|
Originally Posted by Eric F
I wholeheartedly agree Mathew. I think Disney is going to be seriously disapointed by the numbers with Sleeping Beauty. While one of their classics, it's not their best known. Also the equipment is still relatively expensive, and those of us who own it are not really into games, etc.
Hopefully by the time this disc hits the market there will be some affordable standalone Blu players available. |
| 2.55 for the first time |
Death to PG-13! And now death to DVNR too!!
|
Originally Posted by BrettB
Some more info (including video) here regarding Disney's plans for their first BD-Live title.
2.55 for the first time. Original audio found in Germany. |
\"My opinion is that (a) anyone who actually works in a video store and does not understand letterboxing has given up on life, and (b) any customer who prefers to have the sides of a movie hacked off should not be licensed to operate a video player.\"-- Roger Ebert
|
Originally Posted by Douglas Monce
2.55:1? Thats funny because the aspect ratio of Technirama was 2.35:1 when converted to CinemaScope and 2.21:1 when projected in 70mm. The actual full frame of Technirama was 2.25:1, so if they are going to crop it to 2.55:1, I think some folks are going to be very disappointed.
The story in that link must have some misinformation. Doug |
|
Originally Posted by Stephen_J_H
I'm hoping it's the same as Warner's announcement that HTWWW would be 2.89:1, when most sources refer to Cinerama as being 2.59:1; a simple typo.
|
Roland Lataille
Cinerama web site:
http://cineramahistory.com
| What bothers me about Disney titles is they use filters on the soundtracks. Their remixes are completely flat, the life sucked out of them through dehissing and noise reduction. |
"All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible. This I did." T.E. Lawrence
|
Originally Posted by BrettB
Original audio found in Germany.
|
|
Originally Posted by Cassy_w
What bothers me about Disney titles is they use filters on the soundtracks. Their remixes are completely flat, the life sucked out of them through dehissing and noise reduction. My nephew actually ripped the transfers from most of their DVD's and then used the older soundtracks, either from laserdisc or earlier DVD releases.
And they sound better. Much better. Amazing and sad. |
|
Originally Posted by WadeM
I hated The Little Mermaid soundtrack. Disney better get this stuff right on Blu-ray! I'm definitely waiting for the reviews.
|
STOP THE MADNESS! STOP THE BUTCHERING AND ABANDONMENT OF TV SHOWS ON DVD!
My DVD List at DVD Aficionado, Now Featuring Blu-Ray
|
Originally Posted by RolandL
Thats not a typo. It will be 2.89:1. See my post on another thread -
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/...9-post132.html |
\"My opinion is that (a) anyone who actually works in a video store and does not understand letterboxing has given up on life, and (b) any customer who prefers to have the sides of a movie hacked off should not be licensed to operate a video player.\"-- Roger Ebert
|
Originally Posted by 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 |
|
Originally Posted by 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.
|
Roland Lataille
Cinerama web site:
http://cineramahistory.com
| Oh Yeah, so how did that Sleeping Beauty Blu-ray Disc actually look? Wow. Folks, the pathetic-quality trailer that you’ve seen on Disney Blu-ray Discs with its blurry out-of-focus images and annoying fluctuations from dark-to-light is gone. Apparently, that trailer was prepared from older elements before Disney had the new digital files from this all-new transfer properly restored. What we saw from the clips of Sleeping Beauty in this demonstration was nothing short of awe inspiring. The 1080p picture was razor sharp, not a hint of edge halos, colors were rich, saturated, and rock-solid, and there was no noise and no contrast fluctuations whatsoever. Detail was incredible, and black levels were spot on. It looked like perfection and was like staring at painted animation cels right in front you. It reminded me of the Cinderella DVD, which also has a stable and noise-free picture, but with the wealth of added detail and color dimension of high definition. The new Blu-ray Disc images look nothing like the compromised and edge halo ridden picture of the existing standard definition Sleeping Beauty DVD, and DTS Digital Images (formerly Lowry Images) has worked their magic to clean each frame to the point of revealing every detail of the original hand-painted artwork without anything in the way. Stunning! Oh yes, and that 2.55:1 aspect ratio you may have heard about... I received assurances that this aspect ratio is in fact the native aspect ratio of the original photographed negatives and was not achieved by cropping any picture content. For those of you wondering why I’m making a point of this, there’s a bit of controversy among Sleeping Beauty aficionados about this 2.55:1 choice for the Blu-ray Disc since the original theatrical aspect ratio was actually narrower given 70 mm and 35 mm projection at the time. Disney’s choice to go with 2.55:1 may be controversial with regard to original theatrical aspect ratio, but it’s not controversial with regard to the original filmed aspect ratio. Once we can get our hands on some real image captures to compare among the various incarnations we’ll confirm (our review of the Blu-ray Disc in the fall will try to clarify issues related to aspect ratio). I also did my part to let the Disney representatives know how important it is for fans to be provided with the original soundtrack mix presented in lossless fidelity on Blu-ray Disc. This is important because Disney’s trend is to provide new mixes that are optimized (a debatable term) for home theater, although Disney is generally very good about providing the original sound mix in addition to any new mix on a disc. Alas, there have been some painful exceptions, The Little Mermaid being one. Let’s hope that our desires for both new and original mixes to be provided in lossless fidelity is taken seriously when Disney begins to release their classic library on Blu-ray Disc. In the case of Sleeping Beauty, Disney recently discovered original source recordings in Germany that were used for the historic multi-channel mix, so I’m optimistic for some spectacular sound (the demonstration venue didn’t provide an adequate way to judge sound quality or to compare alternate mixes). |
|
Originally Posted by 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. |
| RAH said: 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. |
|
Originally Posted by 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. |
STOP THE MADNESS! STOP THE BUTCHERING AND ABANDONMENT OF TV SHOWS ON DVD!
My DVD List at DVD Aficionado, Now Featuring Blu-Ray
|
Originally Posted by 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 |
|
Originally Posted by 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.
|
| 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? |
| 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. |
|
Originally Posted by 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. |
|
Originally Posted by 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. |
| There is often some misunderstanding about how much image is lost in one dimension or other when Technirama negatives make 70mm versus 35mm prints. The 35mm screen ratio was 2.35:1, as per CinemaScope, and the 70mm ratio was 2.21:1, as per Todd-AO. This is not a very great difference. Since the camera negative in the Technirama system created an image with a ratio of 2.25:1, both formats could be extracted with virtually no image loss, as clearly indicated in the sketch above. The extraction areas are so similar that it would not be necessary to use separate camera finder markings in order to protect action within the frame, though the finders actually did have such markings. Please note that the indicated areas are not the exact extraction areas used by Technicolor, they are simply an illustration of how little the difference is between the available extraction areas. |
