Hello guest, if you like this forum, why don't you register? https://fanrestore.com/member.php?action=register (December 14, 2021) x

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Darby O'Gill and the Little People
This is regarding Disney' recent Darby O'Gill release.

First, the Blu-ray has 96kbps 1-channel Dolby Digital audio.

Second, they cropped the image from the original aspect ratio. I don't know why, the DVD was 4x3 and advertised as OAR.
Finally, the color timing. So so awful. Screenshots are BD vs DVD.

[Image: 5h4U4k0.jpeg]
[Image: wPgm7bP.jpeg]
[Image: 0M3ZuCq.jpeg]
[Image: UJJmkf4.jpeg]
[Image: 52WatjU.jpeg]
[Image: DzbNfNy.jpeg]

I found there is an old Amazon rip from several years ago that seems to be frame for frame identically timed with the BD (I need to check though), but the web-dl is full frame with the original colors found on the DVD and higher bitrate audio.

I'm always hesitant to take on color adjusting projects since I have color blindness and could very likely make things worse, but am I wrong about this?

Is it really possible Disney took their old streaming master, cropped it, gave it to a kid with no experience to color-time it to like an Underworld film?

I really can't decide if fixing an overcropped release is worth it for the slightly better detail... unless we add the streaming video above and below...
Thanks given by:
Those colors definitely look off.

And 96 kbps audio on blu-ray? There should be criminal charges for that.
Thanks given by:
Anyone have a guide for extracting LUTs and applying them to a different source? I've never done it and wouldn't even know where to start, and barely what questions to ask.
Thanks given by:
(2022-04-12, 11:36 AM)Doctor M Wrote: Anyone have a guide for extracting LUTs and applying them to a different source?  I've never done it and wouldn't even know where to start, and barely what questions to ask.

Dr Dre's program is the best place to start.
Thanks given by:
Will check it out and see what I can make work.

Edit: Not bad, not great either. There is definitely differences from scene to scene so there would be a lot of work. I'll have to take a look later to see if they did a single crop for the whole film or if that moves around.
What this does do is pronounce the crushed black levels with some ugly banding.

What is insane here is at first I thought the web stream version was the same master as the BD, just cropped and color adjusted.
Seeing where and what the dark area banding looks like, I'm starting to realize the BD may be using the DVD's master since the dark areas have similar artifacts once you adjust the colors.

I THINK, the reason they did the ugly color timing and overly dark shadows is to hide artifacts in their master!
BD/DVD/Test Match
[Image: 5h4U4k0.jpeg]
[Image: wPgm7bP.jpeg]
[Image: scoOdM8.jpeg]

[Image: 0M3ZuCq.jpeg]
[Image: UJJmkf4.jpeg]
[Image: SRn0l1i.jpeg]

[Image: 52WatjU.jpeg]
[Image: DzbNfNy.jpeg]
[Image: nFJotre.jpeg]
Thanks given by: Johnny-5
Darby O'Gill was actually intended for 1.75:1, so 1.66 is kinda close but not entirely the theatrical AR. Most versions present it in the 1.37 ratio with more top and bottom (and a couple gaffes like wobbly black borders over some shots that involve composites or rear view projection, indicating those were done in a ratio wider than 1.37).

The BD is a new 4k master, hence the totally different color timing compared to the old HD master used on DVDs.
Thanks given by:
Agreed. I saw a print of it some years ago at the New Beverly, and it was presented in wide screen.
Thanks given by:
Darby O'Gill was NOT intended for 1.75:1, only recommended to be projected in 1.75:1.
According to DVDizzy (and the back of the DVD case):
Quote:For once, Disney has made a point of giving out clear aspect ratio information. So as not to dissuade fans who cried foul at the sound of "fullscreen," Disney has included a one-sided color insert with a note stating "DARBY O'GILL AND THE LITTLE PEOPLE is presented as it was originally shot, in a 1.33:1 aspect ratio. When released to theaters in 1959, the studio recommended projecting the image at 1.75:1, to satisfy the public's growing appetite for widescreen movies. To give the illusion of this wider image, theaters often needed to crop films at that time, and some of the picture was not seen. The following presentation has not been cropped, and none of the original image has been lost."

The back of the package also specifies "Presented as Originally Filmed in 1959 - Fullscreen (1.33:1)." From this clarification and the rest of this month's releases, it certainly appears that the studio is making a wholehearted effort to release their catalogue titles to DVD in their original aspect ratio.

Edit: Btw, just because it's a 'new' master, doesn't mean it's good.
[Image: LWKaJpI.png]
[Image: dKyWFZ6.png]
On the other hand (Darby.O'Gill.and.the.Little.People.1959.1080p.WEB-DL.DD+2.0.H.264-SbR.mkv):
[Image: sWcFCfH.png]

And it looks like the BD's audio track has dynamic range compression and loss of higher frequencies (by 1-2 kHz) than the DVD. Maybe noise filtering?
Honestly, it's probably the same transfer of the audio.

Edit 2:
And.... if this really was a new master.  Should I have been able to resize the DVD image and just drop it on top of the BD?

[Image: SYjKQY8.png]
DVD resized:
[Image: 5szL7lV.jpeg]
50/50 overlay DVD/BD:
[Image: m4pVKeZ.jpeg]
The Web-dl also matches the DVD resize but with even more image at the top and bottom:
[Image: r8r2SyD.jpeg]

I'm standing by my assumption that Disney used the same scan with a little cleaning, cropping and color change. There is a white speck flaw in the DVD and Web version that isn't on the BD. The Web-dl does look like an upscale with better compression than the DVD.

EDIT 3: Added Web-dl audio and snap.
Thanks given by:
By 1959, there was no "growing appetite" for widescreen. The US film industry had completely transitioned to widescreen by the end of 1953. If we equate This Is Cinerama to The Jazz Singer as turning points, that would be like saying It Happened One Night was made with sound to satisfy the growing demand for talkies. Darby O'Gill is merely open-matte, not some transitional film that got cropped like Shane. The excessive headroom is a dead giveaway.
Thanks given by:
That's what Disney said about the aspect ratio and how theaters presented it, not me.
Although DVDizzy disagrees with you Nick_M. They followed by saying:
Quote:If you were to provide your own makeshift 1.75:1 transfer using mattes, you'd end up with some odd compositions, as there's never an excess of space at the top and bottom of the frame and elements often occupy either extreme.

In my opinion, when the original DVD came out people that were purists and experienced at building home video releases worked on these things. Most of them have since been fired and the work is now mostly done cheap and fast by inexperienced people.
Thanks given by:

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)