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

[ichabod]

I've always wanted to ask my UD lists The Rocketeer as a Disney live-action film. On my DVD it starts with "Touchstone Pictures Presents". There are no Walt Disney Pictures logos anywhere.

So what do you mean, Scaps?

For some reason on some international releases they switched it to the Touchstone logo.

There are a few films which seem to live on both sides of the Disney/Touchstone border depending on the country.

[Jules]

That's odd. Come to think of it I would have liked to see The Rocketeer open with a Walt Disney Pictures banner on my DVD, despite the rather mature content.

[Disney Duster]

Well, it may have been more possible in that time, but I would like to suggest it as "darker" themes, not "mature" themes. Sleeping Beauty already contained death and even some blood! And the whole thing was already dark. Those films you listed were just darker, or even just scarier. Well, I haven't seen "Tex" or "Trenchcoat". Hm...or maybe it should be..."more mature" themes?

Ah, but I said more mature themes when I swear you meant more mature themes.

Now I get to do one!

And thanks for laughing at my discussion-appropriate Maleficent quote!

[Escapay]

Ah, but I said more mature themes when I swear you meant more mature themes.

Ah, it's the old "read it differently" conundrum. Like "I never said you took the money" versus "I never said you took the money" versus "I never said you took the money" versus "I never said you took the money"...

Well, just to make sure we're on the same page, I did mean "more mature", since Disney has done mature themes in the past. But they became more apparent and obvious in the 70s/80s films I mentioned than in Disney's day.

albert

[Disney Duster]

Oh, well good. I'm starting to realize adult movies just have more of what kid's movies already have. Sex is just an extension of romance. Well, then again there's people who are very romantic but don't seem to desire sex...

[azul017]

I've watched the film again today and I noticed so many changes, it's really weird.

Especially changes in the soundtrack.
It has nothing to do with the original soundtrack!
So many things are shifted (lines, instruments) and many intones are different. A moment earlier or later on the music for example.
This is really weird. It's obvious that they remixed all the separate instruments and lines etc.
Als many changes in volumes and echoes, for example when aurora sings the high notes in the forest, suddenly a far away echoeing sound, also in the scene with the prince.
The gifts of beauty are completely different, on the previous dvd when the chorus sang their last word, you heard multiple "s"es for example, now that's gone. Also some instruments come out much more now and are shifted as well.
In the Once upon a dream sequence when Philip stops singing, suddenly there are these 2 strange chords.
There are also changes in the music when Aurora is hypnotised and walks to the spinning wheel.

When Disney did the new restoration for the 2008 edition, someone had found the original 3-track stereo score tracks recorded in Berlin from 1958. The music engineers digitized them into ProTools, a music editor cut and sequenced the music back into the film and gave it to Terry Porter to mix for the new DEHT and 7.1 Blu-ray surround options.

Full story is at this link, look under "Sounds Good!" to get the full story about the new music mixes. Perhaps some of the changes are from a more clearer source?

[Marky_198]

Perhaps some of the changes are from a more clearer source?

I have no doubt that they used the instruments, sounds and lines from a clear(er) source.

But there is a big danger in separating these things. It will never be the same as the original soundtrack, the first mix as how it was when it first came out.

There are so many MISTAKES in the film now, it's shocking.
Yes, it sounds clear and good.

But for example, the lines in the gift of beauty are shifted. They are sung too late and other parts too early. It doesn't fit the music anymore.
It doesn't make any sense musically. This is unacceptable.
While in all the previous versions, dvd's, lp's, cd soundtracks etc, this timing of the singing lines fitted the music perfectly.

I think they messed up big time.

And this is just one example.

[Fflewduur]

Perhaps some of the changes are from a more clearer source?

I have no doubt that they used the instruments, sounds and lines from a clear(er) source.

But there is a big danger in separating these things. It will never be the same as the original soundtrack, the first mix as how it was when it first came out.

There are so many MISTAKES in the film now, it's shocking.
Yes, it sounds clear and good.

But for example, the lines in the gift of beauty are shifted. They are sung too late and other parts too early. It doesn't fit the music anymore.
It doesn't make any sense musically. This is unacceptable.
While in all the previous versions, dvd's, lp's, cd soundtracks etc, this timing of the singing lines fitted the music perfectly.

I think they messed up big time.

And this is just one example.

Have yet to watch the DVD, but I've no issues with the Blu-ray; the 7.1 mix is a revelation.

If you have issues with SB's audio, I suggest you hie thee hither to blu-ray.com and address your concerns to Sir Terrence in his <a href="http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php ... >Insider's thread</a>; he's a sound editor employed by Disney Studios. Besides mentioning what specific instances trouble you, be sure to mention what hardware you're using and any post-processing settings that may be employed on your receiver.

[Disney Duster]

But Fflewduur,, the music isn't just clearer, it's really been re-arranged and some is missing! Flutes, harps, and more! And it's on all DVDs in all regions! Even here on the US release! I told PrincePhillipFan, Sleeping Beauty's his favorite, and he didn't notice the changes, but when I told him he put in the SE DVD and listened and the PE DVD and listened and he heard the changes and missing music in the new mix!

At least they have the restored original audio.

[2099net]

At least they have the restored original audio.

Not if you live in Europe, and not even on the Blu-ray, which is sodding stupid. They already removed the Dragon's Encouter bit off the Blu-ray disc, and they can't even squeeze on an extra DD 4.0 track?

I'm sorry, but Sleeping Beauty is not a long film, and even the addition of Grand Canyon in HD on the same disc does not thrust it into what could be classed as a long running disc compared to some discs. And this is a BD50 too - not a BD25. It has no uncompressed soundtracks, all soundtracks are lossless compressed or lossy compressed (on the European disc, which admittedly has more soundtracks than the US release) but its still freaking stupid after all the fuss Blu-ray made about bitrates and storage.

[akhenaten]

good! more people are noticing the blasphemy that is the DEHT.

one more evidence to support our rant.

listen to the knocking acorn sound on the forest critters heads, in the DEHT, i didnt fade out.it just stopped.i reckon they took that sound effect track and just relocate it without adjusting the end.

id love to appreciate the restored original audio, but theres just too much hissing.and this is the first premium blu ray title.shouldnt the DEHT represent the best restoration/enhancement of the original audio without leaving behind a single out of its source? am i to expect disney to rerelease this on blu ray again or rainbowray in the future?

[Fflewduur]

But Fflewduur,, the music isn't just clearer, it's really been re-arranged and some is missing! Flutes, harps, and more! And it's on all DVDs in all regions! Even here on the US release! I told PrincePhillipFan, Sleeping Beauty's his favorite, and he didn't notice the changes, but when I told him he put in the SE DVD and listened and the PE DVD and listened and he heard the changes and missing music in the new mix!

At least they have the restored original audio.

I'm not arguing anything; as I've said, I have yet to listen to the DVD. I'm just making it known the possibility exists to address specific issues to someone who works with audio for the company.

And I mentioned hardware and settings because they matter.

[ichabod]

Well Sleeping Beauty blu-ray and the new restoration doesn't seem to have gone down well at all.

Check out this article at Cartoon Brew with a round up of complaints.

http://www.cartoonbrew.com/disney/sleep ... ean-better

There's mention on DVNR too, which means Disney's talk of painstaking human restoration of each frame could be pure bollocks.

[Marky_198]

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/3447001-post66.html


I have to agree here.

And in the 2003 version Merryweather's skin actually looks like skin.
In the 2008 version it looks like one flat patch done with the programm paint.

Ps. Can anyone tell me why they had so much trouble to "decide" what color Aurora's hair should be turned into for the 2008 restoration? I thought the original negatives didn't fade?

[Jules]

I thought you liked the new restoration, Marky.

[2099net]

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/3447001-post66.html


I have to agree here.

And in the 2003 version Merryweather's skin actually looks like skin.
In the 2008 version it looks like one flat patch done with the programm paint.

Ps. Can anyone tell me why they had so much trouble to "decide" what color Aurora's hair should be turned into for the 2008 restoration? I thought the original negatives didn't fade?

Negatives are not the film prints and are never shown in a projector. In order to transfer from a negative to a film PRINT, a photochemical process is required. This is not an exact science - there's far too many variables involved which can alter the colour timing on the print, indeed, colour timing for the print can be deliberately altered during the process simply by changing the chemicals or exposure. That's why the term colour timing has been around long before digital film and video.

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/mov ... -what.html

While this doesn't explain the process, it perhaps exapains why things look "different"

http://digitalcontentproducer.com/mil/f ... on_issues/

That's an important point. It has always been the case that restored movies cannot possibly look dead-on exactly like they did the day they were originally released. I mean, if you took a three-strip Technicolor original negative from 1948 and made a print today, and you knew what you were doing, it could, in fact, look gorgeous. But it would not look exactly like it did in 1948. That's because of changes in the stocks and the printing processes. It's always related to technology. The whole photochemical world has changed so much since those classic movies were made — the optics are sharper, the stocks are different, and all that tends to leave you with a sharper image than you had back then, not to mention the arrival of all the digital tools. And with liquid-gate printing, for example, you can make prints without flaws that you could not do back then in the traditional printing process. So that is always a challenge.

[Marky_198]

I thought you liked the new restoration, Marky.

At first I thought I did. And I still like the overall look and the choice of many colors. Some scenes really look like they were made in the 50's.
But when I look closer, to this screenshot for example, I have to say not everything is done very well.

[Marky_198]

Thanks 2099net, so basically we can say that it is impossible to get the look exactly like how it was back then and they just make up the colors today? And they just do what they think is right/they like? Because obviously there is a lot of room for different decisions and shades when it comes to colors.

[Fflewduur]

Thanks 2099net, so basically we can say that it is impossible to get the look exactly like how it was back then and they just make up the colors today? And they just do what they think is right/they like? Because obviously there is a lot of room for different decisions and shades when it comes to colors.

<a href="http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/ ... html">This discussion</a> has been linked to a few times:

TG: We are very fortunate in that we have access to the Studio's Animation Research Library (ARL), which contains millions of artifacts spanning the history of the company's animation projects. This includes production cels, backgrounds, and multiplane glass levels. We routinely select dozens of pieces that are then scanned, and split back out to RGB "SE" channels to then be recombined to emulate as best as possible the original photographic methods to ensure that the colors are reproduced much as they would have been (albeit without dye-transfer technologies). These newly photographed set-ups become our wedges that are given to our colorist (Tim Peeler at Technicolor Digital Intermediates) to further aid in this process.

Of course none of this work is done in an information vacuum since personal opinion foisted as fact never accomplishes anything. Hence the Restoration Team also includes colleagues such as animator Andreas Deja, and special projects director Dave Bossert, both from Disney Animation Studios, and Bruce Tauscher from the Mastering group. They bring a wealth of knowledge about the history of the techniques and the prevailing production conditions and thus help us ensure that we don't inadvertently alter the integrity of the original animation.

The cels themselves still retain the color. We have not seen anything that would lead us to believe that cels have faded severely or would in any other way not be representative of the original colors.

And speaking of Technicolor IB, on Sleeping Beauty (and other recent projects), I have been able to get us access to a dye transfer print to really help us understand how the prints were meant to be seen. There is no question that the original cels were designed with a color palette that accounted for SE photography and not for EK color negative. As this film is our first animated classic on Blu-ray we wanted to make sure we did everything possible to fully present the original splendor of the production.

[Fflewduur]

Well Sleeping Beauty blu-ray and the new restoration doesn't seem to have gone down well at all.

Check out this article at Cartoon Brew with a round up of complaints.

http://www.cartoonbrew.com/disney/sleep ... ean-better

There's mention on DVNR too, which means Disney's talk of painstaking human restoration of each frame could be pure bollocks.

Lou Romano only says he prefers the colors in the 2003 edition; he does not state that they are more correct. He also says that which release is "definitive" is up to the individual, but that's only true for the sake of personal satisfaction; the set of people who can speak with real authority on how a fifty-year-old film <i>should</i> look is quite, quite small.

What's bollocks are the presumptions that detailed technical analysis of post-processing can be accomplished through viewing compressed screencaps, that the average layman forum poster is equipped to make such an analysis, and that such posts necessarily carry sufficient weight and authority to impeach the integrity and work ethics of industry professionals with reputations, relevant educations, and professional expertise.

(BTW, there is no necessary contradiction between painstaking restoration and the use of DNR.)