Snow White Original Colors

[eric75]

It's not the other way around. The prints are warm, the projected print is not as warm. I work in the field of restoration, and I know this first hand. Also, I'm not considering the 1954 prints as better, but they may be closer to what the filmmakers originally wanted. 1930s Technicolor could not achieve as wide a range of colors or shadow detail. In fact, David O. Selznick did not like the original 1939 prints of Gone With the Wind, and approved of the 1954 version as his preferred look for the film. The photos shown here prove that the prints were timed warmly, but the carbon arc lighting would have certainly altered that warm look, and the filmmakers knew this. Like I said, unless you have seen an answer print, you don't know what it is supposed to look like. Technicolor prints varied from print to print. Almost no two prints looked alike.

[Marky_198]

And yet, these "sources of light effects" were created by the lighting of photography, which was very important to the final look of a film. This delicate process creates that certain look that I love so much. It made the films look realistic.

So what do the "restorers" do to recreate this effect? Clearly there is none of that in the Blu ray screencap. Which seems like a direct look at the cell as well. Only therefore it can never look like what was intended.

My point is, the 1937 look of the film was created by a very elaborate and precise process of lighting. So going back to the cells is not a good idea, as it can never be recreated. Today the film has this cartoony look that Walt was so against. Including cartoony colors.

[PatrickvD]

Today the film has this cartoony look that Walt was so against.

Could you say hit to Walt please?

Since he apparently speaks to you on a regular basis.

[Marky_198]

Dear Patrick, boy you are lost.......

lost in the modern standards, color schemes, looks and computers. All the things they did not have back in the 30's.

Walt spoke to the world.

"Walt was unimpressed. He said: "They got colors everywhere and it looks cheap. There is nothing subtle about it at all. It's just poster-like. A lot of people think that's what a cartoon should have. I don't ".

And that is just one of his many, many quotes. His quotes were recorded, documented, and conformed by the people who worked with him.

Now, what do you think he meant by this quote?

[2099net]

I come back, and Marky's still going on about restoration and colours. It seems like nothing has changed.

I'm not really sure it's worth replying to any of his points, because numerous people have in the past, and nothing seems to sink in.

Firstly, the "restored" Snow White does in no way conflict with Walt's words. The bulk of the backgrounds and even colours in the characters are somewhat dull and earthy. But this doesn't mean ALL the colours should be. Snow White's lips and cheeks for example were obviously supposed to be bright, gloss red. As would the apple and many other items.

Snow White was made as a colour film - and even then, when colour films were a novelty - a lot of thought would have been put into the use of colour, and how elements would be shown/displayed against others.

There's a reason a lot of the first talkies were crude musicals to show off the technology.

Just as there's a reason why early Technicolor films had visual design motifs pretty common throughout. Most early Technicolor films only had single sequences of colour due to the expense. But a lot of these, like talkies, were musicals - vast, theatrical, larger than life musical numbers full of colour and movement. Even when used in "proper" films the reasoning was the same. The Phantom of the Opera's (1925) Technicolor sequence was solely to show off the Phantom's bright "Red Death" costume - an incredibly bright, impossible to ignore crimson red. I can only imagine at the impact of the film on the audience at the time.

Just see what genre the majority of films are on this list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ea ... ture_films

To say people were against bright colours in early Technicolor films is not only missing the point but a complete 180 on the reality of the time.

Look at these 1930's movie posters ( 1930's movie posters on Goolge Image Search ) - most, it must be said for black and white movies. Look at the colours. Look how common Red and Yellow are - especially on titles. They're hardly downplaying the colour. Why on Earth would they in the movies? Look at the colours here (1930's Makeup on Google Image Search - don't you think Snow White and especially the Wicked Witch would have similar bright, strong colours of the fashion of the time? It's a mistake to assume that everybody was dull and drab in those days, just because worn, faded photographs and film prints show that.

Now, from what I know, Walt was concerned that a full-length animation would tire the audience's eyes. But as I've said, nothing on the recent DVD and Blu-ray releases of Snow White conflicts with his statements. The colour scheme in Snow White is, generally, "Earthy" but it still allows for bright colours for contrast and storytelling. You know, a little thing called "artistry".

Actually it was the other way around, the warm yellow glow that Technicolor in the 30's was very well known for, is mostly created in the photography process.

That's because the bulk of early 1930's Technicolour was 2 strip colour. It simply couldn't reproduce all colours. Snow White wasn't. It was full 3 strip.

What's especially interesting about Technicolor in later decades (the late 40s and 50s) is that Technicolor was too colourful. Their method of tie-dying and shooting not only enhanced colours, but was expensive. It's studios and filmmakers moving to cheaper solutions which resulted in films becoming duller and more realistic. Technicolor never was intended to be "realistic" colours. Everything was created and lit for maximum impact - part of the contract to use Technicolor was that a Technicolor advisor had to be on the set at all time and be consulted with design and shooting issues.

Check out the documentary on The Adventures of Robin Hood 2 disc DVD or Blu-ray. You might learn something.

[dvdjunkie]

This is really sad. A discussion about a film that was made almost 80 years ago and the differences in color over time. Who really gives a crap?

Why don't you just enjoy a movie for what it is, and forget about whether colors are correct, as long as they are bright, and you can enjoy the story without something horribly wrong with the print.

As a former projectionist, I can tell you that the difference between projected color from a carbon-arc source rather than today's automated systems was a lot better. There was less flicker and there was a lot more control over the brightness of the picture being put on the screen.

I, for one, enjoy all the animated films from the Disney family, and I think that any adjustments that have been made in recent years is to accomodate the new forms of Digital Cinema which are supposed to be better than anything previously available. Having very little experience with the Digital presentation of a movie, of any type, live or animated, I can't speak as an authority on it, but I have noticed that recent 3-D animated films like "Finding Nemo" and "Beauty & the Beast" looked much brighter and there was less color bleeding in the presentation in the Digital format.

We should all just be thankful that Disney releases these films for us 'movie buffs' who want to return to those days of our youth, for me that is quite a ways since I am the oldest one on these boards, and just enjoy what is on the screen in our theater or on our television. Blu-ray movies look phenomenal when you have a good Blu-ray player and compatible HDTV to watch them on.

[Marky_198]

2099net, you should write a letter to the writer of the book and the Disney Historians, that they are very wrong about Disney history.

That the film looked exactly the same in 1939 as it does on blu-ray now, and that the prints in the book magically turned into the blu ray screencap after photography and that Walt was talking rubbish when he said that he did not want his film to look like the colors on a poster.

Oh, and Ollie Johnston was talking rubbish too.

[2099net]

Firstly, Marky. Do you have any idea how hard it would be to ADD those colours back in? It's easier to subtract colours than add them. It would be a massive undertaking for Disney to change the colours to the extent that you imply has happened.

Secondly, do you really think that a film advertised as Technicolor would be released with that almost sepia tone? It's unfeasible to me that such a thing would happen.

The picture may be from an original print - but there's no record of where that print was from, how that print had been stored, how many times that print had been run through projectors etc. Again, you're mistaking something from - I'm guessing, the 1980s or 1970s - as being a definitive example of the original release print. How likely do you think that was? To me it looks like one of the colours in the print has faded - which is common with badly stored film.

http://www.wilhelm-research.com/pdf/HW_ ... es_v1c.pdf

The above PDF is all about different film stocks, different colours fading and also yellow stains, and includes the following:

Light fading caused by exposure to light and ultraviolet
radiation during display or projection. Absorption
of visible light and UV radiation by the image
dye molecules causes them to break down into colorless
compounds and/or stain products (usually yellowish).
Although it may be possible to chemically restore
the silver image in a faded black-and-white photograph,
there is no known way to chemically restore the dye
image of a color photograph once it has deteriorated.

Sounds like the Snow White image you insist is "the original" to me. And its caused by projecting the film.

[PatrickvD]

Dear Patrick, boy you are lost.......

lost in the modern standards, color schemes, looks and computers. All the things they did not have back in the 30's.

Walt spoke to the world.

"Walt was unimpressed. He said: "They got colors everywhere and it looks cheap. There is nothing subtle about it at all. It's just poster-like. A lot of people think that's what a cartoon should have. I don't ".

And that is just one of his many, many quotes. His quotes were recorded, documented, and conformed by the people who worked with him.

Now, what do you think he meant by this quote?

Dear Marky,

You are by far the least funny person on UD with absolutely no sense of self reflection, humor or charisma. Why are you here, repeating the same thing over and over and over? We all see your point and we don't agree.

Also, you cannot change anything. Disney's restorations are what they are. This is as good (or for you as bad) as it's gonna get. It's not me who's lost, it's you.

[Disney Duster]

I like and want Marky being here. I just don't like how far he goes with what seems to be the wrong ideas about film restorations. I do agree with him that the films have seemed to lose some glows and light sources in the new restorations, but whether those light sources were intended or present in the original film prints, I am unsure of.

[ajmrowland]

Yeah, it's immediately apparent how faded those scans from the book are. The dwarves are supposed to be holding a lantern in the dark; not in front of a burning fireplace.

But in all seriousness, Marky, you really do contribute a good deal to discussions, but when you are arguing with a guy who works in the field over which the debate is being had, you may both sound professional, but it tends to make your facts automatically look weak by comparison.

To put it bluntly, this discussion about restorations has been going on for five years. I hope for your sake that you're considering this as a career, because experience is the most effective teacher.

[Marky_198]

Thanks guys,

I know this is been going on for years (and everyone joins in with their opinions), and I think it will continue. Especially because each and every release looks totally different again.

Duster, thanks for you kind words, I agree that the sources of light are removed. No matter what the colors might be, the Blu ray feels flat and empty, like looking directly at the cells. So in terms of photography, the films will never look like the original. Maybe they should try to evolve a new way of photography, which breathes life into these films again?

[Marky_198]

The photos shown here prove that the prints were timed warmly, but the carbon arc lighting would have certainly altered that warm look, and the filmmakers knew this.

Eric, I think we both agree that looking at the cells is wrong, and that the actual look, feel and atmosphere of the film is created by the photography and it's lighting. This is my problem with the recent restoration technologies. They try to recreate (and often "improve/change" according to this time's standards) the colors. But that is only 1/4 of the look of the film. When I look at the Snow White Blu ray screen, I just see flat cells.

Trying to put just the colors in the flat cells that you think were the colors in the 1939 final product, will not do the trick. Then still 75% of the film's feel is missing.

The title of this thread should actually be "Snow White, original look, feel and created sources of light which made the film realistic instead of cartoony".

I have seen several prints of the film, varied from 1939 to 1994, and they all had very different colors. Yet, the created sources of light felt so real, that it almost looks like a live-action film. Now, the cells might have not looked like this, but the film does. Walt knew the difference and checked it rigorously in the process.

Yes, many prints have different colors, and maybe not even 2 prints were exactly the same, but this effect was present in all of them. And unfortunately missing in todays versions.

I would think people working in the field would try to find ways and experiment a lot with different kinds of photography to recreate this? I know it is very difficult, once you go back to the cells, you immediately remove the effect and look the film had, and no filter or computer program comes close to recreating it. Maybe because the scanner is too close to the cell while photographing it? And that's how the image stays.

[Disney Duster]

Duster, thanks for you kind words, I agree that the sources of light are removed. No matter what the colors might be, the Blu ray feels flat and empty, like looking directly at the cells. So in terms of photography, the films will never look like the original. Maybe they should try to evolve a new way of photography, which breathes life into these films again?

Well I was saying we don't know if the sources of light were in the originals or not. I don't trust any book's printing of the images, and we don't know if the older transfers were how they were originally supposed to look. I do believe the sources of light are a better aspect, but I don't know if they were really in the original films. I don't know how to find out if they were either. Did the book say?