Sleeping Beauty BD - 2008 - Page 3

DaViD Boulet · 06-19-2008, 02:55 PM

Quote:

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

Well, even *without* THX re-equalization, the original soundtracks (PCM and AC-3 on LD, and Dolby Digital on first DVD) sound natural with smooth, liquid midrange versus the "wooden" and flat sound of the new DVD.

If the nearfield experience can be further improved from the original mix by THX balancing (haven't tried it) fantastic. But at this point I don't trust the Disney mixing/masting crew to push the buttons to do it!

DaViD Boulet · 06-19-2008, 02:57 PM

Quote:

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.

Indeed, this is a matter that will require serious vetting. Rest assured when the disc is released that (hopefully my) review will reflect the reality of how the 2.55:1 aspect ratio was achieved, once image captures are possible.

OliverK · 06-19-2008, 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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

I have truly no idea about the production of Disney animation back then but maybe the camera had to film some kind of drawings/still pictures or whatever and they used these elements to arrive at the wider HD master for Sleeping Beauty, basically the original artwork that had compostions for the 2.55:1 early scope ratio. As you pointed out correctly there is no way to get a wider AR than 2.25 out of Technirama without some cropping. Having more picture information would mean to add information to the left and/or the right, not cropping the top and/or bottom.

It will be easy to see if Disney added or subtracted compared to previous version of the movie so I am not really worried about this and I suspect they at least did not rely exclusively on the OCN.

Douglas Monce · 06-19-2008, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OliverK

I have truly no idea about the production of Disney animation back then but maybe the camera had to film some kind of drawings/still pictures or whatever and they used these elements to arrive at the wider HD master for Sleeping Beauty, basically the original artwork that had compostions for the 2.55:1 early scope ratio. As you pointed out correctly there is no way to get a wider AR than 2.25 out of Technirama without some cropping. Having more picture information would mean to add information to the left and/or the right, not cropping the top and/or bottom.

It will be easy to see if Disney added or subtracted compared to previous version of the movie so I am not really worried about this and I suspect they at least did not rely exclusively on the OCN.

The original art work for an animated film is almost never in a specific aspect ratio. More often the art work will reflect any camera moves that might be made. For example for a pan down the art work may actually be 5 times taller than it is wide. Or it may go in a diagonal direction if the camera is intended to pan down and to the left for instance.

The art work for Sleeping Beauty would probably more often than not be somewhat wider than for Snow White, just because of the nature of the wide format, but a specific 2.55:1 ratio would not come from the art work.

Doug

Stephen_J_H · 06-19-2008, 10:49 PM

Even if the artwork was wider, it's not like Disney's going back to the original artwork and reanimating the whole thing; we're still limited to what was captured on the original sequential Technirama negative and materials derived from it (I don't even know if the original sequential negative survives to this day).

I believe the current DVD was sourced from 35mm elements, and the current transfer displays some cropping (most noticeably at the bottom during the opening titles). Here's hoping they can source this transfer from more accurate elements.

JulianK · 06-19-2008, 10:59 PM

The difference between the two ratios is very small, and certainly more than would be cropped in a regular theatrical presentation.

It may well be that very narrow top and bottom mattes have been added to prevent splice marks intruding into the picture.

Ed St. Clair · 06-19-2008, 11:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

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.

That's good!
Now let's hope they don't 'crop' the sound! ;-)

Douglas Monce · 06-19-2008, 11:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JulianK

The difference between the two ratios is very small, and certainly more than would be cropped in a regular theatrical presentation.

It may well be that very narrow top and bottom mattes have been added to prevent splice marks intruding into the picture.

Acutally the difference between 2.25:1 and 2.35:1 aren't that much. 2.55:1 is a completely different story. That is quite a big difference.

You wouldn't see splice marks on the 2.35:1 ratio seeing as the full aspect ratio of Technirama is 2.25:1. The only reason for matting or protecting for 2.55:1 is if they intended it to be shown in that CinemaScope ratio. Which by the time the film was release, wasn't the ratio of CinemaScope anymore.

Doug

BrettB · 06-20-2008, 10:48 AM

Check the last page of this thread at UD where the poster found a website with this info > Release Formats table

Douglas Monce · 06-20-2008, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrettB

Check the last page of this thread at UD where the poster found a website with this info > Release Formats table

Interesting that it lists the wrong aspect ratio for both Technirama and Super Technirama 70.

The difference between the two is that Technirama is a reduction to anamorphic 35mm release prints (at 2.35:1) and Super Technirama 70 is a conversion 70mm release prints (at 2.21:1). As far as I know Technirama was never shown in its native format in the United States.

Doug

Edit: I missed the lower part of the list where they have the correct aspect ratios listed for the release prints. However I'm not sure why they have a separate listing for Technirama and Super Technirama under Cinematographic Processes, when they are exactly the same cameras, lenses and film stock. The only difference being the format the release prints are printed to.