Old Disney Classics

[Marky_198]

Marky, are you sure you're not making a mountain out of a mole hill? I know it was me who actually just brought up the argument of the alteration of colours during filming, but you veered onto details like shadows on Cinderella's hair, and complained for the film looking 'flat and dead'.

Firstly, are you sure there originally were shadows in Cinderella's hair? Keep in mind that an inker is just going to paint in with flat colour (certain films excepted) ... so it's only logical that it must look, well ... flat. Same goes for 101 Dalmatians. Did you ever see a Walt-era film of the Xerox age feature shadows and chiaro-scuro effects painted inside the character outlines? It wouldn't have looked too good, for one thing (I think it would have lacked harmony with the rough outlines), so it was likely a stylistic choice. Secondly, 60s Disney was on a budget. You didn't get fluttering leaves and hundreds of butterflies and loads of bubbles and painstaking detail work on the cels which went beyond the routine inking and painting. The cels came out of the Xerox machine and the painters filled them in with bold colour. Forget about any shadows or airbrushing or drybrush and all that luxury. Walt Disney just couldn't afford it anyway ... not after the financial loss of Sleeping Beauty.

So that's what 101 Dalmatians should look like ... that's what Cruella's coat should look like - a bright yellow patch!

It's the lighting and the cell photograpy that creates all those things, lighter/darker areas, depth, atmosphere.
That's how the cells were photographed then, so the purpose was NOT to look directly at the cell.

[ichabod]

It's the lighting and the cell photograpy that creates all those things, lighter/darker areas, depth, atmosphere.
That's how the cells were photographed then, so the purpose was NOT to look directly at the cell.

The purpose of a 20 year old VHS is also NOT to give an accurate picture of what a film originally looked like.

[Marky_198]

Looks to me like the dress was always intended to be blue when viewed under the moonlight.

And her hair was intented to be green?

[Marky_198]

It's the lighting and the cell photograpy that creates all those things, lighter/darker areas, depth, atmosphere.
That's how the cells were photographed then, so the purpose was NOT to look directly at the cell.

The purpose of a 20 year old VHS is also NOT to give an accurate picture of what a film originally looked like.

The screenshots in an official technicolour book are.

[2099net]

Looks to me like the dress was always intended to be blue when viewed under the moonlight.

And her hair was intented to be green?

None of her hair on that cell looks green to me. And is should be noted, that cell is obviously warped - it won't lie flat causing differences in the colours. But it's good enough to give the general idea of the colours used.

I suggest you look at the list of films on page 19 of this BOOK (which confirms Cinderella was a dye transfer Techincolor film) and then look at the description of the colours on dye transfered films at the bottom of Page 20.

I further speculate that the fact that Cinderella was later reissued on a different filmstock - safety base over nitrate - my also have affected the colours on later viewing.




Note the words: "SATURATED, VIBRANT PRIMARY COLOURS" and "RICH CONTRAST" and "MORE COLOURFUL" and "FAR MORE BEAUTIFUL THAN REALITY". Now, which version of Cinderella does these describe? The VHS or the DVD restoration?

[Marky_198]

Absolutely the VHS. Or actually, the original screehshots in my old Technocolor book. But those are almost an exact match to the first vhs edition of Cinderella. In the 2nd vhs release the colors were lighter and more washed out. So let's not speak about vhs anymore, but about the original technocolour screenshots.

The pictures in that book are exactly as described above, for exaple the scene "a dream is a wish" is really saturated, her hair almost looks darkish brown, the sleeping gown is a very deep vibrant primary colour, the bed is deep red and the walls dark purple. Far more beautiful than reality. Rich contrasts.

In the dvd restoration there's no saturation at all. Just extremely bright colours. Yellow, orange hair, extremely blue eyes. Saturation makes colours deeper, not brighter and lighter.

[Marky_198]

The article also says; Red was the most vibrant colour and tended to be used dramatically.

That's so true in those pictures. So deep and saturated. It looks very dramatic.

It has NOTHING to do with the dvd version.

[2099net]

As this photoshop filter shows, Saturation (when refering to colours) does make colours brighter and more vivid.

[disneyfella]

Depending on the release of your Technicolor book, the picutres used in the book could quite poosibly be unrestored images (and probably are). That is why they correlate so well with your unrestored VHS. What is this Technicolor book you're referencing and when was it copyrighted?

Understand that most pictures used in film history books are not the highest quality pictures. Often time publicity stills are used, or inferior cel captures. The reason is that the author and/or publisher does NOT have to pay royalty dues to an image in the public domain (like advertising materials).

So say someone cut up an unrestored 16mm theatrical trailer of Cinderella and captured the picture to use in the Technicolor book.....all of a sudden that image is the one we are supposed to reference?

I still say this is a case of growing up with (and loving) an inferior quality print.

[Marky_198]

Thank you 2099net for that comparison. To me those colours actually look deeper and darker.
More dramatic.

Like the book pictures and the first vhs.

And this isn't even a good example. If you put the Saturation up a bit more, it's even clearer.

[Marky_198]

But still the way techniclor describes the images, colors and looks in the book and articles is exactly like those images. And nothing like the new dvd restoration. That proves enough.

[ichabod]

But still the way techniclor describes the images, colors and looks in the book and articles is exactly like those images. And nothing like the new dvd restoration. That proves enough.

If the images in the book are taken from an unrestored print all it proves is that they are as useless as the VHS for providing an accurate indication of the original look.

[Marky_198]

If the images in the book are taken from an unrestored print all it proves is that they are as useless as the VHS for providing an accurate indication of the original look.

In the end all that matters is that the look of the movie now doesn't match the voices, designs, characters. It looks like a huge style and time clash.
It doesn't mater how they achieved this. It's just a shame.
No comparisons needed.

It shouldn't look like it was made yesterday. It should look like it was made 50 years ago. Like the designs, voices, artwork, the whole movie tell you. Watching it is VERY uncomfortable and confusing now.

[Disney Duster]

*ahem*

Cinderella screen cap

Original Production cel setup

NOT AN ACTUAL PHOTOGRAPH OF THE ORIGINAL PRODUCTION CEL SETUP

Doesn't anyone think it's really weird that the cel setup looks exactly like a frame of the film from the DVD? What about those cel shadows that usually happen, like that picture Netty posted? Why doesn't it look like the other cel setups on the web site it's from?

Basically, I think that web site just posted a picture from the DVD, and that is not an actual photograph of the cel set up.

[disneyfella]

I totally understand, and to some degree agree with you. It is rather jarring/confusing to watch these restored versions after so long having imperfect images in my memory. However, this is because we both grew up with an aged copy of the film. I am a firm believer, though, in film restoration and support it in all art forms including animation.

People involved in the making of these films give their input on these restorations too (thank goodness some of them are still around!). Anyway, when Ilene Woods saw the restoration print of this film she said it looked just as good as it did on premiere night. The disney archivists and restorers go to painstaking lengths to try and restore these Disney classics to the original brilliance by using color test references, original animation references, and meeting transcriptions/notes (plus a whole lot of other stuff). This is to give us the best possible presentation of the film.....as if we were there on opening night

[2099net]

Doesn't anyone think it's really weird that the cel setup looks exactly like a frame of the film from the DVD? What about those cel shadows that usually happen, like that picture Netty posted? Why doesn't it look like the other cel setups on the web site it's from?

Basically, I think that web site just posted a picture from the DVD, and that is not an actual photograph of the cel set up.

I think perhaps the cell for sale on that site is framed, so the glass in front will be pushing the cell flat to the background. I see no reason why that site (presumably a respected retailer) would lie.

Anyhow this is the best I can do for the other cell. It seems to be a different background for some reason.




Here's another on an incorrect background (its not just the colour that is wrong but the art work) so you can't accuse that of being a DVD capture.

https://www.cartoongallery.com/Webstore ... ctid=34312



Look I'm not saying the restoration is 100% perfect. Few things are. The aim of a restoration is to get something looking exactly like it did when it was first shown. But sometimes its not possible, so people do the best they can. If they do something that's better than what they were given to work with then it can by all accounts be regarded as "successful" to some degree. Presumably its all done from copies of the negatives, so should techniques improve, a better restoration can be done in the future.

And yes, some of the cell colours may be wrong on the restored version. There's differences on the examples above. So may be despite what people claimed the restoration is not taking the original colours and leaving them "as is" (or perhaps it is and it's just how monitors are set-up, or how the cells were photographed - there's just too many variables).

I'm just saying I think it is closer to the original than the version most people are used to.

As for an old film looking wrong if it looks like it was made recently - isn't that the whole point of restoring it? Do you want all your old films to have scratch lines and specks of dirt on them, just so they look old?

I suggest that before anyone forms an opinion on Cinderella, they all watch the Wizard of Oz or The Adventures of Robin Hood on DVD. Both are restored Technicolor films with overtly loud, emphasised colours. I believe the Adventures of Robin Hood has unrestored trailers on the same disc allowing you to make a comparison or before and after restoration (I only have it on HD DVD), and as mentioned the Robin Hood DVD has an hour long documentary called "Glorious Technicolor". These show what Technicolor films looked like. To suggest that either Cinderella or these Warner films had the colour turned up just to appear more attractive to modern audiences is wrong. Not only is it an insult to the people who literally put in hundreds of man hours on the restoration work itself, but Warner's live action films don't look "modern" as a result of the restoration. They have a look and style that is nothing like modern film.

As an aside, I can recall not one single example, anywhere on the internet or any internet review that critisises the strong, bright colours on either The Wizard of Oz or The Adventures of Robin Hood restored DVDs. I really do wonder why something is acceptable on live action filming, but not animation.

It's like the restoration of the Sistine Chapel, (which was/still is also controversial).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restoratio ... l_frescoes

[Marky_198]

"I totally understand, and to some degree agree with you. It is rather jarring/confusing to watch these restored versions after so long having imperfect images in my memory."

It's not about the imperfections. They can take all the grain, imperfections out and it will be great, fresh and clean.
The new dvd version looks so weird with the pink lips and orange/yellow hair, that is why it looks imperfect and damaged.
And the look screams 2008 while the rest of the film screams 1950!!!

Very painful to watch.

[Ariel'sprince]

I think Cinderella looks much better with Blue dress and blonde hair then gray\silver or white dress and orange hair,with gray\white dress it looks like a film from 50 years ago while blue dress and blonde hair makes it shine,and look new,and I prefer it.

[Escapay]

Understand that most pictures used in film history books are not the highest quality pictures. Often time publicity stills are used, or inferior cel captures. The reason is that the author and/or publisher does NOT have to pay royalty dues to an image in the public domain (like advertising materials).

So say someone cut up an unrestored 16mm theatrical trailer of Cinderella and captured the picture to use in the Technicolor book.....all of a sudden that image is the one we are supposed to reference?

I still say this is a case of growing up with (and loving) an inferior quality print.

<snip>

I totally understand, and to some degree agree with you. It is rather jarring/confusing to watch these restored versions after so long having imperfect images in my memory. However, this is because we both grew up with an aged copy of the film. I am a firm believer, though, in film restoration and support it in all art forms including animation.

People involved in the making of these films give their input on these restorations too (thank goodness some of them are still around!). Anyway, when Ilene Woods saw the restoration print of this film she said it looked just as good as it did on premiere night. The disney archivists and restorers go to painstaking lengths to try and restore these Disney classics to the original brilliance by using color test references, original animation references, and meeting transcriptions/notes (plus a whole lot of other stuff). This is to give us the best possible presentation of the film.....as if we were there on opening night

And...

Look I'm not saying the restoration is 100% perfect. Few things are. The aim of a restoration is to get something looking exactly like it did when it was first shown. But sometimes its not possible, so people do the best they can. If they do something that's better than what they were given to work with then it can by all accounts be regarded as "successful" to some degree. Presumably its all done from copies of the negatives, so should techniques improve, a better restoration can be done in the future.

And yes, some of the cell colours may be wrong on the restored version. There's differences on the examples above. So may be despite what people claimed the restoration is not taking the original colours and leaving them "as is" (or perhaps it is and it's just how monitors are set-up, or how the cells were photographed - there's just too many variables).

I'm just saying I think it is closer to the original than the version most people are used to.

As for an old film looking wrong if it looks like it was made recently - isn't that the whole point of restoring it? Do you want all your old films to have scratch lines and specks of dirt on them, just so they look old?

Both are prime examples of why I enjoy reading posts by netty and fella, and wonderful explanations/arguments as to why the nitpicking/complaining about the Cinderella transfer is (at least to me) tiresome.



Albert

[Marky_198]

with gray\white dress it looks like a film from 50 years ago while blue dress and blonde hair makes it shine,and look new,and I prefer it.

And of course it's wrong to accept a movie for what it is, it's better to make evrything as modern as possible....
It looks like you are a true fan with respect for the movies....