Restorations of the classics

[Marky_198]

This is something that bothers me for a while now, but I could never quite put my finger on what it really is.

Everyone is always talking about the wrong/right colours in the restorations, and recently also about changes and mistakes in the soundtracks.

But aside from the colours and sound, I noticed another thing.
How come in all the new restorations the characters look like they're made of rubber?

Skin and hair look really rubber/clay-ish.
Often this is defined by very thick (light)grey lines, which give a strange effect. It's a certain "softness". It almost looks like the characters are behind glass or something.
In all the original versions it actually looks like skin.
What is this?

This is the case in Pinocchio, but also in TLM, BATB, Snow White and many others.

Here are some examples:

http://www.dvd.nl/images.php?reviewid=371&imageid=4

http://www.dvd.nl/images.php?reviewid=2714&imageid=2

And, to show you the difference, it wasn't like this in many previous versions. Some of them have a completely different texture, less clay-ish, less light grey lines:

http://www.dvd.nl/images.php?reviewid=2714&imageid=1

[Jules]

Those "thick grey light lines" as seen for example on the witch's cloak or Geppetto's hair are effects deliberately applied by the cel painters, to indicate stuff like shadows, texture, or extra detail. They were no longer used after Bambi (at least, not to my knowledge).

I think you may also be noticing a strange effect that I've wondered about sometimes too, in that character outlines appear to be "doubled". I have no idea what that is, but if I were to hazard a guess I'd say it has something to do with the photographic process.

[2099net]

Often this is defined by very thick (light)grey lines, which give a strange effect. It's a certain "softness". It almost looks like the characters are behind glass or something.

I've no idea what this means. But you know, in Pinocchio's case, they are behind glass when photographed?

I think you may also be noticing a strange effect that I've wondered about sometimes too, in that character outlines appear to be "doubled". I have no idea what that is, but if I were to hazard a guess I'd say it has something to do with the photographic process.

I think you're describing where a cel with an animated character on isn't "flat" against the background,so its shadow can slightly be seen on the background. So yes, that how it always will have been.

All in all, Marky, I'm not sure what you're getting at here. You seem to assume the Limited Edition Little Mermaid was "correct" yes? But I see none of this "rubber", "glass" or "clay" you talk about. I'd wager nobody else here can or understands what your on about either.

But let me tell you now, the Little Mermaid LE DVD was a disgrace! I've never seen so much grain on a (relatively) recent film ever! At times it almost like a swarm of bees.

There is no way on God's given Earth, the Limited Edition Little Mermaid DVD is how it was "intended" to be viewed, nor can it be taken as "definitive" by anyone who has at least one working eye (it's so bad, you don't even need two).

This site says:

The feature appears in its original aspect ratio of approximately 1.66:1. This is not an anamorphic transfer – it has not been enhanced for 16x9 televisions. Colors and sharpness look relatively good, but the image suffers from being quite grainy, and it can get a little severe at times. This is by no means the finest presentation possible, but it’s more forgivable when considering it’s an early Disney DVD.

http://www.ultimatedisney.com/littlemermaid.html

It's hard finding reviews of the Limited Edition, as it was released before the majority of the DVD review sites began (for example, DVDTalk doesn't have one!) but I found this, which is even more damning:

Sharpness generally appeared acceptable though erratic. Much of the film displayed reasonably crisp and distinct images, but at times the picture became somewhat soft and fuzzy. These tendencies weren’t extreme, but they caused some distractions, and the overall level of sharpness seemed to be weaker than I expected. I saw no concerns related to moiré effects and jagged edges, and most print flaws remained minor. A few speckles cropped up, but no examples of most significant concerns appeared. However, Mermaid did suffer from a rather grainy presentation much of the time. That issue definitely caused the most problems throughout the film, as the grain could become rather heavy at times.

Colors occasionally looked nicely bright and vivid. As with most Disney offerings, the palette utilized seemed varied and vibrant, and the DVD sometimes replicated the tones with solid accuracy and intensity. However, all that grain made things murky at times, and this could mean that the colors lacked the zip I expected. Black levels appeared deep and rich, but shadow detail was a bit off. Low-light shots tended to appear somewhat messy and less than dynamic. The mix of good and bad left the film with a “C” for its visuals.

http://www.dvdmg.com/littlemermaid.shtml

A "C" for visuals.

You can't compare the original Little Mermaid DVD to anything, except mediocrity I'm afraid...

Oh and by the way, I posted a link to this in the DVD forum's Robe thread - http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/ ... fchat.html about the restoration work on that title. I think you should read it, not only to realise how much time, effort and pride goes into these film restorations, but also he hear about why photochemical restorations/prints are unreliable and how even in the few years since the restoration was first mooted, techniques and technology had dramatically advanced.

You seem to think people come in, press a few buttons on a computer and have the process done in a week or two?!?

[CampbellzSoup]

Can we confine you to this one thread then?

It's one thing to have an opinion, but in every freaking thread to rant and rave is disgusting Marky.

Are you telling me that your opinion is better than the disney historians who are restoring these films? Honestly. They have a whole team doing it, and try to stick as close as to the original content as possible.

I don't understand why you hold these laserdiscs and VCR tapes to such high praise...the laserdisc of Pinoch is so wrong everything has an orange tint to it, and there is no "light source" that you keep raving on about when Pinnoch has the candle...I've seen it just the other day.

[Marky_198]

Those "thick grey light lines" as seen for example on the witch's cloak or Geppetto's hair are effects deliberately applied by the cel painters, to indicate stuff like shadows, texture, or extra detail. They were no longer used after Bambi (at least, not to my knowledge).

I think you may also be noticing a strange effect that I've wondered about sometimes too, in that character outlines appear to be "doubled". I have no idea what that is, but if I were to hazard a guess I'd say it has something to do with the photographic process.

Thanks Julian. Yes, that's very strange.
As for those greyish lines, this look does seem to appear in TLM dvd too. But there's almost a sort of greyish glow as well. The picture looks blurry, soft, more "distant" in a way.

[Marky_198]

2099net, I'm not saying the Limited Edition is perfect or anything, but I just wonder what this soft, clayish look is, with the grey lines and glow, that's in the screenshots of the films I posted above.

If you don't see it, I guess we're done talking, as it's really prominent....

[2099net]

Those "thick grey light lines" as seen for example on the witch's cloak or Geppetto's hair are effects deliberately applied by the cel painters, to indicate stuff like shadows, texture, or extra detail. They were no longer used after Bambi (at least, not to my knowledge).

I think you may also be noticing a strange effect that I've wondered about sometimes too, in that character outlines appear to be "doubled". I have no idea what that is, but if I were to hazard a guess I'd say it has something to do with the photographic process.

Thanks Julian. Yes, that's very strange.
As for those greyish lines, this look does seem to appear in TLM dvd too. But there's almost a sort of greyish glow as well. The picture looks blurry, soft.

You mean this?



Its the shadow of the back of the cell on the background because its not 100% flush. It's always been there, and always will be. You know the original composition is made up of layers of cels right?

[Marky_198]

CampbellzSoup, this is not about laserdiscs or original or whatever.
It's also not about colors or sound.
This is a different thing.
I just wonder where this soft, clay-ish look comes from.
There's just a very light grey layer of softness over all the pictures, which makes the characters look "rubbery".
I can't explain it any other way.
Please compare the screencaps I posted.

[2099net]

In fact, look here when discussing Bambi::

http://mag.awn.com/index.php?bambi&article_no=2413

With today’s important release of Bambi on DVD, Disney inaugurates a new digital restoration/preservation program, allowing us to view this and other early classics at home with unprecedented sharpness and clarity. “I was blown away… you see the cel shadows and ink lines,” beamed famed Disney artist Andreas Deja, who supervised The Lion King’s Scar, and is working on the DVD sequel, Bambi and the Great Prince of the Forest.

It appears Andreas Deja most definitely sees their increased visibility as a positive.

[SpringHeelJack]

Can we confine you to this one thread then?

It's one thing to have an opinion, but in every freaking thread to rant and rave is disgusting Marky.

As I said before, it's like arguing with a parrot.

[Disney Duster]

Well, I don't understand what the, or where the gray lines are. but...

I do notice that everything in the restorations seems to look softer.

Also, the films also used to look warmer, had warmer colors. It almost seems with each restoration that things look bluer, except in the case of Sleeping Beauty, where things looked warmer, especially browner in the new restoration. Exccept for Maleficent's skin. But that was the only thing I remember.

This colder, bluer, softer look may be making the films look grayer or more clay like. But I still don't see the gray lines you're talking about, could you point them out like 2009net pointed out the cel shadows?

The bluer looks to the restored films has led me wonder two things. I wondered if the restorations were making the films look bluer, somehow, by mistake or something, and also wondered if the films Walt Disney made had bluer, or cooler colors, either from the preferences of Walt, and perhaps his other artists, or because the way they made films back then and the material they had back then made things look rather blue. But since The Little Mermaid looks a little on the softer, bluer, cooler, grayer side, I'm really wondering if it's the restorations. Though, strangely, The Little Mermaid was not done by the same company that did most other Disney restorations! So, maybe it's just something that happens in all restorations, or maybe most animated films, or maybe just Disney animated films, have this bluish, cool color tendency...?

But the films often looked better warmer. And Sleeping Beauty doesn't look very bluish now, like the one film that has escaped this blue. Maybe it was because of a stylistic choice, after all it was a departure from previous Disney looks. But anyway, it looks great with it's warmer colors. I miss the warmer colors all the previous versions of all the films had, at least in certain scenes, for certain clothes, objects, skin or hair.

BUT ALSO, are you sure it's not just the DVD's that look so soft, or look so gray, or have those gray lines? Because the Blu-ray may not have any of this, in the sharper, clearer, high-defined picture, and it also has more pixels, meaning more color. Right, those in the know?

[Marky_198]

Disney Duster, I think we mean the same thing.
I call it grey-ish layer, softness and it makes the characters look clay-ish.
You call it "a little on the softer, bluer, cooler, grayer side".

And because of this many lines are just greyer where they used to be black or white.

Snowwhite's nose for example.
Or the line at the bottom of Ariel's leg.
Or the outline of Ariel's cheek. Like greyer/blurrier, like there's a layer over it.
But also the rocks are more grey than brown.
And all the whites in the film in general, like Scuttle, or the whites in the eyes, are now grey.
But it's not about the colors, or about the lines only, it's about this soft "layer" over the film, that affects everything.And makes skintones look "rubbery/plasticky" instead of "fleshy/sharper" like in the 2nd Little Mermaid screenshot.

And it makes no difference in the DVD or Blu Ray because the Pinocchio Blu Ray has it as well.

Here are some examples:

http://www.dvd.nl/images.php?reviewid=371&imageid=4

http://www.dvd.nl/images.php?reviewid=3803&imageid=1

http://www.dvd.nl/images.php?reviewid=2714&imageid=2

And, to show you the difference, it wasn't like this in many previous versions. Some of them have a completely different texture, less clay-ish, no layer over it:

http://www.dvd.nl/images.php?reviewid=2714&imageid=1

http://www.dvd.nl/reviews.php?reviewid=2714

[ajmrowland]

Thanks Julian. Yes, that's very strange.
As for those greyish lines, this look does seem to appear in TLM dvd too. But there's almost a sort of greyish glow as well. The picture looks blurry, soft.

You mean this?



Its the shadow of the back of the cell on the background because its not 100% flush. It's always been there, and always will be. You know the original composition is made up of layers of cels right?

Actually, I think the greyish soft line of in Ariel's image is just an ink-line from the cleanup/xeroxing of the frame. Geppetto's, however, looks more like the shadow that you claim it to be.

[Marky_198]

I suddenly remember a documentary about the restoration process on the Bambi dvd, hosted by Patrick Stewart,
If I remember correctly he talked about 3 steps they do, and the last step is putting some layer over the film? You see a beam/line going over a screen from the left to the right and suddenly there is this layer, all the grey lines are suddenly extremely visible and seem thicker and the whites are gone, like in the eyes, and everything just looks more clay-ish. And other things and small details disappear. And the image in general just looks softer. This might be the problem.
I remember thinking, oh no! If only they could just skip that last step, the image would be much more beautiful! And although this works quite well for Bambi and the forest, it doesn't work for human characters and flesh/skin tones, like in the screencaps I posted above.

But more on that later, I have to check that documentary first.

[Disney Duster]

Yes, I think we mean about the same thing, too. I have felt it was like there was a softer layer put over the image, except that it was blue, not gray. It felt to me almost like they put powder or foundation, white or light make-up on all the characters...

But, did you see that small Pinocchio screencap, and then the larger one, in the other thread? Did you see how that one string changed? I think qaulity of the picture could have something to do with it.

Another strange thing, regarding the black and whites becoming gray. In some restorations, or maybe it was just Cinderella, it was almost like there wasn't really pure white. Cinderella's wedding dress was gray, and some character's eyes were. The stepmother's eyes actually looked blue sometimes. I can see people thinking it's positive, a revealing of new colors, if something that was white gets more color. But the whites and blacks and some other colors get more murky, in between shades that don't contrast, strike, or stand out nearly as much as the colors before. It was weird, but on Cinderella it was like colors were brighter, but also duller because they were murky, where the previous version had more stand-out whites, blacks, more pure color. What I'm talking about doesn't sound very sensical, though. A scene I can think of is where the stepmother follows Cinderella to her room. In the previous version, shadows were black and her eyes were white, it was very striking. In the restoration, the shadows were a soft blue, and the stepmother's eyes a different soft blue! It looked bad. So even though the unrestored white in the stepmother's eyes probably wasn't as bright as any color on the restored DVD, the white color looked brighter, in a natural, good way and stood out more than her eyes on the DVD.

I didn't see what was wrong with the screencap of Gepetto, unless he had gray hair that originally looked more white?

EDIT: Marky, it sounds like you're onto something with that documentary, keep at it!

[Marky_198]

Disney Duster, thank you so much for this post.
I think you are absolutely right.

"I have felt it was like there was a softer layer put over the image, except that it was blue, not gray. It felt to me almost like they put powder or foundation, white or light make-up on all the characters... "

That is the look I was talking about, except I called it clay-ish
But it does look like foundation or powder! A layer. You hit the nail on it's head. I thought I was going crazy, as some people just don't seem to see it! It's also very noticeable in the Snowwhite screenshot. And the Little Mermaid one.

What you say about the whites and blacks is spot on too! That's exactly what's happening. There are no real whites anymore, and not only in Cinderella. Also in the Little Mermaid (look at scuttle and the white in her eyes, it's all more grey now), but also in Peter Pan, the white pyjama's in the beginning are now grey. Every newly restored film has this layer.
And I believe there are no real whites in the new Pinocchio either.

"It was weird, but on Cinderella it was like colors were brighter, but also duller because they were murky, where the previous version had more stand-out whites, blacks, more pure color. What I'm talking about doesn't sound very sensical, though. A scene I can think of is where the stepmother follows Cinderella to her room. In the previous version, shadows were black and her eyes were white, it was very striking. In the restoration, the shadows were a soft blue, and the stepmother's eyes a different soft blue!"

That's it, everything looks "covered/powdered" the white's are all grey and the darker colors look lighter, softer. This grey layer is just covering the whites and the blacks basically (patches as well as lines).
This is also very clear in the 2 TLM screenshots I posted.
Like you say, the unrestored version has "more stand-out whites, blacks, reds, more pure color".

Yes, i will definitely check out that Bambi documentary again.

About that Pinocchio screenshots, I've looked them up, but what do you mean exactly?

[KubrickFan]

Disney Duster, thank you so much for this post.
I think you are absolutely right.

"I have felt it was like there was a softer layer put over the image, except that it was blue, not gray. It felt to me almost like they put powder or foundation, white or light make-up on all the characters... "

That is the look I was talking about, except I called it clay-ish
But it does look like foundation or powder! A layer. You hit the nail on it's head. I thought I was going crazy, as some people just don't seem to see it! It's also very noticeable in the Snowwhite screenshot. And the Little Mermaid one.

What you say about the whites and blacks is spot on too! That's exactly what's happening. There are no real whites anymore, and not only in Cinderella. Also in the Little Mermaid (look at scuttle and the white in her eyes, it's all more grey now), but also in Peter Pan, the white pyjama's in the beginning are now grey. Every newly restored film has this layer.
And I believe there are no real whites in the new Pinocchio either.

"It was weird, but on Cinderella it was like colors were brighter, but also duller because they were murky, where the previous version had more stand-out whites, blacks, more pure color. What I'm talking about doesn't sound very sensical, though. A scene I can think of is where the stepmother follows Cinderella to her room. In the previous version, shadows were black and her eyes were white, it was very striking. In the restoration, the shadows were a soft blue, and the stepmother's eyes a different soft blue!"

That's it, everything looks "covered/powdered" the white's are all grey and the darker colors look lighter, softer. This grey layer is just covering the whites and the blacks basically (patches as well as lines).
This is also very clear in the 2 TLM screenshots I posted.
Like you say, the unrestored version has "more stand-out whites, blacks, reds, more pure color".

That the colors stand out more doesn't mean they're right. TLM's colors are supposed to be subdued. Also, Scuttle isn't white in any of the examples, old or new dvd, you posted.

[Marky_198]

That the colors stand out more doesn't mean they're right. TLM's colors are supposed to be subdued. Also, Scuttle isn't white in any of the examples, old or new dvd, you posted.

We're talking about a disturbing "layer" that's over the restored films.

And if you click on that last link, you see 2 smaller caps of that TLM screenshots next to eachother and there you can clearly see the difference between the white and grey-ish tone we are talking about.

[Marky_198]

Ok, I think I know where it goes wrong.

I watched that documentary on Bambi again.
There are actually 4 steps they do.

1. They make digital scans of the negatives.
Now they have a really authentic image which looks in my opinion like how the film should look, really beautiful, but of course there is grain and dirt on there, and sometimes little damages.

2. Then they are put through an “extensive automatic cleaning process”, completely done by a computer.
It's like a big digital scan that actually puts a "layer" over the film.
This is where it goes wrong.
This process removes all the dirt and other imperfections, but it also removes lines, makes lines look thinner and greyer, and coloured patches look like flat patches. (and of course it does, a computer doesn't know what's dirt and what's detail, what's dirt and what's a line). Suddenly this "look" is created we were talking about. Like it's behind glass, like there is a blu-ish layer, like the image is softer, and the whites are greyer, it basically makes the picture look more "cartoony".
But at the same time more distant, clay-ish and soft.
I do understand this actually works quite well for a film like Bambi, but in films with human characters it's an absolute no-no because it makes the characters look like they're wearing foundation. Like in the screenshots I posted.

3. Then they remove all the remaining imperfections by hand in some sort of “photoshop”.
Which is basically they only thing they needed to do so far in my opinion.
Handeling the actual spots of dirt, instead of putting a layer over the whole film, which takes away much more than the dirt, and changes the whole texture of patches, lines, characters and backgrounds, and removes the atmosphere and sources of light and flattens the picture (like in Pinocchio, where the lightbeams of the candle were removed by this rough and unrefined process).

4. Once the film is completely clean (in my opinion: when they changed the film into a sterile, grey-ish layer, foundation, soft thing, and removed way too much detail") technicians begin an extensive color correction process.
This is where the film gets to look even more Saturday morning cartoony. They make adjustments to the “hues” and have to be careful to not exaggerate the color tones too much.

But, to be honest, everyone knows and sees they brighten the colours here. But that actually doesn't bother me that much. Because the harm is done in step 2. No matter if they turn the colours up or down at this point, that clay-ish look still stays the same.

I really wonder what these films would look like without step 2.

Now I know this, everything falls into place. That look of TLM, Snowwhite, etc. Also the "merryweather" screenshots in the other thread show this.
Clearly the image was all cleaned up, dirt, grain, but also lines were removed and softened. And to correct this, they make the lines in the face way too thick and cartoony, which makes it look like it's redrawn over a washed out print. Maybe it's a good idea to not wash it out in step 2 in the first place.

[KubrickFan]

Ok, I think I know where it goes wrong.

I watched that documentary on Bambi again.
There are actually 4 steps they do.

1. They make digital scans of the negatives.
Now they have a really authentic image which looks in my opinion like how the film should look, really beautiful, but of course there is grain and dirt on there, and sometimes little damages.

2. Then they are put through an “extensive automatic cleaning process”, completely done by a computer.
It's like a big digital scan that actually puts a "layer" over the film.
This is where it goes wrong.
This process removes all the dirt and other imperfections, but it also removes lines, makes lines look thinner and greyer, and coloured patches look like flat patches. (and of course it does, a computer doesn't know what's dirt and what's detail, what's dirt and what's a line). Suddenly this "look" is created we were talking about. Like it's behind glass, like there is a blu-ish layer, like the image is softer, and the whites are greyer, it basically makes the picture look more "cartoony".
But at the same time more distant, clay-ish and soft.
I do understand this actually works quite well for a film like Bambi, but in films with human characters it's an absolute no-no because it makes the characters look like they're wearing foundation. Like in the screenshots I posted.

You're right, a computer doesn't know that. But people don't even let a computer remove all the dirt, because it doesn't work. Why do you think they let people clean up individual frames after this step? The computer is used very lightly, for things it can actually recognize. And I'm really curious how you get the idea that after cleaning up an image (not fooling around with the colors or anything) the image suddenly has a blue layer. That's simply not possible.

I really wonder what these films would look like without step 2.

Now I know this, everything falls into place. That look of TLM, Snowwhite, etc. Also the "merryweather" screenshots in the other thread show this.
Clearly the image was all cleaned up, dirt, grain, but also lines were removed and softened. And to correct this, they make the lines in the face way too thick and cartoony, which makes it look like it's redrawn over a washed out print. Maybe it's a good idea to not wash it out in step 2 in the first place.

And I'm still not seeing your point. Every example you post has something different from the previous one. I don't get the one major problem here. First, you're upset about the colors. Then you're saying that it isn't the colors that you've got problems with. Then you complain about drop shadows of the art that are supposed to be there. Then the animation looks rubbery (I don't even know what that means?) and now it's a grayish layer that a computer that removes dirt adds to the film. Do you know what you're saying here?