Restorations of the classics

[2099net]

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.

Ye Gods. Of course they do colour correction. And the colour correction is needed. The negative was not designed to be scanned and copied. It was designed to be processed with a certain photochemical solution onto a certain photochemical film stock.

And don't forget in Pinocchio's case, and other earlier Technicolor films, its not a single negative, its three negatives for each frame which have to be merged together.

Do you really think the negative has the exact correct colours for scanning? My company does some publishing, and I'm telling you now, colours on the computer DTP application have to be altered for different paper stocks, let alone film stock (which let me remind you, more or less isn't even made anymore).

They're not being "evil" when they do the colour correction. You know these people have spent a lot of time researching what the colours should be if you watch the Bambi restoration documentary. They're doing something that is required because at the end of the day they are moving from one medium and publication method to another - and there's a world of difference between the two media.

Of course, at the end of the day, its a judgement call... but so was the developing of the positive film print from the negative when the first print was ever made.

[Wonderlicious]

I suddenly remember a documentary about the restoration process on the Bambi dvd, hosted by Patrick Stewart,

I'm not meaning to be cocky or seeming as if I'm writing personal attacks, but I think that you're perhaps looking into this restoration thing far too much now. I think that most people who come on this forum enough know that you're not a huge fan of the digital restorations, but to start another thread about how you think that they look like rubber? I know that not all the restorations are great or are somewhat questionable at times, but it's really not the end of the world. To be honest, I (along with what arguably seems to be the world and his wife) believe that crappy princess merchandise is a greater insult to the Disney legacy than a DVD of the actual film will ever be.

[Nandor]

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.

What's your opinion on the theatrical trailer, found on the same disc? That's an example of a digital representation without any restoration applied. Is that what you'd want the movie to look like?

[ajmrowland]

He already called it "messed up".

[Marky_198]

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.

The thing is, the computer is not used very lightly. It dramatically changes the look of the image. After this step the film is actually transformed into what we talked about.
Do you see that look in all the screencaps I posted in this thread?
Very soft, foundation-like, grey-ish, a layer over the picture.

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?

My problem is the look of the films. The whole image, texture, lines, softness, atmosphere is changed. Whites are gone. As well as many details. And it often looks like a washed out picture with redrawn faces and lines. What I'm saying is the same.
Look at these screenshots. This is what I describe.
The image looks soft. Snowwhite's face looks clay-ish.
It looks like there's a grey layer over the film, like some sort of foundation. This creates the strange image, texture, lines, softness.
And they go too far with colors too, like Belle's red hair in BATB.
Or completely washed out colors on Merryweathers sleeve and really thick black lines in her face. This contrast doesn't make sense.

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

[Marky_198]

Ye Gods. Of course they do colour correction. And the colour correction is needed. The negative was not designed to be scanned and copied. It was designed to be processed with a certain photochemical solution onto a certain photochemical film stock.

And don't forget in Pinocchio's case, and other earlier Technicolor films, its not a single negative, its three negatives for each frame which have to be merged together.

Do you really think the negative has the exact correct colours for scanning? My company does some publishing, and I'm telling you now, colours on the computer DTP application have to be altered for different paper stocks, let alone film stock (which let me remind you, more or less isn't even made anymore).

They're not being "evil" when they do the colour correction. You know these people have spent a lot of time researching what the colours should be if you watch the Bambi restoration documentary. They're doing something that is required because at the end of the day they are moving from one medium and publication method to another - and there's a world of difference between the two media.

Of course, at the end of the day, its a judgement call... but so was the developing of the positive film print from the negative when the first print was ever made.

Exactly, that's why I don't complain about the colour correction.
But i do feel however, that they use overly bright colours in many restorations to cover up the washed out lines etc, done by step 2.

[Marky_198]

I think that most people who come on this forum enough know that you're not a huge fan of the digital restorations, but to start another thread about how you think that they look like rubber? I know that not all the restorations are great or are somewhat questionable at times, but it's really not the end of the world. To be honest, I (along with what arguably seems to be the world and his wife) believe that crappy princess merchandise is a greater insult to the Disney legacy than a DVD of the actual film will ever be.

Have you seen the screencaps?
They do look like rubber, there's just no denying.
It's just really a shame because of this look it's really hard for me to get into the story watching the film.
I agree with you about the merchandise, and my problem is the films are looking more like the merchandise after every new restoration and release.

[Marky_198]

What's your opinion on the theatrical trailer, found on the same disc? That's an example of a digital representation without any restoration applied. Is that what you'd want the movie to look like?

Don't be fooled by this trailer. It's adjusted and manipulated to match the look of the restoration. The look of that trailer is not how the film ever looked whatsoever. There's just a pink glow over it, just like all the Cinderella trailers on that dvd all of a sudden have a "pink" sauce poured over them.

[Wonderlicious]

Have you seen the screencaps?
They do look like rubber, there's just no denying.
It's just really a shame because of this look it's really hard for me to get into the story watching the film.

Not only have I seen the screencaps, but I've watched the films with the restorations on them; I've still got to see Pinocchio, but I believe that that's the only one. To be honest, the thought of rubber never crossed my mind at all before. A slight softness, perhaps. But to me, I can't see much in the way of rubber at all.

[Marky_198]

So you did notice the softness.
Yes, the difference is very clear in TLM screencaps.

But "rubbery", that's just how I describe it. Disney Duster explains the look perfectly earlier in this thread.

[KubrickFan]

The thing is, the computer is not used very lightly. It dramatically changes the look of the image. After this step the film is actually transformed into what we talked about.
Do you see that look in all the screencaps I posted in this thread?
Very soft, foundation-like, grey-ish, a layer over the picture.

You just don't get it, do you? The computer, the one being used for dirt removal, just simply cannot add a grayish layer (whatever that means) to a film. It has nothing to do with each other.

My problem is the look of the films. The whole image, texture, lines, softness, atmosphere is changed. Whites are gone. As well as many details. And it often looks like a washed out picture with redrawn faces and lines. What I'm saying is the same.
Look at these screenshots. This is what I describe.
The image looks soft. Snowwhite's face looks clay-ish.
It looks like there's a grey layer over the film, like some sort of foundation. This creates the strange image, texture, lines, softness.
And they go too far with colors too, like Belle's red hair in BATB.
Or completely washed out colors on Merryweathers sleeve and really thick black lines in her face. This contrast doesn't make sense.

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

At the Sleeping Beauty topic you're complaining that the lines were too thick. Now the lines are too thin, and it still is wrong? Also, the whites were clearly pushed in the old Mermaid version. It's probable as well that they boosted the colors in the picture a bit, so the drawing lines could still be visible on a letterbox transfer of a Laserdisc, done in 1999.

[2099net]

Lots of issues to address. Firstly, I have rewatched the Restoring Bambi featurette and yes, apparently they put a "dull layer" (your description) when the computer is processing the scan. But – only on the first two examples. On the third example (Bambi in the forest with flower) the exact opposite happens. So bang goes that theory, even if what we're seeing is correct, which I very much doubt.

Have you seen the state of the condition of the "scan" they use for these examples? I very much doubt that that is the quality of the archived negative. So I believe just like Disney's before and after restoration demos on their sneak peeks/trailers, Disney are somewhat bending the truth with that comparison, and the whole "layer" issue is not reality.

But let's assume it is the truth. Just for arguments' sake. (Of course, if it is Disney being somewhat lax with the truth, then your whole argument has no basis, so I guess you do want to assume it’s the truth.)

Do you really think you could get a DVD with quality as good as Bambi's without a computer being used on a source that bad?

How the heck do you expect a negative in that condition to be "restored to its former brilliance" via just photochemical means? I would say it would be more or less impossible. Also trying to physically clean the negative would run a huge risk of permanently damaging it. Making a copy of the negative would only result in the imperfections being "burnt into" the new copy. The only way they could get something approaching "clean" would be to work of a copy of a copy made earlier when the negative/original print was in better condition (in fact, I would imagine several generations of copies being as the film is 70 years old).

But I repeat: I doubt the original negative was ever allowed to get in such a state as seen in that "Restoring Bambi" featurette, and the whole featurette is therefore questionable. It's not as if it was kept in somebody's attic for 70 years is it?

But if it was, the computerised method has to be the way to go. But even then, trying to "fix" that frame by frame would still be a huge task. So yes, some automated processing is done. It has to be done – notice that manual processing is also stated as being done.

Look at this Pinocchio frame you're so keen to use as an example:



There's plenty of "noise" in the image (and white is too – see Gepetto's eyes and hair highlight;the fact it has a highlight shows it was never intended to be white) – so it would appear that what you are complaining about is not visible on the latest Pinocchio restoration.


I would say Pinocchio uses the latest technology, but the same is also true of Bambi's restoration – the very restoration you are using as an example of doing wrong:



Again, "noise", brush strokes and white in the eyes.

People can only do the best with the tools that they have available at the time. What I feel is important about these digital restorations is that:

[a] I would assume every stage of the process is being digitally archived. That means I would assume the original scan before any dust/speck removal or colour adjustments is archived somewhere – ready to be used again when techniques improve. For how cheap computer storage is these days, it just doesn't make sense to throw any stage of the process away. So there's always a possibility of a "better" restoration in the future.

As Disney has shown with Sleeping Beauty and Pinocchio, they're not adverse to spending the money on new restorations, making [a] likely in the future.

I personally feel these latest restorations – each and every one of them, including Cinderella – is vastly superior to what could have been achieved with older, film only based restorations. I also feel that the people doing the restorations put a lot of time, effort and love into them too. I've never argued they're "Perfect" - I've always argued they're the best we're going to get at this time.

Having got my Bambi DVD set out, I actually viewed a segment of the film, and something that struck me immediately was how poorly bits of it was encoded. I've never really noticed before, but since I've gone High-Def stuff like macro blocking is much more noticeable. Marky, if I remember correctly you have in the past stated that there's no point in Blu-ray. Yet here, repeatedly, and on repeated threads, you examine and nit-pick even the smallest of things on the SD picture. A little illogical, no? Considering Blu-ray has 6 times the definition of the SD picture and can use much more efficient encoding, resulting in less compromised images.

The softness you mention is most likely the result of downscaling a higher resolution picture to a lower resolution picture - try it on photoshop. I did with various colours on various backgrounds (and each JPEG I made is saved with a quality of 100%). As KubrickFan mentioned, the old DVDs may of had contrast/colour modifications to make the lines stand out more to deal with the reduction and potential MPEG-2 encoding issues. .

See:



You really shouldn't be taking any DVD as the quality threshold, compare

DVD Normal Size http://www.jamesreader.plus.com/ud/ac7c8610-2.png
DVD Upscaled http://www.jamesreader.plus.com/ud/ac7c8610.png
Blu-ray http://www.jamesreader.plus.com/ud/74dcad8c.png Can you see any "softness" on this?
Blu-ray Trailer http://www.jamesreader.plus.com/ud/9e7bcc78.png

Admittedly, the second DVD capture has been blown-up to HD proportions (I scaled it down for the Normal Size image), but look at the MPEG-2 artifacts in the encoding, which are nothing to do with the restoration. As I understand it Xylon gets his screen captures from his HDMI lead on his player (the same way Blu-ray.com get theirs) so it is literally what will be going to your TV screen.

[Marky_198]

You just don't get it, do you? The computer, the one being used for dirt removal, just simply cannot add a grayish layer (whatever that means) to a film. It has nothing to do with each other.

.

You just don't get it do you?
I said, this process which is supposed to be for dirt removal, drastically changes the film. Much, much, much more is removed, it DOES put a layer over the film, it whipes things out, it makes it looks soft and it looks like foundation/clay-ish.
Have you actually looked at TLM screenshots?

The picture that's left is so flattened by this time, that they HAVE to add color correction in an extreme way and redraw many of the lines to actually maintain a picture.

This process only removes the dirt? I wish that was the case......

[Marky_198]

At the Sleeping Beauty topic you're complaining that the lines were too thick. Now the lines are too thin, and it still is wrong? .

Please read....
Look at her sleeves, completely washed out. No details, no lines, no colors.
Look at her face. Redrawn, very thick black lines, and cartoony flat patch of pink paint.

[Marky_198]

2099net, thanks for your great post!

Lots of issues to address. Firstly, I have rewatched the Restoring Bambi featurette and yes, apparently they put a "dull layer" (your description) when the computer is processing the scan. But – only on the first two examples. On the third example (Bambi in the forest with flower) the exact opposite happens. So bang goes that theory, even if what we're seeing is correct, which I very much doubt.

That's what I thought too. Aside from colors etc, this step is what causes the look I was talking about. But agreed, in the 3rd example the exact opposite happens. BUT this doesn't make sense because the "after" image in that example is exactly what the final film on dvd looked like, so that is not an example of what happens in that step, but what it looks like after the whole restoration, so after the color correction etc is added as well.

Have you seen the state of the condition of the "scan" they use for these examples? I very much doubt that that is the quality of the archived negative. So I believe just like Disney's before and after restoration demos on their sneak peeks/trailers, Disney are somewhat bending the truth with that comparison, and the whole "layer" issue is not reality.

I agree, just as in the 3rd example the "after" isn't really the "after", I doubt that this is how it looked before. I do like the untampered, natural colours though. And this "layer-ish, foundation-clay look" is not present in that stage yet. But no, I wouldn't be surprised if that "damages" were added. Considering they even mess with the so called "original cinema trailers" and have you seen the before/after pictures of Flounder at the back of TLM dvd? That before pic actually looks more like the film after the restoration with this layer.

But let's assume it is the truth. Just for arguments' sake. (Of course, if it is Disney being somewhat lax with the truth, then your whole argument has no basis, so I guess you do want to assume it’s the truth.)

Do you really think you could get a DVD with quality as good as Bambi's without a computer being used on a source that bad? .

I actually don't but I just find that step 2 changes the look of the film way too drastically.

The Pinocchio screenshot isn't the best example, although this clay-ish, soft look is still very much visible.
Also this Bambi shot has that look, but I have to say it's much clearer on human characters. But it's also noticeable in the backgrounds.

What I feel is important about these digital restorations is that:

[a] I would assume every stage of the process is being digitally archived. That means I would assume the original scan before any dust/speck removal or colour adjustments is archived somewhere – ready to be used again when techniques improve. For how cheap computer storage is these days, it just doesn't make sense to throw any stage of the process away. So there's always a possibility of a "better" restoration in the future.

As Disney has shown with Sleeping Beauty and Pinocchio, they're not adverse to spending the money on new restorations, making [a] likely in the future. .

These are some great ideas. Hopefully that will happen.

I personally feel these latest restorations – each and every one of them, including Cinderella – is vastly superior to what could have been achieved with older, film only based restorations. .

I disagree with you here. I think Cinderella's restoration is a travesty.

The softness you mention is most likely the result of downscaling a higher resolution picture to a lower resolution picture - try it on photoshop. I did with various colours on various backgrounds (and each JPEG I made is saved with a quality of 100%). As KubrickFan mentioned, the old DVDs may of had contrast/colour modifications to make the lines stand out more to deal with the reduction and potential MPEG-2 encoding issues. .

See:



.

I'm not sure about this, because it's also very much visible in the blu ray versions on hd tv. It's just the new look of the films.

But those pics you posted do have an interesting effect.
I will take a closer look at them.

[2099net]

But Marky, if you don't believe the before shots on the featurette, how can you believe the shots they show after the process accurately represent the process? It's just illogical.

[Marky_198]

But Marky, if you don't believe the before shots on the featurette, how can you believe the shots they show after the process accurately represent the process? It's just illogical.

Because that's the look that can actually be seen in the restored films. You see the changing image, and that's exactly what I meant. (except for the 3rd that has the color correction as well, but the first 2 examples are very good).
The layered look we were talking about in this thread and the look that bothers me.

[CampbellzSoup]

Screenshots do not do film justice, show us video evidence...it's very easy to spot a bad frame and exploit it ...on my HDTV Blu Ray it's beautiful Marky.

[ajmrowland]

It would take some rather high quality video.

[Wonderlicious]

So you did notice the softness.
Yes, the difference is very clear in TLM screencaps.

But "rubbery", that's just how I describe it. Disney Duster explains the look perfectly earlier in this thread.

Excuse me, but can you please stop twisting my words? And stop acting so patronising to me as well? I actually didn't really look at The Little Mermaid screencaps as a last-minute reference when I was writing my previous post in here (I looked at Peter Pan and Pinocchio), so stop making it seem like I did. I honestly don't think that these things look extremely soft anyway, and to be honest, I personally don't care all that much. And just because you think that a slightly soft look makes them look like rubber, it doesn't mean that everybody else does.

I'm sorry if what I'm seeming is a bit below-the-belt but, but I think your passion on this topic is turning into a bit of an unhealthy obsession. I love Disney as much as the next guy, but at the end of the day, they are for the most part just family-films, and like any film, the world's existence doesn't rely on how it looks. There's no need to turn this whole thing into World War 3. And if you say that these new restorations are preventing you from getting into the story, do you think that maybe you yourself could actually not be enjoying these films too much (perhaps due to watching them too much...I don't know)? If you really liked the story and characters, then I don't think that you'd probably care about the restorations to the point where you'd be ranting on an Internet forum to the whole world about it. I remember watching Sister Act on TV once, and even though it was in pan-and-scan and the picture was really grainy, I didn't care as I liked the film itself. It's alright to go mentioning traits of the restorations, but to blame them for you not enjoying the films is getting a bit carried away.

The world isn't going to end due to these restorations. It's doing yourself no good to get so worked up over what is essentially - dare I say it - something rather petty. Calm your jets.