This was one of the most beautiful 35mm flat prints I've ever seen. The screen was 26 feet wide and I had to get within 25 feet of it to see any grain at all. It makes me wonder if this movie originated on film at all. It looks as if it were done totally by computer, then printed directly. Was this the case? The focus was perfect and the image quality was astounding.

The story was good. Having never seen the original Peter Pan, I worried that I might not enjoy this movie as much. That wasn't the case. I found the movie very enjoyable, although I admit I kept looking at edges of faces and such to see if I could see any pixels, since the image was so crisp and clear. It's bad when the image quality is so good that it becomes mildly distracting. I actually moved 6 rows frontward about 20 minutes into the movie so I could try to spot "scan lines" and pixels. Bad, huh? I did notice some banding due to color quantization during fadeouts.

I highly recommend this movie, even if you haven't seen the original. One night this week, I'll get out my DVD of "Peter Pan" and watch it. I wonder if doing so will change my opinion of "Return to Neverland". Anyway, if you see this movie, go to a theatre that typically has mediocre focus and some dirt and scratches on their prints after a few days of running. That way, the amazing visual quality of this movie will not be a distraction.

------------------
Evans A Criswell
Huntsville-Decatur Movie Theatre Information Site

Apologies to Edgar Allan Poe

Once upon a Monday evening, while I pondered hungry and needing,
Over a sequel to a curious old movie of Disney brand,
While I drove toward Decatur, being a movie theatre rater,
A force drew me onward, onward across the land.
'Tis a kid that didn't grow up," I muttered, drawing me on across the land;
On and on across the land.

Ah, distinctly I remember it was February, the third week,
and each hill's peak brought the darkness closer at hand.
Eagerly I awaited original recipe, of chicken at KFC.
But once I ate I was full, full of anticipation grand
For the colorful and animated style of film never bland
I believed I'd find in "Neverland".

I got to the theatre and no-one was there, except the manager standing there.
"You need some crowd control here," I said, jokingly, off-hand.
"I sure do," he replied, smiling, although internally he sighed.
Grinning when he replied, knowing me well from beforehand,
"What would you like to see tonight, for that seven dollars in your hand?"
To which I replied "Return to Neverland".

Deep into the auditorium I was peering, sitting there, fearing,
Wondering if any other mortals dared to come beforehand,
But the silence was unbroken, and for the lobby arcade I had no token,
And the only words there spoken mentioned the concession stand.
Then I whispered to myself, "MovieTunes should be banned!
Along wth Britney Spears and a certain boy band.

Then I heard a tapping, a tapping loud and grand!
Several families with lots of kids, with several flipping their lids.
Then more tapping, as the kids kicked the seats; I tell you condoms nothing beats,
When man and woman meets, to prevent chaos across the land,
And when attending a film like "Neverland".

The projector started and I looked on in awe,
the image beautiful and not one flaw. I sat thinking "This is grand!"
Seldom do I see such a lack of grain, with nothing causing visual pain,
And no defects on the screen to rain. It's a perfect review with no ampersand!
Tinkerbell appeared with Pixie dust, which allowed flight, which was a must,
if one were to leave 'Neverland".

Peter Pan and the Lost Boys never outgrew their childish joys.
Along with their ploys, their entire world was grand,
Except one dirty crook by the name of Captain Hook.
With Peter and Hook always in a fight, desire to escape one would understand,
So one would ask, "What is the secret to staying in flight above the land?"
Quote Tinkerbell, "Never land!"

And the thoughts of Peter Pan are still remaining, still remaining
In the corners of my mind, and although easy to withstand,
the joyful childish dreams that of with time I could write reams
with the lights behind my headboard and the one on my nightstand,
must now be put to rest although deserving no reprimand,
I say "Good night" to "Neverland!"

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 585-477-5325 Cell: 716-781-4036 Fax: 585-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

Since I was amazed by the quality of the print I saw back on the 18th at Regal River Oaks Cinema 8, I decided to see the movie again and sit much closer to the screen so I could see minute details very well. Fortunately, the focus was perfect for this showing, just like at the other theatre on the 18th. I looked for signs of use of digital techniques. In one of the opening scenes, I saw some aliasing as an area of small detail shrunk into the background. It's the only obvious "screen door" type of artifact I noticed during the entire movie. During the rest of the movie, I looked at the black lines in the characters' drawings and sometimes thought I could see slight evidence of scan lines, JPEG-style compression artifacts, or edge enhancement, although what I may have been seeing were variations in the hand-drawn lines from frame to frame, coupled with what I mention below.

Since the screen that the image is being projected on has a grid-style array of holes, this can create the same effect even if the images on the film were totally hand-drawn. If the viewer is too close to the screen, these holes give the illusion that the screeen is made of pixels and can create "screen door" type artifacts.

The verdict is I don't know if what I saw were due to digital artifacts in the processing of the film, or if they were only due to the grid-like array of holes in the screen.

I'd be very interested in knowing the image resolution used during the intermediate stages of "Return to Neverland".

As you can probably tell from my some of my previous postings over the past few years, I'm very interested in the digital vs. film issue, as well as unavoidable artifacts created when using a rectangular array of pixels.

------------------
Evans A Criswell
Huntsville-Decatur Movie Theatre Information Site

A 35 meter print playing on a 26 ft. screen? No wonder you didn't notice any grain. It must have looked awesome!

------------------
The man with the magic hands.
 

I just edited the post with the 35m in it (to 35mm) and just annihilated your joke. It's funny that I never saw that error and nobody else did either until now. Maybe that says something about your personality and the way you process things mentally. I guess it's good that people like you that notice little details like that are working in movie theatres. I wish more people like you worked in some of the theatres around here.

As far as reading text and finding errors in it, especially if I wrote it, I'm not very good, since my mind automatically smooths out the errors as I read, so I don't see them as well.

By the way, I finally watched the original "Peter Pan" last night, and I think I liked "Return to Neverland" better.

"It's half of one, six dozen of the other."

------------------
Evans A Criswell
Huntsville-Decatur Movie Theatre Information Site
 

Actually I'm often told my mental process is quite skewed. But thanks for the compliment anyway.

------------------
The man with the magic hands.