Sleeping Beauty BD - 2008 (1 Viewer)

[RobertR]

Oh, no. And I thought my analogy between butchering a soundtrack to cater to those who can't tolerate hiss and killing the detail to cater to those who think film grain is evil was just that--an analogy.

 

[Robert Harris]

It is entirely possible that Sleeping Beauty was composed for 2.55, ie. magnetic CinemaScope.

The taking mechanism, TLA may be a later decision.

Original stereo prints may well have been at 2.55, and the new video master may reveal the entire planned frame for the first time.

RAH

 

[john a hunter]

The music tracks were recorded in Germany because of a strike in Hollywood at the time. I think Bernard Herrmann'score for Vertigo was also recorded in Europe for the same reason.I'd be surprised if they were 6 track as I think there were only 3 track facilities there at the time.Any one know for sure?
The rest of the track I'm pretty sure would have been mixed in Hollywood.

Given the inportance placed on the Tchaikovsky score, use of the original music tracks should be a major plus if transferred properly.Fingers crossed.

 

[WadeM]

I hated The Little Mermaid soundtrack. Disney better get this stuff right on Blu-ray! I'm definitely waiting for the reviews.

 

[MatthewA]

I have all the Platinums except The Little Mermaid and Peter Pan, because TLM was screwed up royally in the sound division, and after three tries they still can't get Peter Pan right. Yet there seem to be only minor mastering issues with Jungle Book and 101 Dalmatians, while non-Platinums seem not to get screwed up too badly. Perhaps too many cooks are spoiling the broths?

I'm still nervous about how this will turn out.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

Yeah, I read that. I'm trying to picture an image that occupies less of my screen than Ben-Hur. Pretty depressing.

 

[OliverK]

I looked up the production details and indeed the production started in 1951 !

I wonder if they really started out in the old 1.37 AR, then changed to 2.55 and after that to composing for Technirama ? The Fifities were certainly a very interesting time for the diversity of film formats that came to the market including all those magnificent large format processes.

 

[RolandL]

If it's in the smile box process, it will fill more of your screen than any letterboxed image.

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/...29658.imgcache

 

[Jesse Blacklow]

Well, DaViD Boulet attended a BD-Live demo down here in DC, and he's put up his report. Most importantly, he devotes an entire section to "Sleeping Beauty", which should make a lot of people here happy. Take a look:DVDFILE.com

 

[Douglas Monce]

"Going into production" most likely means they were making character sketches, animation tests, designing backgrounds, and recording voice artists. Possibly shooting live action reference films. I doubt they were doing the final art work that early. By the time they got to that point they were probably well into 1954-55 and started thinking about some sort of wide screen process.

Doug

 

[OliverK]

I did not want to imply that a lot of work was done in the old aspect ratio but wanted to point out that when they started out that was the format of choice and they must have had a squarish screen in mind and any work done on backgrounds would probably have been in 1.37 back then. As it seems now they made the decision to go for the early 2.55 Cinemascope format at some point and cropped down the picture by about 14% for the 70mm prints and by about 8% for the narrower scope pictures that were the norm from 57 on.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

RAH,

that's basically what the Disney reps at the BD Live event in DC (this past Monday, June 16) said... that the "original film/photography was 2.55:1" and that the new Blu-ray Disc will be the first time any consumer has had a chance to see the full, uncropped image... inlcuding consumers who saw the original theatrical projection. They were adamant that the 2.55:1 presentation for the Blu-ray was the "complete image" with additional left/right information extending beyond any previously seen framing, and that the 2.55:1 was *not* achieved by cropping any top/bottom as the mishap with the Ben-Hur edition that boasted OAR only to actually be an over-cropped print (I even mentioned that example to try to be sure they understood what I was trying to verify).

Now... I'm not vouching for the correctness of their assertion. Only that this was indeed what they had to say.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Cassy and Wade (and others),

your comments about the problem with Disney's approach to noise-filtering/flatening the audio in the name of "enhancement" of their recent DVDs reminds me of a review that I did here for HTF (Little Mermaid):

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/..commended.html

 

[MatthewA]

Well, we'll certainly have proof enough this October. Unfortunately, I went to the Widescreen Museum and saw nothing to indicate any ratio wider than 2.35:1 in their literature regarding Technirama.

 

[Douglas Monce]

David if I remember correctly wasn't this a "home theater" mix and as a result would be a little less sharp as far as the EQ went.

In other words because it was intended to be listened too in a near field environment the mix didn't need to be EQd with an emphasis on on the high end as it would be in a mix that was intended for a large auditorium?

Doug

 

[Douglas Monce]

I too am a little baffled as to how they would get a 2.55:1 ratio with out cropping the top and bottom of the frame. Why would they push in on the negative on the original Technirama release to match the frame height of the then CinemaScope ratio of 2.55:1. The more likely is that the CinemaScope prints cropped the top and bottom to get the wider ratio. But I suppose anything is possible.

Are they suggesting that the Technirama 70 prints were cropped at 2.55:1? Surely the 70mm release prints were 2.21:1, which would be close to the full Technirama frame. The frame shown on the Widescreen Museum is nothing like 2.55.

Doug

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Simple THX re-equalization would have corrected for any "theater emphasis".

The sound mix disaster of the lastest Little Mermaid DVD is a result of noise gating and excessive processing to the point electronic artificiality and a flattened soundstage... results that would not occur with simple EQ balancing. The Compact Disc soundtrack isn't EQ'd for a theater venue yet has natural extended high frequencies and natural tonal timbre. The problem with the DVD is not a mere EQ adjustment for near-field listening.

Did you even read the review which goes into depth about the disparity of sound with the latest DVD release?

Mary Poppins suffered a similar "noise gated" fate, as did FOX's Hello Dolly DVD.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

They were suggesting that the original film negatives captured a native 2.55:1 aspect ratio, so this transfer at that aspect ratio involves no cropping whatsoever, according to their remarks.

Whether the Disney reps were correct or mistaken is another matter. But they were insistant, and explicit, that the native photographed film elements were 2.55:1 and that this Blu-ray Disc will reveal the full image area with no cropping.

 

[Douglas Monce]

That's fine for people with THX systems which most do not have.

Yes I wouldn't use a noise gate. That seems like the sledge hammer approach. A little re EQ and maybe some minor mixing changes are all that should be needed for a proper near field environment.

Doug

 

[Douglas Monce]

Again they could have used a hard matte to arrive at the 2.55:1 ratio, but they are suggesting that the native ratio is 2.55:1 and that is just wrong.

Doug