DVD Review HTF REVIEW: Sleeping Beauty SE (Disney) --VERY HIGHLY RECOMMENDED!!! (1 Viewer)

[Felix Martinez]

I took a quick look at Sleeping Beauty, and while the kids will certainly be thrilled with this, I'm seeing an overly digitized and cleaned image, which worked with Snow White, but...

What I'm seeing here is a loss of sharpness, which has then been re-sharpened, with halos around areas of high contrast.

This also appears to have been produced from a 35mm scope element which has been poorly cropped vertically, as the bottom of the image is missing.

Audio is superb as is color, which should be as it is based upon three strip SE photography. I noted one review this morning which noted that the color was stupendous based upon the fact its age and normal color fading. Not exactly.

First of all, to David - excellent, excellent review! This is indeed a great set for the $. Had family over and just the supplementary disc had my folks enthralled (my dad is an artist, so he was fascinated with the features).

However, I must say that I agree 100% with RAH. I had forgotten about his comments above and about 5 minutes into the film, remembered them!

Sure enough, as viewed with my Panny RP-91 via progressive with Sanyo PLV-60 projector and 92 inch screen, there is a noticeable softness and edge halos visible throughout - result is moderately distracting. Softness appears to be high-frequency filtering, which I do not recall seeing on Snow White (at least to this degree). On the plus side, image stability and colors are superb. While a very nice visual experience, all things considered, IMHO it's not a reference transfer.

The cropping along the bottom is noticed almost immediately - I believe the production code logo during the credits is cut in half.

While this is the best SB has looked on video, it's a shame a few steps weren't taken to ensure it could have been the best it could be on current standard definition video.

Looking forward to Lion King - fingers crossed!

My $.02,

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Felix,

Thanks for sharing your experience and your review equipment!

Interesting that on the same Panny rp91 projected on the Sharp 9000, I didn't notice the same thing (regarding the softening of HF detail).

Any more folks with projection systems care to chime in with what you're seeing?

 

[Felix Martinez]

Felix,

Thanks for sharing your experience and your review equipment!

Interesting that on the same Panny rp91 projected on the Sharp 9000, I didn't notice the same thing (regarding the softening of HF detail).

No prob! Still 100% glad I picked it up! BTW - my RP-91 is set to the recommended "Auto2" setting. I think if you A-B Sleeping Beauty with a reference title with spot-on, *natural* sharpness you'll notice it. It's not terrible, but it's visible - at least to me. The EE is also noticeable, but the picture is such eye candy that the eye can get very distracted

On smaller monitors this disc should look wonderful - but could have been better.

Cheers,

 

[Dustin James]

.

 

[Paul Hillenbrand]

Thanks for the factual heads up Dustin.

This explains the source for the great look the DVD possesses, but the fact still remains that the original frame coordinates have obviously been overlooked/skipped/ignored by any/all Quality Control entities at Disney for whatever reasons.

This professionally responsible decision should not go without comment from Disney's critics and the consumer.

Paul

 

[Bill Burns]

The ratio listed on the DVD coincides with a 35mm reduction print: 2.35:1 (an anamorphic CinemaScope reduction would probably be closer to 2.40:1, depending on the specific projection aperture, a figure I don't have in front of me -- it may be accessible at The Widescreen Museum). A full projection aperture transfer from a 65mm print would yield a 2.25:1 ratio, though the standard Todd-AO 65mm spec reduces this a bit to 2.21:1 (.04:1 is a differential I believe we might classify as more or less inconsequential). The only way you place a 2.25:1 frame in a 2.35-2.40:1 frame without leaving dead space to the left and/or right is 1) simply crop the film (or zoom it, which should crop it proportionately top and bottom), 2) distort the film horizontally (not a likely choice), or 3) optically reduce the film to its reduction spec (which reduces overall detail and also crops off a portion of the original frame).

If Disney says they "began" with a 65mm element, the question then becomes: did they master from a 65mm element? It seems they did not. From Dave's review and later comments, it sounds as if they began with their restored 65mm element, scanned it into a computer at 2K (a resolution I believe experts in the field generally agree to be insufficient for large format photography if new large format film elements are to be created from the scans), "restored" it, and then scanned it back, not to 65mm, but to reduction four perf 35mm. I would guess the DVD is either taken directly from the digital files (which at 2K might adequately represent the resolution of the 35mm reduction? Robert Harris, who is working with large format elements and digital scanning on another project, will know much more about this -- details I've accumulated are strictly "gathered" knowledge, and not first-hand) or from the re-scanned reduction 35mm element by way of a new reduction master.

So ... much as anything taken from a reduction 35 could be said to "originate" with a large format element (the 35mm element was struck from large format, after all), their digital files, if scanned at a resolution compatible with four perf 35 from this period but insufficient to the task of large format, may be the grandchild of large format, but they're most accurately the sibling of reduction 35 (copyright pending on that quip ). This would explain the loss in "real" resolution folks have mentioned. That the DVD was then mastered to the 2.35-2.40:1 spec further injures the result by reframing it to the loss of intended large format print area.

I haven't seen the disc, but this is how it all seems to iron out -- and if so, any claims Disney might make that their end product is a representation of the 65mm restoration would be fallacious (the excerpted quote doesn't indicate if Jeff Miller's comments were intended to suggest this or simply to detail the restoration -- or perhaps, more accurately, remastering -- process step by step, so I'll assume the latter and with it the integrity of an honest representation of the end product).

Incidentally, those who might want to pick it up but as yet haven't, I understand Sleeping Beauty's scheduled to go on moratorium at some point in the near future (I've forgotten where I heard that, though). If that's been mentioned earlier in the thread, I've overlooked it -- my apologies.

The Lion King arrives October 7th ....

 

[Dustin James]

.

 

[Bill Burns]

Looking over earlier comments by Dave, it seems the option of deriving their DVD from film (rather than using the direct digital files of the remastering process) was the one Disney chose, and they chose to derive it from reduction 35mm, even though they started, according to Jeff Miller, with 65mm. What a shame -- as Lawrence of Arabia is proving all over again in its recently released Superbit edition (which I haven't yet seen, but whose original master was taken from 65mm), large format films on disc can beautifully capture the character of original large format sources (and have for many years; my first encounter with a large format-sourced home video product was Fox's beautifully accomplished remastered laserdisc of the Todd-AO Oklahoma!). Turn to a reduction source and you've already twisted your ankle before the big race. Sure, you might still finish, but it isn't going to look as sweet on the replay (I'm just about tapped out for similes).

Miller's comments make it sound as if they had to go to reduction for a new "format": DVD. Nope. Ain't so. It's cheaper to do so, but by no means necessary, and the decision to do so violates the very thing he claims as the intent of the restoration: to capture the full image of the original negative. With allowances for the necessary losses in resolution that come with the DVD format, this was entirely within their grasp; they've lost additional resolution (or perhaps more accurately, they've removed themselves further from the original "character" of the film) by going to reduction, and of course actual image area as well.

This still leaves one question ... well, two. Did they, in fact, scan that 65mm element at a mere 2K? If they went to 4K, I'd dare say rescanning to 65mm and deriving an eventual HD-DVD release from this restored large element would be a lovely solution to this entire problem (one a few years in coming, of course). If they only worked at 2K (2K in, 2K out, as Mr. Harris has phrased it elsewhere), a four perf 35mm element is probably capturing everything they have to offer. That element will be a bit sharper on HD-DVD (real resolution jumps considerably, but apparent detail may increase to a somewhat smaller degree at standard rear projection screen sizes for cell animation such as this -- I dunno), but still won't approach what 65mm has to offer. They could still return to the digital files to restore the film's large format dimensions.

Which leads to the second question: if they worked at 2K, is this essentially the best the film is going to look for many years to come on home video (aside from the rectifiable cropping issue)? If they worked at 4K, and if all image cropping was done as a result of rescanning to 35mm (or rescanning to eight perf 35mm/restoration 65mm and then optically reducing to four perf 35mm), then a future HD-DVD release could be derived from a rescanned 65mm element. HD-DVD could, in other words, hold out hope for those significantly bothered by the lost image area and reduction resolution/visual character. But if they worked in 2K, 35mm reduction is probably giving us everything (from this digital work) there is to offer.

Knowing they originally scanned from 65mm, it only remains to know the res of those digital files (4K or greater, or 2K) to know if this situation may be rectified without a brand new digital restoration (or a return to existing, photochemically but not digitally restored 65mm -- an option I'd personally embrace, assuming photochemical restoration had been accomplished to good effect, as I believe others, including Robert Harris, have indicated).

I'll be very curious to see what further develops on this front -- many thanks to Dustin for posting Miller's interview.

 

[Ruz-El]

i finally watched this on the weekend , along with the Grand Canyon short, and boy did we enjoy it. The picture on both of these where great on my set up (a modest 27" flat screen). I was surprised that Grand Canyon was in surround! Add me to the list of people who recommend this title. The cropping in my eyes didn't effect the film at all.

In the case of total disclosure, I'm "Belle", my wife is "Snow White" :b

 

[DarrylWHarrisJr]

I honestly believe they re-animated the whole movie! It looks like they made it yesterday! I truly do have a color TV! Keep it up Disney (at least until Lion King, Aladdin, Mary Poppins, Alice In Wonderland and Little Mermaid are complete!)

 

[Jefferson]

My friends and I have laughed at the Queen's one line
for years now...She is young and beautiful, but
she sounds like an old crone..anyone else notice that?
HEEEE

Oh, i was "snow white", btw...and proud of it.
:frowning:

 

[DaViD Boulet]

The queen definitely has some bitterness issues I always personally viewed myself more of a Cinderella character but to each his own...

Keep it up Disney (at least until Lion King, Aladdin, Mary Poppins, Alice In Wonderland and Little Mermaid are complete!)

Amen to that!

dave

 

[Vlad D]

I finally was able to watch this over the weekend and I must say it looked fantastic on my system (RP-91 and Tosh 57HX81). I didn't notice any EE but then again I don't think my eyes are keen enough to pick it up.

BTW, I think I got a bad copy, because at the end of chapter 13 the DVD would pause for a second and then replay the same chapter, this happened over and over. I had to fast-forward to the next chapter to continue. I think it's just a bad disk because I haven't read about anyone else experiencing this.

 

[Bill Burns]

I wonder why they chose to so narrowly frame it at 2.35:1 rather than just giving us the full 65mm frame? Would that "native cell" aspect ratio ever have been presented theatrically or would all prints have been reductions/croppings of some kind? Experts?

Oh, I'm by no means an expert, but "yes," essentially, is the answer to your first question, Dave, and "no" to your second. I don't know that the cells from which they were photographed were 2.25:1 cells (Simon's earlier posts seem to indicate they were quite a bit larger and wider than the 65mm image), but the 65mm 2.21:1 image was released and enjoyed not only at the time, but in more recent years (SteveP mentions seeing a 70mm projection in the late 70's on another thread, and I assume the 65mm restoration mentioned elsewhere has been printed for release?). On the technical front, the 65mm negative image area would have been reduced to a "safe" projection aperture. According to The Widescreen Museum's spec page for Technirama, the surface area of the original eight perf 35mm negative would have been 1.496" x .992", or 2.25:1. A 70mm Roadshow print would yield a projection aperture of 1.912" x .870", or 2.2:1 (TWM abbreviates this as 2.21:1). A reduction 35 would lose resolution by reducing the surface area of the image to .839" x .700", or 2.39:1 (TWM abbreviates this as 2.35:1).

Thus a reduction source loses both physical image by widening the shape of the picture and resolution by reducing physical image area (substantially reducing -- note that the reduction height is ... what, about 56% smaller than the eight perf original negative?). Whether the digital files could have supported anything larger than a 35mm reduction is another matter, one I explored in my last post (#128) -- but if not, and if, as I mentioned, reports of a fine photochemical restoration to 65mm are accurate, then I'd advocate returning to this large format restoration when this title's HD-DVD release rolls around. If they again use a 35mm reduction source (scanned from digital files), that will be unfortunate.

Incidentally, Sleeping Beauty itself is discussed here at The Widescreen Museum. The curator states that the aperture of Technirama was increased, vertically, to accommodate the resolution gains of 70mm printing, but doesn't indicate in his spec sheet, listed earlier, whether the eight perf spec is for pre or post-Technirama 70. He states it was "virtually identical" to VistaVision after the increase, though, and VistaVision's vertical spec is (negative) 1.495" and (eight perf 35mm positive) 1.418". It would thus seem that the increased vertical aperture is reflected in the final Technirama spec the curator lists on the page earlier linked for this info (1.496").

It's worth noting that eight perf 35mm printing for Technirama was apparently seen to some extent overseas in 1957, but according to TWM was only seen in 1957 (this seems to be indicated in what the site says). As a result, the 70mm projection aperture for Technirama would be the number to look at in recreating a theatrical frame, but returning to the eight perf 35mm negative might (this is always possible, though never certain) yield additional, useable screen real estate (material obscured by the reduced 70mm projection aperture might be useable if splice lines don't intrude, and there may be additional, achievable width behind the soundtrack, as Mr. Harris found with the Super Panavision My Fair Lady). Whether this compromises screen composition is another matter, but given that the animated cells were larger than the photographed negative, I'd guess balance in images would be fairly constant if additional negative image were exposed proportionately in the vertical and horizontal (again, this is a question of negative eight perf 35 and positive 65, not an issue of what's specifically missing on the DVD).

Regardless of this speculation, though, the 65mm restored element would yield quite a bit more film resolution and a nice section of additional image at the bottom (or so it seems from comments here, though the reduction could conceivably intrude on image area both top and bottom; how the reduction is aligned would, presumably, determine this, though because this was not an optical reduction, but rather some sort of digital reduction as scanned 65mm elements were returned, not to 65, but to reduction 35 ... well, I don't know, but I suppose that new image could be easily adjusted as they saw fit, and if so it's entirely plausible the top of the frame was honored and all removed image was taken from the bottom). Returning to it would negate anything accomplished in the digital restoration/remastering, but if that restoration was accomplished at 2K, I'd advocate abandoning it in the future and, indeed, returning to 65mm. If the restoration was, by any chance, done at a higher resolution, it might still yield lovely results if returned to a proper large format element.

And now "the audience will break into the projection booth, take the print, and hurl it into the sea!" to paraphrase/quote Woody Allen (Hollywood Ending). No, no, only kidding. So far as I can determine, the above is about right.

 

[Aaryn Chan]

What's the difference between 35mm and 65mm? Where do they come from, and when are they used (the purpose they serve).

All of this just to better understand your technical discussion

 

[Patrick McCart]

35mm film is 35mm wide.

65mm film is 65mm wide.

Normally, 65mm is only used as the negative and prints are 70mm. (Some very early 65mm films had 65mm prints in the 1930's)

70mm film is obviously twice as big, but is also 1/5 taller per frame. Normal 35mm is 4 perforations tall while 70mm is 5 perforations tall.

Also, 70mm films are generally non-anamorphic...meaning that spherical lens are used. (A handful of films have been made in Ultra Panavision which yields an aspect ratio comparable to CinemaScope, except on 65mm film and with a much wider frame)

 

[TedD]

Aaryn: Go here: http://www.widescreenmuseum.com

for the answer to all your questions.

Ted

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

Sleeping Beauty was shot in Technirama, right? So its negative wasn't 65mm.

The film was shot on 35mm film running sideways, using the equivalent of 2 conventional film frames worth of negative (this is sometimes referred to as "8-perf" because a conventional 35mm frame is 4 perforations "high" while a Technirama frame is 8-perforations "wide") with an anamorphic squeeze applied.

This allowed for high quality 70mm prints to be made.

It's possible that archival and preservation elements could be in 65mm, but that's not how it originated.

Regards,

 

[Kenneth_C]

SteveP mentions seeing a 70mm projection in the late 70's on another thread, and I assume the 65mm restoration mentioned elsewhere has been printed for release?

FYI, I saw Sleeping Beauty at the El Capitan Theatre last year and it was advertised as the RESTORED ORIGINAL 70 MM WIDESCREEN FORMAT. See the press release here.

 

[Bill Burns]

Sleeping Beauty was shot on eight perforation 35mm (large format) and printed to both 70mm and four perf 35mm reduction. For the specific image area captured by the negative and that seen in projection aperture from these positive elements, see the spec link to TWM in my earlier post.

A photochemical restoration to 65mm was apparently accomplished in years past -- I believe Robert Harris and others have made mention of it, and this is undoubtedly the restoration to which Kenneth refers above. Much like Vertigo, an eight perf 35mm VistaVision film restored by Robert Harris and James Katz to 65mm, the restoration of SB could have been done to 65mm (rather than original eight perf 35mm) for a variety of reasons, convenience of printing and usage high among them. I wouldn't want to speculate further, as I'm not a film restorer, and I'm sure Robert Harris could list many practical benefits to restoring to standard, modern large format stock rather that original "specialty" LF stock such as Technirama. If the modern stock can capture the full negative image area and resolution of the original stock (as Mr. Harris and Mr. Katz found for VistaVision when restored to flat 65mm ... eh, probably the same stock used by Super Panavision? This may be detailed in the documentary accompanying Vertigo's laserdisc/DVD), I don't see any particular reason to go to the additional expense and difficulty of recreating a defunct photographic process and creating a new preservation negative in that process. But again, this is entirely Robert Harris' domain, and any details he might provide would be very much appreciated.

P.S. Aaryn, I hope TWM was able to answer your questions, but there's a lot of information there about many varying photographic processes, some large format (larger than four perf 35mm), others standard format (four perf 35mm). For a wonderful visual reference of the most common four perf 35mm processes, I'd recommend the chart and accompanying article provided by Robert Harris here:

http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articl...ris081202.html

The "film spec." lists for each format on TWM's site will get you into greater specifics regarding negative and projection apertures, anamorphosis, etc., but Mr. Harris' article is a very handy reference as one tries to visualize just what TWM details about 35mm (note, though, that the aperture listing for Academy Ratio actually yields 1.37:1, while the full aperture listing, which was commonly used in the silent era and is today used as Super35 photography, yields a 1.33:1 ratio).

Eight perf 35mm is a double 35mm frame, more or less, photographed horizontally (most film formats run through the camera vertically). This is why it's still considered 35mm (it's actually 35mm tall), whereas width has more or less doubled. VistaVision (flat) and Technirama (anamorphic) both recorded to eight perf 35mm, and would then be printed, typically, as either 70mm prints (capturing most or all of the original image area) or four perf 35mm reductions (dramatically reducing image area and with it resolution, and in most cases -- I don't recall any exceptions at the moment -- also reformatting the film to another negative ratio, eliminating some of the original image; for instance, Super Panavision, in reduction, loses photographic info at either the top or bottom of the frame in reformatting from 2.2:1 to 2.39:1).

For a discussion of the remarkable Ultra Panavision, with links to TWM's spec sheet and an effort to dispell common misconceptions about the process (it is 2.76:1, I swear, read the discussion ), see this thread:

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htfo...hreadid=158137

As a final note, I believe (I haven't confirmed this) that the disparity between a 65mm negative and its 70mm print counterpart is usually/always accounted for by the soundtrack (the image area of the print is still 65mm wide, but 5mm of soundtrack info accompanies it). If I have that wrong, I invite correction. Early 65mm prints would presumably include only optical tracks that did not widen the actual emulsion area of the print; another possibility would be the use of synchronized Vitaphone discs and no printed soundtrack at all (thus negative and positive would be the same size), though I don't know if this was done with large format printing.

Why 65mm negatives such as Super Panavision continue to print as 70mm with soundtrack, but 35mm Panavision prints as 35mm with soundtrack, must have something to do with the space required for multi-channel magnetic tracks; if issued as DTS, the soundtrack would be recorded on digital discs, I believe, and the print would be picture only (or include an unused alternate format soundtrack). Anyone know if the theatrical DTS showings of the 65mm restored Vertigo were thus 65mm or 70mm (Robert Harris will know, of course)? I saw one such print, and was it ever a treat both sonically and visually, but I didn't question the projectionist about it. If 70mm, I'd guess the printing format is standardized, and if no soundtrack is present the printed form remains the same as if it were; prints, even when DTS, might also include a standard, and for DTS playback unused, multi-channel magnetic track as an industry spec, but I'm unsure. Is Dolby Digital, by the way, also recorded on digital discs? I seem to recall that as something specific to DTS (and perhaps SDDS), but it's been a number of years since I last ran across any info about the playback of these systems in theatres.