UHD Review A Few Words About A few words about...™ - Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs -- in 4k UHD (1 Viewer)

[Paul Penna]

That's some of the material from the 2009 Diamond Edition, minus a few things, but with a few added as well. So it certainly could be a repressing of the 2016 disc with a new label, and I thought that was the case when I was using it to watch the extras on my laptop while I was working. But when I took it downstairs to run on my projector, it looks like the new master. There's actual visible grain, for one thing. So they may have taken the basic template for the 2016 disc and just dropped in the new movie file.

My earlier statement was based on screen grabs I took directly from new Blu-ray and the 2009 and made A/B comparisons. There's no doubt that the feature itself uses the new restoration, . FWIW, it's from the standard retail 2-disc UHD/Blu-ray version I got from Best Buy.

 

[KeithDA]

The extras on the Blu-ray are identical to the 2016 Platinum Edition:

Whereas ours seem to be from 2009:

Backstage Disney: Snow White returrns and deleted scenes​

'Some day my prince will come' by Tifffany Thompson music video​

Family play (games and activities)​

Audio commentary​

and that's it - along with those adverts for 'coming in 2010'......

 

[richardburton84]

Just finished watching the new restoration on Disney Plus and, basically, not much to say that hasn’t already been said and that looks beautiful with better contrast (on the old Blu-ray, the flight through the forest looked a little too bright). I did notice one change that struck me as interesting. In the closeups of the Magic Mirror, the previous transfers from 1993 onwards had a purplish, sometimes pinkish color to the smoke in the mirror which is gone from the new transfer (or at least is not as noticeable). Now I realize that the 1993 restoration was not exactly accurate (with no less than Ollie Johnston saying that the colors used there were not the ones used in 1937), I have to wonder what was used as reference for that particular restoration. On a side note, the film is just captivating and sometimes terrifying as ever (the transformation scene still sends chills running up and down my spine).

I don’t have the actual disc yet, but in regards to the extras, it’s a shame they couldn’t at least add the deleted scenes aside from the soup eating and bed building scenes (as well as the deleted concepts showcasing a much larger role for the Prince).

 

[sbjork]

My earlier statement was based on screen grabs I took directly from new Blu-ray and the 2009 and made A/B comparisons. There's no doubt that the feature itself uses the new restoration, . FWIW, it's from the standard retail 2-disc UHD/Blu-ray version I got from Best Buy.

The transfers on the 2009 and 2016 Blu-rays were identical. It's only the extras that were different. In this case, the extras do come from the 2016 disc, even if the transfer would have been identical to the 2009 if they hadn't have remastered it. But they did, so it doesn't matter either way.

The biggest tell that I didn't bother to check is that if the Blu-ray in the UHD set had been just a repressing of the older disc(s), it would have the 7.1 audio that was discarded in the remaster. Pretty sure that it doesn't, so that's another tipoff that it is indeed the new master, but I'm not home to double check.

 

[sbjork]

Whereas ours seem to be from 2009:

Backstage Disney: Snow White returrns and deleted scenes​

'Some day my prince will come' by Tifffany Thompson music video​

Family play (games and activities)​

Audio commentary​

and that's it - along with those adverts for 'coming in 2010'......

Weird that they'd do it differently on both sides of the Pond. Rights issues with some of the extras, maybe? The Disney Channel stuff maybe not kosher in the UK? I don't know.

 

[Paul Penna]

Screen grabs directly off the Blu-ray discs. Click/tap to enlarge.

 

[Will Krupp]

Caps-a-holic has a full set of comparisons between the restored 2023 US blu-ray and the 2009 Diamond edition

Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs • US Diamond Edition Blu-ray vs. US Remastered Blu-ray

caps-a-holic.com

 

[Frank Murphy]

Hello Robert - I hope all is well! Not sure if you remember me but many moons ago when I worked at CBS, we worked together on publicity for the CBS release of My Fair Lady” Deluxe Laser Disc Edition. What a gorgeous restoration lead by you…and what a marvelous LD package that was and is!

I was hoping for some guidance. I’m in the market for a 4K UHD disc player. If you or anyone else in the HTF family feel comfortable sharing any recommendations for same that would be most appreciated. If not, I totally understand.

Thanks for all you’ve done over the years to save remarkable and important films from decay and oblivion…and for all you’re doing today here on HTF!

All the best,
Frank Murphy
[email protected]

PS - I know that I need to “get over it”, but I just can’t when it comes to a restoration of a film we both love, John Wayne’s “The Alamo”. Sadly it’s most likely never going to happen. But I can still enjoy the full road-show version on Laser Disc.

FM

 

[Dick]

Did I read/hear somewhere that the colors for SWATSD were deliberately muted? It hasn't the pop of CINDERELLA, and doesn't resemble the Technicolor I'm familiar with elsewhere. I see decent red in SW's lipstick, and the apple that the witch delivers, but in other places, such as costumes, I see a burnt amber color, and wonder if Walt specifically asked his inkers to go light on the primary colors. The 4K looks fine, and compares favorably to the previous Blu-rays, but it just doesn't seem to have the Technicolor punch I'd expected from this release.

 

[richardburton84]

Did I read/hear somewhere that the colors for SWATSD were deliberately muted? It hasn't the pop of CINDERELLA, and doesn't resemble the Technicolor I'm familiar with elsewhere. I see decent red in SW's lipstick, and the apple that the witch delivers, but in other places, such as costumes, I see a burnt amber color, and wonder if Walt specifically asked his inkers to go light on the primary colors. The 4K looks fine, and compares favorably to the previous Blu-rays, but it just doesn't seem to have the Technicolor punch I'd expected from this release.

That’s what I’ve always heard in regards to the color palette on Snow White. I think he was concerned about audiences viewing bright colors for such a prolonged period of time or something along those lines, so he deliberately had it muted. Some images I’ve seen of original prints also have a bit of a sepia tint to the film.

 

[Paul Penna]

That’s what I’ve always heard in regards to the color palette on Snow White. I think he was concerned about audiences viewing bright colors for such a prolonged period of time or something along those lines, so he deliberately had it muted.

That point is made during one of the multitude of production supplements in the first DVD release in 2001. Some bits of those show up in bonus material in later disc releases, but nowhere near all. That's the reason I've kept that set.

 

[Frankie_A]

Aspect ratio seems incorrectly stated as 1.33, but who cares.

We seem to be entering a new world of newly restored Disney animated features, and collectors of 4k UHD physical media are the immediate beneficiaries.

As the the audio, it appears to be only in 5.1, without the original monaural.

As to what point that everyone is waiting for, the packaging is lovely. A simple, yet elegant illustration in full color with a metallic underlay. The title is in blue and embossed, for a high-end appearance, with gold and silver metallic added for emphasis. Yet another first edition that could be worth thousands in the future, so best to grab one at current prices.

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 - 6

Upgrade from Blu-ray - Absolutely!

Worth your attention - 10

Slipcover rating - 6

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

I don't want to nitpick here, but if we are are going to quibble about the look of grain in a transfer, we might as be accurate about aspect ratios -- and to be fair, this is a mistake that is CONSTANTLY being made even by people how should know better. I've seen it on the back of DVD packaging, I've seen it in IMDB (LOTS of times) and -- wait for it -- I've even seen it written on leaders of 35mm film SOUND prints. To be accurate, the aspect ratio of all non-wide-screen films after the advent of sound, is 1.37:1, not 1.33:1. The former was correct for SILENT film, the latter for all sound films until the advent of wide screen. When the soundtrack was added to the film geography of the original 35mm silent format, the image need to be slightly compromised to make room for the track at its side. Rather than lose some width, they increased the size of the frame line which resulted in a new aspect ratio: 1.37 to 1. It also shifted the image slightly off center with relationship to where the center line was for the image on silent films.

So if you see any film pre-1952 -- the dawn of CinemaScope and the concept that movie screens could be...nay should be WIDE and you are hearing sound...then 99.99% of the time the image on that film will have an aspect ratio is 1.37:1. And please, always add the :1; again I know I am quibbling, but it isn't a ratio without its counterpart number. You wouldn't say your new 55" TV had an aspect ratio of 16 and not bother to add the :9...I'm just sayin.

 

[Worth]

I don't want to nitpick here, but if we are are going to quibble about the look of grain in a transfer, we might as be accurate about aspect ratios -- and to be fair, this is a mistake that is CONSTANTLY being made even by people how should know better. I've seen it on the back of DVD packaging, I've seen it in IMDB (LOTS of times) and -- wait for it -- I've even seen it written on leaders of 35mm film SOUND prints. To be accurate, the aspect ratio of all non-wide-screen films after the advent of sound, is 1.37:1, not 1.33:1...

For what it's worth, I've been working in film and television for the last 25 years or so and no one has ever referred to it as anything other than 1.33. Same with scope - it's always 2.35, even if it's technically 2.39 or 2.4:1.

 

[sbjork]

That point is made during one of the multitude of production supplements in the first DVD release in 2001. Some bits of those show up in bonus material in later disc releases, but nowhere near all. That's the reason I've kept that set.

The point is still made in the extras that are in this version as well. But the whole varying bonus materials between releases is a rat's nest. Many of the extras from the CAV LaserDisc version haven't been carried forward anywhere else, either. If you anyone wants each and every extra that's ever been out there, they'll need a large shelf to hold all the variant releases.

 

[JoshZ]

To be accurate, the aspect ratio of all non-wide-screen films after the advent of sound, is 1.37:1, not 1.33:1.

For what it's worth, I've been working in film and television for the last 25 years or so and no one has ever referred to it as anything other than 1.33. Same with scope - it's always 2.35, even if it's technically 2.39 or 2.4:1.

The other point to remember is that just because 1.37:1 or 2.39:1 may be the correct theatrical standards, there's no guarantee a film will be transferred to one of those precise ratios for home video. Many Academy Ratio films that should be 1.37:1 wind up mildly cropped to 1.33:1 on video. Likewise, many films that should be 2.39:1 wind up as 2.35:1 (either via cropping or slightly opening mattes). The standards for this are very loose on home video.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

I don't want to nitpick here, but if we are are going to quibble about the look of grain in a transfer, we might as be accurate about aspect ratios -- and to be fair, this is a mistake that is CONSTANTLY being made even by people how should know better. I've seen it on the back of DVD packaging, I've seen it in IMDB (LOTS of times) and -- wait for it -- I've even seen it written on leaders of 35mm film SOUND prints. To be accurate, the aspect ratio of all non-wide-screen films after the advent of sound, is 1.37:1, not 1.33:1. The former was correct for SILENT film, the latter for all sound films until the advent of wide screen. When the soundtrack was added to the film geography of the original 35mm silent format, the image need to be slightly compromised to make room for the track at its side. Rather than lose some width, they increased the size of the frame line which resulted in a new aspect ratio: 1.37 to 1. It also shifted the image slightly off center with relationship to where the center line was for the image on silent films.

So if you see any film pre-1952 -- the dawn of CinemaScope and the concept that movie screens could be...nay should be WIDE and you are hearing sound...then 99.99% of the time the image on that film will have an aspect ratio is 1.37:1. And please, always add the :1; again I know I am quibbling, but it isn't a ratio without its counterpart number. You wouldn't say your new 55" TV had an aspect ratio of 16 and not bother to add the :9...I'm just sayin.

I don't want to nitpick your nitpick, but the sound aspect ratio was hardly standard until 1932, when AMPAS finalised the standard as 1.37:1. Prior to that, we saw 1.33:1 on films utilising synchronised sound-on-disc but as narrow as 1.19:1 when sound-on-film was in its infancy. Similarly, CinemaScope didn't get standardised as 2.35:1 until the late 1950s; the earliest films were 2.66:1, the mid 50s films adopted 2.55:1, and 2.39:1 didn't get standardised until 1971. Prior to that, the reduced width was 2.35:1.

 

[Worth]

The other point to remember is that just because 1.37:1 or 2.39:1 may be the correct theatrical standards, there's no guarantee a film will be transferred to one of those precise ratios for home video.

And even if they are in those ratios spot-on, it doesn't necessarily mean the framing is correct.

 

[Robert Harris]

I believe that aspect ratio question simply comes down to whomever typed in the number for the reverse packaging. For whom it is just a number.

I'm betting it's correctly 1.37 on the disc.

 

[Robert Harris]

As to original color, from filmcolors - original nitrate:

I'm betting that archivists split the difference between the original and a more modern ie kid friendly appearance.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

As to original color, from filmcolors - original nitrate:

I'm betting that archivists split the difference between the original and a more modern ie kid friendly appearance.

Would this also be printed for carbon arc, given the vintage?