-

Jump to content



Photo

Official HTF "Peter Pan - Platinum Edition" review?


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
137 replies to this topic

#21 of 138 OFFLINE   Chuck Pennington

Chuck Pennington

    Supporting Actor

  • 852 posts
  • Join Date: May 11 2001

Posted March 06 2007 - 07:48 AM

Yes, I am positive these are correct. The 2007 DVD is indeed inferior. And for the naysayers, VLC is being used for the captures - ALL of them, so any variance in contrast/brightness would be the same on ALL of them.

Put in your DVD and see for yourself.

Maybe a side-by-side comparison is better. Here are the 1991 Laserdisc and 2007 SE DVD compared side-by-side.

Am I blind, or is the gain in sharpness not worth all the drastic and disasterous color results?










How can anyone think the 2007 DVD is the best? And what is up with Disney putting out the commercials that lie showing an "unrestored" image to the left that is doctored?!

#22 of 138 OFFLINE   Chuck Pennington

Chuck Pennington

    Supporting Actor

  • 852 posts
  • Join Date: May 11 2001

Posted March 06 2007 - 07:51 AM

Oh, and I'm on a Mac using 10.3.9 OS. I am using the default VLC settings for the captures all direct from DVD. The Laserdiscs were recorded onto DVD directly from the composite output, and those transfers were used to make these captures. NO alteration in brightness, contrast, or saturation took place at any point.

#23 of 138 OFFLINE   Ken_McAlinden

Ken_McAlinden

    Producer

  • 6,070 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 20 2001
  • Real Name:Kenneth McAlinden
  • LocationLivonia, MI USA

Posted March 06 2007 - 07:53 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Beam
No offense, Chuck, but are you sure those screencaps are in the right order? Based on those, it appears the new 2007 transfer is markedly inferior to the 2002....
Setting color preferences aside, at least the 2007 is free of edge halos. The 2002 is positively chock full of them.

Regards,
Ken McAlinden
Livonia, MI USA

#24 of 138 OFFLINE   Chuck Pennington

Chuck Pennington

    Supporting Actor

  • 852 posts
  • Join Date: May 11 2001

Posted March 06 2007 - 08:02 AM

I actually prefer the 2002 version to the 2007, as far as the DVD releases go.

Another 2 before-and-after screenshots with NO image alterations - 1991 Laserdisc vs. 2007 DVD



This one is a frame off, but the color difference is what is striking.


Oh, and here are some shots from the restoration credits at the end.


#25 of 138 OFFLINE   Daryl L

Daryl L

    Supporting Actor

  • 762 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 26 1999

Posted March 06 2007 - 09:39 AM

I hope you didn't have more than one instance of VLC open when grabbing the screencaps because it will have a negative on light level and saturation on all but the first instance. It's just UltimateDVD and DVDtalk's caps don't look as dark/dull as yours.

I agree colors of 1999/2002/2007 are less saturated than on the 1991 LD but I honestly think the light level and saturation on the 1991 is pumped to high (but looks closer to proper shades of colors) in not all but in most scenes (probably transfer from vhs?).

Atleast 2007 isn't over sharpened like 2002 and 1991/1999 was too soft. My 2007 should be here this week.
Daryl L 
MacBook Pro 2.4GHz C2D
2GB Ram, 160GB HDD
15" LED Glossy Widescreen
NVIDIA GeForce 8600M GT 256MB GDDR3 Vram

#26 of 138 OFFLINE   Patrick McCart

Patrick McCart

    Lead Actor

  • 7,471 posts
  • Join Date: May 16 2001
  • Real Name:Patrick McCart
  • LocationAlpharetta, GA, USA

Posted March 06 2007 - 09:45 AM

The 1991 laserdisc looks oversaturated, the 2002 has some really awful sharpening, but the 2007 DVD looks good to my eyes. The colors have a more pastel look. Although, without reference, who knows which is accurate?

Tinkerbell loses a lot of glow on the 2002 DVD. The 2007 keeps the effect really well, even with the muted color. Perhaps it's right to keep her less saturated due to the glow.

#27 of 138 OFFLINE   Chuck Pennington

Chuck Pennington

    Supporting Actor

  • 852 posts
  • Join Date: May 11 2001

Posted March 06 2007 - 10:35 AM

First, Ultimatedvd.com isn't a valid website. DVDTalk has some small pictures in their review, but there is no indication of from where they were acquired. Couldn't they be similarly tampered with?

Here is a small image from their site and review.


Here is the screen capture I made from the 2007 DVD resized to match their picture.


What's funny is that I WANTED this DVD to be terrific, but it suffers as do all of the Lowry restorations I've seen. My units are all calibrated, and I have nothing to gain by pointing out how different this release is. The packaging on the 1997, 2002, and now the 2007 video releases all claim to be "fully restored", yet look at how different each looks? Why can't we just get a nice hi-def remaster of the restored film with a little dirt removal if needed and leave it at that? The element used for the 1991 transfer looks to be in marvelous shape. A new transfer from that without the digital overmanipulation could bring us the color AND the clarity we should all expect.

#28 of 138 OFFLINE   Chuck Pennington

Chuck Pennington

    Supporting Actor

  • 852 posts
  • Join Date: May 11 2001

Posted March 06 2007 - 10:37 AM

What does everyone think of the commercials that show a split-screen comparison between the "unrestored" and "restored" version of PETER PAN? Anyone else agree that they are false? The "unrestored" image certainly looks nothing like the 1991 release, and that was the first version released on video in this country, and it is the only one not claiming to be "restored"....

#29 of 138 OFFLINE   Joe Lugoff

Joe Lugoff

    Screenwriter

  • 2,022 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 04 2005
  • Real Name:Joe

Posted March 06 2007 - 01:31 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottR
Sounds fantastic! The only things missing from this release are trailers and the hour long promo Christmas special.

I wanted that Christmas special really bad -- they put the "Alice in Wonderland" Christmas show on that set ... why not the "Peter Pan" one on THIS set?

By the way, it was Christmas of 1951, over a year before the movie was released.

#30 of 138 OFFLINE   ScottR

ScottR

    Screenwriter

  • 2,650 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 01 2000

Posted March 06 2007 - 03:14 PM

Just finished watching this....it's absolutely BEAUTIFUL!!! Wow, what a difference. Wendy's dress is finally a soft shade of blue, as opposed to going white in some shots in the previous release. Colors were vibrant, lush, and lines were bold. The only thing odd was that hair colors shifted tints a little..in some shots Wendy and Michael had reddish/brunette hair and in others it looked blondish/brown. This could have always been like this. Anyway, one of the most spectacular Disney restorations yet attempted, and a must buy!! I felt the magic had returned.

#31 of 138 OFFLINE   Chuck Pennington

Chuck Pennington

    Supporting Actor

  • 852 posts
  • Join Date: May 11 2001

Posted March 06 2007 - 04:37 PM

Oh boy, I SO don't agree...

#32 of 138 OFFLINE   ScottR

ScottR

    Screenwriter

  • 2,650 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 01 2000

Posted March 06 2007 - 04:42 PM

I'm sorry we don't Chuck, because I usually agree with you. I just know that on my monitor, it looked fantastic. Hook's coat, while not a bright orangy-red was still a deep vibrant red. And this transfer didn't have the horrible DVNR artifacts that plagued that last release. I am so pleased with this set....and as anyone on here knows me, I don't just hand out praise when it isn't warranted. But it's great we have the HTF where we can present evidence and each have our own opinions on it. I sure respect yours.

#33 of 138 OFFLINE   Sam Favate

Sam Favate

    Producer

  • 4,846 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 03 2004
  • Real Name:Sam Favate

Posted March 06 2007 - 04:54 PM

Well, from the look of things, this is an improvement over the 1999 disc, so I don't mind the upgrade, but is it what it could have been? I'm a fan of vibrant color and sharp lines, and it seems from the photos posted here that the 2002 edition has a slight edge.

Thanks for posting those pictures!

#34 of 138 OFFLINE   Patrick McCart

Patrick McCart

    Lead Actor

  • 7,471 posts
  • Join Date: May 16 2001
  • Real Name:Patrick McCart
  • LocationAlpharetta, GA, USA

Posted March 06 2007 - 07:35 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Favate
Well, from the look of things, this is an improvement over the 1999 disc, so I don't mind the upgrade, but is it what it could have been? I'm a fan of vibrant color and sharp lines, and it seems from the photos posted here that the 2002 edition has a slight edge.

Thanks for posting those pictures!

Looking at all the examples, it's pretty obvious that the 2002 used the same 1997 transfer, but added unnecessary edge enhancement, messed with the contrast, and used some DVNR. Someone showed me captures of shots harmed by the noise reduction a while back... in rapid motion, a lot of stuff is smeared to oblivion. The 1991 LD looks alright, but it looks like someone cranked up the saturation a bit too much.

#35 of 138 OFFLINE   Patrick.C

Patrick.C

    Second Unit

  • 447 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 06 2004

Posted March 07 2007 - 12:58 AM

Looking through the insert in this release, I was pleasantly surprised to see 101 Dalmations finally getting the platinum release treatment.

#36 of 138 OFFLINE   Ken_McAlinden

Ken_McAlinden

    Producer

  • 6,070 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 20 2001
  • Real Name:Kenneth McAlinden
  • LocationLivonia, MI USA

Posted March 07 2007 - 01:17 AM

Going back to the initial post in this thread, David Boulet has reviewed this title as part of his new gig over at the DVD File web site and strongly recommends it. I've only watched a few minutes of it myself, but so far I agree with him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick McCart
... The 1991 LD looks alright, but it looks like someone cranked up the saturation a bit too much.
I agree. The colors on that laserdisc are more consistent than the subsequent transfers (and I own them all), but they are also oversaturated. I will not pass final judgement until I've had a chance to watch the whole thing, but so far the Platinum Edition DVD looks very good to me.


Regards,
Ken McAlinden
Livonia, MI USA

#37 of 138 OFFLINE   Mike Frezon

Mike Frezon

    Studio Mogul

  • 29,394 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 09 2001
  • LocationRensselaer, NY

Posted March 07 2007 - 04:07 AM

I have found the reviews/discussion/debates on Disney animated features over the past few years here at the HTF have become quite confusing.

There seem to be such wide-ranging differences of opinion of what these films should look-like/sound-like in their original presentation that I'm finding it difficult to know if I'll be happy with the release or not. I am not just referring to the on-going debate about the impact of the Lowry restorations...but other issues such as framing, brush strokes, color, and audio mixes.

For me, individually, this reached a peak with the latest release of The Little Mermaid. There were so many complaints about SQ which just weren't evident to me.

I cannot wait until Beauty and the Beast is released again. That is one of the few discs in my collection (and B&tB is one of my all-time favorite films) that I feel is practically unwatchable because of all the video noise (and I've got a small HD set!).

So, I find myself in the position of just saying that I'll pick up each one of these new releases and decide for myself. I enjoy the Disney films so much that I can usually justify the upgrade for the new bonus features alone.

There's Jessie the yodeling cowgirl. Bullseye, he's Woody's horse. Pete the old prospector. And, Woody, the man himself.Of course, it's time for Woody's RoundUp. He's the very best! He's the rootinest, tootinest cowboy in the wild, wild west!


HTF Rules | HTF Mission Statement | Father of the Bride

Dieting with my Dog & Heart to Heart/Hand in Paw by Peggy Frezon


#38 of 138 OFFLINE   Arnie G

Arnie G

    Supporting Actor

  • 662 posts
  • Join Date: May 29 2002

Posted March 07 2007 - 04:37 AM

I value everyone's opinion on this board and I'm glad for the dialog. Then I make my own decision.Posted Image
I've got my own Toto

#39 of 138 OFFLINE   Chuck Pennington

Chuck Pennington

    Supporting Actor

  • 852 posts
  • Join Date: May 11 2001

Posted March 07 2007 - 05:55 AM

I explored more of my 2007 DVD set late last night, and I made an interesting discovery. I encourage everyone to check out the "You Can Fly" featurette on disc 2. This was on the 1997 Laserdisc release [and I think on a previous DVD release], and it appears it was edited using footage from the 1991 transfer! Check out the scenes from PETER PAN as shown in that featurette. Yes, there is some dot crawl owing from its analog origins, but other than that you tell ME if the color and balance is not far better and far more natural.

#40 of 138 OFFLINE   Mike Frezon

Mike Frezon

    Studio Mogul

  • 29,394 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 09 2001
  • LocationRensselaer, NY

Posted March 08 2007 - 04:16 PM

Surprised no one mentioned that the Disney Company has, with this release, once again admitted that a film titled Song of the South did actually exist once.

In the bonus feature of The Making of Peter Pan there is a short section on the casting process and how Disney tapped Bobby Driscoll to play Peter. They even show a short montage of different Disney films in which Driscoll appeared...starting with Song of the South (gasp!), then So Dear to My Heart and Treasure Island.

There's Jessie the yodeling cowgirl. Bullseye, he's Woody's horse. Pete the old prospector. And, Woody, the man himself.Of course, it's time for Woody's RoundUp. He's the very best! He's the rootinest, tootinest cowboy in the wild, wild west!


HTF Rules | HTF Mission Statement | Father of the Bride

Dieting with my Dog & Heart to Heart/Hand in Paw by Peggy Frezon



Back to DVD



Forum Nav Content I Follow