CINDERELLA DVD - digital restoration gone too far?

[goofystitch]

Thank you so much for that, drsd2kill. You would think that once a film has been "fully restored to it's original brilliance," that it wouldn't need to be restored again. Especially when it's done digitally. I'm assuming that in 1992, this version was at least backed up onto a computer. Interesting that they wouldn't just use that. My VHS looked great, except for the fact that it was on VHS. lol.

[Poppins#1]

You would think that once a film has been "fully restored to it's original brilliance," that it wouldn't need to be restored again. Especially when it's done digitally.

The difference, of course is the advances in restoration technolorgy from 1992/1995 to 2005. The earlier restoration is indeed state-of-the-art for its time. But the new DVD is vastly superior. The proof is in the pudding.

[goofystitch]

I never even thought of that. Thanks, Poppins#1. I just feel that once you've restored something as far as it can be restored, you should stop. It seems like the last restoration was great and for the new one, they adjusted everything and made it look like it was made yesterday.

[drsd2kill]

"The proof is in the pudding"? The DVD isn't a restoration at all since the film NEVER looked like that in any form. They basically remade it in a computer. They worked from the restored film elements to make this new DVD, indeed using state-of-the-art technology to essentially remake the film digitally. I wonder why CINDERELLA was chosen for such a drastic overhaul. LADY AND THE TRAMP didn't look anywhere near as altered, and I didn't take a good enough look at BAMBI to see it is was changed as much.

[Lars Vermundsberget]

Agreed - although today's technology must be superior to what there was 10+ years ago, the Cinderella DVD still doesn't have to be "right" even if it looks good.

As for the Bambi DVD - people who seem to know tell that it's faithful to the original art.

[rodis]

As for the Bambi DVD - people who seem to know tell that it's faithful to the original art.

Yep, "Bambi" still basically looks like its old self. I've always thought that it was the least restored of the platinum editions. All of the platinums have gone through extensive visual changes, whilst "Bambi" remained itself. Weird. I, for one, like the job they did on "Cinderella". And I don't know why you guys hate alterations. If there's anything that needs to be redone or corrected and modern day technology affords it, why not go along with it?

[drsd2kill]

There is a difference between correcting something that needs to be fixed and altering something into being wholly other. Removing the wires that make Mary Poppins fly or fixing the animated blooper in BAMBI I think is fine because they were legitimate mistakes or were never intended to be seen. But changing animation, color, density - that strikes me as just plain wrong. Look at what Lucas has done to the STAR WARS films. Each new release has been altered again and again of the first three films, and he wants to ignore that the originals existed. He has "corrected" them into being something wholly other than what the public fell in love with in '77, '80', and '83.

When comparing the restored '95 Laserdisc transfer to the 2005 "restored" DVD, one will notice how the lines in the animation are thinner and more "wobbly", and how the animation doesn't have the gorgeous fluid Disney style it once had. Mood in lighting is obliterated by making everything bright and lit as if it were shot with flat lighting like "The Brady Bunch". Colors are inconsistent shot to shot, with some glaringly obvious mistakes. I'm sorry, but how some people justify the whites of the stepmother's eyes going bright blue in some shorts - then going back to white - is beyond me. I even read somewhere that further "corrections" were made before the film was screened digitally in LA upon the DVD release - apparently to fix flaws we have to settle with on the DVD.

I just worry about which version we'll be seeing in high quality in the future.

[Lars Vermundsberget]

Yep, "Bambi" still basically looks like its old self. I've always thought that it was the least restored of the platinum editions.

...which rather means that "Bambi" is the one that has, indeed, been "restored", I'd say...

All of the platinums have gone through extensive visual changes, whilst "Bambi" remained itself. Weird. I, for one, like the job they did on "Cinderella". And I don't know why you guys hate alterations. If there's anything that needs to be redone or corrected and modern day technology affords it, why not go along with it?

I'm sure "Cinderella" could have had different colours in 1950 as well.

There's an endless number of little alterations that could have been done and "Cinderella" would still "look good".

It's entirely possible to agree that the DVD version of "Cinderella" looks "good", while still maintaining that it doesn't look "right". See the difference?

[kurtadisneyite]

Just a few notes without reading entire archive:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technicolor

goes into much more detail into Tech process.
I don't know if they used Nitrate for Cindy's original negatives. If so, those are probably gone as Nitrate is unstable.
It was reported in one publication years ago that one of Cindy's negs had gone bad and a backup neg was used for restoration.

Here's two of several paths a film goes through on way to final media:

1. Telecine and some color correction (maybe)
2. Tape Master Storage
3. Analog correction from one tape to final master
4. Digital conversion of master to DVD media (mpeg2 format)
or.............
1. Specialized film scanner (Laser, etc.) direct to digital storage
2. Digital processing and correction
3. Digital conversion to DVD media (mpeg2 format).

First process is most variable. If Telecine's not properly set up, exposure errors abound. One DVD movie source I worked with from a Telecine changed color and exposure from left to right and had severe time smear.
This method also produces sources with fields, adding complexity to correction.

Second process which is more recent yields much better results and control over color and maintains quality, but can be screwed up if bit conversion is too low (16 bit/pixel is best but some outfits still use 8 bit for most work). If capture is done progressively (field conversion is left for authoring) then there are no fields to hassle fix/correction pipelines.

The restorers of C-I commented their intention was to present Cinderella as it was originally intended to look; free of production mistakes such as paint goofs, out of sequence cels, excessive cel shimmy/registration errors. I've not seen anything in the Plat DVD or El-Capitan presented versions that smacks of re-timing, re-editing or other things that would truly change the intent and story of C-I.

[Beastboyravenz]

kurtadisneyite you have become a great asset to this forum. I greatly appreciate all your inputs and insight. After your expalnations of what goes into restoring these films, I have learned to appreciate all the hard work that is invested in these dvd's more. I still don't like the color issues, but it's getting tiring of complaining about the same thing over and over. I always knew restoraing a film was arduous work, but it's more than that. Unfortunately Disney's and the restorers intentions didn't please many for the release of Cinderella, but they still must be commended for their hard work.

Can you put to rest the speculation of Cinderella being restored the way it was so it would appeal to children more? Or is this true?

Again Thanks!

[SpringHeelJack]

To just throw this in...

I wasn't on here when Cinderella came out on DVD, though I heard from so many people that the DVD was terrible, that Cinderella's dress was blue to match the toys, that her hair was blond, etc...

I got the DVD for Christmas, and I didn't think it was all that terrible (well, the way the movie looked, content-wise I think it's second only to the Lion King). Her dress and hair seemed to closely enough match my VHS (which is from the original release, so you can imagine how much the quality has suffered), and maybe it's just that I was setting myself up for such a lousy transfer that anything less seemed great, but I thought it was not that bad. How can it be compared to the original release? Most comparisons were made to the laserdisc, but is there anything that indicates what the film might have looked like when it first premiered to compare it to?

[kurtadisneyite]

Not to sound inane, but Disney restores films and offers them in DVD's the way they want to. They own Cinderella and all those other animated features of theirs lock stock and barrel, and advise the restorers, the DVD houses, and whoever works with them as to what they want, when they want it, and how much they will pay to get it done. If whoever don't do what they want, they have a long list of replacements.

Consider that the Princess Product line, wildly successful for Disney, aims at adults as well as children. I doubt very much Disney Corporate was thinking only of children with Cindy - Walt certainly was not when he attended every Cindy 1 story meeting.
At screenings of Cinderella I've attended, it's the __adults__, not the kids, who really pay attention to the film. Those audiences, though, were older people.
I have no idea how Cindy 1 appeals to Gen-Yers' steeped in MTV, Adult Swim and Hip-Hop-Gansta.

Prediction: sales of C-III will blow C-II out of the water.

[kurtadisneyite]

Wrt doubling and blurs:

There is a process called "glow pass" or "sexy lighting" pass that basically puts a diffused color/glow effect on top of animation art. It gives the shot a warmer, softer,"lovey-dovey" feel. In C-1's days it would have to been added by an optical process (simplest: a "diffusion" filter on the camera lens). These days computer processes make it easy to add to any scene.

"Doubling" can also be called "frame smear" where frames appear to overlap each other. It's very common with Telecine transfers, especially those with older, slow response cameras.
The usual use for doubling is to slow a shot down in time without excessive stepping or strobing appearing. It usually falls apart if the slowdown is more than a factor of two.
Nowdays, computer-based retiming processes actually "tween" rather than overlap images. While usually used in BitMap processes and extensively for live action, it's available within some vector animation systems (like the one Disney used for Cinderella III). I do not know if "auto tween" was used for Cinderella III.

[Beastboyravenz]

Very interesting. So is this sort what they use to make water look shiny, almost realistic? That white light that makes things look nice, such as a glass cup with water inside. Do you know what I mean? As if the sun were hitting the glass cup with water giving it the warm glow.

[kurtadisneyite]

Truly realistic water has reflection and refraction. There are computer processes that can add those to almost anything, but they are not (yet) in vector art paint systems like that used on Cindy III.

Instead, distortion processes, glows and rimlights allow vector systems to apply a dreamy, if not realistic, effect to water.

Some companies are exporting vector art to Shake (Apple Computers' compositing system) where it can be processed and reflection/refraction/a whole lotta stuff added to the end result.

[Beastboyravenz]

Do you know the scene where Ariel is singing to Eric after she rescues him? There's a light around her that gives that scene life and memorability. Is that an example of "sexy lighting"?

[kurtadisneyite]

Most likely optical diffusion, rim-lighting multipass exposure and/or other optical processes.

Computerized Ink and Paint was just beginning while Mermaid I was made. Disney called this system CAPS, and it was based on early Pixar hardware and custom software, all running on Unix. CAPS painted a bit of Mermaid, most of Rescuers Down Under, all of Beauty and the Beast and all the Disney features beyond until recently.

Historically, the first time Xerox cel inking was used for Disney features was in Sleeping Beauty. You can see it in action during the coronation sequences (the horses zooming up into frame).

[Beastboyravenz]

I see. Do you know any specicifc issues restorers had when restoring Snow White?

[The_Iceflash]

With the Diamond editions started, let's talk about this and how it might play a role in how it's Diamond release will look.

[Wonderlicious]

http://www.gomonews.com/wp-content/uplo ... -worms.jpg

In all fairness, I think that Disney will do another restoration of sorts for when it comes out on Blu-Ray. Call me cynical, but I can't help but think that Disney routinely restore just the same ten or so films just to give people an excuse to buy the next release. Whether the new image will look better or worse, we'll just have to wait and see.