A Few Words About A few words about...™ Pollyanna -- in Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[warnerbro]

The color and saturation seem to be better on OLD YELLER. I'm assuming they did the best they possibly could on POLLYANNA with faded original elements. It has a very film-like appearance and very clean and sharp, however.

 

[Randy Korstick]

Pretty much the same for The Love Bug, Herbie Rides again, Apple Dumpling gang and the computer wore tennis shoes although they are all noticeable improvements over the DVD. I wish they would do something that didn't have a widescreen and decent transfer on DVD like the zoomed in and unwatchable Blackbeard's Ghost. Now that would be a major improvement if given the same treatment.

Thank you. That's what I am seeing as well.

 

[Chuck Pennington]

Here is an HD comparison of the POLLYANNA Blu-ray that Disney released and the prior HD master that has been available through several streaming platforms.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/nrvwmu0a1hkdsi0/pollyannacomparison.mp4?dl=0

 

[nanook]

However, the saturation and color were washed out and faded.

Huh-? I didn't see that at all. I own both Pollyanna & Old Yeller. Both BD titles appear to have properly-set saturation levels. (Sounds like a display mis-adjustment issue to me). In fact, I might argue in a couple of scenes in Pollyanna the saturation may be just a 'tad' hot.

 

[Will Krupp]

(Sounds like a display mis-adjustment issue to me).

Welcome to HTF, though I would be very cautious about throwing that particular charge around here. We can be a touchy bunch when someone accuses us of not knowing how to calibrate our displays!

 

[nanook]

No offense intended - honest. If the truth be told, I actually debated a bit before including that line in my comment for the very reason you mentioned. I just felt it was stated innocuously-enough as to not cause any ruffled feathers. Although this is my first comment, I have been following this forum for some time and can state unequivocally the caliber and overall knowledge of discourse on this site is head and shoulders above the rest. When I do post, I hope to continue that high level.

 

[Will Krupp]

No offense intended - honest. If the truth be told, I actually debated a bit before including that line in my comment for the very reason you mentioned. I just felt it was stated innocuously-enough as to not cause any ruffled feathers.

(Just Kidding!) Welcome to HTF Nanook!

 

[Kyrsten Brad]

33e90be4c2f959ee21dee318ffebb3ef.jpg


(Just Kidding!) Welcome to HTF Nanook!

Brad here. Don't feel bad Nanook. I was almost drawn & quartered here when I posted my review of the Blu for Starcrash (1979). All in good fun of course.

 

[warnerbro]

Here is an HD comparison of the POLLYANNA Blu-ray that Disney released and the prior HD master that has been available through several streaming platforms.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/nrvwmu0a1hkdsi0/pollyannacomparison.mp4?dl=0

Wow! Thanks for sharing that! I actually prefer the previous HD master! The color is richer. The new master tends to go to a brownish tinge. Why does that always happen! And they cut the sides off the new HD master in some shots. I just assumed they were giving us the full frame with added information at the top and bottom but from this comparison it is clear they cut off the sides in some shots! Most of the time it seems that the new master has more information at the bottom. And no offense taken, Nanook! We are all friends here. This is a place where people can speak freely and openly. It's all in good fun.

 

[nanook]

Wow! Thanks for sharing that! I actually prefer the previous HD master! The color is richer. The new master tends to go to a brownish tinge. Why does that always happen! And they cut the sides off the new HD master in some shots. I just assumed they were giving us the full frame with added information at the top and bottom but from this comparison it is clear they cut off the sides in some shots! Most of the time it seems that the new master has more information at the bottom. And no offense taken, Nanook! We are all friends here. This is a place where people can speak freely and openly. It's all in good fun.

Comparing the two versions does seem a mixed bag. It strikes me as if some scenes play better (color-wise) in one version than the other.


The real mystery to me is Disney's (long-ago) obsession with presenting their 1953 and beyond, non-anamorphic releases in some other aspect ratio besides 1.85:1. They were famous for the inclusion of a "helpful, heavily-laminated card" placed in one of the ICC cases informing 'Mr. Projectionist' that, fer instance, "That Darn Cat should be projected at 1.75:1". I don't know how many movie theatres in America had that size aperture plate at the ready, and most-likely projected it at 1.85, presumably cutting-off some important piece of business from the audience's eyes; or conversely at 1.66, thus partially-exposing frame lines at the top and/or bottom-? Who knows. I would assume Technicolor applied a hard matte to the IB prints at something "taller" than 1.85, somewhere around 1.75, perhaps, and Disney was just trying to force the hand of the theatre at achieving the best presentation for their audience.


For the BD version of Pollyanna, Disney has decided 1.66 is best, and using Chuck's handy-dandy comparison (thanks for that), it would appear most of the cropping for the (1.85 - or is that 1.75-?) prior HD master is taking place along the bottom of the frame. Wouldn't want to mess with those foreheads...

 

[warnerbro]

Thanks for explaining that. I actually prefer that they give us the whole frame and let us zoom it in if we want. If that's what they're doing now, I'm all for it -- even if we're seeing more than what was intended. I love to see more of the costume and more of the set.

 

[nanook]

Thanks for explaining that. I actually prefer that they give us the whole frame and let us zoom it in if we want. If that's what they're doing now, I'm all for it -- even if we're seeing more than what was intended. I love to see more of the costume and more of the set.

I'm sure when films (and I mean motion picture film) played in many a movie theatre it was probably hit or miss as to whether a film's intended image actually was projected. No doubt in many cases (especially with CinemaScope, etc.), aperture plates and squeeze ratios were 'fudged' to either fit within the limitations of the proscenium or parts of the image were simply chopped-off. Sort of akin to a library 'chopping-off' the top and bottom/sides of books so they can fit within the confines of the existing shelving. The results are less than acceptable in ether case.

 

[Rob_Ray]

One thing you have to remember about most Disney films -- virtually all of them except for the animated titles and the big showcases like MARY POPPINS and 20,000 LEAGUES, were filmed to be ultimately used as fodder for Walt Disney's TV show. Any aspect ratio would have been made safe for anywhere between 1:33 to 1.85 out of necessity.

 

[Mark-P]

One thing you have to remember about most Disney films -- virtually all of them except for the animated titles and the big showcases like MARY POPPINS and 20,000 LEAGUES, were filmed to be ultimately used as fodder for Walt Disney's TV show. Any aspect ratio would have been made safe for anywhere between 1:33 to 1.85 out of necessity.

I don't know why you are excluding the animated titles. Those specifically were meant as multi-aspect ratio - shot in 1.33:1 and matte-able up to 1.75:1

 

[Rob_Ray]

I don't know why you are excluding the animated titles. Those specifically were meant as multi-aspect ratio - shot in 1.33:1 and matte-able up to 1.75:1

I only excluded them because, as a rule, they weren't shot with television in mind. Up until the video era, most of the animated titles joined the seven-year theatrical re-release schedule. But things like BLACKBEARD'S GHOST and even hits like THAT DARN CAT! were filmed with the idea that after the initial playoff, they'd head to Disney's television show.

 

[ahollis]

I'm sure when films (and I mean motion picture film) played in many a movie theatre it was probably hit or miss as to whether a film's intended image actually was projected. No doubt in many cases (especially with CinemaScope, etc.), aperture plates and squeeze ratios were 'fudged' to either fit within the limitations of the proscenium or parts of the image were simply chopped-off. Sort of akin to a library 'chopping-off' the top and bottom/sides of books so they can fit within the confines of the existing shelving. The results are less than acceptable in ether case.

You are correct. Even today that is happening.

 

[nanook]

One thing you have to remember about most Disney films -- virtually all of them except for the animated titles and the big showcases like MARY POPPINS and 20,000 LEAGUES, were filmed to be ultimately used as fodder for Walt Disney's TV show. Any aspect ratio would have been made safe for anywhere between 1:33 to 1.85 out of necessity.

Of course, you're correct. But my memory of running many, many Technicolor IB prints - and especially those from Disney - is that Technicolor would print 'hard matte' frame lines at the intended projection aspect ratio - even if the camera aperture was set at 1.33, or even full frame - especially back then.

 

[classicmovieguy]

I only excluded them because, as a rule, they weren't shot with television in mind. Up until the video era, most of the animated titles joined the seven-year theatrical re-release schedule. But things like BLACKBEARD'S GHOST and even hits like THAT DARN CAT! were filmed with the idea that after the initial playoff, they'd head to Disney's television show.

Yes - as I recall "Pollyanna" was presented as a 3-part special for it's TV airing on 'Wonderful World of Colour'.