The Little Mermiad Restoration (Concerning Future Blu-ray)

[Marky_198]

The problem that I have with Disney restorations is that they frequently say that their new restorations have ... "a colour and quality never seen before ..." , and quite often it feels that way to me. Sometimes I don't know what movie I'm watching; the Disney Classic or the movie's sequel ! The colours are "never seen before" as they did not exist before; at least to my untrained eye they didnt.

Some restorations have been amazing, and some feel as if they have been ripped of their identity. I WANT to see the grain and flaky sound on Cinderella, I want to see sketch lines etc, as that was how it was indended to be seen. Maybe they should include two versions of the movie on the disc. The restored, 21st centuary version, and the original, before version. Grain and all.

Of course I may be alone on this, but its just my opinion. I'm all for restoration, but not entire colour pallete changes.

I absolutely agree!!!!

A movie like Cinderella shouldn't look like it was made yesterday.
But it does now, with the modern colors and all the grain removed.

The character designs, the look, the sound of the voices, everything says : 1950!!
So why should it look like it was made yesterday all of a sudden?

I can't watch this movie on dvd. It feels like a big time/style clash to me. Its like watching a sequel, not the original classic.

[Marky_198]

I disagree with this whole thing.
It's DVD,not VHS,it's new,it's supposed to be bright and colorful,if you want old quality you can always watch the VHS version but that's DVD.
Well,I think it's just useless to want an old quality on a DVD version .

It has nothing to do with the format.
A movie should look the same as when it first came out.
Sleeping Beauty already came out on dvd. And will have different colors again for the next dvd release.

You are a "technical evolution freak", with no respect for the classics.

If they release Snowwhite in some 3d, flashy, computer like version, I'm sure you will love it too, because who needs that old version when you can watch it in 3d now, right?

[Marky_198]

but still,I think that what restoration was made for,to make it looks bright and new and not old.

And that's where they cross the line.

Cinderella shouldn't look bright and new. Because it's not.

It should look not so bright, and old.
BUT clean and in good quality.

[Disney's Divinity]

Disney's Divinity, you forgot to mention that Ariel's tail is also green in some scenes, instead of the blue-green color named Ariel created newly just for the film.

Well, when blue-green gets lighter, it usually gets greener, so that's kind of what I meant. But it seemed to only happen when she was in direct sunlight.

I also heard The Little Mermaid on DVD had a case of lots of grain in some shots and almost no grain in other shots. That's really wrong as well as distracting.

I agree. I don't think having some grain is horrible, but the inconsistency is distracting. The same shot'll be clear in one frame and blurry in another. It was especially noticeable in the scene where Flotsam and Jetsam convince Ariel to see Ursula.

[drfsupercenter]

I absolutely agree!!!!

A movie like Cinderella shouldn't look like it was made yesterday.
But it does now, with the modern colors and all the grain removed.

The character designs, the look, the sound of the voices, everything says : 1950!!
So why should it look like it was made yesterday all of a sudden?

I can't watch this movie on dvd. It feels like a big time/style clash to me. Its like watching a sequel, not the original classic.

Yep, couldn't have said it better myself.

Though I don't mind watching them on DVD for the sake of watching them... but for the sake of archival I can't stand them. There's a reason I didn't throw out our Masterpiece VHS tapes!!

You are a "technical evolution freak", with no respect for the classics.

Yeah, basically that's the way most people are... they just want stunning brilliant color on their HDTV set. I'm sure they don't watch channels like TCM very often

Now, I do think they should keep advancing their DVDs with the current technology... but not colorwise. Better menus and special features I'm all for. But please spare us the Lowry digital restorations... those make me sick!

[Mollyzkoubou]

THIS!!!!!

I think my own private DVD, made from the 1995 CLV LD, looks better than the R1.

[2099net]

Cinderella shouldn't look bright and new. Because it's not.

I'm starting to lose my rag now, because we always seem to be having the same circular arguments on umpteen threads!

When Cinderella came out it was new. It looked bright and new because it was. By your logic, film dust, scratches and warping should be left on the DVD, because they make the film look old.

And do you really think in the 1950s when Walt was competing against B/W television when it came to people's entertainment, Walt would release an animated film (which no matter what Walt says, was primarily aimed at the juvenile market) with soft pastel colours?

Had as it may be to understand, music, fashion and even speech may go in and out of style, but generally colours do not. Do you think all those old paintings we treasure today were originally as dull and faded as many are in museams, public buildings and stately homes today? Or do you think perhaps they were painted with bolder and stronger colours originally?

Yeah, basically that's the way most people are... they just want stunning brilliant color on their HDTV set. I'm sure they don't watch channels like TCM very often

I've never read anything so ignorant and arrogant before than this before on such a thread, especially considering Technicolor was famous for its stunning brilliant colour in the 1930's 1940s and 1950s.

Really, for crying out loud, could everybody who moans about colours go rent Warners' two-disc The Adventures of Robin Hood and sit down for 1 hour to watch the documentary on disc 2 Glorious Technicolor and actually learn about what Technicolor films from the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s actually looked like? Is that too much to ask? To actually have an opinion based on actual knowledge about how the process worked and what results it achieved?

I'm not going to post in this thread, or any others of the same ilk again, because really there's no point. You can quote stuff from DVD documentaries, academic books and famous film directors, and people still don't listen or care.

[Marky_198]

When Cinderella came out it was new. It looked bright and new because it was.

I've never read anything so ignorant and arrogant before than this before on such a thread, especially considering Technicolor was famous for its stunning brilliant colour in the 1930's 1940s and 1950s.

.

You don't get it.
Do you really think that "1950's new" looks the same as "2008 new"?
It doesn't, that's the whole point.

I have a book with technicolor screenshots from the classics.
Although the colors are brilliant, it doesn't look anything like the 2005 version. The colors used just dind't exist back then. Look at all the other movies, pictures, screencaps, prints from that time and you'll see it.

In other words, you're confused. Stunning and brilliant meant something else back then and what people were used to is different than what it is now.

And it's not arrogant, it's just the way it is. Any fool can see that the look of the movie is far too modern for what the movie actually is.
If people don't care about that or don't see that, or agree they make the movie look modern and like it was made yesterday while it's not, it says something about their ignorane or passion for the modern technical evolution.

[Marky_198]

Really, for crying out loud, could everybody who moans about colours go rent Warners' two-disc The Adventures of Robin Hood and sit down for 1 hour to watch the documentary on disc 2 Glorious Technicolor and actually learn about what Technicolor films from the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s actually looked like? .

I know EXACTLY what those colors looked like.
Yes, bright, and yes, vibrant.

But NOTHING like the 2005 Cinderella.
I'm stunned that you don't see the difference.

[2099net]

When Cinderella came out it was new. It looked bright and new because it was.

I've never read anything so ignorant and arrogant before than this before on such a thread, especially considering Technicolor was famous for its stunning brilliant colour in the 1930's 1940s and 1950s.

.

You don't get it.
Do you really think that "1950's new" looks the same as "2008 new"?
It doesn't, that's the whole point.

I said I wasn't going to post again, but I can't let this pass.

I have a book with technicolor screenshots from the classics.
Although the colors are brilliant, it doesn't look anything like the 2005 version. The colors used just dind't exist back then. Look at all the other movies, pictures, screencaps, prints from that time and you'll see it.

In other words, you're confused. Stunning and brilliant meant something else back then and what people were used to is different than what it is now.

OK, when was this book you keep mentioning published? The 1990's? The 1980's? Beacuse anything from the 1980's backwards ISN'T going to be the same as such a book if it was published today.

I know its hard to understand, but technology improves. While today, most books are probably printed with industrial printers similar to the laser printers we have on our everyday personal computers today, in the past (and indeed still today for large print run items), printing was/is done by copper plates.

Read http://www.wmich.edu/pci/gravure/ for more information on copper plate printing. Notice how before computer engraving was introduced in the early/mid-80s the whole process of creating a copper plate was done basically by what is essentially a photographic process (chemical and light based).

Now in order for such a process to reproduce exactly what was intended, not only would the chemical and UV light exposure have to be carefully calibrated and monitored, but so would so many other variables during the actual printing (that the paper absorbed the correct amount of each ink, that the consistency of each coloured ink was the same, that pressure of the plate against the paper was always consistant… etc). Basically, you're looking at many, many variables which will affect the final printed page and colours that to expect them to be 100% accurate is – well, expecting a heck of a lot. Each and every single one of these variables could be calibrated incorrectly due to human or mechanical error. How often do you think everything was absolutely perfect on each and every step? How often do you think colours were reproduced absolutely 100% as a result?

The fact that there is such a scope for colour errors is why different print-runs of stamps for example often have different shades and colours. (Go ask a stamp collector about this).

At least with printing these days and computer assistance, it's more unlikely any aspect of the process will be calibrated incorrectly.

And the same argument is true of cinematic restorations today, which is why I don't accept arguments like "The 19xx restoration was only just done, and it looks totally different". Technology improves. As technology improves, we can do more.

Watch the Wizard of Oz restoration documentary on the new DVD and Warners say that the restoration of the film to that standard wasn't possible before because they never had the technology to do it. If that's true of Warners, then why isn't that true of Disney? The tools available for the restoration vastly improve over just a few short years. It's Moore's Law applied to digital imaging rather than just computing as a whole.

And I know how fast technology in this field changes, just by reading about tools used in the restoration of the Doctor Who episodes on the Restoration Team's forum (you'll be surprised at some of the tools currently being developed and tested – such as a way to retain the original colours from B/W film copies)

And it's not arrogant, it's just the way it is. Any fool can see that the look of the movie is far too modern for what the movie actually is.

No, any fool cannot, because any fool wasn't alive in 195x to see Cinderella or Sleeping Beauty or whatever film on it's big premiere night.

If people don't care about that or don't see that, or agree they make the movie look modern and like it was made yesterday while it's not, it says something about their ignorane or passion for the modern technical evolution.

http://www.afi.com/about/preservation/a ... aspx#color

I suggest you read this too -

Virtually all current production for film and television today consists of color film in single strip emulsion. It has been learned from bitter experience that, unlike the earlier three-strip Technicolor process, today's color film can fade irretrievably in as little as five years. The gradual shifting of color values can advance quickly to a point at which the original release quality cannot be recovered without making compromises in contrast, definition, and overall image quality.

OK, Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty's negatives may exist in three-strip Technicolor (I expect that they do) but the prints being shown at the theatres didn't. And when Cinderella was re-released to the theatres every 7 years or so, do you think Disney went to the expense of creating new film prints, or just recycled the old ones?

But the AFI say after even 5 years, the colour could be compromised!

And then we come to TV and VHS showings. Things are slightly different today, but in the days when films were released on TV and VHS constantly in full screen pan and scan format, the public didn't demand the highest quality. They've only really started to demand this since the introduction of DVDs and reviewers started to actively critisise picture and/or sound quality. Ever see a VHS review critisise the quality of the image or sound?

Again, technology improved, and people expected to take advantage of the improvement themselves, so became more critical.

How many VHS tapes can you think of that boasted "an all new transfer" or "all new restoration"? Yes, there were a few, but what exactly did "restoration" mean in the 1980s or 1990s? A new print taken from the negative? Removal of dirt and scratches from an exsiting transfer? If a new print was taken from the negative, how were the colours decided upon it what is essentially a chemical process? What tools did they use? What tools had been developed?

You can't compare something restored and/or transferred in the 1980s or 1990s to either [a] the original as it was seen on day one and any restorations or new transfers produced today.

[Marky_198]

How many VHS tapes can you think of that boasted "an all new transfer" or "all new restoration"? Yes, there were a few, but what exactly did "restoration" mean in the 1980s or 1990s? A new print taken from the negative? Removal of dirt and scratches from an exsiting transfer? If a new print was taken from the negative, how were the colours decided upon it what is essentially a chemical process? What tools did they use? What tools had been developed?

You can't compare something restored and/or transferred in the 1980s or 1990s to either [a] the original as it was seen on day one and any restorations or new transfers produced today.

"restoration" should mean, bringing a movie back to the quality like when it was created. So the film should look like it's from the year it came out.
The Sleeping Beauty SE does that. They removed dirt etc, but the image and colors still say 1959.

Does the 2005 Cinderella dvd colors say; 1950 to you?

Do you think "1950's new" looks the same as "2005new"?

[2099net]

"restoration" should mean, bringing a movie back to the quality like when it was created. So the film should look like it's from the year it came out.
The Sleeping Beauty SE does that. They removed dirt etc, but the image and colors still say 1959.

Does the 2005 Cinderella dvd colors say; 1950 to you?

How does any of us know what the 1950s colours were? That's my whole point!

[Marky_198]

How does any of us know what the 1950s colours were? That's my whole point!

We don't, we weren't there so we can only guess.
But we can look at the look of many 50's movies, the documentaries about Technicolor and the books we have. I have avery strong idea of what Cinderella looked like, based on things I've seen all my life.
And based on what Technicolor describes, the deep colors.

It's easier to say what it for sure DIDN't look like.
In my opinion that's the extremely modern look of the 2005 dvd.

[KubrickFan]

How does any of us know what the 1950s colours were? That's my whole point!

There is artwork left in the Disney vaults that could be used for reference, that would show what the real colors were.
And perhaps the original camera negatives? I can't believe Disney wouldn't store those in a pristine condition.

And there are statements from some Disney people who actually have said that they do not want the films to look like they did, but that they alter them to make them up to date.

[2099net]

How does any of us know what the 1950s colours were? That's my whole point!

There is artwork left in the Disney vaults that could be used for reference, that would show what the real colors were.
And perhaps the original camera negatives? I can't believe Disney wouldn't store those in a pristine condition.

And there are statements from some Disney people who actually have said that they do not want the films to look like they did, but that they alter them to make them up to date.

This post has examples of two cells - and in both cases the colours on the cells are actually stronger than the colours on the Cinderella DVD.
http://www.ultimatedisney.com/forum/vie ... 347#387347
Of course the cells mean little in this context because we don't know the colour timings of the equipment used to make those internet cell pics, and as people say, the colours on the film would be different to those on the cells anyway. But I think its wrong to automatically assume just because it is "old" stong colours would never be used.

As for the negetives, none of us have access to them so the argument is still moot. How can any of us say what is right?

I found this from DRSD2KILL who sometimes posts on UD
http://s46.photobucket.com/albums/f112/ ... A/?start=0

To me the majority of the time, the DVD does look better.

When the king is sleeping for example, on page 1, why would the bed sheets be such a dull brown on the LD?

On page 3 you could say that Cinderella's magical dress is pale blue on the DVD while the LD was white, but then on page 4 the LD shows a distinctly grey wedding dress while the DVD shows a distinct white one. (And we know from the cell in the post I link to above, the magical dress was indeed supposed to be blue under some circumstances).

[Poody]

There really no winning here. You either have how this came out, or how Cinderella came out.... Disney can't please everyone.

[ichabod]

Whaaaaaa!!!!! Whaaaaa!!!!

Cinderella looks too new, it should be duller and have more grain! Whaaaaa!!!!

The Little Mermaid looks too dull and grainy it should look newer! Whaaaa!!!!

Whaaaa!!!! The DVD does not look like my book even though the pictures in the book probably weren't taken from the original film and probably sourced from an unrestored film print found lying around somewhere and not to mention what age and old printing techniques would do to not replicating the original colours.

Whaaaaaa!!!! Even though I wasn't born or around when the film was being made I seem to think I know better that over 100 trained professionals.


Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!!

God there's a set of incompetent tits on this forum.

[Ariel'sprince]

Oh,then why you need restoration if the film looks too new to you? go watch a VHS or a bad quality on YouTube insted of buying the DVD.
Of course Cinderella looks new,that's the point of the restoration,to make it looks new,back then it was new,we"re in 2008 not 1950,it should be new.
I agree with ichabod.
Anyway I think I think this is silly and it should be new.

[xxhplinkxx]

God there's a set of incompetent tits on this forum.

Not trying to add fuel to the fire or anything, but that's pretty funny.

[Kyle]

Of course Cinderella looks new,that's the point of the restoration,to make it looks new,back then it was new,we"re in 2008 not 1950,it should be new.
I agree with ichabod.
Anyway I think I think this is silly and it should be new.

George Lucas, is that you?