Limited Edition/Gold Pinocchio is recommended over the Platinum DVD and BD: http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDReviews44/pinocchio_blu-ray.htm
I couldn't tell you what website I was reading that referred to the aspect ratio as family friendly for Winnie the Pooh. It is 1.66:1 on BD though. Correcting the guide. Thanks for keeping me honest.
I also said the prior DVDs were 1.66:1 instead of 1.33:1. I wonder if I was thinking about a different film when I wrote that.
While the case gives no dimensions, Many Adventures measures to 1.66:1. It's narrow enough for vertical bars to show up on the sides of a 16:9 television with overscan. It seems like a compromise between the 1.33:1 aspect ratio used on the film's two previous DVD releases and the 1.75:1 ratio exhibitors in 1977 were instructed to project it in. We lose some of the frame height from the "full screen DVDs" but not enough to throw off compositions. Since these cartoons were produced over eleven years, it's not even clear if they stuck to one consistent ratio. It would be nice for Disney to shed some light on these decisions instead of just leaving us to guess and then second-guess when they change their policies.
TServo2049 said:
As I said, pre-CAPS animated features were clearly shot with a lot of "breathing room" so they could be presented matted anywhere from 1.66:1-1.85:1. The 4x3 releases may be slightly cropped because showing the extra side information visible in the widescreen transfers would also reveal unwanted vertical info, like cels that end within the frame - "floating torsos", etc.
Jungle Book wasn't theatrically exhibited in 4:3, so both ratios are valid. But I do like the idea of showing as much of the exposed frame as possible - there are a few 90s animated films (not Disney) where the widescreen and 4:3 versions each show unique picture info, indicating that they were shot at something like 1.66:1, and there is part of the frame that's never been seen in any transfers.
But that's probably not going to happen any time soon...
Sure, you'd expect some cropping. But my point is that the anamorphic and wide releases of Jungle Book actually have more left/right information than the 4x3 releases.
If the 4x3 version is all the animation fit to be seen, the widescreen should ONLY be less on the top and bottom. That is not the case.
cms382 said:
I'd give the original Peter Pan LD the overall advantage for being able to withstand the most adjustments from a TV set compared to the other editions.
The Jungle Book LD has some unique colors and better animation lines, but the contrast ruins it. It's the only 4:3 transfer with colors similar to the Platinum and Diamond transfer, so there's that.
Is that the '97 LD? If so the Limited Issue DVD used the same master.
Edit: Sorry you do show '92.
Yeah, when animation is concerned, I prefer open matte. If the animators bothered to draw it, I want to see it.
Jungle Book open matte should be 4x3. Unfortunately, the home video releases are slightly cropped so you still aren't getting the full image on the 4x3 transers.
Btw, The Rescuers OAR is 1.66:1. Both DVD releases are in that format. They definitely didn't over restore the '12 BD/DVD. They didn't even bother to do an all digital transfer of Down Under for that set.
If you don't like the image though, the Gold Edition sure isn't restored and should look better than the LD.
I see no way the DE could possibly be correct. Wendy's nightgown is supposed to be blue. Peter wears green not brown. The screenshots sure don't show that.
The LD may not be perfect, but the Diamond is a Zirconium.
Also you can see some pixie dust(?) on Tink's right boob on the LD and nothing on the DE.
IIRC the lawyer things was posted on SouthPark.com after the whole debacle happened.
I believe their blog there had a few updates about their efforts to provide the uncut version on their website as they usually do.
Snagged the TPB version, haven't watched it yet, hopefully it is legit.
Can anyone confirm that the censorship was a hoax? Word was lawyers were involved to get an uncut version released.
cms382 said:
Hi, a few searches for this subject led me to this thread/forum.
I ordered a few pre-Lowry laserdiscs, I'll see how they compare.
The Jungle Book Blu-ray is the same restoration as the 2007 DVD (I'm sure there are a few minor tweaks but I no longer have the old disc for reference). The DNR'd line work doesn't hold up as well in 1080p compared to its non-Xerox based predecessors, soft shots are especially deteriorated. Color timing seems to be okay and doesn't have any glaring consequences because the film had flat lighting to begin with.
I'll post my thoughts on the 1992 laserdisc when it arrives.
Welcome. We'd be glad to hear your impressions. If you can post screenshots that would be great too.
It seems pretty clear that until Disney finds a new method, most of their films (and especially the Xerox era ones) are going to have lines that look like melting icicles.
To be clear, open matte doesn't mean 4x3. It also doesn't mean cropped (as the ebay picture might suggest).
It means that mattes have been removed to show more image. In the case of TGMD, it was theatrically 1.85:1. Opening the matte SHOULD give 1.66:1 if animated in those dimensions (it was shot on 35mm which is 1.66:1 but earlier animations were frequently drawn at 1.33:1).
But, as the 2010 release shows, 1.77:1 is actually open matte compared to the 2002 1.66:1 release. That doesn't make sense either. Based on that there should be more height to the image somewhere as well.
What Disney has actually done is pretty much a mystery. The OAR is just unknown.
_,,,^..^,,,_, you need BDSup2Sub, http://www.videohelp.com/tools/BDSup2Sub (try v5.1.2 first ++ is just a port).
You can import the sub/idx and output bd sup (PGS) format. It'll even let you resize if you need to.
Taolar said:
Nope. They're both based off of the the same Premiere render. The mpeg2 encoding must have introduced that.
Does the image, overall, look better to you?
Definitely.
Yeah, there are some artifacts in the border area, but what caught my eye was when Clark threw the green crystal.
Just at the first explosion, there is a white screen but then the border type weirdness happens but full screen. (About 39:02).
I don't see that in the XviD version. Nothing serious, it just made me wonder if one of the two was further along.
Just noticed that the DVD uses PCM audio. Did you do some remastering that made lossless a good choice?
Edit: For that matter are the DVD and AVI versions the same release? I've seen at least one flaw on the DVD not on the XviD.
In light of recent casting I don't have much hope for the next one either.
You wouldn't think a Superman movie would be that difficult.
I believe ADM was talking about working in HD, but I haven't heard much from him on the site lately.
The reason most of my HP edits are DVD5s are because the official DVD9 releases tend to be full of extras that can be stripped and are badly encoded to start with. All the ones I worked with could be re-encoded OPV with Q values less than 10. Yeah, the sources are that soft. It's also why they look like crap on bigger HD screens. I think it was done on purpose to push people into Blu-ray.
Will I do any HD HP edits? Maybe eventually. I'm just starting to transition to HD in general but haven't done any real editing in the format yet. A computer upgrade would be required too. So, not for a while.
There are new Superman movies? (Not as far as I'm concerned.)
I was just doing some research on "The Emperor's New Groove" today and for the first time heard about the original version of the film under the name "Kingdom of the Sun". (Linky-poo)
While I was pleased to find out that Trudie Styler's documentary "The Sweatbox" has leaked, I was wondering if anyone has heard/seen/etc. if the "Kingdom of the Sun" Work-In-Progress has ever appeared in the wild? It was apparently 50% complete and far enough along to show test audiences. I'd assume it's probably something like the BatB WiP and with songs by Sting sounds 10x better than the final tENG film.
Anyone?
Hey, thanks for your work. It really was a good idea that you an unbelievable amount of work into.
So you're saying your going to start again in HD, right? ;)
Taolar said:
Crap. I got copies and now I cant find them. I'll make a concerted effort to round them up asap and I'll post here when I've uploaded them.
Sorry!
That sounds like me. At least they exist.
JayArgonaut said:
The KLF said:
well to be fair its off camera, the scene is shot from the robert vaughs sister characters bedroom (from memory) so all you hear is severe thumping, bunoing and groaning.
so the cameras on the evil sister and her expressions to all the noise
still, not really family entertainment
IIRC, in the UK, that sequence was shown during the afternoon slots when ITV broadcast the extended version throughout the mid to late 80s. It's quite tame.
See for yourselves.
Here I was expecting the unrated Hancock scene.
Still checking TPB daily... is there an ETA, Taolar?
I just noticed that the old Pocahontas has a pinkness to it like the Beauty and the Beast laserdisc.
Disney first started toying with digital ink and paint in The Little Mermaid, and the Rescuers Down Under was the first fully digital film (which is ironic because the only HD release appears to be struck from film).
At first the data on the CAPS had to be transferred to film and then home video formats. Later, it became possible for Disney to use an all digital pipeline from the CAPS computer to DVD.
Off the top of my head the original Gold Edition of Pocahontas was struck from film and had heavy grain as a result. The 10th Anniversary disc was taken right from the CAPS computer and is a definite upgrade. It should also be noted that the colors are reportedly more accurate on the 10th Anniversary.
The conversion of these films for IMAX was a chore because they wanted to 'improve' the detail in the animation for the larger projection format. This involved touching things up and adding new detail. Animators were involved not just technicians making the transfer.
I only pretend to have a good understanding of this, but last I heard Disney only has one CAPS workstation still in service. I would hope that isn't their only way to get the data for new transfers, but it is apparent that they keeps some sort of digital master.
I dunno, that seems like a fine distinction.
Since CAPS films aren't animated with the slight differences in shading for cells on different layers, what exactly distinguishes a 'theatrically accurate' version of a CAPS film?
By the mid 90's film stock was pretty mature. Unlikely Technicolor in its infancy that required answer prints, the difference between what the CAPS computer generated and the final film print should not have been that different.
There may have been some compensation for the process, but I wouldn't expect it to be much. (Can anyone speak with authority on this?)
All that's left then is film grain, and frankly that's just an artifact when you consider that Disney can probably play those films right on a computer screen from a CAPS computer.
I'm a big fan of film grain and feel Disney's scrubbing has done a terrible disservice to their films, but once you're talking digital sources, the grain is an indication of degradation not fidelity.
I'm probably alone on this one.
I can find little info on 'Alice' for Brazil R4 (mostly just the Australian R4 which are apparently similar to the R1 releases). I don't know enough Spanish and zero Portuguese to go through sites that might have reviews.
Unfortunately, Disney seems to be fairly uniform in their releases. Blu-rays released in Europe are frequently the same as the U.S. releases that come several years later and Australian discs that frequently comes after that.
As far as Lion King, no LDrip appear to be floating around. And while Aladdin has been plus-ed with detail for IMAX, Lion King has actual character design changes.
I love Cinderella and many other in-need-of-preservation-classics much more than Lion King, but the extent of the alterations puts it up there with Beauty and the Beast as one the most in need of preservation.
Aladdin's changes are respectful by comparison (but still unwarranted).
Disney still has unaltered/unrestored film scans somewhere of their oldest films that may yet get a proper restoration. I fear the newer films that were modified for IMAX have had their digital data altered and might not be able to be restored to their theatrical version.