DVDizzy Forum

I care about the movies, just not the unnoticeable.

If the image were of high quality it wouldn't be pixely. Why would decent caps form not only Blu-ray.com but DVDbeaver and other sites look remarkably superior to some random jerk wad's own shots posted on Photobucket?

On my HD monitor the old DVD looks dreadful and lacking in strength of colour and sharpness. I'm sure when the cells were painted it looked like a bunch of squares lined up.

Here's a cap I did of that same shot on the 2008 DVD:



vs. your post:



compared with your version it doesn't even have the same colours, let alone sharpness. That "Blu-ray" pic is just a blown up version of his or her DVD screenshot using Photoshop, if not then it's still of poor quality but we don't know much about how it was done only that compared with others it looks bad.

Thank you Flanger-Hanger. Let's take the one you took as a comparison then. Your screenshot actually makes my point even clearer
Look at the sleeves for example.

2003 dvd

<a href="http://s46.photobucket.com/albums/f112/ ... 800002.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f112/ ... 800002.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

2008 dvd

So, you're saying that Merryweather's supposed to be black? 'cause she certainly looks that way in old remastered DVD.

The colors on the sleeves appear to be suffering from compression, but that could easily be the programs used for the screencaps.

Honestly, both of those shots look like crap to me. In the old one, she looks way too dark and in the new one she looks way too bright. Again, though, Marky, it seems like you're judging the entire restoration based on one shot.

Marky_198 wrote:Ajmrowland, Flanger-Hanger and KubrickFan,

Considering your reactions I see you agree with me that the image looks unacceptable.
The Blu ray screencap is actually from very high quality, so don't hide behind that please.
And if you're still not convinced. Go watch your own dvd or Blu ray and have a look at this shot.

So yeah, washed out sleeves, re-colored face. Thick lines and flat, cartoony patches.
I would say the restoration process still has a long way to go, don't you think?

It may be high quality, it's still compressed for obvious reasons. Screenshots are wrong most of the time. But then again, some people here like the screenshots so much they bash a restoration without actually seeing it.
And I said numerous times that the restoration is done by people. People make mistakes. Also there is a budget and time constraint they have to anwser to. They just cannot work ten years on it and spend hundreds of millions of dollars on it. No one will put up that money. Plus, techniques evolve so fast that a restoration can be outdated when it comes out.
So it's just one shot, for which they didn't have the time or the money to fix, otherwise they would've. Do you think everyone involved wants to deliver a faulty product? I don't think so. The restoration looks beautiful, regardless what you think. And I never said it looks unacceptable, stop putting words in my mouth. And why wouldn't we care about the film? We all bought it, didn't we? Just because we don't raise hell over a single shot?

ajmrowland wrote:So, you're saying that Merryweather's supposed to be black? 'cause she certainly looks that way in old remastered DVD.

The colors on the sleeves appear to be suffering from compression, but that could easily be the programs used for the screencaps.

No, I'm saying she's supposed to be in the shadow, and that skin actually should look like skin. And that there are actually some wonderful colour differences and details in her sleeve. That happens sometimes in real life as well as in the Disney classics. And that the lines on het dress and face are actually perfectly balanced in the first screenshot, and in the 2008 version some disappeared and some became very thick.
But it seems that all sources of light, shadows, atmosphere is removed in the new restorations (and the 2nd screenshot) and now look like a flat saturday morning cartoon.

The actual dvd doesn't look quite as dark by the way. That really is a result of the screencap. But aside from the colors/darkness. My point is still clear I hope.

gregmasciola wrote:Honestly, both of those shots look like crap to me. In the old one, she looks way too dark and in the new one she looks way too bright. Again, though, Marky, it seems like you're judging the entire restoration based on one shot.

I have both versions on dvd. I judge the films based on the films.
I just use a shot as an example. What else would you suggest?

KubrickFan wrote: And I said numerous times that the restoration is done by people. People make mistakes. Also there is a budget and time constraint they have to anwser to.

I guess you're right and that's the reason.

It doesn't stop me from feeling disappointed in this look though.

Marky_198 wrote:

gregmasciola wrote:Honestly, both of those shots look like crap to me. In the old one, she looks way too dark and in the new one she looks way too bright. Again, though, Marky, it seems like you're judging the entire restoration based on one shot.

I have both versions on dvd. I judge the films based on the films.
I just use a shot as an example. What else would you suggest?

I'm just saying that one messed up shot doesn't mean that the whole restoration sucks.