reyquila wrote:AwallaceUNC wrote:
No matter how many times you post this, I crack up.
-Aaron
I'm more than happy to be of your amusement!!! BUT, it is the truth!!! There a lot of
connoisseurs here that own only two or three movies and they bark like super gods!!
Wonder who the super god is, because they're my new best friend! If it makes reyquila feel the need to spout out his tired "have it or you don't count!" mantra to justify why he needs 5 copies of every fricking animated classic, it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. Honestly, why bother owning them just to say you own them? Especially when the only contributions made are two sentences: "It's Disney, i'm buying!" or "I have all of them, therefore I am a true fan!". Where's the actual discussion of the movie, not the product? Where's the opinion on whether a movie is actually good or bad, and why someone would feel inclined to buy it? Buying it for the brand name is ridiculous, otherwise I'd have everything that has the words 20th Century Fox, Columbia, MGM, Disney, WB, Paramount, Universal, etc. Maybe if reyquila starts contributing to discussions other than who owns what and what's a true fan, then I can take him seriously.
Pluto Region1 wrote:I know from watching some of the other bonus materials documentaries (most notably Snow White) the studio had a lab that mixed custom colors. Therefore, it would be surprising if they did not have a numerical system or something for reproducing the colors for a later time, if needed? I'll have to check out the documentary when I get a chance. (I would imagine this topic has been covered more in depth in a book or two?)
I haven't watched the Snow White restoration documentary in awhile, so I can't comment on the mixed custom colors, but I know that if it's the same restoration team working on film after film, they've pretty much got an idea of what colors were pertinent to what time. Though, of course, they must've mixed up their colors for the Cindy DVD, as it's far too bright for me.
Stepping out of Disney studios and examing WB's Ultra-Resolution restoration process, you can see how far they've come in their restorations of early Technicolor films. Compare the U-R restoration of Singin' in the Rain to that of Gone with the Wind. SITR understandably has a very "pastel" look to it, though it's more likely due to the fact that the original camera negative was accidentally destroyed in a fire, and they had to rely in prints and dye-transfers. But when you compare it to Gone with the Wind, which had been restored a couple years later, you can see how different restorations can be. GWTW's video is AMAZING, spectacularly detailed, and looks like it was shot yesterday.
Now, going back to Disney restorations, which are either done in-house or by Lowry/DTS. It seems that only their *big* titles get the Lowry treatment, though sometimes I think they get a little overboard in their colors (just look at the too-perfect-to-be-accurate-to-its-original-1950-colors Cinderella video). I've always loved what Lowry did with Bambi, because even if the film puts me to sleep at times, I'm still amazed by the job they did with such a complicated animated film.
Looking at my Robin Hood GC DVD, the video quality is reminiscent of a Saturday morning cartoon, and I'm sure the digitally remastered version for the MW edition is done in-house by Disney, so I'm not expecting Snow White quality. But the picture itself (Robin Hood), is actually pretty good. I mean, the animation was much simpler than Bambi, or even Lady and the Tramp, so it's really a lot less to work with. The different shades of, say the trees in the forest, aren't too elaborate for a 6-month restoration effort, but at the same time, I'm confident that Disney will have some way of improving the video quality.
Escapay