Official HTF "Peter Pan - Platinum Edition" review? (1 Viewer)

[Chuck Pennington]

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?!

 

[Chuck Pennington]

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.

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

Setting color preferences aside, at least the 2007 is free of edge halos. The 2002 is positively chock full of them.

Regards,

 

[Chuck Pennington]

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.

 

[Daryl L]

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.

 

[Patrick McCart]

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.

 

[Chuck Pennington]

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.

 

[Chuck Pennington]

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"....

 

[Joe Lugoff]

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.

 

[ScottR]

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.

 

[Chuck Pennington]

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

 

[ScottR]

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.

 

[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!

 

[Patrick McCart]

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.

 

[Patrick.C]

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

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

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.
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,

 

[Mike Frezon]

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.

 

[Arnie G]

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

 

[Chuck Pennington]

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.

 

[Mike Frezon]

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.