DVD Review HTF REVIEW: Sleeping Beauty SE (Disney) --VERY HIGHLY RECOMMENDED!!! (1 Viewer)

[Paul Penna]

I didn't see the color shifts you spoke about, but I did see what appeared to be missing frames in the opening sequence (the book opening) which were manifest as sudden shifts in the book's position. This seems like an easy digital fix to me -- why wasn't it done?

I don't have the DVD yet, but I checked both the "restored" letterboxed laserdisc as well as the earlier P&S edition, and both show a slight jerk in exactly the same place (it's not as obvious on the P&S because this section, as well as the entire opening title & credits sequence, is non-unsqueezed anamorphic rather than P&S). Like most Disney "live action" storybook-openings, this sequence was shot frame-by-frame, like stop-motion animation, and this effect seems to be due to a slight error in shooting. Either the camera or the props were bumped between exposures, or perhaps an exposure was inadvertantly skipped between repositionings. Not uncommon with stop-motion animation.

 

[Bill>Moore]

Great review. Sounds fantastic. This was already on my Must Buy list, but now I'm even more excited about picking it up Tuesday. This was the first movie I ever saw in a theater as a child and my Mom told me that I was so enthralled with the movie that I tried to walk into the screen to join the characters at the end of the movie.

Can't wait to add it to the collection.

 

[SteveP]

The audio on the GRAND CANYON short subject is one of the best I've heard for a four-channel analogue source that is almost forty five years old.

 

[John KB]

Great review! I just loved it, thanks. I've had the DVD for a couple of days, but I just haven't had the time to check it out. But now I'm going to run downstairs and do so right now. Even though it's 2:15 in the morning!

 

[Bill Burns]

Felix, Jose -- I believe we're on the same page here. This was in my original post (#43) after (and here including) the lines you've both quoted:

I'm eager to hear a bit more from Robert Harris on this matter, as I'm uncertain what he means when he says that measuring aspect ratios is a "meaningless exercise" ... the correct shape of a film as projected can be represented as a set ratio (or a range of ratios for films projected a variety of ways), and the ratio of a home video image of that film would presumably offer a clue (not a definitive clue, but a starting point) in determining whether the entire projected image is represented on the home video product? Or is this not the case? I realize an image can be zoomed, cropped vertically as well as horizontally, or any number of other things and still yield a ratio the same as the projected ratio, with a great deal missing that we're intended to see or, conversely, revealed that we're not meant to see, but a ratio comparison seems a good starting point (not an end point) for determining the validity of an image at home when considered against that same image in a theatre, particularly when considering films we haven't seen in the theatre and whose visual information may not otherwise prove familiar (which isn't the case here for a few of us, of course, though I'm sorry to say I've never seen Sleeping Beauty in a theatre).

I think we're saying the same thing; again, for those who need to judge the film without a print reference, a specific sense of whether it at least conforms to the correct AR (particularly when that AR isn't the "standard" of the time, i.e. something other than 2.40:1 or 1.85:1 today) is a reasonable starting point. Anything that brings us closer to an accurate appraisal of the transfer isn't "meaningless," or at least it doesn't seem so to me.

But it doesn't really matter -- I was only hoping Robert Harris might expand on his comments, and particularly how much of Sleeping Beauty's image we're missing, perhaps as an approximate value of the correct image; is it that Disney has here presented it from its four perf 35mm form rather than its eight perf 35mm form (the same thing seemingly done on the earlier widescreen laserdisc/VHS releases), thus presenting the film on DVD in a form that approximates it as seen by audiences of reduction prints, or are we missing still more screen info than even "reduction audiences," as it were, missed?

That Disney has chosen to restore this as four perforation 35mm reduction (Dave's earlier explanation helps in making this determination), something I assumed all along they simply wouldn't do, bodes poorly for what future HD forms of the film might offer -- the expense of re-restoring it to large format is likely to stand in the way of junking any newly created HD master for many years. While I'm not going to buy it from reduction, those who are happy with reduction (particularly given the digital work done to it in that form) might benefit from info on just how this presentation holds up against "true," original reduction prints. Aside from a worthy jump in resolution*, I'd guess HD-DVD adopters are in store for something very similar the next time Disney brings this to homes, so fans might find the wait for a correct edition very long indeed (unless Disney responds to a poor reaction from fans and film restoration experts, such as Robert Harris -- but based on the reviews thusfar, my hopes are not high that many will realize they're missing anything in this new DVD, and solid sales and great overall fan response would make the notion of redressing the film's restoration and transfer difficult, and perhaps impossible, to justify for the company).

I love the film itself, but I already have a version of its reduction form (widescreen VHS, in fact, as knowing it to be reduction sourced I could never bring myself to shell out for the laserdisc). Until I can buy it sourced from its original form (and restored to that form) I'll make do with what I have, though a rental of the new edition isn't out of the question. That's strictly a personal decision, though, and those who do not yet own the film would likely find great value in the DVD. The supplements alone may be worth the purchase price for many.

* Speaking of resolution, Dave, the flicker or pulsing of image brightness and/or color densities (which you mention in your review) is something I've occasionally seen on home video transfers derived from reduction elements (it could be seen in Columbia/TriStar's reduction laserdisc of Branagh's Hamlet, for one), leading me to assume it is an occasional artifact of the reduction process. I believe I've seen home video derived from reduction that does not demonstrate it (at least not appreciably), so I certainly wouldn't conclude that it's a necessary artifact, but its presence on the widescreen Sleeping Beauty VHS release (noticeable beyond the usual anomalies of that format) elicited a few "argh, (gnashing of teeth), sigh"s from me at the time, as that purchase came in the same general vicinity as my Hamlet purchase (which was all the worse to me, as I'd seen that magnificent film in theatres at 70mm). As a note of substance on this matter, though, isolated color shifts of a single object (not the entire frame) are something which may be attributable to the animation process (I recall from my CAV set of The Lion King a scene mentioned by the animators in which a rag -- I believe it's red, but don't quote me -- flicks to another shade in one or two frames, probably two, something they said they knew about but didn't have time to fix ... I wonder if it's been fixed for next month's DVD? I'd assume so, "theatrical fidelity" issues aside, but we'll see) .... At any rate, isolated color shifts in specific objects aren't what we're talking about in the case of Sleeping Beauty, of course.

 

[Bill Burns]

Oh, by the way -- Simon, as per your earlier post, you'll find a frame grab from what I presume is either a 70mm print (most likely) or eight perforation 35mm positive (least likely) here:

http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/wingtr4.htm

Scroll down the page a bit to find it. If anyone could find or post the same or nearly the same frame from the DVD ("unclipped" by their player and without overscan), we could give it the old back-and-forth gander and see just how much of that frame we're missing. In lieu of that, a description of what's missing might also work. This assumes the Widescreen Museum's capture is the full frame and, indeed, from large format (it looks narrower than 2.35:1 to my eye, as does the frame from Solomon and Sheba that follows it), but I'm certainly prepared to make that assumption based on the detail and precision of the rest of the site unless someone knows otherwise.

 

[Xenia Stathakopoulou]

Can somebody tell me if the bonus cartoon on the dvd, is the one where donald argues with a forest ranger ?

 

[Xenia Stathakopoulou]

OOps ! Just read Davids wonderful review, its a live action short, i dont know why i thought it was a cartoon. Anyway ill be getting this classic on tuesday !

 

[Simon Caleb]

Hello Bill,

Thanks for the link, unfortunately I've done a comparison to that very picture with both my widescreen laserdisc & the recent dvd, I was quite shocked to find that picture is absolutely nowhere near the already compromised picture information shown on the LD nor the dvd; In fact It's very heavily cropped on all four sides of the picture.

I've no idea why that site has such a heavily zoomed shot as an example of a real frame of widescreen film! It's more like a picture from a book, cropped to look like a widescreen frame.

There may be a happy ending, I am about to obtain some Sleeping Beauty 35mm widescreen, flat film cells.
I will get them scanned at Kodak & report back ASAP.

Feel free to mail me if this thread disappears!

 

[Aaryn Chan]

Could this be another Back To The Future?

 

[Bill Burns]

Tony wrote:

OOps ! Just read Davids wonderful review, its a live action short, i dont know why i thought it was a cartoon. Anyway ill be getting this classic on tuesday !

If it's of help, Tony, I believe the cartoon you have in mind is Grand Canyonscope, which can be found in 4:3 letterboxed widescreen (i.e. non-anamorphic/non-enhanced) on Disney's release of 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea (1954).

Simon: hmph. How odd the curator of TWM would include a zoomed frame as if it were original! My impressions of the site have always been of accuracy -- I'm sorry to hear that film frame doesn't measure up (I have the widescreen VHS but haven't attempted to locate the frame myself). I'm sure I'm not the only one looking forward to any cell scans you can post -- getting to the bottom of just what's missing here will undoubtedly help anyone on the fence about the release.

 

[Xenia Stathakopoulou]

Thanks Bill !

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Just added to my review:

--it looked like a real/pristine projected animated film. ABSOLUTELY NO MPEG ARTIFACTING that I could see (screened about 10 minutes of various scenes that I thought might be troublesome). Image looked detailed, clear, and clean and did not seem softened or over-filtered to my eyes. EE? Ok, if you *looked* for it there was the *slightest* bit of vertically applied EE (shows up on strong horizontal lines) in just a handful of shots. Not only was it utterly unobtrusive and not distracting, but it only seemed to appear (again, if you really looked for it) for a moment or two and was not present consistently throughout the feature film. Postively nothing to be concerned with and again this was viewing from about 11 feet back from a 100" screen which is about as close scale-wise as you can get to DVD source material IMO. I hope I've made it clear...according the results I've seen with the image projected on the Sharp 9000 (panny RP91 DVD player) haloing from "EE" is not an issue...one may see it in just a few select scenes if one is looking specifically to find it, but it does not affect the majority of the movie and does not cause a distracting artifact even when it might be visible to critical viewers.

 

[Steve Lockwood]

Looks sweet! Thanks Dave.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Update to Review.

Just added:

UPDATE - Laserdisc/DVD Framing Comparison: 9-7-03

Ok, while my fancy-shmancy Pioneer Elite CLD99 is off at my friend's house I hooked up my trusy CLD-52 to do some DVD/LD framing comparisons (my CLD53 doesn't have the 3-D comb-filter or AC-3 capability, but puts out a nice image just the same).

Firstly, let's just get it out of the way that in overall picture qualitiy the DVD UTTERLY, TOTALLY *SMOKES* the laserdisc to all H*LL. I mean *really*, if you want a poster-child DVD that just STOMPS all over a laserdisc you've got it. That poor LD is still whimpering with its tail between its legs after having its *ss kicked!

Ok, aspect ratio.

Comparing the DVD to the LD, the LD seems to have a *slight* bit of more information to the left/right (probably less than you lose in overscan on your set anyway). Now after I made this same proclaimation about the Hello Dolly DVD/LD comparison someone with a Bravo DVD player using the DVI (digital video) connection to his plasma responded and told me he saw the missing L/R information that I wasn't seeing on my DVD. This leads me to believe that my Panny RP91 might be doing a bit of overscanning for me on its analog video outputs...many DVD players do this so it's not unusual. Point: Who knows...maybe the S.B. DVD also has the full horizontal info but I'm not seeing it cuz my DVD player overscans for me (like with Dolly).

And certainly running DVD video via DVI to a digital display calibrated for minimal overscan should be our reference point...so I'm trusing that other HTFer's experience over mine in this case.

So what about vertical cropping? That wouldn't be affected by overscan on the DVD player or display bcs of the 2.35:1 letterboxed image hard-coded into the 16x9 frame. Bottom line...the DVD and LD are basically about the same as far as vertical information goes. In one scene they look identical. Then in the next the LD has a sliver more at the bottom. But then in the next scene the DVD has a sliver more at the bottom...then the LD has a sliver more at the top, then they look the same in the next scene you get the idea. Basically they're almost identical and when they do differ they differ only very slightly and with no consitency from DVD to LD in terms of who's got more.

Now, until RAH or someone else can chime in (screen pics???) with some samples of what the "real" film-frame is *supposed* to look like we can't say much more...and indeed any cropping criticm of the DVD will apply to the LD as well. But at least we don't have a situation where the LD had marvelous framing which has been dramatically "zoomed" on the DVD. Nope...aspect-ratio/framing wise DVD and LD are basically on par.

 

[Simon Caleb]

Ok, the Sleeping Beauty 35mm flat widescreen film cells are on their way.
I will get them scanned at Kodak under my watchful eye! I'm not going to all this trouble only to have them cropped during the scan & report back ASAP.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Thanks Simon!!!

 

[Xenia Stathakopoulou]

Ill still be getting this on Tuesday,but even though we all know this is going to be 1 of those reference quality discs, imagine for a moment how fantastic it would look if it didnt include , the fullscreen version on the same disc !Astonishing ! I bet it would look even better than chicago and lion king combined !Anyway , i expect lion king to be the best looking dvd of the year, not to mention Davids greatest review yet !

 

[Jenna]

The picture quality of the 1.33:1 version? I have no idea. I have never watched and will never watch a Pan-and-Scan DVD on my television...

Excellent review! Really hadn't planned to pick this one up tomorrow, but what the hell...it's ONLY money, right??? :wink: Sounds like a "must own".

 

[Scott Weinberg]

Just spent the past hour or so digging through Disc 2 and I wanted to read the HTF review...so here I am.

First off: excellent review!

I simply can't get over how beautiful this film looks. I'm of the opinion that the Disc 2 features are actually a tad on the skimpy side (the 'big' featurette is old and is about 15 minutes long?) but big points on the plus side for the restoration featurette and especially the fantastic Widescreen vs. P&S featurette. Every single DVD in the universe should have one!

I also liked the casual "stroll through the castle" vibe that comes with the artwork/still galleries. Plus it's cool to see the Oscar-winning Grand Canyon included as well. Seeing that the main feature is only 75 minutes, this short makes for a perfect lead-in...only it's on a different disc.

As a huge fan of old-school Disney animation, I absolutely treasure the DVDs of Sleeping Beauty, Beauty and the Beast and especially Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. We may snipe at the Mouse House for their DTV output and their intermittent devotion to P&S-only releases - but when it comes to their classic films, Disney really does pull out all the stops. I consider each of these three DVDs both cinematic history and mini-museums all in one. Their next Special (Platinum, Collector's, whatever) Editions can't come soon enough!