DVDizzy Forum

Yeah, now I come to think about. I was being pretty stupid.

None of the designs of Belle show her with red hair, anyway, and there are flaws in the picture that would sure as hell not be in the CAPS files.

Marky_198 wrote:No, you don't understand me. What I mean to say is "I don't care what people say the original look was/is" because we don't have real proof (although it's quite obvious).

<b>I firmly believe I know which version is closer to the OTV...</b>

Why? What's your baseline reference for the OTV: memory? I saw the film in theatres and I'm not going to trust <i>my</i> memory with respect to color grading in various home media releases, so why should I trust yours?

Marky_198 wrote:I do care about respecting the OTV. And there are some people on this board that seem to have no problem with this modifications, and don't care about the differences at all. Opinions like that deserve minimal consideration, because they don't have respect for the classics in the first place.

I respect the people who created the OTV and their right to see their work as a living, evolving thing for as long as they want. I also trust they'll be closely involved (those who are still with us) with the fall 2010 release.

Flanger-Hanger wrote:Any disagreeing is just meaningless fan whining.

I think it really has all to do with opinion. Me, I would rather have the colors it was originally released with- that's what people remember. If the filmmakers couldn't afford a certain palette for the movie and they must create it using certain colors, then it should stay like that. To me, it just all goes back to who remembers what and I believe the most important thing is they should leave it be for those who remember how they watched and loved it. It's just like dubbing. A lot of people liked the old My Neighbor Totoro dub better because they grew up with it so anything changed might shift their opinion on the film and ruin their memory of it.

drfsupercenter wrote:He [Spielberg] used the same digital restoration service as George Lucas, but yet nobody's complaining about Indiana Jones.

Interesting, if completely off-topic:

About this time last year I actually said out loud to my next door neighbor that there'd be an Indiana Jones boxset on Blu-ray by Christmas (2008). It seemed obvious: the 4th film was coming out in theaters alongside a trilogy DVD re-release in summer, surely it would be a 4th-quarter killer on hi-def home media.

Now that the set has finally been teased (if not announced), Jeff Kleist from thedigitalbits.com has let it slip in the bits' blu-ray.com thread that it <i>was</i> planned for 2008 and called off at the last possible moment: the quality of the DVD re-releases notwithstanding, it became apparent that the masters <a href="http://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.php?p ... 0">weren't good enough</a> for Blu-ray:

Jeff Kleist wrote:The Indiana Jones Trilogy ALMOST streeted last year with Indy 4, but at the last minute was nixed because the masters simply weren't up to snuff. It was literally killed at the final go/no go point. Now work was being done on these as early as June 2008, so all signs pointed to them coming. I would have felt really bad if we'd said something as dear to everyone's hearts as Indy was on the way and then it didn't happen. Whatever we get this fall is going to be much better than those discs would have been, and that's great news for everyone.

Food for thought.

Well I've already posted that different theatrical screens present colours and brightness and contrast in different ways, depending on the reflective index (which everyone has ignored)

SEE: http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/ ... creen1.htm

In another post, I'ved explained about FULL RGB and Limited RGB (and remember all analogue NTSC can only show Limited RGB meaning colours appear darker and blacks as greys)

SEE: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=852410

So in conclusion: All screencaps are pretty worthless unless you know the A] how the dvd was mastered (optimised for full or limited RGB) and B] how the display/software is configured when the screenshot is taken (full or RGB). Just to repeat screengrabs are useless unless we know the settings when they were taken.

Take another look at this picture



Left is limited RGB (resulting in duller highlights and greyed shadows] and the right is full RGB (showing the full range of RGB values). The exact same image, from a digital source, but the two halves look TOTALLY DIFFERENT. See how one half looks "older" and the other "newer" - now which look do you think the creators intended? (Keeping in mind its a PS3 video game, designed for newer, more capable HD displays?).

2099Net sighs, because he knows like all other posts, this will be ignored, as people refer back to their VHS copies, convinced they show the "true" colours, and all "old" films are meant to look unclear and worn.

Anton Ego wrote:
Why? What's your baseline reference for the OTV: memory? I saw the film in theatres and I'm not going to trust <i>my</i> memory with respect to color grading in various home media releases, so why should I trust yours?

I respect the people who created the OTV and their right to see their work as a living, evolving thing for as long as they want. I also trust they'll be closely involved (those who are still with us) with the fall 2010 release.

Because all the promotional material directly from the studio from that time, all the official screenshots of the OTV, all the original books I have from that time, everything that was ever released looked exactly like the laserdisc version. And nothing that ever existed (or at least anyone has ever seen) looked even a bit like the DVD version.

So what do you think of what they did to Pinnocchio (shown in the other thread?) That's basically the same thing that happened to BATB.
That's ok too? Although the people involved are all dead now?

so it took me a couple minutes but i found a way to take the dvd caps and convert them to the VHS colors. it was quite easy actually. the RGB was off so I tweaked it a bit, then I found that the red level itself has been greatly decreased in the VHS caps. here's some examples of what the VHS colors would look like in DVD quality. now mind you if the film had not been edited (and there are many different things that could have been done so don't quote me on this) but.. if it was kept in it's CAPS files these preset levels I set up should apply to the whole film and convert it to the same colors as the VHS. It did not however.. ie: the ballroom cap. Mind you these only get it close, and with the artifacts and the pixilation things get highlighted oddly and who knows what all is there that shouldnt but, but here you go.






here's where the uh oh comes...

This one's quite accurate



Skin tone is way off and it's too dark but it's a huge improvement! The hair alone!

Interesting, if completely off-topic:

About this time last year I actually said out loud to my next door neighbor that there'd be an Indiana Jones boxset on Blu-ray by Christmas (2008). It seemed obvious: the 4th film was coming out in theaters alongside a trilogy DVD re-release in summer, surely it would be a 4th-quarter killer on hi-def home media.

Now that the set has finally been teased (if not announced), Jeff Kleist from thedigitalbits.com has let it slip in the bits' blu-ray.com thread that it was planned for 2008 and called off at the last possible moment: the quality of the DVD re-releases notwithstanding, it became apparent that the masters weren't good enough for Blu-ray:

Except that I don't care about the Indiana Jones trilogy on Blu-Ray. It DOES look good enough from the DVDs.
And seeing as how Beauty and the Beast also isn't on Blu-Ray I don't see how that has to do with anything.
I was merely pointing out that Spielberg at least seems to get the value of preserving films the way they were shown in theaters.

2099Net sighs, because he knows like all other posts, this will be ignored, as people refer back to their VHS copies, convinced they show the "true" colours, and all "old" films are meant to look unclear and worn.

No, I completely get what you're saying... but I highly doubt the differences caused by theater setups will be as drastic as the difference between the VHS/laserdisc and DVD releases. I think if they did a TRUE conversion from CAPS that didn't involve screwing with the colors, aspect ratio, timing, and just about everything else... people would think it looks a lot like the OTV.

so it took me a couple minutes but i found a way to take the dvd caps and convert them to the VHS colors. it was quite easy actually. the RGB was off so I tweaked it a bit, then I found that the red level itself has been greatly decreased in the VHS caps. here's some examples of what the VHS colors would look like in DVD quality. now mind you if the film had not been edited (and there are many different things that could have been done so don't quote me on this) but.. if it was kept in it's CAPS files these preset levels I set up should apply to the whole film and convert it to the same colors as the VHS. It did not however.. ie: the ballroom cap. Mind you these only get it close, and with the artifacts and the pixilation things get highlighted oddly and who knows what all is there that shouldnt but, but here you go.

I was actually thinking of doing something like this myself too. Only instead of setting up a filter and applying it to the entire film like you did, I wanted to take certain screenshots and make them fit the laserdisc colors... and see if they do indeed still look flat/lifeless compared to the laserdisc. I have a feeling they will.

But drfsupercenter, you've still totally ignored the RGB comparison.

Note: NTSC has never been able to show full RGB. Most computer monitors do (i.e. 0-255). Most screen captures from DVDs are done on computers, and most software defaults to full RGB. Meanwhile, analogue inputs, even on computers, are configured for NTSC.

Again looking at this picture, which has THE EXACT SAME DIGITAL IMAGE, but with different RGB setting, can you see how it compares to the LD screencaps? The actual image itself was not altered in any way.

Nothing will ever look like the laserdisc. Don't bother trying. The way it was put on that format the quality of the format itself, nothing before or since will look like it. You like it best? Watch it instead. Oh, and for that laserdisc and VHS release they edited out the skulls in Gaston's eyes, but put them back in for the "terrible" IMAX version. Shows how even that release isn't 100% perfect and they they were willing to "screw" around with stuff even then.

Blu-ray, like IMAX will show this restoration for what it really is in sharpness and colour. The DVD probably doesn't even come close.

Changing films and he possibility of losing a audience is something a filmmaker risks when editing his original work. It's a risk the were willing to take and the have every right to do so. Those who dislike it will not buy or watch it as that is the only option they get or have (which may seem unreasonable to you but it's reality). The "original" audience who made it a hit might react badly, but there will always be new audiences who might (and in BatB case have) continue to remember and make it a hit years after it's release. If Spielberg likes including multiple versions, that's good for him. If Don, Kirk, and Gary don't that's fine to. You as the consumer still have the choice to watch which version you want. If it's not on your preferred format, again it's your loss (not theirs) and whining and complaining will likely not change anything. Ironically while some complain and want the "original" look they are going back again to the film and putting it into 3-D. Maybe i another 10 years we will have the Smell-O vision re-issue but that's fine to. Don't like it? Don't watch it.

nomad2010, thanks for adjusting the images.
It really shows they modified some scenes in a certain way and others in another way.

I still don't like it though. Although the colors look better (well, most of them, not the purple lips), the lines and patches still look more cartoonish and lack depth compared to what the laserdisc had.

Look at the VHS screenshot. For example the Beast's button looks like a real button. On the "mine" screenshot and the "dvd" screenshot it just looks incredibly cheap and drawm in a way that looks like a sequel.
So it's not only about the colors. It's about taking all depth, feeling, emotion and realistic-ness out, and flattening the image.

It really is the difference between that magical realistic Disney Classic look and a cartoonish/flat sequel look.

This was the reason I love the classics so much.

It'd be cool if I could chime in a little. Okay, a lot, but please read it.

First, thanks beast_enchantment for doing this.

Anyway, to everyone, well, I think a big issue here is ethics, or just what's right or wrong, or what's fair.

On the DVD, if you watch the original theatrical version, it still isn't the original theatrical version. I know that Cogsworth's animation was changed in one scene, and the Beast's stuttering was removed, and I swear that I read the new backgrounds of the cleaned up palace are in it too, instead of the original wrecked ones. So anyway, the original theatrical version just isn't on the DVD. Disney lied.

But if they said, "this is not the original version, but the version the filmakers want", with all this changed stuff and bright colors, okay, they can put that on. That's OK.

But the right or wrong here is, shouldn't they also make the original theatrical version available? I know that it probably isn't quite as dark as it was on VHS, but it is very much probably not how bright it is on DVD.

Remember everyone talking about the scene where the Beast comes into the light, but you can already see him clearly before that, thanks to the brightened DVD? Well...I don't see, at all, how the filmakers could have wanted that! Likewise, I think you can too easily see the beast when he first appears on the DVD, where he discovers Maurice in his chair, whereas he was much scarier, and more mysterious, in his less visible, darker version on the VHS and Laserdisc. Not to mention, the filmakers most definately wanted the film to look dark as they wanted the story and everything else about the film to be a darker fairy tale.

But anyway, if a director makes a movie, but the movie that went to theaters is not how he wanted it, perhaps even very far from how he wanted it, and he gets to make it his way later, by all means he should get to release that.

But then I think he should think about the audience that saw the first version, and loved it, and like it better than his new version. And then he should release that, too.

Flanger-Hanger talked about watching the version you like on the formats you have it on. But VHS wears out and becomes unwatchable rather quickly, eventually breaking. Laserdisc also wears over time. And if you love the movie so much, you watch the movie that many times to wear it out. In fact, some people have worn out the DVDs of their favorite movies. They skip or get messed up or unwatchable in other ways. They love these films that much.

It is terribly unfair, without question, to not let the audiences that love these original versions have the versions on the new formats so they can continue to see the film as the old formats wears out or die out or just aren't as good as the new formats. If we are asking about fairness, there really is no doubt that the original filmakers are not being fair if they don't release the original versions of their films. And it's still unfair if they don't re-release the original version on the better formats, because another part of fairness is letting people have the same quality.

So yea. There it is.

^good point. I always thought that the directors should have the final say in the mastering of a film. Not many directors even take part in the mastering. A few do, but those are largely the Spielbergs, Lucases, and Jacksons of the world.

And who said that not all 3 versions (original, like real original, SE and work-in-progress) will be included on the DVD/BD next year?
We don't know anything about this release yet, so I think people should just calm down for now.

Now, about the colors. I never really noticed any difference, and believe me, I watched that movie a lot when I was younger. The one thing that did bother me was how different the animation was in "Human again" (especially Belle's face, she looked like a crossing between herself, Mulan and Pocahontas).

But I never noticed anything about the colors and I find it very interesting how some people claim to still remember what the movie looked in theaters. I saw it in theater, but I wouldn't be able to tell you if the red was redder or the brown browner or the brown redder.

For now, I think we should just wait and see and I think that all 3 versions will be included on the new BD/DVD.
And if you're unhappy about the IMAX colors or background changes, for heaven's sake write an e-mail to Disney and tell them. If a lot of people do that maybe they will include the original, original version of the movie on the new disc.

Anyone else see some reanimation going on? It seems like the beast's sideburns have some new ruffles on the DVD. I know they supposedly added more detail to Aladdin for the IMAX release, and I know they completely reanimated one scene for BatB, but this is new to me.



Does anyone have a non-worn out VHS rip of the movie?

Nope, no new sideburns, they just go more visible in the restoration. Besides your not even comparing the same frame or angle of his face.

Also Marky, that's not "depth" that just plain blurriness of the laserdisc (which now everyone has switched to calling VHS for some reason). Even a direct port of the CAPS files on DVD (and especially Blu-ray) will not show that ill defined look and generally darker you seem so obsessed about. I suggest you stop moaning and just get someone like drf to put a copy of that file onto DVD for you and stop bothering everyone with you repetitive, ineffective arguments.

And no, there is no such thing as a none worn out VHS. Even If you never played it the tape is likely to deteriorate over time (it's been 17 years since it's release). If you don't want the new look, don't pay for it. Actions speak louder than words (especially some that Disney will never read, don't bother emailig them, if you must put pen to paper, I hear they take more notice that). Ironically everyone here bought the DVD so that tells Disney you're OK with it.

Note: NTSC has never been able to show full RGB. Most computer monitors do (i.e. 0-255). Most screen captures from DVDs are done on computers, and most software defaults to full RGB. Meanwhile, analogue inputs, even on computers, are configured for NTSC.

Again looking at this picture, which has THE EXACT SAME DIGITAL IMAGE, but with different RGB setting, can you see how it compares to the LD screencaps? The actual image itself was not altered in any way.

If it makes you happy, then, I can just take the unaltered DVD frames and save them as bitmaps. It's not an issue of screencap software. DVDs are essentially a series of compressed bitmap images played back at a certain speed. Since all of Disney's animated DVDs are progressive, there's not even interlacing to worry about. I can just save each frame as a bitmap and there won't be any of that RGB crap you're talking about.

Blu-ray, like IMAX will show this restoration for what it really is in sharpness and colour. The DVD probably doesn't even come close.

Obviously you're a Blu-Ray fanboy... and it's not a restoration! You can't restore something that's inherently digital to begin with! (And keep in mind, the CAPS files are larger than Blu-Ray so it doesn't even NEED any fixing to be in high definition)

You as the consumer still have the choice to watch which version you want. If it's not on your preferred format, again it's your loss (not theirs) and whining and complaining will likely not change anything. Ironically while some complain and want the "original" look they are going back again to the film and putting it into 3-D. Maybe i another 10 years we will have the Smell-O vision re-issue but that's fine to. Don't like it? Don't watch it.

And why do you think I'm doing my own preservations on DVD from other sources? People complain about "those darn pirates" like me but it's Disney's own fault there for not releasing the original to begin with. Obviously there's also quite a large fandom of the OTV.

On the DVD, if you watch the original theatrical version, it still isn't the original theatrical version. I know that Cogsworth's animation was changed in one scene, and the Beast's stuttering was removed, and I swear that I read the new backgrounds of the cleaned up palace are in it too, instead of the original wrecked ones. So anyway, the original theatrical version just isn't on the DVD. Disney lied.

Precisely. Don Hahn, who's the producer of both Beauty and the Beast and The Lion King said TLK would have the OTV on its DVD, saying the fanboys have nothing to worry about. And look what happened. Disney is lying through their teeth a lot when it comes to home videos (they do it all the time with "original" aspect ratios too), and that's mainly why I have an issue with the fake OTV on both DVDs.

But if they said, "this is not the original version, but the version the filmakers want", with all this changed stuff and bright colors, okay, they can put that on. That's OK.

But the right or wrong here is, shouldn't they also make the original theatrical version available? I know that it probably isn't quite as dark as it was on VHS, but it is very much probably not how bright it is on DVD.

See, that's the whole reason behind me feeling the way I do about this. I have no problem with "special editions"... and for that matter I actually like Human Again. What pisses me off, though, is when they either don't release the OTV, or even worse... when they just release a watered-down modified version and call it the OTV.

Remember everyone talking about the scene where the Beast comes into the light, but you can already see him clearly before that, thanks to the brightened DVD? Well...I don't see, at all, how the filmakers could have wanted that! Likewise, I think you can too easily see the beast when he first appears on the DVD, where he discovers Maurice in his chair, whereas he was much scarier, and more mysterious, in his less visible, darker version on the VHS and Laserdisc. Not to mention, the filmakers most definately wanted the film to look dark as they wanted the story and everything else about the film to be a darker fairy tale.

See, when it comes to colors... I don't think either one is perfect. The DVD is off simply because we all know they changed it. The laserdisc/VHS is off just because at the time they couldn't just encode the CAPS files, and it had to be telecined somehow. And likely some detail was lost due to that. I prefer the laserdisc colors a bit more since they're likely closer to what they should be, but I'm not saying they're *THE* OTV colors, either.

And who said that not all 3 versions (original, like real original, SE and work-in-progress) will be included on the DVD/BD next year?
We don't know anything about this release yet, so I think people should just calm down for now.

True, we don't know anything... but I know Disney is incredibly cheap and lazy when it comes to releasing videos now, and if they already have this "restored" version wouldn't it make sense they'll just release it again?
I mean, maybe we could all bombard them with letters asking for a direct rip of CAPS... and even so I doubt all the members on this forum would make enough of a difference to the people over at Disney.

Even a direct port of the CAPS files on DVD (and especially Blu-ray) will not show that ill defined look and generally darker you seem so obsessed about. I suggest you stop moaning and just get someone like drf to put a copy of that file onto DVD for you and stop bothering everyone with you repetitive, ineffective arguments.

We don't know what a direct port of CAPS will look like, as they haven't done it!
If anyone WANTS the laserdisc version on DVD I can give you a copy... I've already sent a link to the AVI to a couple people. (The DVDISOs aren't up yet due to how big they are)
But mine aren't perfect - I need someone with the x0 or x9 laserdisc player so I can get a truly good recording

And no, there is no such thing as a none worn out VHS. Even If you never played it the tape is likely to deteriorate over time (it's been 17 years since it's release).

Well, I have the VHS as well, and I did do a recording to DVD. It's a little worn but I think it looks better than some of the screencaps here. See for yourself from this one here:
http://usotsuki.info/batbvhs1.jpg

And, the laserdisc doesn't deteriorate like that. The only issues with laserdiscs is "laser rot" and as long as it doesn't have that the picture will look the same as it did back in 1992.

Though this is weird... the same frame from the laserdisc actually looks BRIGHTER.
http://usotsuki.info/batbld1.jpg
Whereas the DVD looks more like the VHS. Maybe certain parts are brighter and certain parts are darker (on the DVD than the LD)?

The LD coloring could be my hardware.

Anyway, it's interesting that the two most screwed-up Disney releases are Beauty and the Beast and The Lion King; both got recuts; both had fake OTVs; both were produced by Don Hahn. Coincidence? I'm not betting my money on it.