Sleeping Beauty: 2003 Special Edition vs. 2008 Platinum Edition (1 Viewer)

[Ed St. Clair]

I believe the color is changing based on how much light is in the scene.
(showing though the trees)

 

[Chuck Pennington]

Well, they must've figured something out in 1956 because CAROUSEL and THE KIND AND I weren't shot twice as had originally been planned. And 1958 brought about the Todd-AO SOUTH PACIFIC as well as the 2.35:1 35mm 'scope extractions. I did state around the time of ATWI80D, you know.

I'm worried about what the woman in the Disney article linked to above stated, that the new "restorations" that have been done for the past few years will be used on eventual Blu-Ray releases! I sure hope they go back and fix CINDERELLA before then instead of using their existing HD master!

 

[Chuck Pennington]

It's animation. There was no light shining through the trees, and the shots are back-to-back. It's poor color timing.

 

[Ed St. Clair]

Oh right! I forgot... I thought it was REAL!!! :-0

Really (p.i.) watch the movie, not the stills. As characters move though the light and darkness, shades (the tint) of colors change.

The prince riding though the forest is a good scene to "see".
Does the shade of the white horse remain constant?
- - - - - - - -
Too all who posted pics:
BIG thanks for adding too the enjoyment of this flick for me!
Great job.

 

[Chuck Pennington]

The colors didn't change like this in any previous version. If I'm looking at a character and individual colors change in shots that are back-to-back, my eyes is drawn to it and it pulls me out of the movie.

 

[Chuck Pennington]

At first glance I thought the Blu-Ray was amazing, but in fact it makes the bad DVNR even easier to see. The images below are captured from the 2008 and the 2003 DVDs as I don't have the ability to offer a screen capture from the Blu-Ray version. Still, notice how in the 2008 version the lines are disappearing, with the cuff on Merryweather's sleeve all but disappearing and becoming the same color as the rest of her outfit, but only on her right hand!

Again, this doesn't stand out as much on the DVD as it does on the Blu-Ray.

2008


2003

 

[Kris Z.]

It's too bad, but it's what happens when you do processing to this degree, and some of those errors are bound to slip through.

I think I saw some line art missing on the raven's foot in one of the shots in the DVD Beaver review, although that could have been from the original painting too.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

The King & I and Carousel were both CinemaScope 55, which was designed for 35mm reduction prints as well as (never done) 55mm projection. South Pacific would have been extracted to 2.35:1, because by that time Todd-AO had abandoned 30fps projection.

I do agree that Disney needs to look @ their masters before porting over directly to BD. Good enough for a few years ago is not necessarily good enough for now. I never got around to getting the most recent release of Cinderella, but it sounds like that was a good thing.

 

[Chuck Pennington]

But when shooting started, CAROUSEL was being shot in both formats. It was early in the production that the second 35mm production was abandoned according to what I've read. That would've meant such reduction prints would have been possible in 1956, be it from 55mm or 70mm or Super Technirama 70.

 

[john a hunter]

Perhaps the technology was there in 56 butfor 70mm reductions it was actually developed untill 1958 for Todd AO and 1959 for Super Technirama. They were used in 1956 to reduce 55mm to 35 as you state and also anamorphic 65 for Raintree County.

 

[Brandon Conway]

Yellow Layer Failure, Vinegar Syndrome and Miscellaneous Musings by Robert A. Harris

RAH: What is the proper projected or viewing aspect ratio for Sleeping Beauty, and how was it ascertained?

TG: Well... there were multiple signs pointing us to presenting the film in a 2.55:1 aspect ratio for this Blu-ray release.

First and foremost - once our partners at Lowry Digital scanned the full image area on the Technirama negative and we started viewing dailies it became immediately apparent that we were not looking a 2.35 AR. We normally do not have any crop applied when screening dailies so we knew we were seeing everything possible that is on the negative.

In addition - when we were looking at surviving cels and backgrounds at the Studio's Animation Research Library (which is an invaluable resource), it was quite obvious that the layout design and camera marks were set for 2.55.

Then there is the fact that in a memo dated July 28, 1953, the Studio green lit the CinemaScope version of Lady and the Tramp, while it also established a "Standard Version" and a CinemaScope Version production number for Sleeping Beauty -- #2082 and #2083. As the CinemaScope standard at the time was 2.55, (and that is clearly evident in Lady and the Tramp) Sleeping Beauty too would have been designed at 2.55.

In the end, Lady was adapted for CinemaScope but it was truncated on the left side of the screen when it went out with an optical track since the CinemaScope presentation spec had changed by the time the film was ultimately released in 1955. Sleeping Beauty fared far better as it had been designed to be in CinemaScope and thus could be trimmed to meet the requirements of 2.35 CinemaScope 35mm prints. But in the final analysis, there is animation all the way out to the far edges of the frame that had not been seen. It is this full 2.55 version that is coming out on Blu-ray on October 7.

 

[Mark-P]

Brandon you beat me to it. I was just going to post about that excellent interview by Robert Harris with Theo Gluck. Almost all the questions that were raised in the forums are answered. There is even a picture of actual original successive-exposure negatives that clearly show the space between the upper sprocket holes and the top of the picture. Now we know how technirama's 2.25:1 aspect ratio became 2.55:1 for this movie!
I'm also quite surprised to learn that successive-exposure was used right up to "Little Mermaid" and then was used again for "Beauty and the Beast"! Excellent informative interview!

 

[Ray Chuang]

Despite some people's reservations about the new Platinum Edition release, I've seen the new release on DVD on a LG 52LG70 LCD panel at Circuit City recently and wow, the color quality is outstanding and even using an upscaling DVD player, the sharpness was excellent, too.

 

[Ed St. Clair]

Don't know what too tell you; cause the shades of colors are supposed to change during scenes. Thanks goodness the colorist knew this; even tho you are bothered by it & thought it was because of bad or improper work.
When you say: "The colors didn't change like this in any previous version", does that mean you have recently gone back & checked? Or, are you only going by memory?
(your saying the horse only remains one shade of white in all previous releases?)
The 'changing' colors actually pulls me into the movie.
Makes it more real for me that the characters are actually in a realistic environment.
Too each his own.
Hope now you do realize there is indeed "light" in this animated feature.
And thanks for my newest catch phrase: "There was no light!" ;-)

 

[Mark_TS]

IT IS interesting that no one has commented (that ive seen) on the fact that the stylized 'Roman' Script used in the title "Sleeping Beauty" at the start of the 2003 disc has various little designs decorating the inside of each of the letters (as was the fashion in Mediaeval Times) that are totally blown out on the 2008 disc. They are just gone.

On the other hand the marked difference between the 2003 and 2008 version where we see Aurora on a floor so bright, youd swear it was from a just-shot Spic-n-Span™ commercial, vs 2003s dark -little detailed floor....which I suspect may be more correct.

And the end titles background details/scrolls/banners are again blown out chroma wise on the 2008 edition and the credits lettering is not at all sharp-while the those banners and end credits lettering on the 2003 disc look "crisper" and certainly more visible and desirable to my eyes.

Unbelievable that this is 2008s version of a 'UE'

Thus, the 2003 looks 'correct' (ie not just subjectively, but 'objectively' better -and was highly likely as Walt would have wanted these details seen. I havent studied all the comparisons but these two stood out glaringly-and it concerns me that no one seems to have noticed.

Is this a case of 'Its new so it must be better?'
Not if youve an objective eye and mind.

I dont know about the floor, but thats a huge contrast/brilliance jump from 2003 to 2008.
And I think Walt would have wanted the script used in the starting titles to have the little designs and decorations visible-which they are are not in the 2008 disc

So its the 2003 disc i'll be a 'keeping-thought the 2008 has some compelling things about it

 

[Chuck Pennington]

Here is an image grabbed directly from the BD release. Now maybe you guys can see some of the problems of this "restoration" hidden by the resolution of the DVD. See how the ink lines start to disappear, or how she has a left cuff that doesn't match the right one now because of the harsh processing and smearing of color?

This image has NOT been altered in any way from the BD release. See the weird artifacts around lines? It looks AWFUL on any screen 42" or above. Also note the digital stair-stepping around the rim of her hat.

BTW - click on the image below to go to Photobucket where I uploaded it. When the image on that page loads, click on it to reveal the full resolution image.



And as for the post about how the color changes from back-to-back shots were intentional, I disagree. I'll post the captures again. How can anyone think this was intentional? I'll post pics from the previous versions if needed, but honestly, bad color timing and QC have no excuses.

For some more pics and info, check this out:

Sleeping Beauty on BD: (mostly) astonishing - Lyris Lite

 

[Chuck Pennington]

Colors are NOT supposed to change in shots that are back-to-back and in the same location with the same "lighting". I guess some people will do anything to justify their purchase....

These shots are back-to-back. Look how the color changes in her hair, blouse, skirt, skin... The strange thing is they don't all vary by the same degree either. I can't understand how you can state that this was intentional and that I'm the one seeing things.




There is one shot in between the previous capture and the following one. But note the location is the same.

 

[Chuck Pennington]

Here is some more info you guys might be interested in:

Land of Whimsy

 

[TravisR]

I think it may have more to do with the fact that nearly every animated release has some horrible defect according to self proclaimed experts and hardcore fans. I fully expect them to bitch and moan about every release and I don't take anything they say seriously because they pull the fire alarm on everything. I bet I'm not the only one who writes them off because of that.

 

[Chuck Pennington]

All I ask is that people use their eyes. If the releases weren't so altered then there would be nothing to criticize, which would be wonderful. Certainly you don't expect people to be silent because the marketing machine tells us all is well and now everything is better than ever.