UHD Review A Few Words About A few words about...™ - Cinderella (1950) -- in 4k UHD (1 Viewer)

[Robert Harris]

For the first time in recorded history, or at least since Biblical times, Disney has released one of the original Walt Disney feature-length animated classics - there were only 11 of them, not counting the omnibus films and mixed media -

And it looks terrific!

The track, presumably from original stems, has been re-recorded to DTS-HD MA 5.1, and that also works beautifully, although I'm certain that some will call for the original monaural track, which should have been included. Interestingly, checking the previous Blu-ray - tracks were represented as 7.1 as well as restored monaural. I’m willing to lose the 7.1 track for a quality image, but it would be nice to have a variant of the 1950 original.

Imagery is highly resolved, with beautiful color(s) - I have no idea at this point how well they match the original colors, so I won't go there - superbly clean and stable.

Part of the Disney 100th Anniversary - did these studio owners all meet at the same restaurant in Burbank for lunch in 1923? - it (hopefully) sends a message to collectors of animated cinema that a new perspective may be on the horizon, and by that I mean releasing software that actually appears to mimic original 35mm prints.

Cinderella is a wonderful start. One down, ten to go, and then we can hope for the omnibus and mixed media, and yes, I'll mention one of my favorite films - Song of the South.

Now to the important part. For those who are more concerned with the non-disc attributes.

The slipcover is a lovely affair. Not to be sexist, but it's a bit girly. All power blue and magenta/pink, with an under-layer of metallic iridescence, and blind embossing added for good measure. Collectible? Quite possibly. If Disney were to go without the slipcover for the second pressing I can see these going for thousands of dollars (asking price) on eBay.

Even the reverse of the slip has that same beautiful iridescence, but per my usual complaints, Disney still seems to believe that putting a production date (beyond "2023 Ultra HD Release," and actually allowing viewers to know that this film was produced 73 years ago, may turn them away.

The fact that this was created 73+ years ago, by hand, is not only a part of its charm, but a minor miracle.

Image – 5 (HDR)

Audio – 5 (DTS-HD MA 5.1)

Pass / Fail – Pass

Plays nicely with projectors - Yes

Makes use of and works well in 4k - 7

Worth your attention - 10

Upgrade from Blu-ray - Yes

Slipcover rating - 4

Very Highly Recommended

RAH


Thank you for supporting HTF when you preorder using the link below. As an Amazon Associate, HTF earns from qualifying purchases. If you are using an adblocker you will not see link.

See on Amazon

 

[RobertMG]

For the first time in recorded history, or at least since Biblical times, Disney has released one of the original Walt Disney feature-length animated classics - there were only 11 of them, not counting the omnibus films and mixed media -

And it looks terrific!

The track, presumably from original stems, has been re-recorded to DTS-HD MA 5.1, and that also works beautifully, although I'm certain that some will call for the original monaural track, which should have been included. Interestingly, checking the previous Blu-ray - tracks were represented as 7.1 as well as restored monaural. I’m willing to lose the 7.1 track for a quality image, but it would be nice to have a variant of the 1950 original.

Imagery is highly resolved, with beautiful color(s) - I have no idea at this point how well they match the original colors, so I won't go there - superbly clean and stable.

Part of the Disney 100th Anniversary - did these studio owners all meet at the same restaurant in Burbank for lunch in 1923? - it (hopefully) sends a message to collectors of animated cinema that a new perspective may be on the horizon, and by that I mean releasing software that actually appears to mimic original 35mm prints.

Cinderella is a wonderful start. One down, ten to go, and then we can hope for the omnibus and mixed media, and yes, I'll mention one of my favorite films - Song of the South.

Now to the important part. For those who are more concerned with the non-disc attributes.

The slipcover is a lovely affair. Not to be sexist, but it's a bit girly. All power blue and magenta/pink, with an under-layer of metallic iridescence, and blind embossing added for good measure. Collectible? Quite possibly. If Disney were to go without the slipcover for the second pressing I can see these going for thousands of dollars (asking price) on eBay.

Even the reverse of the slip has that same beautiful iridescence, but per my usual complaints, Disney still seems to believe that putting a production date (beyond "2023 Ultra HD Release," and actually allowing viewers to know that this film was produced 73 years ago, may turn them away.

The fact that this was created 73+ years ago, by hand, is not only a part of its charm, but a minor miracle.

Image – 5 (HDR)

Audio – 5 (DTS-HD MA 5.1)

Pass / Fail – Pass

Plays nicely with projectors - Yes

Makes use of and works well in 4k - 7

Worth your attention - 10

Upgrade from Blu-ray - Yes

Slipcover rating - 4

Very Highly Recommended

RAH

BRAVO RAH - BRAVO DISNEY Walt is rejoicing!

 

[Rodney]

I am expecting my copy to be delivered today. I hope this one sells extremely well, so Disney continues these "restorations" beyond Cinderella and Snow White.

 

[Robert Harris]

I am expecting my copy to be delivered today. I hope this one sells extremely well, so Disney continues these "restorations" beyond Cinderella and Snow White.

Presuming they al ready probably have 4k assets, it may be a cost effective endeavor.

 

[madfloyd]

How could this possibly have anything close to 4k resolution?

 

[Robert Harris]

How could this possibly have anything close to 4k resolution?

It doesn’t, but it makes good use of the format. Probably a bit over 2. Not a great deal of latitude in those decisions. The work is performed in 4k, but the delivery mechanism is either 2 or 4. Many releases use 4 for HDR and better color even when there’s nothing over 2.

I believe this has a shot at 2+, so the decision to go 4 isn’t outlandish.

For probably 25 - 30% of 4k releases, it is. Keep in mind that original dye transfer prints of Cinderella weren’t 4k either.

 

[letthemeatcake19]

Why must software that mimics film be used when these were analog films?? doesn't make any sense. The public has no idea that what they are watching is far removed from the original film elements. None of this would be accepted if it was ANY other artform. What is done to classic films during "restoration" would be considered destructive and revisionist if it was any other art form.

 

[titch]

Great - exactly what I saw, using a much cheaper projector than you have! One can only anticipate that Disney will rectify their previous high definition masterings, to this level. The technology is now available.

 

[sbjork]

While the artwork itself naturally doesn't really have 4K worth of detail, the textures of the media that were used do display some real improvements over 1080p. The textures of the background paintings, for example, but it's the clearest with the textures of the paper from the storybook opening. It takes on a tangible, almost 3D quality in 4K, with the paper itself exhibiting depth. The fine lines in the pencil artwork for that sequence are also better defined. Most of that does require getting your nose up to the screen, but it's there. Disney also made subtle but effective use of the HDR grade, I suspect by masking certain parts of the screen like Q-Tec did with their HDR grade for Makoto Shinkai's Your Name. Watch when Cinderella walks down the darkened hallway and opens the window shades near the beginning of the film -- the hallway is darker than in previous masters, but the light coming through the window is brighter. There's more detail and definition to the shadows than in the old master, but without brightening the image excessively like that one did.

The area of color grading with Disney animated titles is a rabbit hole where you'll never reach the bottom, but let's just say that I'm 100% happy with the grade on this new master (both for the UHD and the included Blu-ray). Curmudgeonly internet sleuths are welcome to disagree, but they're on their own.

 

[Chewbabka]

I wonder what caused the change of heart to not scrub and rotoscope the new master to death. We’ve already seen this new ethos at play with the 4K masters of The Black Cauldron and The Sword in the Stone. I’m glad it is extending to films Disney isn’t ashamed of!

 

[jayembee]

BRAVO RAH - BRAVO DISNEY Walt is rejoicing!

Shouldn't that be "Rah rah, RAH!"

 

[letthemeatcake19]

which one is the accurate one? because both can't be right. And why is it always without fail that the latest release is praised as the "accurate" one?

 

[sbjork]

View attachment 192487

which one is the accurate one? because both can't be right. And why is it always without fail that the latest release is praised as the "accurate" one?

If you genuinely believe that the latest releases are automatically praised as the most accurate ones "without fail," then it seems like you may not have spent much time on the internet, especially on forums. The accuracy of color timing for catalogue titles is debated ad nauseum, with new releases getting nitpicked and criticized as often as they're praised. Cinderella is one such film. Disney's previous master has been resoundingly criticized due to the fact that it significantly recolored much of the picture, among other things ruining some shots of Jaq and Gus, as well as changing the color of Cinderella's dress -- inconsistently so, too, sometimes veering wildly into blue. That master was also scrubbed completely free of grain, to such an extent that the fine line work was also eliminated. Once again, Cinderella's dress suffered horribly in some shots. That master was pretty much universally condemned from the moment that it hit Blu-ray, where its weaknesses were even more apparent than they were on DVD.

There are comparisons out there of the previous versions of Cinderella going all the way back to laserdisc and VHS. There have been debates about the "correct" color timing on Disney titles as long as home video has existed, with each successive version not being automatically praised. Cinderella is one of the least automatically praised titles out there. The response to the new 4K master has been so positive because most people who are doing so are quite familiar with the previous master(s), which they hated. It may or may not be perfect, but it fixes nearly all of the issues that the older masters had. Its' not subtle.

 

[Chewbabka]

The way her arms and hands interact with her gown on the BD is… horrifying.

 

[Indy Guy]

If you genuinely believe that the latest releases are automatically praised as the most accurate ones "without fail," then it seems like you may not have spent much time on the internet, especially on forums. The accuracy of color timing for catalogue titles is debated ad nauseum, with new releases getting nitpicked and criticized as often as they're praised. Cinderella is one such film. Disney's previous master has been resoundingly criticized due to the fact that it significantly recolored much of the picture, among other things ruining some shots of Jaq and Gus, as well as changing the color of Cinderella's dress -- inconsistently so, too, sometimes veering wildly into blue. That master was also scrubbed completely free of grain, to such an extent that the fine line work was also eliminated. Once again, Cinderella's dress suffered horribly in some shots. That master was pretty much universally condemned from the moment that it hit Blu-ray, where its weaknesses were even more apparent than they were on DVD.

There are comparisons out there of the previous versions of Cinderella going all the way back to laserdisc and VHS. There have been debates about the "correct" color timing on Disney titles as long as home video has existed, with each successive version not being automatically praised. Cinderella is one of the least automatically praised titles out there. The response to the new 4K master has been so positive because most people who are doing so are quite familiar with the previous master(s), which they hated. It may or may not be perfect, but it fixes nearly all of the issues that the older masters had. Its' not subtle.

View attachment 192529

If the image on the left is from a 2005 disc, then it would have to be a DVD. Resolution was 1/16 of the 4K image on the right. I'm not giving it any excuses for praise, but almost everything on the DVD format could not compare to a state of the art 4K disc.

 

[sbjork]

If the image on the left is from a 2005 disc, then it would have to be a DVD. Resolution was 1/16 of the 4K image on the right. I'm not giving it any excuses for praise, but almost everything on the DVD format could not compare to a state of the art 4K disc.

It's the 2005 master, not the 2005 disc. The same "restoration" was used for all of the Blu-rays that followed until the new master in 2023. And yes, they're all that bad. Completely scrubbed to hell. The increased resolution of Blu-ray over DVD didn't restore detail that had been permanently removed.

Incidentally, the new 2023 master looks vastly superior to the old one even when viewed on Blu-ray or streaming. (As of the last time that I checked, Disney+ is using the new master, but at HD quality sans HDR. Don't know if that's changed recently.)

 

[GJF118]

How could this possibly have anything close to 4k resolution?

Because the image captured on actual motion picture film has an inherent resolution that meets or exceeds 4k. https://movies.stackexchange.com/questions/35801/what-is-the-resolution-of-35mm-film

 

[DanH1972]

Snow White comes out on 4k Blu-ray later this year from the same restoration team. Hopefully, other big name classics follow suit next year with as good or better 4k clean up efforts.

Time is ticking on physical media and it would be nice to have all the classics and their renaissance titles lovingly restored in 4k (or greater) and on 4k disc before the hammer falls.

 

[Robert Harris]

View attachment 192487

which one is the accurate one? because both can't be right. And why is it always without fail that the latest release is praised as the "accurate" one?

You're not hearing any praise regarding color accuracy from these quarters. Not because it may have problems, but because I've not done proper comparisons, and have no opinion.

I'm happy to go there, but would need to do due diligence and research, beginning with examinations of original 35mm dye transfer prints and conversations with Ron Barbagallo.

And I'd need to do the work under contract.

 

[letthemeatcake19]

You're not hearing any praise regarding color accuracy from these quarters. Not because it may have problems, but because I've not done proper comparisons, and have no opinion.

I'm happy to go there, but would need to do due diligence and research, beginning with examinations of original 35mm dye transfer prints and conversations with Ron Barbagallo.

And I'd need to do the work under contract.

it makes no difference because without fault you always praise the latest release as accurate. What "restorers" do to films would be banned if it was any other artform, it would be deemed destructive and unprofessional. How can you praise and they sell a disc and call it "Cinderella" or any other movie when it looks nothing like it used to?