Pinocchio Blu-ray/DVD Preview

[Flanger-Hanger]

Well, basically the whole film looks like a cheap sequel that was made in 2009 by computer. You don't need a magnifying glass for that.

And if there's 1 thing I can assure you, with the technology, handwork, and possibilities back then, this extremely modern 2009 look is NOT what the filmmakers intended.

And it's not about colours, but about atmosphere in general. If you put you hand over the candle, the lighting would make absolutely no difference on Pinocchio's face if the candle would be there or not.
While in all the previous versions, screenshots from thne OTV, and technicolor books I have this works beautifully. So again, this is NOT what the filmmakers intended.

And third, the cells are not what was supposed to be seen.
There are many factors that determine the look of the final picture (lighting of photography for example).

Yes but you do need a Marky lens to see that, because it's again all subjective personal opinion backed up with vague facts and meaningless suggestions. You don't have a clue what the OTV is because you've only ever seen analog sources that were poorly made at the time and have worn out over time. You were not there in 1940, or when the film was first photographed. The individuals who restore these films have far more credibility than you do because of their training and experience. I'd like to see you walk up to a car mechanic and say you can do a better job fixing a car than he or she can because you've seen what it looks like fixed. You did not spend the last god knows how many months working on this project to present the film in a way that tries to be a close as anything to what might have been shown all those years ago.

Publicity still are ofetn made up for that purpose so you can't use those as an example and because of the way the prints themselves wear out over time you can't pick a random re-issue print and say "that's the true original look". And don't you find it remarkable that two separate restorations produce similar colours on the candle shot, or how even netty's examples with photoshop illustrate similar results? What i find remarkable is that you can't even be bothered to view the film on an HD TV from a direct HD source, and instead you pass opinion off based on a digital camera pic of a TV.

People here obviously do care about the classics or else they wouldn't be interested in this release and regardless of what you say they will still by it. Last time I checked your opinion was not the deciding factor in individuals making a purchase or enjoying the film. Your opinion is not "correct" it never has been or ever will be, it's just a opinion. You have the right to it but don't put down others because they don't agree with you (and isn't it remarkable how few people do?) as their entitled to one as well.

Unless you buy a thesaurus to change your stale vocabulary, I suggest you sop wasting bandwidth space with your opinions. We all know you hate it, so you don't have to post over and over and over again in some poor attempt to make us think the same way you do.

[Marky_198]

. You did not spend the last god knows how many months working on this project to present the film in a way that tries to be a close as anything to what might have been shown all those years ago.

.

No one should work on the film anymore in the first place.

They should take the original material and leave it like that!
Original negatives don't fade.

And in order to make sure is's the same way Walt wanted it, the should photograph them in the same way they did in the year the film was made.

Unless they do it like this, it's NOT right.

[wildphantom]

I can't believe you're still droning on about this transfer being 'not right'.

Again, as the above poster has said, you haven't seen it yet so can't really comment.

Further to that you are implying that Walt Disney do not know what they are doing when looking after their masterpieces, preserving them for future generations to cherish as much as we have.

You sir are used to watching Pinocchio in a certain state whatever year you first saw it theatrically, presuming that was how you first saw it.

Did you see it when it first came out in the early 40's?? How do you know what is should look like?

Disney themselves are expert in this matter, and removing all the grain and blemishes, restoring it to how it might have looked when the artists actually painted the picture seems like the right way to go to me.

Like I said, they are the experts in this matter.
This release WILL look better than the film has ever looked in the home before due to the blu-ray format.

If you can quote Roy E Disney as saying it looks wrong and doesn't have his blessing then we'd all pay attention to what you're saying.

Until then, just assume that Disney knows best whilst the rest of us enjoy the film looking better than it has ever looked before.

Besides, you've still got your old copies right? Nobody's taking those from you?

[goofystitch]

Getting back on the topic of Lighthousemike's early copy of the Blu-Ray, what is the case like, Mike? I'm curious because with Sleeping Beauty, it was a standard Blu-Ray case with both discs inside and the DVD was in a slip sleve attached to the case on the outside. However, the newer trend has been to do a case that is about as thick as a DVD case with a hinged disc holder that holds two discs back to back, with a third disc behind them (done with Wall-E, Prince Caspian, and HSM3). Can you tell us which case it is?

[KubrickFan]

No one should work on the film anymore in the first place.

They should take the original material and leave it like that!
Original negatives don't fade.

And in order to make sure is's the same way Walt wanted it, the should photograph them in the same way they did in the year the film was made.

Unless they do it like this, it's NOT right.

Original negatives don't fade? Really? Then why did Vertigo need an extensive restoration? Because they wanted to 'change the colors'? And what about all those other films that were restored or need restoration?
In fact, negatives tend to fade very quickly, if they're not properly stored. And they didn't do that at the time.
And unless you have a 35mm projector at home, you're still not seeing it the way they did in 1940.

And I can't even believe we're discussing the colors here. The only images we've got are from photos taken from a television. That's hardly proof at all.

[Widdi]

. You did not spend the last god knows how many months working on this project to present the film in a way that tries to be a close as anything to what might have been shown all those years ago.

.

No one should work on the film anymore in the first place.

They should take the original material and leave it like that!
Original negatives don't fade.

And in order to make sure is's the same way Walt wanted it, the should photograph them in the same way they did in the year the film was made.

Unless they do it like this, it's NOT right.

Not only do negatives fade they disintegrate. I can remember watching a special on Disney not that long ago where someone opened up the original film used to shoot Bambi and it crumbled to dust in his hand.

The original negative was made in the 30s. They didn't have the technology to preserve it like they do today back then.

[lighthousemike]

Getting back on the topic of Lighthousemike's early copy of the Blu-Ray, what is the case like, Mike? I'm curious because with Sleeping Beauty, it was a standard Blu-Ray case with both discs inside and the DVD was in a slip sleve attached to the case on the outside. However, the newer trend has been to do a case that is about as thick as a DVD case with a hinged disc holder that holds two discs back to back, with a third disc behind them (done with Wall-E, Prince Caspian, and HSM3). Can you tell us which case it is?

Its the 2nd case in your post used for this release - "case that is about as thick as a DVD case with a hinged disc holder that holds two discs back to back, with a third disc behind them "

But unlike Wall-E this one doesn't have the 'lock' on the blu case

[pick]

lighthousemike, please, if possible, could you post a picture taken by your camera of the slipcover? I'd like to see how's it... And PLEASE, pics of the Snow White Trailer! lol
Sorry to bother you!

[slave2moonlight]

So, we didn't get the Jiminy Cricket shorts on this, right?

How do these new Blu-Ray platinums stack up compared to the best of the standard platinums, liks Snow White? Any opinions? I have the Sleeping Beauty Blu-Ray, but I haven't bothered with the bonuses because it is very hard to read the menus on standard def.

I'm actually looking forward to the new music video for a change, as I believe it is the one I've seen snippets of on the Disney Channel featuring Meaghan Jette Martin, whom I adore.

[2099net]

. You did not spend the last god knows how many months working on this project to present the film in a way that tries to be a close as anything to what might have been shown all those years ago.

.

No one should work on the film anymore in the first place.

They should take the original material and leave it like that!
Original negatives don't fade.

And in order to make sure is's the same way Walt wanted it, the should photograph them in the same way they did in the year the film was made.

Unless they do it like this, it's NOT right.

KubrickFan, I believe some negatives don't fade (if stored properly). Just like there's different filmstocks, there's different materials negatives could be made from. It's important to remember the original Technicolour negatives were expensive because every frame was shot 3 times for each colour filter on B/W film. When we got single shot colour negatives later, it was on material very similar to the finished films, which is more prone to fading and deterioration.

But original negatives are just Red, Blue and Green separations. They're meaningless without context. The restoration was no doubt done from the unfaded negatives - and yet you still complain.

How can you know how the red, blue and green were mixed? Different filmstock has different results. A lot of the filmstock from the 1940s isn't even made yet. Transfers of 35mm negatives were made on 16mm film for cheapness - I'm sure one of two of the re-releases were done that way. Thus some transfers of films appear grainy. What chemicals were used to develop the transfer? How would that chemical mix affect the colours? There are literally hundreds of possibilities that could alter the colours from the "unfaded" negatives.

Take a look at the last sentence of this section on Technicolor:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technicolo ... hival_work
"However, because of the variation in color balance per print, dye-transfer prints are used in the professional restoration world as only a rough guideline." - confirmation that no two prints (certainly at least no two print runs) from the same negatives were likely to be the same.

I also recommend that this is read for a brief overview of all sorts of problems restorers encounter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_preservation

[Marky_198]

No one should work on the film anymore in the first place.

They should take the original material and leave it like that!
Original negatives don't fade.

And in order to make sure is's the same way Walt wanted it, the should photograph them in the same way they did in the year the film was made.

Unless they do it like this, it's NOT right.

Original negatives don't fade? Really? Then why did Vertigo need an extensive restoration? Because they wanted to 'change the colors'? And what about all those other films that were restored or need restoration?
In fact, negatives tend to fade very quickly, if they're not properly stored. And they didn't do that at the time.
And unless you have a 35mm projector at home, you're still not seeing it the way they did in 1940.

And I can't even believe we're discussing the colors here. The only images we've got are from photos taken from a television. That's hardly proof at all.

Then what did they do with Sleeping beauty?

And why do they always say, we went back to the original negatives?

What source can they go to in general?

[lighthousemike]

Snow White PE Trailer frame by frame here - http://flickr.com/photos/lighthousenews ... 482590046/

[271286]

WOW!! Im so exited to get my hand on the BD... It looks great (even just from pics taken of a TV-screen) I'd so looove to see the trailer for SW in blu...

[nunval]

Hi, the fact is that original negatives in Technicolor don't fade because they are in black and white. Original negatives of movies made AFTER 1954 are all on single color film (eastmancolor) and, if not stored properly, tend to fade. Only cartoon features, until the shut down of dye transfer facilities at Technicolor in 1974, continued to be filmed in successive exposure negative in black and white, from which with a step printer, Technicolor derived matrices for dye transfer prints. From 1954 until 1973 , for all their color prints, Technicolor derived the matrices directly from a single eastmancolor negative, and generally made separations interpositives for protection, from this eastmancolor negative. That' why the "Vertigo" restoration took so much effort. They had to work with a FADED eastmancolor vistavision negative and from the separations master that were not so good. And, speaking of prints for reissues, all prints of the '80's and 90's that were used for VHS and first DVDs are all EASTMANCOLOR POSITIVE and NOT TECHNICOLOR. So you cannot compare the actual HD restored master that derives from a Technicolor negative, with a master taken from an Eastmancolor positive print.

[lighthousemike]

[Mason_Ireton]

Awesome pics Mike, especialy the snow white pics, think we could get some pics from the Backstage Disney section (along with the bonus feats too) again greatly appericated

[ajmrowland]

Original negatives don't fade? Really? Then why did Vertigo need an extensive restoration? Because they wanted to 'change the colors'? And what about all those other films that were restored or need restoration?
In fact, negatives tend to fade very quickly, if they're not properly stored. And they didn't do that at the time.
And unless you have a 35mm projector at home, you're still not seeing it the way they did in 1940.

And I can't even believe we're discussing the colors here. The only images we've got are from photos taken from a television. That's hardly proof at all.

Then what did they do with Sleeping beauty?

Clearly, they went to the extent of a painstaking restoration to try and make sure the film looked almost exactly like it did in the theaters.

And why do they always say, we went back to the original negatives?

What source can they go to in general?

Uh, is that a trick question? Click the above poster's links. They are very informative and address the issues.

[The_Iceflash]

We are getting a DVD re-release of Snow White aren't we? (I noticed the trailer neglected to say so but the trailer is on the Blu-ray so that may be the reason).

[ajmrowland]

pictures

Yeah, cool pics! It really DOES have the thickness of a DVD case. Too bad I'm already pretty much out of shelf space.

[The_Iceflash]

We are getting a DVD re-release of Snow White aren't we? (I noticed the trailer neglected to say so but the trailer is on the Blu-ray so that may be the reason).

Of course we are! Disney is not going to release *only* a BD of Snow White, because, as we all know, BlueRay isn't catching on with the general public (and with the curren economic crisis, I don't think it will anytime soon).

Good. Scared me for a minute.