Why does Sleeping Beauty look better than Snow White and Pinnochio?

[sasquatch]

I own all 3 BD's, yet Sleeping Beauty is widescreen, and the animation looks great, crisp and clean. Yet the other 2 (Snow White, Pinocchio) are in 4:3 aspect, and retain the original film quality. Not to say the film quality is bad, it's not at all, yet it's not quite as "clean" as I would expect.

I was expecting both Snow White and Pinnochio to look like Sleeping Beauty, unless Sleeping Beauty was the more recent of the 3 and that's the whole difference?

[Batman1980]

Snow White and Pinocchio are both older films and I believe some artificial cleaning was used on Pinocchio but not sure so don't quote me on that. Snow White is actually the first feature length animated Disney film ever, I believe.

[42041]

Sleeping Beauty was photographed on a larger negative, either 70mm or several 35mm strips, I don't remember which. It was produced after the widescreen "revolution", while the other two predate it by decades.

[ArmyOfDarknessAW]

Snow White-1937
Pinocchio-1940
Sleeping Beauty-1959

There is quite a bit of time difference so it is most likely what Wolverine1980 said.

[Brad1963]

She has a better plastic surgeon.

[sasquatch]

Perfect, thanks! Shoulda done my research first.

[SellmeyourDVD]

Originally Posted by brad1963

she has a better plastic surgeon.

+1 lmao

[Hi-Def Steve]

Originally Posted by Brad1963

She has a better plastic surgeon.

Na, that's Belle

http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/2...2c2b1c3f0p.jpg

[slaizer2000]

Originally Posted by Brad1963

She has a better plastic surgeon.

Thought is was because she slept more so she aged better.

[Arkitect76]

Originally Posted by slaizer2000

Thought is was because she slept more so she aged better.

funny!!!

[aramis109]

Sleeping Beauty also had all the backgrounds redone to benefit further from HD.

[Codyblaze]

Just watched Pinocchio last night and I thought it looked amazing, but I haven't seen Sleeping Beauty yet, it just arrived today. If it looks better than Pinocchio I'll be surprised.

[Joe Cain]

Sleeping Beauty was shot on 70 (65) mm film---Super Technirama, if I remember correctly---with an exponential increase in image resolution over 35mm.

I wonder if some of the perception of increased quality might be due to the nature of the artwork, as well. Eyvind Earle's backgrounds are stunning, intricate pieces of work, full of detail and layers upon layers of treatment. If I remember correctly, Disney artists typically took 2 or three days to execute a single background painting, while Earle's team might spend a week to ten days on a single piece. The results were glorious (and gloriously expensive---the studio was very much in danger of running out of capital before finishing the picture); Snow White and Pinocchio each have some beautiful work, but nothing like Sleeping Beauty had been done before...or since. It may seem as if one is seeing more, or more clearly, because there is *so much* to see.

[F-Man]

I think all three movies look just as good as far as resolution goes, but Sleeping Beauty simply has backgrounds that are better drawn with more detailed. This has more to do with how much time and talent was spent on them back in the day then the quality of the Blu-rays.

[dougotte]

Originally Posted by aramis109

Sleeping Beauty also had all the backgrounds redone to benefit further from HD.

Negative! Error! Error!

http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articl...ris101308.html

Doug

[drtre81]

Came out 20 years later...

[HDMe]

Being more recent isn't the biggest factor, but it might be tangentially related in a way.

As others have already touched... Snow White & Pinnochio were much earlier... with Snow White being Disney's first feature-length animated film. Both are 4:3 natively, and it is good that was preserved.

Sleeping Beauty was much more recent by comparison... but that alone isn't the big reason. The big reason is by that time there was a market for such things, and Disney put more money into Sleeping Beauty than anyone had put into an animated film before that time I believe.

The 70mm film, the beautiful and painstakingly painted background were only possible because they put the money into this film like no other before.

[nametag]

I think Sleeping Beauty generally looks better because the animation is better (or, if you like, more intricate, detailed, beautiful, etc). All 3 films look as good as they probably ever will and retain the original intentions, vision, and animation. SB is just a better animation (for many reasons, including it being made later etc) so it looks better. SB is my favourite Disney film in terms of the animation I think... definitely before the 90s anyway...

[garyrc]

Originally Posted by 42041

Sleeping Beauty was photographed on a larger negative, either 70mm or several 35mm strips, I don't remember which. It was produced after the widescreen "revolution", while the other two predate it by decades.

It was photographed on 35 mm film running on its side, which resulted in a much larger negative area than normal 35 mm running vertically. During the first several months of its release, it was shown in the form of 70 mm prints only (Super Technirama 70), and the picture quality was the best of the best -- incredible color and sharpness, and a 3D feel in certain scenes (e.g., Aroura and the Blue Bird moving through the forest). The 70 mm release had 6 channel stereophonic sound, with the sound of wind roaring through the sides and rear of the theater when Maleficient appeared, and thunderclaps receding into the distance with a good illusion of depth. During the fight with the dragon (the Dance Vertigo section of Tchaikovsky's Sleeping Beauty Ballet), the sound was incredibly loud and powerful. There were a lot of wide eyes in the theater. Disney promoted the film by showing "The Peter Tchaikovsky Story" on TV, in three channel stereo (FM, AM, TV) about 5 months before the advent of stereo Lp records. During the intro, Walt held up a card with a piece of 70 mm print film next to a 35 mm strip, to make sure the audience was aware of the difference. Other advertizements read, "See it in the one theater near you equipped to show it as Walt Disney visualized its perfect presentation -- it's worth going miles to see."

[garyrc]

Originally Posted by aramis109

Sleeping Beauty also had all the backgrounds redone to benefit further from HD.

Not really "redone," as in redrawn -- the film was restored, and the full image on the Technirama negative was used for the first time. Both the 35 mm and 70 mm prints issued in 1959 had higher resolution than the HD we know as Blu-ray.