This is topic Snow White Blu ray in forum General Yak at 8mm Forum.
To visit this topic, use this URL:
Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on October 05, 2009, 12:41 PM:
Well the Blu Ray of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs hits the stores here tomorrow. I shall be out early to pick up a copy. Advanced word is that it is simply stunning.
Posted by Christopher P Quinn (Member # 1294) on October 05, 2009, 03:40 PM:
Another review would be gratefully received Paul.
And is this also region free, he asks hopefully.
Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on October 06, 2009, 06:57 PM:
Chris, I picked up my copy today and I will be glad to post a review in a day or so. Snow White is everywhere in the stores here today - it looks like being an enormous seller for Disney.
While in the store, they had the Ultimate Collectors Edition on sale for $159.99. I had to really work hard to resist the impulse to get it - it is out of this world . And I thought the Oz package was awesome........
Posted by Craig Hamilton (Member # 258) on October 06, 2009, 08:27 PM:
Ok Mr Quinn, you win.......
We will make arrangements for a demo of your blue ray - vp projector when I pick you up on the way to Ealing. I remember how you were like a kid in a sweet shop when you got your fist Panny projector. Reading your reply’s to the other blue ray reviews of the wizard of oz, you now sound like a kid on Christmas eve .
Next Easter, myself and the family will be visiting Florida for a ten day vacation at Disneyland. we would like to meet up with you and Betty one night at a restaurant for a meal and a chat.
Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on October 07, 2009, 08:28 AM:
Craig, I have emailed you.
Don't forget to buy a ticket for the baby Pathe!
Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on October 07, 2009, 08:28 AM:
OK, though I'm not into BR, I would encourage those who buy them to go on the internet to find them. They have the deluxe OZ for only 59.95 instead of the over hundred dollar price, and I wouldn't be surprised if they'll do the same thing with Snow White.
Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on June 21, 2014, 05:26 PM:
Why not Osi?? Believe me the images when projected are stunning even on very large screens. I love nostalgia, I love super 8, but at the end of day, Rob Young is Soooo... correct in his latest posts.
The present and most certainly the future ought to be embraced, I for one cannot wait until I get to screen 4K movies at 16ft wide at 2400 lumens No scratches to worry about, no dipping or dodgy soundtracks to worry about,no projector noise to drown out and no Anamorphic lens to keep in focus!!
BTW 2400 lumens,that even beats a HTI or Xenon, and at a fraction of the cost. The time has come to embrace the future me thinks !!
Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on June 21, 2014, 06:46 PM:
Well I agree with you 100% Andrew. I suspect you and I are both in the same boat here, loving the incredible quality of present day home digital projection, but still getting immense and unique enjoyment and satisfaction from reel film projection.
Posted by John Hourigan (Member # 111) on June 21, 2014, 11:41 PM:
And I also agree with you 100 percent, Andrew -- I just got my basement finished with a full-blown home cinema, and am looking forward to actually watching the movie itself (rather than watching the projector) without constantly fiddling with the focus, engaging in a crap shoot as to the quality of any given print's soundtrack, and fading color on 35-plus-year-old prints. Don't get me wrong -- I enjoy the film experience, but I have to agree with Rob Young, particularly when the visual and sound quality are clearly (and consistently) superior to the overwhelming majority of Super 8 prints I have seen and own. Let's face it, there are not many technologies that have had the long run that film has had (100-plus years), but let's embrace the new and the advantages it brings. I also work with production technologies in my work life, and video shot at 24 fps has an outstanding film "look," and is breathtaking even when pushed to the limits of a massive pano screen. (Plus, video in my home cinema affords me the luxury of watching sporting events in a theatre environment. Life is good!!)
Posted by Dominique De Bast (Member # 3798) on June 22, 2014, 01:50 AM:
Yesterday night, I watched silent black and white 30 and 60 feet 9,5 cartridges (with the notched system). The picture was not really bright. Needless to say, as these films come right from the twenties and the thirties they were more that one or two lines. Home movies had no notch so I had to change the cartridge after about one minute. And each time, I had to rewind the films with an hand cranck. Why did I do that instead of watching a dvd ou a blu ray ? Because I enjoyed it much more than watching digital. Everybody has his own opinion on the subject. That's just mine.
Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on June 22, 2014, 02:39 AM:
Snow white has been out on Blu-ray in NZ for quite a while. I did buy a BR copy at the time and without doubt it is good, but felt my Derann Super 8 print which I screened shortly after watching the Blu-ray was better.
Sometimes Super8 just shines with better color saturation etc and in this case I felt Snow White on Super8 did just that.
Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on June 22, 2014, 11:45 AM:
I have not seen the Derann S8 print of Snow White Graham, but I can certainly believe what you say. The Disney prints on super 8 have a unique and beautiful look which sometimes not even Blu Ray can achieve. Case in point is Mickey's Christmas Carol, where the blu ray looks like crap compared with the illuminous Derann print.
Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on June 22, 2014, 12:14 PM:
I think the early Disney features don't really gain anything by transferring to Hd or Blu Ray. Obviously Snow White is the first and the oldest animated Disney feature and since the Derann prints came from the actual Disney negatives, then you would expect everything to be spot on as as per original in every way (including the very basic mono soundtrack I hasten to add). These early animations have been remastered by the time they make it onto full HD and of course with it, some of the natural charm and originality of the film is of course lost.
I have Mary Poppins on Blu Ray and the opening scenes are full of sparkle etc as J.A. flies through the sky. It really does nothing to place this age of film onto this type of media apart from to present it as sharp as is possible using modern digital techniques and equipment.
By the time you get to "Lady & The Tramp" era of the Disney animations, the improvement is drastic and the quality, sharpness of image and colour rendition is just beautiful on Blu Ray.
Move on again in time to say "the Lion King" era and the whole presentation including soundtrack separation etc etc is just stunning!
In my humble opinion, extremely difficult to imagine things could even get MUCH better, the image quality is simply THAT good.
Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on June 23, 2014, 12:19 PM:
Actually, I think that the clean-ups and restorations have actually done a dis-service to these classics.
There are points in the film where there is a still shot, for instance, Snow White peering through dense underbrush, through windows, ect, where the artists chose to hang onto one animation cel ...
Now, on good ole fashioned celluloid, though they hold on one cel for lets say 48 seconds or so, you still have the film grain, which gives the impression that "movement" is still going on.
However, on DVD and Blu-ray, those little portions become obvious, as it literally looks like the DVD or Blu-ray freezes up, which it doesn't, but this is one of the dis-advantages of these restorations and getting rid of the "film element".
Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on June 23, 2014, 12:28 PM:
Which pretty much cements what I was saying about the earlier Disney features, but what about the later films Osi? They look stunning as so many on here with the decent digital projection equipment confirm.
BTW grain and sparkle are very much present on the Blu Ray editions of the earlier features as spoken about regarding Mary Poppins. I personally think though that this does the format a dis-service as of course on 1080p you expect the whole visual performance to be flawless which of course it is on any of the features from Lady & The Tramp onwards. The earlier ones are just as good (almost) in M.H.O. on DVD or of course.. film and perhaps don't really gain anything from the 1080p presentation.
Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on June 24, 2014, 12:40 PM:
I've only noticed that on "Snow White" and the restored DVD release of Bambi (which, by the way, does look stunning).
It's in the shot where Bambi asks his mother why they had to flee the meadow, and she says
"Man, is in the forest"
You see the "freeze framing" of cels all too evident.
Posted by Pete Richards (Member # 2203) on June 28, 2014, 02:40 AM:
While the BD looks very clean, and obviously has had a lot of time, money and care lavished on it, the end result is a crisp, clean 'Saturday morning cartoon' that looks nothing like the original film.
The artists used to pick colour palletes knowing how the colours would mute and change when ending up on the final film stock.
The Disney restorations have often gone back to original atwork colours which by comparison are oversaturated. The grain removal technique has made the backgrounds static and dead, and in many cases the colours changed completely.
This is an example from my IB TECH 35mm of the original Alice in Wonderland release vs the Bluray.
Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on June 28, 2014, 12:29 PM:
Wow, that is a BIG difference!
... and you can't be much more accurate than I.B. Tech
(though it must be also stated to the contrary, that perhaps even the best film stock will only be as good of color as the original master material. If the original master material is off, the I.B. Tech will be off, though I'm betting that your I.B. tech is the more accurate. I've never seen a purple sky, after all ...... well, maybe during a sunset.)
Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on June 28, 2014, 02:32 PM:
Agreed. The Blu Ray looks like crap in comparison to the IB Tech print. But the BR quality is totally dependent on Peter's video equipment, and how well it is calibrated. What was the BR photo taken from, a flat panel display, or from digital projection?
Posted by Pete Richards (Member # 2203) on July 14, 2014, 11:24 PM:
The image of the IB Tech is taken from my Imagica 4K scanner, I run Davinci Resolve 10 to a calibrated FSI studio monitor.
The whole chain is calibrated monthly.
The Bluray image is ripped digitally from the Bluray disc, so no cameras or calibration involved, that is the digital 'original'.
Posted by Paul Barker (Member # 4318) on July 15, 2014, 02:48 AM:
here are my views. whatever the title is, digital projection is far far superior than 8mm,16mm.and 35mm. the quality of hd digital projection in most cases is amazing. i use a epson eh-tw3200. i also have 16mm elf projectors. i enjoy both. but for picture qualty and sound, real film these days im afraid, doesnt even come close.so lets not kid ourselves on that one. you use what you enjoy. simple as.
Posted by Vidar Olavesen (Member # 3354) on July 15, 2014, 04:10 AM:
Couldn't disagree more. 35mm is far superior to the digital video. I guess you are one of those who doesn't care if the picture is stuttering. I really despise the digital cinema with a passion. Film is full of life, HD video is just cold and soulless
But, you are as me, entitled to your opinion
Final question to you ... Do you accept streaming as acceptable too?
Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on July 15, 2014, 05:25 AM:
35mm done well "and I stress that point" can give stunning results, better than any ok digital image that I have watched at the cinema so far.
Even my Derann Silly Symphony cartoons on Super8 look incredibly sharp with rich vibrant color...no digital image can get even close to the quality of those prints.
Posted by Dominique De Bast (Member # 3798) on July 15, 2014, 07:02 AM:
I cannot comment about digital home projections but in theathers, the quality is lower than 35mm and in some cases than 16 or even super 8. Even with new digital projectors (in new places), the quality is lower. I am personnally not looking for perfection but, as I several times said, for pleasure. So I will always prefer a real projection rather than a digital one, even if there are lines and so on. I wouldn't mind if digital gave a better picture on a big screen, I would still prefer film. But so far, digital doesn't beat film in theathers (and I saw projections in different countries, not only in Belgium).
Posted by Paul Barker (Member # 4318) on July 15, 2014, 09:37 AM:
i can only comment on my personal experiences. several times i went to my local cinema where 35mm was pretty poor. soft focus, poor colour, poor light output. i saw several films this way and not at the same cinema i might add. when i purchased the same films on blu ray and viewed them at home on my projector the difference was huge.i never have any picture stutter either. i am not knocking anyone for the format they use. as i said, you use what you like best. i have 16mm. not for the quality. but i like sometimes to go back in time and bring back happy memories.after all thats all we had back then. i have been involved with 8mm and 16mm for over 40 years. was a regular visitor to deranns open days and their film nights. seen umpteen of deranns disney releases etc, but not seen anything to match same releases on blu ray.
Posted by Vidar Olavesen (Member # 3354) on July 15, 2014, 09:44 AM:
I am so sure, if I ever saw a film on your digital projector, I will see it stutter. Watch closely on the panning shots on for example lamp posts or straight walls and so on, if you don't see the stutter, good for you, but I have yet to not see it on digital. It's not at all as bad on film, though fast panning shots do get a bit too. I found a new passion when I started with film again and I actually feel sick when watching new films and digital video. Film is estetically (spelling?) much nicer than the coldness of digital. Streaming is soon the only way to see video and I will happily rewatch my films instead when that day comes. I tolerate video too, but love film
Posted by Paul Barker (Member # 4318) on July 15, 2014, 10:19 AM:
hi vidar. depends on your projector. more than happy with digital.superb picture quality. but i also like film, for diferent reasons though. each to his own i suppose.
Posted by Vidar Olavesen (Member # 3354) on July 15, 2014, 10:26 AM:
I don't have an expensive projector myself, I bought a BenQ W1300 ... But I expect the Odeon cinemas doesn't use that cheap projectors and they all suffer from this "stutter". I agree that the digital picture is clean, but it's so sterile and agree with some collectors that call the picture plastic looking. Lifeless. So, yes, we can agree to have different opinions here :-)
Posted by David Ollerearnshaw (Member # 3296) on July 15, 2014, 10:28 AM:
Although its about Dumbo it could be of interest especially the bit about Steamboat Willie Dumbo link
Posted by Luis Caramelo (Member # 2430) on July 15, 2014, 11:11 AM:
hi!friends this inssue still sppling alot of diferente opinions.i,m also a film lover but i must admit,if digital didn.t exists we were not able to see some many of films we love,all the features i got in color i have the same title in dvd,just to watch the diferences,about snow white i like more the picture of mine super 8 feature instead dvd,i think dvd it,s more close to film than bluray(this my opinion).
like dvd/super 8,they good and bad prints
i got classics in dvd collection they look stunning in my 10ft screen,and i must say some digests in super 8 i got from the same titles they don,t look so good
i know we could be seating here all day .at the end the conclusion should be the same,
to finish,between a good print of super 8 and the same title in dvd,i preferer film,because that,s history of cinema more than a century ,film it,s the way it was concebid and show to the audiences.
the natural look even not to sharper.and the color saturation,etc
but like i said digital allows to restore what it,s missing already---
Posted by Paul Barker (Member # 4318) on July 15, 2014, 12:03 PM:
hi vidar. have to disagree. they do not all have stutter as you call it. definately non noticable on mine.and as to picture quality well, glorious sharp colourful images the likes i never thought i would ever be able to project in my owm home. but thats progress. by the way LG electronics have announced that by 2017 they will be selling a 60 inch 4K HD folding tv screen that will roll up and fit in a 3cm tube. the mind bogles at what is ahead for the home cinema user. i just hope im around to see it all.
Posted by Vidar Olavesen (Member # 3354) on July 15, 2014, 12:09 PM:
Good for you that you don't see it. I've heard this before, they say it's perfect, yet I see it. But, again, we are entitled to our opinions and I stick with mine :-) I'll bet you stick with yours too
I can't show a video of it, as youtube and captured video is even worse. My brain picks up on the movement (stutter) which is also visible in for example GTA games, Need for Speed which are both games I can not play due to the stutter, but Burn Out is not suffering from it. DVD's and Blu-Rays, as well as cinema, all suffer from this (I can't help what my brain recognizes that yours don't)
Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on July 15, 2014, 02:11 PM:
Its obvious what you have just said that your 35mm cinema experience was crap due to "many reasons" but its not because of the film format itself. Do you no the make of 35mm projector and equipment they were using? Digital projection is fine but its not without its problems as well.
About three years ago we ran a 35mm print on our large screen of the David Lean "Dr Zhivago" and the "look" of this film on the screen just looked great.
Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on July 15, 2014, 02:52 PM:
I have many super 8 prints which IMO look far better than the digital equivalents. I also have a lot of DVD's and Blu rays which IMO are way better than anything achievable on super 8 and probably 16mm too.
There is no way I could now live without digital projection. It has enabled me to see just about any movie ever made, in stunning detail on my home screen, and has made home cinema better than the professional multiplex.
Both formats are great as far as I am concerned, but I can certainly believe that Snow White on super 8 is a much better viewing experience than the digital versions.
Posted by Paul Barker (Member # 4318) on July 15, 2014, 04:29 PM:
vidar. maybe like some people with DLP projection. they see the so called rainbow effect while others do not. i understand what you are saying. and it must be annoying to you. if you really get so much from real film then stick with it. the main thing is to enjoy. whatever format you use.
Posted by Vidar Olavesen (Member # 3354) on July 15, 2014, 04:36 PM:
That is something I can agree on :-) Weirdly enough, I do not see the rainbow effect, but the motion problem only. I assume that is because I am losing my eyesight, so it doesn't pick up those things anymore. If you have films you want to get rid of, I can trade you for a Blu-Ray or DVD ;-)
Posted by Maurizio Di Cintio (Member # 144) on July 22, 2014, 03:40 AM:
Unfortunately I pick up both the stutter and the rainbow effetcs. Never seen them with a 4K projection though...
Posted by Pete Richards (Member # 2203) on July 25, 2014, 05:45 AM:
The stutter is caused with projectors that do not have a true 23.976 or 24fps frame rate. It occurs on many projectors as they are locked at 60Hz, and 24 just doesn't go into 60 cleanly, resulting in what people refer to as 'stutter' or 'judder.
Also, PCs being used for playback often will not output the correct framerate, resuting in a similar problem.
There are some test files here:
With a true 24fps projector, and a good bluray player, you will not see any judder. With a 60Hz projector, the judder drives me crazy!
Posted by Vidar Olavesen (Member # 3354) on July 25, 2014, 05:58 AM:
I agree on that type of problem, but it's also in "perfect" 24 fps too. I can only say, if you don't see it when the camera is panning, you probably think it's great with digital, but my eyes pick up the movement problem. There's a little bit on film too, if the camera pans quickly, but it's just about ever present on digital. Watch for clean edges when the camera moves, totally awful. But apparantly not everyone see this.
Posted by Pete Richards (Member # 2203) on July 25, 2014, 06:54 AM:
Sorry Vidar, but unless the disc was encoded incorrectly, there is no difference between a film projector and a true 24fps digital projector as far as judder goes. I'd suggest that you have only experienced the (far more common) 60Hz projectors that do not have 24 panels.
Single chip DLP will give problems (due to the colour wheel causing temporal issues), but it just isn't possible on a proper digital projector with a panel that operates at an exact multiple of 24. There is nothing to see as you get exactly one frame per displayed image, the film and digital presentations are identical as far as movement goes, you get 24 separate images every second (usually doubled to 48 in both cases), there is no difference.
There are discs such as Casino Royal that have encoding errors that cause judder, but that is a mastering fault, nothing to do with the projector.
If you see it on film as well, all you are experiencing is pans that are too fast, 24fps doesn't allow for fast movement on either film or digital. We have come to like the limitations of 24fps (i.e. lots of motion blur) but it does mean that as a cinematographer, you are really limited to slow speeds when moving the camera. Break the rule, and you break the image.
Posted by Vidar Olavesen (Member # 3354) on July 25, 2014, 08:12 AM:
You give the chips too much credit. These are computers and CPU speed is a big factor. They're not showing it properly on my Sony, BenQ, The Odeon 4K in London or anywhere I've been. I can only go from what my eyes pick up, good for you it yours don't
When I saw Ender's Game in The Odeon, it was just awful, my friend didn't pick up on it, but I clearly saw frames missing in big close ups of faces turning.
I'll leave it at that, I will never get the feel of digital and will be watching reels instead
Each to his own
Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on July 25, 2014, 12:51 PM:
If you are sensitive to 'rainbows' then you need to stay well away from single chip DLP projectors which are notorious for generating rainbows that can be detected by a sizeable percentage of the population.. LCD projectors, and 3-chip DLP projectors, never ever generate rainbows.
Many projectors now include advanced features such as frame creation, that can eliminate frame judder in fast motion scenes, but I have never found it necessary to activate any of them on my Panasonic AE4000U, which produces a gorgeous image, about as film-like that digital is capable of.
And lets be totally honest here. This week I went to see a 35mm showing of the Clint Eastwood film Play Misty For Me. I enjoyed the show, and the fact that it was a 35mm presentation made it extra special. But I have to be brutally honest and say IMO my home digital projection of the DVD is far better quality in both picture and sound for this particular film print. And I love film.
Posted by Vidar Olavesen (Member # 3354) on July 25, 2014, 02:07 PM:
Again, each to his own. I love film, tolerate video.
Of course, my digital projector didn't cost 10000 GBP+, so maybe my BenQ W1300 is crap, but then the projectors in the cinemas are the same. I tolerate (barely) the digital videos lifeless picture, but love film
Posted by Dominique De Bast (Member # 3798) on July 25, 2014, 03:02 PM:
Indeed, each persone may react differently. Some people (about a third of the audience) were not able to see 3D effects with the red and blue galsses. Some people report they have a headache with the new 3D system. Some people are very sensitive to cell phones waves, and so on. I can feel the waves of a micro-waves, I think this must be rare.
Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on July 25, 2014, 07:29 PM:
Never heard of that one Dominique!
Posted by Pete Richards (Member # 2203) on July 25, 2014, 08:53 PM:
Your Benq doesn't have a 24Hz panel, so you will see awful judder on it.
A well setup projector and delivery mechanism will *not* have any more judder than film does, it is easy to test for, and the installations I look after simply do not have it. We monitor for dropouts and they don't occur in well maintained systems. It is pretty easy for current equipment to lock in at 24fps, but some systems are not setup correctly, or do not actually run at a multiple of 24fps and you will see judder.
I can detect a missing frame by eye at up to around 55fps, after that I have to use the sensing equipment that works up to 300fps, I'm pretty sure no-one here has eye circuitry that is more accurate
We handle acquisition systems that run at thousands of frames per second and display systems that run at 144fps without any issues, so 24fps isn't difficult, just some people don't do their homework, and you get poor output
Posted by Brian Fretwell (Member # 4302) on August 04, 2014, 06:29 AM:
I think that screen brightness may also affect the visibility of stutter. If low the eye holds the last image longer at a similar brightness and smooths out the effect as with flicker. Also used for some 3D systems, constant camera movement and a dark filter over one eye.
Posted by David Ollerearnshaw (Member # 3296) on August 04, 2014, 02:02 PM:
I sometimes also see judder. Also though youtube is not blu-ray I notice some weird effects.
One peculiar effect I have seen on Kelly's Heroes is in the scene where they are on the banking and Kelly is in his jeep watch the the background. It has a stroboscopic effect on the action in the background.
This is on all my versions including my 16mm scope.
At least you can use dvd/blu-ray to get the titles that were never on 8mm, or even 16mm.
Posted by Vidar Olavesen (Member # 3354) on August 04, 2014, 02:16 PM:
Mr. Richards, my BenQ does have 24fps ... 3D projector and model that came out this spring
Posted by Terry Sills (Member # 3309) on August 05, 2014, 02:37 AM:
I am with Graham, Vidal and Dom on this subject. Digital just doesn't have the magic of film. Even if the film suffers lines, splices etc it still gets my vote. Digital doesn't cut it for me.
Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on August 06, 2014, 11:44 AM:
I understand and respect Paul's opinion and others on this topic, but as soon as I know that the image I'm watching is digital, no matter how technically perfect, I'm immediately "distanced" from the image and it becomes, for lack of a better term, "cold" to me.
Now, if I was to watch a film in the theater or home, and I had no idea that it was a digital projection, I might well not have a problem with it.
I've been privileged to be brought up on "cine", and therefore, prejudiced.
Visit www.film-tech.com for free equipment manual downloads. Copyright 2003-2019 Film-Tech Cinema Systems LLC