does look too bright or saturated and something's wrong with it. And if Marky likes the restoration of his favorite film, that will help convince me to like it, too, as one of my favorite films.

Thanks Disney Duster,
Yes, I guess you could say that. It just feels right.
And I never thought I would say that from a restoration.

In 2003 it was presented that way.
On the back of my dvd cover it says "Helemaal terug in zijn oude glorie".
Which basically means, restored to it's original brilliance.
On Wikipedia it says: "Then the film underwent an extensive digital restoration" and "In 2003, the restored Sleeping Beauty was released to DVD in a 2-disc "Special Edition".
I also remember reading things on this forum about that and isn't there a 3 minute documentary about it on the 2003 2disc dvd? Unfortunately only the 1 disc version was released over here.

But thanks again, very kind of you.

Flanger-Hanger,
I don't change my views on restorations quickly at all.
But you have to keep your mind open for new things, and I used to think older, unrestored is better, but the movies go through so many changes over time, different restoration, different times and techniques, and I just try to compare, look, and figure out what I like best.

And I also agree with Disney Duster that I don't believe Disney is honest to the public all the time at all (and you now that too,right?), but maybe in this case, back then, with the technology back then, they didn't know any better. So in this case, maybe it wasn't a lie. And they truly believed it.

Disneykid, thanks for the new screenshots.
Very interesting.
I like the 2008 one where Aurora is hanging out of her window.
The color of her hair and skin. Her hair is lighter than the 2003 version.
But are you sure the one with the animals in the woods is right?
Suddenly her hair is darker than the 2003 version and her skin is dark pink.
Also, the one with the dragon, the background is very yellow.
And the one with aurora and Philip dancing looks very saturated.
Her hair almost looks orange. In the 2008 screenshots of that dance scene you made earlier (2 pages back) it didn't look like that at all.

[yukitora]

^you got to remember there is a lot of shade in the forest scene, whilst when he was in the cottage window there was nothing blocking the sunshine.

It's the same case as Ariel's very dark skin tone under the sea compared to her fair complexion as a human.

Thanks for the new screenshots disneykid! and no problem about pointing that little tidbit out, i'm rather more sorry I made you redo all of them
The new set of screens you made really realize how much was cropped out on the 2003 SE! A few days ago I would've thought it was perfect, but now it just looks very cramped... lol. I wonder if the people who were initially against the new 2.55:1 AR will change there minds after seeing your screenshots.

Anyhow, I still prefer the colors from the 2003 SE (I loved the lush dark greens), but who knows, maybe the real DVD/blu-ray won't look so washed out.