Audio Errors of Restoration..

[gregmasciola]

This is NOT Disney's Pinocchio.
This is some 2009 employees, tampered sequel.
NOT the same film.

I have one question, Marky (and I don't mean to sound rude). Have you actually watched the movie, or are you still just basing your opinion on screen captures you've seen online.
And I just have to say that I totally disagree with you. This is still the same movie I watched as a kid and is just as enjoyable (maybe a little more) now that the picture actually looks good (and I'm just talking about the restoration, not Blu-Ray vs. DVD). But just like me, you're entitled to your opinion.

[Marky_198]

You're not rude
But yes, of course I watched this version.
And although I can see the image looks very clear and clean, it was really hard for me to get into the story. It feels too flat and sterile. The whole "essence" and feel of many scenes has changed.
Also the look of the film, character design and voices really represent the style of the 40's, while this new look looks just way too modern. Watching it feels like a big style/time clash. It's just too clear that some things don't match.
And the problems don't stop there, there's also the changed audio. Throughout the whole film I notice little things that are changed.
Not only the missing lines, but tiny differences in chorus parts, lines, shifted things, although it's shifted by hundredths of seconds sometimes. Some people might not notice these things, but I do.

So, with an image that could never have existed in the 40's (even Disney says this), and with a CHANGED audio track that was created from scratch especially for this release,
I call this "a 2009 employees sequel". NOT Disney's Pinocchio. It's a different film.

[KubrickFan]

You're not rude
But yes, of course I watched this version.
And although I can see the image looks very clear and clean, it was really hard for me to get into the story. It feels too flat and sterile. The whole "essence" and feel of many scenes has changed.
Also the look of the film, character design and voices really represent the style of the 40's, while this new look looks just way too modern. Watching it feels like a big style/time clash. It's just too clear that some things don't match.
And the problems don't stop there, there's also the changed audio. Throughout the whole film I notice little things that are changed.
Not only the missing lines, but tiny differences in chorus parts, lines, shifted things, although it's shifted by hundredths of seconds sometimes. Some people might not notice these things, but I do.

So, with an image that could never have existed in the 40's (even Disney says this), and with a CHANGED audio track that was created from scratch especially for this release,
I call this "a 2009 employees sequel". NOT Disney's Pinocchio. It's a different film.

I'm sorry for saying this, but that would account for every film made in stereo or mono that has a 5.1 track. Every one of those tracks has to be rebuild from scratch, there's no other way to do it. The missing audio is unfortunate (and a bit strange, they are there in the Region B release)
And how could the image not have existed back then? How is the look different? Different from what, actually? What proof do you have for all this?

[Flanger-Hanger]

And how could the image not have existed back then? How is the look different? Different from what, actually? What proof do you have for all this?

Marky's opinion=proof, haven't you figured that out by now?

It doesn't look like the laserdisc so it's not the real image apparently.

[Marky_198]

Well, even Disney is advertising that the film looks "like it never looked before", "Image like never seen before", and "all new restoration and created an image that wouldn't be possible in the 1940's".
So how much more proof do you need?
But besides that, any fool can see the big style/time clash.

About the sound, I don't mind a 5.1 track at all, as long as the timing of the words is exactly the same as the original version, the instruments, the chorus parts, the lines, etc. But it seems they are unable to do this, and all the recent releases turn out to have new, adjusted, tampered, messed up soundtracks.

And I disagree that they need to take every word, sound and instrument apart to create a good mix. I have many Disney dvd's with perfect 5.1 dolby digital sound. Like the 2003 Sleeping Beauty dvd. Untampered and not 1 shifted line, instrument or word. How do you explain that?

[ajmrowland]

They're talking about the digital colorizing process, which should only inch past the original film when it looked at its best. It doesn't mean that these colors weren't possible back in 1940, though, so the complaints against it looking "new" while not uncalled for, are only bested by what appears to be the best way to preserve the film as close to its initial release as possible.

[2099net]

And I disagree that they need to take every word, sound and instrument apart to create a good mix. I have many Disney dvd's with perfect 5.1 dolby digital sound. Like the 2003 Sleeping Beauty dvd. Untampered and not 1 shifted line, instrument or word. How do you explain that?

Sleeping Beauty originally had a 4.0 mix, not mono or simple stereo, much easier to remix to an additional track, because most sounds would be separated originally.

[ajmrowland]

But I thought 6 track was closer to 5.1 than 4.0

[Flanger-Hanger]

Well, even Disney is advertising that the film looks "like it never looked before", "Image like never seen before", and "all new restoration and created an image that wouldn't be possible in the 1940's".
So how much more proof do you need?
But besides that, any fool can see the big style/time clash.

I'm no fool but for some reason when I see watercolour backgrounds, hand panited cells, drybrush and charcoal techniques I think 1940s.

Can you say this:



Looks like this:



or This?:



Also you've still failed to prove why older home video releases are somehow the true colours. I'm guessing Pinocchio when first made did not look horribly washed out, blurry or artificially orange. But that's just a "fool's" opinion.

[ajmrowland]

I almost thought that SB pic was from the original. But it's easy to get where you're coming from.

[SpringHeelJack]

It's like parrots, flangy. Parrots all over again, man.

[Marky_198]

Those pics are just a wrong comparison.
But even here, the Sleeping Beauty screenshot actually matches the Pinocchio screenshot very well. A real modern 2009 look.
But I would rather see you doing a comparison of the otv screenshots and the blu ray screenshots.

But to answer your question,
Here's an example. For years I've been telling people that Belle's original hair color was a certain shade of brown. I have the laserdisc version, vhs version, many otv screenshots, books, promopics from the cinema's, and they all look the same.
Then the altered dvd came out, and some people said: how do you know this are not the original colors? etc. Some even stated the dvd was a direct product of the caps files?!

IMAX trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXFrI8pHP5E

I would love to hear what the people who said the dvd version was directly taken from the original caps files have to say now they know that's not true......

It's such a relief to finally be able to show those people that the laserdisc and vhs colors and look of the film, otv screenshots are practically the same as the original caps files. I really hope this is how the film will be saved for future generations, and that the dvd travesty will be forgotten very soon.

But I agree, it would have been a bit harder to say if Disney would have kept these original files away from the audience. But now, people like you can see the proof too.

[Flanger-Hanger]

This isn't about Beauty and the Beast, Marky, it's about Pinocchio. The fact that you bring that up in the first place shows how poorly constructed your "arguments" are.

The Blu-ray is the closest thing you're going to get to the OTV, I'm willing to believe someone whom Roger Ebert calls an animation expert over you anyday on that opinion.

If you honestly think the Pinocchio cap looks like the one from Enchanted Tales you're snorting some serious coke there. The aspect ratio alone isn't even the same. And what's wrong with the comparison? You say they look like a direct to video movie, I give you direct to video movie caps.

I've ranted enough about this Marky, but a troll like you just gives UD a bad name to other AV sites who honestly believe that we suck because were incapable of understanding the film restoration process. You go on and on in every thread you post about how these "completely new" versions destroyed you're viewing experience yet you can't even prove what you say, you can't make up you're mind about what is "the original" (I'm sure Pinocchio was recorded in 2.0 stereo) and you don't even bother to complain to Disney itself so you don't get any results and you expect forum members here to somehow unanimously agree with your opinion and magically make everything "right" again.

[Marky_198]

The funny thing is, that people (on here and on the fora you're talking about) posted the exact same reactions about Beauty and the Beast.

Like:
"The DVD is the closest thing you're going to get to the OTV, period".

But now they are proven wrong, they are nowhere to be found?!

How do YOU know this Pinocchio is the closest?
The only things we can compare it to are all the original OTV screencaps from back then, the technicolor books, previous versions where the light of a candle actually has effect, etc. Basically the same things as BATB. And every other classic for that matter.

And 1940 new looks different than 2009 new, you do understand that don't you?

And apart from the image, the soundtrack is changed, so also this is NOT at all the OTV.
There's no denying.

And speaking of "incapable of understanding", how can people not understand that some people want an undedited film with at least the same soundtrack as the original?
And if you care about it being 'close' to the original at all, like you say you do, how come you are not indignant/resentful about shifted chorus parts, missing lines, disappeared instruments, shifted music, etc, etc?
This whole attitute of "everything new must be the best", or " Belle's red hair is what the original filmmakers intended", or "The candle in Pinocchio was supposed to have no effect at all on his face" or whatever...) is actually really embarassing.

I also find it very interesting that people who actually accepted the dvd version of BATB agree that the trailer for the IMAX version (original CAPS files) looks fantastic/better. Same case for Pinocchio, but unfortunately some people are wearing blinkers, and just swallow everything they are given.

[KubrickFan]

How do YOU know this Pinocchio is the closest?
The only things we can compare it to are all the original OTV screencaps from back then, the technicolor books, previous versions where the light of a candle actually has effect, etc. Basically the same things as BATB. And every other classic for that matter. And 1940 new looks different than 2009 new, you do understand that don't you?

The only previous versions there are are Laserdiscs and dvd ports from those Laserdiscs. You must understand the fact that technology changes a lot in twenty years. So of course it's going to look different, but this is the right version. And I would never ever look to that crappy Laserdisc as a guideline. It looks wrong in several ways. The blown out reds make it look like the candle has effect, but it doesn't. It's perhaps also worth noting that the candle is the only argument you have been able to give.

And apart from the image, the soundtrack is changed, so also this is NOT at all the OTV.
There's no denying.

And speaking of "incapable of understanding", how can people not understand that some people want an undedited film with at least the same soundtrack as the original?
And if you care about it being 'close' to the original at all, like you say you do, how come you are not indignant/resentful about shifted chorus parts, missing lines, disappeared instruments, shifted music, etc, etc?
This whole attitute of "everything new must be the best", or " Belle's red hair is what the original filmmakers intended", or "The candle in Pinocchio was supposed to have no effect at all on his face" or whatever...) is actually really embarassing.

You have the original mono soundtrack. You have the original soundtrack. The new 5.1 track is a newly created track, made by people. So there can be differences in the different tracks (technicians are only people, after all).

I also find it very interesting that people who actually accepted the dvd version of BATB agree that the trailer for the IMAX version (original CAPS files) looks fantastic/better. Same case for Pinocchio, but unfortunately some people are wearing blinkers, and just swallow everything they are given.

But the trailer for BATB looks nothing like the 'holy' screencaps you've referred to quite often. So how do you explain that?
And its' not the same case. Pinocchio is superior to the older dvd in every way. You can choose not to see that, but at least you have the 'correct' laserdiscs.

[Jules]

I watched my Pinocchio DVD yesterday.

The 'hiss' problem I talked about earlier cropped up once during "When You Wish Upon A Star", or rather the opening music of the film, before the song itself starts. It started instantly on the introduction of the choir in the back speakers and faded away quickly to no hiss.

During the film itself there was a natural, low-level hiss throughout which I expect is perfectly normal, and which didn't annoy, but the levels kept changing. The problem was caused by the fact that the changes in hiss weren't gradual, but sudden, like someone flipped a switch (as I described earlier). During the film they weren't so severe though.

Nevertheless, I'm still baffled about the issue, especially in the opening of the film.

By the way, it's not my sound system that's causing it. It does the same thing if you listen to the film through the television speakers.

[Marky_198]

of course it's going to look different, but this is the right version. And I would never ever look to that crappy Laserdisc as a guideline. It looks wrong in several ways. The blown out reds make it look like the candle has effect, but it doesn't. It's perhaps also worth noting that the candle is the only argument you have been able to give.

This is the right version?
And all the screenshots of the OTV, the technicolor books, the well preserved frames, everything that ever existed of the film was wrong?
Interesting......

And the candle DOES have effect in all the mentioned things. Just not in the recent dvd/blu ray.
And you are saying that these beautifully elaborated, detailed scenes with perfect sources of light and effects and shadows of characters and objects in many shades and colours, perfect draftsmanship, are nothing more than "blown out reds"? Now that's having respect for the classics and artists.
And there's nothing blown out in my technicolor books, I can tell you that.

You have the original mono soundtrack. You have the original soundtrack. The new 5.1 track is a newly created track, made by people. So there can be differences in the different tracks (technicians are only people, after all).

No, that mono track is just the messed up new track in mono-disguise.
Missing lines, etc.
But you are right, I do have the original soundtrack. On my previous dvd edition. And I'm really glad with it, as that one is what the original filmmakers intended.

But the trailer for BATB looks nothing like the 'holy' screencaps you've referred to quite often. So how do you explain that?
And its' not the same case. Pinocchio is superior to the older dvd in every way. You can choose not to see that, but at least you have the 'correct' laserdiscs.

Those screencaps have the exact same colors as that trailer (and the otv screenshots, and the books I have, and the original promo material directly from the studio back then, and the pics used in cinema's etc, etc) but the screencaps are just not as sharp.
And so far....no reactions on that IMAX trailer from the people who claimed the dvd was directly taken from the caps files. Strange isn't it?
And it IS the same, because some people choose to ignore facts and think that something that suddenly pops up in 2009 has to be the only right thing. And basically talking out of their %#$@ because when there's proof like this, they don't have anything to say at all. The only thing they could do was screaming that the newest dvd was the only right version. And boy, were they wrong....

[Flanger-Hanger]

This is the right version?
And all the screenshots of the OTV, the technicolor books, the well preserved frames, everything that ever existed of the film was wrong?
Interesting......

You still haven't proven what the OTV print is. This statement, while hollow in it's boldness, is vauge and lacking in substance without pictures and more accurate descriptions.

Promotional images are often just that, made for promotion and have nothing to do with the picture itself. Take this pic:



The shot doens't even exist in the film. Never mind that the photo itself has been left untouched and subject to colour fading over time. It's like telling me a white piece of paper should look like some yellow thing that's been in some attic for half a century.



Here's a lovely number, one used many times. Does it have anything to do with what appeared on camera? Nope.



Again, promotional, but nothing.



Oh, these must be the right colours!



A lobby card form the film's original release. Too bad the laserdisc didn't look like this!




Pictures printed in book all depend on the age of the image taken and the source. In the case of say, the Encyclopedia of Walt Disney's Animated Characters the pictures are in terrible condition. they're full of scratches, dirt, dust and look downright murky and nothing like any home video master (not even the holy 1992 print). They were most likely taken from Eastmancolor reprints form the 70s because as already noted, the original prints would not have that level of grain.

Yo obviously can't base your judgment on storyteller records, album covers, and other promotional books of the like because they don't use the original artwork.

[ajmrowland]

Well, the IMAX trailer does look more correct.

One question though: When did you first get the books that told you the LD master of Pinocchio was correct? Because many books for the film have been released in the last 70 years, and many of them could've been printed using the negatives from the 1978 release onward.

And, like everyone says(even I noticed), the colors of the restoration look very much like those in the original 1940 trailer on the second disc.

You completely blow off the experts who've seen the original film AND the restored version, because they missed a few lines of dialogue(only people who obsess over that stuff would actually notice/care), and when it comes to video, you think your word is law.

And yet, You seem to ignore all evidence against you're opinion. You say that we willingly take every pill we're given without thought, but you seem to be feeding yourself poison, poison that's killing every ounce of credibility you ever had on this site.

Buzz Lightyear: "You are a sad, strange little man"

[Marky_198]

Flanger-Hanger, can you pelase stop with those wrong comparisons.
I was talking about actual stills from the film. Screenshots. Like in the books and like the ones they use in cinema's.
Of course I know all this other promotional clipart doesn't look like the film.

"The shot doens't even exist in the film"

So, why are you posting them?
I was not talking about clipart.