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

[stewie15]

Thanks for the info guys. Being a canadian we have a diff thanksgiving and thus no black friday.

[singerguy04]

Although you make a good point KubrickFan, Frank Thomas and Ollie Johnson helped oversee Snow White's Restoration for the 2001 DVD release. If that were the case then I think it's safe to assume that as surviving creators of the film, that what we got is what they wanted. Now to get back to Sleeping Beauty's restoration that really has little to do with Snow White's restoration, I cannot deny that Disney did say that they wanted to update the color palate of the older films to make them look more up-to-date and so on. I merely did forget it was said, and now that it's brought to my attention it does raise some alarm.

However, not for Sleeping Beauty just quite yet. If I remember correctly this whole ideal was taken into effect with Sleeping Beauty's first DVD restoration and release as well. In case I'm also mistaken (which i may be), I seem to recall that Disney's reason for another remaster of this film was due to a failure with the first restoration to fit close enough to the original colors of the film. That with the first restoration they had indeed used the wrong colors and that this release was to bring us more true to the original. Now, I can't guarantee if that's true so I might need someone else to verify that. If it's not i'll take it back. I'm just pretty sure that this release is actually supposed to give us as close as we can get to what we were supposed to have been seeing all these years.

Aspect ratio is something that i wont argue about. simply because the average person doesn't have the ability to show the original aspect ratio comfortably, so we wont see it probably. Mind that i'm also regarding this as the closest thing we'll get. That doesn't mean that i'm saying it is the orignal. Just clearing the air about that.

As for dust/scratches/whatever else can happen to film. Are you trying to say that Disney intended for these to be a part of their films? Or, that you just need dust and scratches to make it natural. if that's the case then why restore films at all? just curious...

[Barbossa]

Does anybody know of any in-store bonuses for Sleeping Beauty?

I'm not sure if this is available in Canada but I found this which is available at Walmart:
http://disney.go.com/partners/fairytalestofairies/

Anybody know if Future Shop will have a steel book case or any other bonuses anywhere?

[KubrickFan]

Although you make a good point KubrickFan, Frank Thomas and Ollie Johnson helped oversee Snow White's Restoration for the 2001 DVD release. If that were the case then I think it's safe to assume that as surviving creators of the film, that what we got is what they wanted. Now to get back to Sleeping Beauty's restoration that really has little to do with Snow White's restoration, I cannot deny that Disney did say that they wanted to update the color palate of the older films to make them look more up-to-date and so on. I merely did forget it was said, and now that it's brought to my attention it does raise some alarm.

Helping oversee something doesn't mean you have final say in anything. And they probably were aware of Disney's intents. Perhaps one of them even said the thing I quoted in an interview about the film. I don't remember exactly, all I know that one of them said that.

However, not for Sleeping Beauty just quite yet. If I remember correctly this whole ideal was taken into effect with Sleeping Beauty's first DVD restoration and release as well. In case I'm also mistaken (which i may be), I seem to recall that Disney's reason for another remaster of this film was due to a failure with the first restoration to fit close enough to the original colors of the film. That with the first restoration they had indeed used the wrong colors and that this release was to bring us more true to the original. Now, I can't guarantee if that's true so I might need someone else to verify that. If it's not i'll take it back. I'm just pretty sure that this release is actually supposed to give us as close as we can get to what we were supposed to have been seeing all these years.

There is always a problem with these type of discussions. I don't know about you, but I haven't seen this in theaters in 1959 (because I wouldn't be born for another thirty years). So, we cannot decide which version would be the right one. All I know is that Disney doesn't want their films to look dated. Perhaps they thought the 2003 looked dated enough to warrant a new restoration? They probably needed a new well-done scan for HD and other purposes anyway.

Aspect ratio is something that i wont argue about. simply because the average person doesn't have the ability to show the original aspect ratio comfortably, so we wont see it probably. Mind that i'm also regarding this as the closest thing we'll get. That doesn't mean that i'm saying it is the orignal. Just clearing the air about that.

Why wouldn't we see it comfortably? I don't understand that. 2.20:1 shows much less of the black bars than 2.55:1 would do, and we know that the average consumer doesn't like those.

As for dust/scratches/whatever else can happen to film. Are you trying to say that Disney intended for these to be a part of their films? Or, that you just need dust and scratches to make it natural. if that's the case then why restore films at all? just curious...

No, I'm not talking about scratches and dust, I'm talking of grain. Grain is inherent to film. Grain has much of the information in a frame. So, a lot of the times when grain removal is used, the picture becomes less sharp (and they have to enable edge enhancement to make something out of the picture). Dust and scratches aren't supposed to be there, because they weren't on the original negative, and only appear when the film isn't used/stored correctly.

[Barbossa]

Whats black friday?

It's like our Boxing Day, but from the sounds of it, Black Friday is better.

[drfsupercenter]

Well, I could argue with that. Disney clearly has stated that they don't want these films to look the way they did fifty years ago, but they want them to look contemporary, to make them look attractive to younger audiences. I thought it was Frank Thomas (or one of the other Nine Old Men who was still alive at the time) who said about the release of Snow White on dvd: "They're nice colors. They're not the way they were back then, but nice".

That's exactly what I'm talking about!!!

For a second I thought you were on the other side (because of all the aspect ratio stuff...) but now you see why I hate the new restorations.

Aspect ratio is something that i wont argue about. simply because the average person doesn't have the ability to show the original aspect ratio comfortably, so we wont see it probably. Mind that i'm also regarding this as the closest thing we'll get. That doesn't mean that i'm saying it is the orignal. Just clearing the air about that.

If I recall correctly, Sleeping Beauty had two different ratios - one for the IMAX and one for the normal theaters. 2.20:1 was only the 70mm ratio, wasn't it? (Though honestly I'd prefer 2.20 to 2.55 because obscenely wide movies can get annoying...)

And it would make sense that they took the 70mm master, it was higher quality to begin with... but hopefully it's not like Beauty and the Beast or The Lion King where it has completely redone segments to make them look better on the big screen.

As for dust/scratches/whatever else can happen to film. Are you trying to say that Disney intended for these to be a part of their films? Or, that you just need dust and scratches to make it natural. if that's the case then why restore films at all? just curious...

Well, they do two things when "restoring". One of them I approve of, and the other I don't.

First they clean the negatives, getting rid of dirt and dust, etc. That's perfectly acceptable... since obviously they didn't make the movie with dust in it. That's just a result of aging.

But then (at least Lowry Digital anyway) they scan it into a computer and digitally remove every last bit of grain they can find. They brighten up the colors since often they get less vibrant over time. The problem is, though, with the Platinum Editions, they often go over the top and remove too much grain... making the films look artificial, like they were just made yesterday. Same with the colors - while some like the colors of the Platinum Editions, they are no doubt different than any other home video release.
And I guess that stems from the belief that making something brighter makes it automatically look better. That may work on little kids who think it looks amazing, but it doesn't fool me... why should the Disney movies get brighter with time? (Comparing the old VHS and laserdisc to the original DVD set, then to this)

And like KubrickFan was saying,

No, I'm not talking about scratches and dust, I'm talking of grain. Grain is inherent to film. Grain has much of the information in a frame. So, a lot of the times when grain removal is used, the picture becomes less sharp (and they have to enable edge enhancement to make something out of the picture). Dust and scratches aren't supposed to be there, because they weren't on the original negative, and only appear when the film isn't used/stored correctly.

That's another thing I have a problem with. And they only do this on the new "digital restorations" by using digital imaging software to do edge correction and stuff. Hence, this makes it look artificial - and more like a CGI movie, rather than one animated by hand. And hence I prefer the analog restorations - where they would clean the negatives by hand but not try to remove the grain or any of that stuff... and while it might not look as "stunning HD" as the Platinum Editions do, it most likely looks more like it was in theaters. (As mind you, they didn't have digital anything back in 1959... so why would people assume it looked grain-free and absolutely perfect?)

[Coolmanio]

I live in Canada, and our Wal-Marts do get them. Although the price is a little higher for them.

[Escapay]

If I recall correctly, Sleeping Beauty had two different ratios - one for the IMAX and one for the normal theaters. 2.20:1 was only the 70mm ratio, wasn't it? (Though honestly I'd prefer 2.20 to 2.55 because obscenely wide movies can get annoying...)

Sleeping Beauty was never made or screened for IMAX, as that did not exist in 1959.

Anyway, here's some tech stuff I got in a PM from deathie (who has not abandoned UD after all, yay!)...

Sleeping Beauty was created and photographed in sequential Technicolor (3 B/W exposures) in Technirama's large format negative probably with intention and composition for use in reduction magnetic CinemaScope prints (2.55), cropped reduction optical CinemaScope prints (2.35), and cropped blow-up 70mm prints (2.20). If the 70mm blow-up prints showed any extra image on top or below the 2.55 composition or not we won't know it till we see an original 70mm frame, but we are getting more image height in this release than on previous widescreen releases.

This site shows it real nice:

http://cineramahistory.com/sb1.htm



I don't have the VistaVision/Technirama Camera/Projector dimensions handy but I have the 35mm ones:

35mm 1.33 Full Camera Aperture: 0.735" x 0.980"


1.33:1 Silent 35mm Projector Aperture: 0.710" x 0.945"

1.37:1 Academy Sound 35mm Projector Aperture: 0.600" x 0.825"

1.66:1 European 35mm Projector Aperture: 0.497" x 0.825"

1.75:1 Disney 35mm Projector Aperture: 0.471" x 0.825"

1.85:1 US 35mm Projector Aperture: 0.446" x 0.825"

2.39:1 Anamorphic 35mm Projector Aperture: 0.690" x 0.825" (current digital sound)

2.40:1 Anamorphic 35mm Projector Aperture: 0.690" x 0.828" (revised optical sound)

2.35:1 Anamorphic 35mm Projector Aperture: 0.705" x 0.828" (original optical sound)

2.55:1 Anamorphic 35mm Projector Aperture: 0.705" x 0.898" (original magnetic sound


And here's the area maked on the camera groundglass for extraction from Super-35 to fit the Projectore Aperture area for 35mm 1.85 or anamorphic prints above:

1.85:1 Super 35 Panavision extraction for flat prints: 0.511" x 0.945"

1.85:1 Super 35 Arri DIN extraction for flat prints: 0.500" x 0.925

2.39:1 Super 35 Panavision extraction for anamorphic prints: 0.395" x 0.945"

2.35:1 Super 35 Arri DIN extraction for anamorphic prints: 0.394" x 0.925"



Academy 1.37 was c.1931, the Standard Widescreen formats c. the mid fifties, optical sound Anamorphic Widescreen c, 1956-58, revised optical sound c. 1970-71, digital sound c. mid 90's

albert

[Escapay]

magicalwands posted a short list of the known exclusives and prices) on page 4 of the Sleeping Beauty DVD AND BLU-RAY Discussion Thread Vol. II

Best Buy - 14.99 / 24.99: Free Exclusive Sleeping Beauty alarm clock with the purchase of Sleeping Beauty on DVD OR Blu-Ray
Circuit City - 14.99 / 25.99: Free Sleeping Beauty Iron-on decal with purchase of Sleeping Beauty DVD
Target - 15.99: Sampler DVD which features highlights from the all-new Tinker Bell movie

albert

[KubrickFan]

The Technirama camera and projector dimensions were the following:

Camera: 1.496" x .992"
Projector: for the 70mm print: 1.912" x .870"
and for the 35mm print: .839" x .700

Since Technirama had an aspect ratio of 2.25:1, both the 70mm as the 35mm were cropped, but in very small amounts. Since 2.55:1 was hardly used anymore as an aspect ratio in Cinemascope, the need to release it this way is beyond me, actually.

[thatartguy]

Actually, it's called "Black Friday" because that's when all the stores go into the "black" side of finances instead of the "red" that they run into for the other 11 months of the year. Especially stores like Toys R Us who make all their profits for the year in the days between Thanksgiving and Christmas (Hanukkah).

[Ariel'sprince]

The Wal-Mart gift set is different now:
http://i.walmartimages.com/i/p/00/78/69 ... 00X500.jpg
It looks better but the old cliparts were much better I think (They used Aurora and Phillip from the cover and an old Aurora clipart).

[2099net]

Escapay managed to channel DeathieMouse from the Twilight Zone!?!

There is always a problem with these type of discussions. I don't know about you, but I haven't seen this in theaters in 1959 (because I wouldn't be born for another thirty years). So, we cannot decide which version would be the right one. All I know is that Disney doesn't want their films to look dated. Perhaps they thought the 2003 looked dated enough to warrant a new restoration? They probably needed a new well-done scan for HD and other purposes anyway.

Regardless of any other complaint, the 2003 (actually a restoration started some time before 2003) is not good enough. The colours pulse. The pulsing colours is clearly seen, and its clear the technology of the time wasn't good enough to stop this. It helped to reduce the pulsing but the restoration staff were aware of the pulsing and they failed to stop it. This alone is evidence that [a] a "new" restoration was required and technology has moved on allowing better restoration than even 5-10 years ago.

I'm not going to bother with any other comments on colours, sharpness, aspect ratio or anything else because its really just going to go around in circles.

Strange how people aren't objecting to a 7.1 soundtrack remix though isn't it?

[singerguy04]

yeah, i think i'm done arguing. I feel like I'm being told i'm wrong even though the truth is there's no way to tell if either side is right or wrong. My side of the situation is that this release is supposed to be the best release we can get, that afterall is the promise of the PE line. In some cases it's lived up to that and in others it hasn't, but I'm going to have faith that this SB release is the best we can get for right now. i don't see how we can argue that since none of us were there for it's creation. Maybe i'm just blindly putting my faith in the company.

I know it's going to sounds silly from me, being that i sing partly for a living, but I don't know much about difference in soundtrack to say anything about it. So is a 7.1 soundtrack good? I know that Blu-ray is supposed to deliver very good sound and that was a big seller for blu-ray vs. HDDVD.

[2099net]

Well a 7.1 soundtrack isn't the original! (But it appears the original will still be available on the disc)

[MickeyMouseboy]

Escapay managed to channel DeathieMouse from the Twilight Zone!?!

There is always a problem with these type of discussions. I don't know about you, but I haven't seen this in theaters in 1959 (because I wouldn't be born for another thirty years). So, we cannot decide which version would be the right one. All I know is that Disney doesn't want their films to look dated. Perhaps they thought the 2003 looked dated enough to warrant a new restoration? They probably needed a new well-done scan for HD and other purposes anyway.

Regardless of any other complaint, the 2003 (actually a restoration started some time before 2003) is not good enough. The colours pulse. The pulsing colours is clearly seen, and its clear the technology of the time wasn't good enough to stop this. It helped to reduce the pulsing but the restoration staff were aware of the pulsing and they failed to stop it. This alone is evidence that [a] a "new" restoration was required and technology has moved on allowing better restoration than even 5-10 years ago.

I'm not going to bother with any other comments on colours, sharpness, aspect ratio or anything else because its really just going to go around in circles.

Strange how people aren't objecting to a 7.1 soundtrack remix though isn't it?

I agree with you netty! and you're soooo right! he can't even throw you shapes tho!

[disneystarsfan]

i couldn't decide whether i should post this on a sleeping beauty platinum thread or the Pinocchio Platinum edition thread(you'll see what i mean when you watch the video)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLhWNl2dQYQ&fmt=18

someone uploaded the trailer for the upcoming Pinocchio 70th Anniversary Edition and in the beginning of the video you can see the trailer being selected from the Sleeping Beauty Blu-ray main menu!

btw, i added the text "&fmt=18" at the end of the url so you can watch the video with clearer picture and in noticably higher quality. i just thought i should let people know who didn't previously know this.

[yukitora]

ooh, that video. I think it was posted here before but thanks for posting it again. Even though the quality of the video is quite bad, the Pinocchio restoration looks quite exciting!

Hopefully next time we'll get less DVD vs Blu-Ray arguments though

[drfsupercenter]

Well, yeah... the 2003 restoration isn't perfect.

And of course, we won't know about the PE until it actually comes out. Though I do like the darkish colors of the 2003 DVD better. (And heck, it's not very hard to change the colors of a DVD, for, say, a "rollback" )

Even if they do include the original soundtrack (it was 4.0, right?)... you notice how they always make their "enhance home theater mixes" sound way better than the "restored original soundtrack"? I mean, it's like they don't give it their full effort so people go "ew, this original version sucks" and use the advertised home theater mix. (By the way, am I the only one who thinks those home theater mixes just plain suck?)

[yukitora]

I've never been able to set up my speakers properly to get any good sound out. It's hard for me to notice any difference