New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Sleeping Beauty BD - 2008 - Page 2

post #31 of 284
5/14/08 at 6:24pm

Re: Sleeping Beauty BD - 2008

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.
Reply
post #32 of 284
5/15/08 at 1:26pm

Re: Sleeping Beauty BD - 2008

Quote:
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.

I think they may have chosen Sleeping Beauty because, though it was their second jump into widescreen feature animation, it was the first one that was really designed with widescreen in mind. Shooting Lady and the Tramp in CinemaScope was somewhat of a last second decision and was shot simultaneously flat at 1.33:1.

It was also a large format film (Super Technirama 70) and as such may be one of the best to show off in the HD format because of the level of detail that was put into the artwork.

Doug
Reply
post #33 of 284
5/15/08 at 1:31pm

Re: Sleeping Beauty BD - 2008

It was also due on the Platinum titles schedule.
Reply
post #34 of 284
6/11/08 at 8:27am
Thread Starter 

Re: Sleeping Beauty BD - 2008

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.
Reply
post #35 of 284
6/11/08 at 8:54am

Re: Sleeping Beauty BD - 2008

Quote:
2.55 for the first time
Better not be.... Super Technirama 70 OAR is 2.20:1.

Vern
Reply
post #36 of 284
6/11/08 at 8:55am

Re: Sleeping Beauty BD - 2008

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.
Reply
post #37 of 284
6/11/08 at 8:58am

Re: Sleeping Beauty BD - 2008

Quote:
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.


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
Reply
post #38 of 284
6/11/08 at 6:22pm

Re: Sleeping Beauty BD - 2008

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.
Reply
post #39 of 284
6/12/08 at 1:53am

Re: Sleeping Beauty BD - 2008

Quote:
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

There is a Sleeping Beauty trailer on some Disney discs and the AR looks to be around 2.3:1, so we will be fine.

With regard to correct aspect ratios the new formats have an excellent track record, so far no title in my collection deviates significantly from its original AR.
Reply
post #40 of 284
6/12/08 at 4:32am

Re: Sleeping Beauty BD - 2008

Quote:
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.

Thats not a typo. It will be 2.89:1. See my post on another thread -

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/...9-post132.html
Reply
post #41 of 284
6/12/08 at 12:21pm

Re: Sleeping Beauty BD - 2008

Quote:
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.
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.
Reply
post #42 of 284
6/12/08 at 1:07pm

Re: Sleeping Beauty BD - 2008

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
Reply
post #43 of 284
6/12/08 at 2:59pm

Re: Sleeping Beauty BD - 2008

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrettB
Original audio found in Germany.

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.
Reply
post #44 of 284
6/12/08 at 4:31pm

Re: Sleeping Beauty BD - 2008

Quote:
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.


I hated The Little Mermaid soundtrack. Disney better get this stuff right on Blu-ray! I'm definitely waiting for the reviews.
Reply
post #45 of 284
6/12/08 at 4:46pm

Re: Sleeping Beauty BD - 2008

Quote:
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.

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.
Reply
post #46 of 284
6/12/08 at 8:41pm

Re: Sleeping Beauty BD - 2008

Quote:
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
Yeah, I read that. I'm trying to picture an image that occupies less of my screen than Ben-Hur. Pretty depressing.
Reply
post #47 of 284
6/13/08 at 1:26am

Re: Sleeping Beauty BD - 2008

Quote:
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

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.
Reply
post #48 of 284
6/13/08 at 8:28am

Re: Sleeping Beauty BD - 2008

Quote:
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.

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
Reply
post #49 of 284
6/18/08 at 10:31am

Re: Sleeping Beauty BD - 2008

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:
Quote:
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).
DVDFILE.com
Reply
post #50 of 284
6/18/08 at 12:07pm

Re: Sleeping Beauty BD - 2008

Quote:
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.


"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
Reply
post #51 of 284
6/18/08 at 2:44pm

Re: Sleeping Beauty BD - 2008

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.
Reply
post #52 of 284
6/18/08 at 4:57pm

Re: Sleeping Beauty BD - 2008

Quote:
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.

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.
Reply
post #53 of 284
6/18/08 at 5:18pm

Re: Sleeping Beauty BD - 2008

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
Reply
post #54 of 284
6/18/08 at 6:04pm

Re: Sleeping Beauty BD - 2008

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.

Quote:
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.
Reply
post #55 of 284
6/18/08 at 6:32pm

Re: Sleeping Beauty BD - 2008

Quote:
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

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
Reply
post #56 of 284
6/18/08 at 6:40pm

Re: Sleeping Beauty BD - 2008

Quote:
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.


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
Reply
post #57 of 284
6/18/08 at 8:15pm

Re: Sleeping Beauty BD - 2008

Quote:
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?

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.
Reply
post #58 of 284
6/18/08 at 8:19pm

Re: Sleeping Beauty BD - 2008

Quote:
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.

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.
Reply
post #59 of 284
6/19/08 at 11:49am

Re: Sleeping Beauty BD - 2008

Quote:
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.


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
Reply
post #60 of 284
6/19/08 at 11:55am

Re: Sleeping Beauty BD - 2008

Quote:
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.

Well again unless there was a hard matte in the camera gate to mask off the top and bottom of the frame, and with all dew respect to Disney, that's bull pucky!

The full frame aspect ratio of Technirama was 2.25:1. To quote the Widescreen Museum:

Widescreen Museum - The Technirama Wing - Page 3

Quote:
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.

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
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Blu-ray