DVDizzy Forum

singerguy04 wrote: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.

singerguy04 wrote: 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.

singerguy04 wrote: 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.

singerguy04 wrote: 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...

stewie15 wrote:Whats black friday?

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".

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...

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.

drf wrote: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...)

deathie mouse in a PM wrote: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

KubrickFan wrote: 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.

2099net wrote: Escapay managed to channel DeathieMouse from the Twilight Zone!?!

KubrickFan wrote: 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!