SLEEPING BEAUTY the next Platinum Edition? WHY? (1 Viewer)

[Reagan]

As many have indicated on other threads, it is ill-advised to use a laserdisc (or a previous DVD release, or VHS, and so on) as the gold standard for how a film should look - including cropping and color issues.

 

[Chuck Pennington]

I don't completely agree. When a movie has always looked a certain way, and then all of a sudden we get something WHOLLY different and are told "now it looks the way it should", that's suspect to me. It's harder to get away with serious changes with live-action films because one always has a fleshtone to match, but animated films aren't the same.

Yeah, it's great that the whites of Cinderella's stepmother's eyes are now the proper florescent blue instead of white. Isn't it amazing that the previous two video releases and every theatrical release got it all wrong? Amazing, and so lucky are we that we can finally see it the way we were supposed to all along.

 

[MatthewA]

Ironically, with non-platinums like Robin Hood and Alice they don't seem to have problems getting the colors right. It's only the Platinums that are affected.

Perhaps it's a case of too many cooks?

 

[Ethan Riley]

Well maybe they should spend more money on restoration and less money on endless tv and radio spots that all say "...and they...will discover...the true meaning of friendship."

I think it's time Disney DVD discovered the true meaning of film restoration.

 

[Patrick McCart]

Not really. Consider how every video release of Ben-Hur had incorrect cropping on the top and bottom until the 4-disc SE.

The captures I've seen of Sleeping Beauty look wrong for a film that was shot in Technirama. Contrasty, EE, and the cropping... if they can fix that, it'll be a good move. As for restoration, it's apparently restored and even had further work in 4K by Cinesite.

 

[Reagan]

Chuck wrote:


You're right. That is a problem. Can't argue with it. Except as regards framing. Martin Hart (widescreenmuseum.com) has a nice page showing framing problems with laserdisc transfers - even those with OAR.

-Reagan

 

[MatthewA]

They knew the true meaning of film restoration once, but Eisner fired everybody but Scott MacQueen in one of his downsizing jags, and MacQueen left in 2003 to run Pro-Tek. Now Disney appears to be outsourcing restoration work.

 

[Brenton]

I totally agree with you guys about the need for a Pinocchio platinum edition. Easily one of my favorite Disney movies. It's a masterpiece.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

I am well aware that Technirama began as a 35mm process, but when no less an authority than Walt Disney himself pulls out a 70mm strip and says the film was shot in Technirama 70, that's what I rely on.

In any event, an ONeg of SB would be a sequential neg and would have to go through an Ultra Resolution type process if it was to be used for a new transfer.

 

[Mark-P]

Of course all Technirama 70 films are PRINTED on 70mm film stock, but NO Technirama film 70 or 35 is FILMED on 70mm film stock. If it were it wouldn't be Technirama. It would be TODD-AO or Panavision 70!

Walt Disney was not fingering Sleeping Beauty's Oneg in that demonstration.

 

[Lord Dalek]

A very good explanation of how the Technirama process works can be found here: http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/wingtr1.htm. Long story short, at no time did the system in its brief 10 year existance use 65mm as a neg format, it was always a double 35 to 70mm conversion process.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

Whether or not it was shot on horzontal 8 perf 35mm is of no consequence, as the final outputs were to 70mm Technirama 70 and and 35mm CinemaScope, as advertised in the trailer. This does not change the fact that the correct AR would be 2.20 or 2.21:1, as this would be the AR on the 70mm release prints.

The reason for the incorrect framing is that a 35mm element was used for the "restoration", and that element was cropped on the bottom. This is evident in the opening credits, as the copyright notice is cropped off partially.

I still say that if a proper restoration were to be done, it would have to originate with either the sequential ONeg, or with seps produced from that ONeg and run through an Ultra Resolution type process. That way, we would get correct registration and a correct AR.

 

[Ethan Riley]

Well it's not like Disney's going to get Robert Harris or somebody on this. Frankly, I think Disney is getting their old movies restored at McDonald's.

 

[Patrick McCart]

The problem is that these films are probably fully restored on film, but it's the digital tinkering that introduces new problems. The DTS Digital Images processing isn't the same as true restoration, which has probably been applied already. In the case of Sleeping Beauty, from what I can find, it has had a regular restoration, as well as a 4K digital cleanup by Cinesite from years ago. However, when the DVD master was created, they didn't frame it correctly and they added other problems.

Technirama films can be 2.20:1 or 2.35:1, anyways. Having the image misframed like SB was probably a mistake in video transfer, especially if a 4K master exists from the Cinesite cleanup.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

But if the misframing comes from the element used by DTS/Lowry, we're screwed.

 

[Aaron Silverman]

That's a good point. Walk through any toy department these days and you'll see seven metric tons of "Disney Princesses" merchandise.