Beauty And The Beast: Diamond Edition Discussion Oct. 5th!

[Disney Duster]

Thank you goofystitch and Yukitora.

Well in the original screencap, not my Photobucket ones, the lines seem to be too square, made of perfect pixels. And remember the original DVD, even though digital and on the computer, didn't have such straight pixelated looking lines.

We do know from Sleeping Beauty's first DVD they actually did, on the computer, paint in some parts to correct them. They were digitally painting in the scene where Phillip and Aurora dance after the awakening. I of course am completely against that, and I have good reason as they tried to fix a mistake in the dress color changing animation that was not a mistake.

When I have time, I will have to go back to the Sleeping Beauty thread and post that mistake at least, and whatever others I remember seeing if I watch the whole film again.

[2099net]

Thank you goofystitch and Yukitora.

Well in the original screencap, not my Photobucket ones, the lines seem to be too square, made of perfect pixels. And remember the original DVD, even though digital and on the computer, didn't have such straight pixelated looking lines.

We do know from Sleeping Beauty's first DVD they actually did, on the computer, paint in some parts to correct them. They were digitally painting in the scene where Phillip and Aurora dance after the awakening. I of course am completely against that,

They had to paint it. Did you listen to the explanation? The colours were fading and inconsistent from frame to frame. Even now, on the old DVD the colours still pulse. Would you have preferred that? They weren't fixing mistakes, they were fixing the source's erosion. And now, that wasn't from the original negatives.

My guess is at the time Disney were guarding the negatives because one mistake handling them, and the whole films gone to pot for all future generations. Don't forget that restoration was years old. Technology changes and I guess technology to scan the negatives have too (meaning physical harm is less likely). I know "wetgate" technology has improved and continues to do so.

[Marky_198]

Well...I don't want to make this a Sleeping Beauty thread, but I do want to talk about what's important and what is being discussed right now, so...

I just want to show a different frame from the same scene showing the same problem, because it is in more than one frame:


...

Thanks Disney Duster! It's really obvious in this shot too.

And besides the lines, there are many more things that are off. Like the structure and color differences in the sleeves. Also the face doesn't look colored anymore, but actually like a mask, and it makes you wonder what's underneath. Underneath the digital patch of paint.

I wonder for how long some people will say that all the examples are tampered with, while the're actually accurate.

I knew that some people have problems with accepting facts, but I didn't expect people to deny it when it's right in front of them.

But the fact it's unbelievable for them that it actually looks like this, while it does, says enough, doesn't it?

[Escapay]

As an owner of the Blu-Ray, no, the whole scene is not like that. You really do cling to what ever "evidence" you think you can find to support your incorrect claims that DVD provides better picture quality than Blu-Ray. By this point, Marky, you have become that weird poster that everybody either ignores or loves to argue with. So congratulations on being "that guy."

I knew that some people have problems with accepting facts, but I didn't expect people to deny it when it's right in front of them.

Take your own advice, Marky, and maybe you'll lose your "that guy" status.

Better yet, just read netty's post above yours.

They had to paint it. Did you listen to the explanation? The colours were fading and inconsistent from frame to frame. Even now, on the old DVD the colours still pulse. Would you have preferred that? They weren't fixing mistakes, they were fixing the source's erosion. And no, that wasn't from the original negatives.

My guess is at the time Disney were guarding the negatives because one mistake handling them, and the whole films gone to pot for all future generations. Don't forget that restoration was years old. Technology changes and I guess technology to scan the negatives have too (meaning physical harm is less likely). I know "wetgate" technology has improved and continues to do so.

albert

[Marky_198]

They had to paint it. Did you listen to the explanation? The colours were fading and inconsistent from frame to frame. Even now, on the old DVD the colours still pulse. Would you have preferred that? .

No, but it does mean that the old laserdisc is closer to the otv than this new, repainted version.

[CampbellzSoup]

They had to paint it. Did you listen to the explanation? The colours were fading and inconsistent from frame to frame. Even now, on the old DVD the colours still pulse. Would you have preferred that? .

No, but it does mean that the old laserdisc is closer to the otv than this new, repainted version.

Didn't they find the original score, and 20% more of the outside of the film for the first time to be presented to the audience since the actual viewing of it in the movies? So you're telling me from one screenshot (which on television looks actually normal) that the laserdisc is more accurate?

[Marky_198]

Didn't they find the original score, and 20% more of the outside of the film for the first time to be presented to the audience since the actual viewing of it in the movies? So you're telling me from one screenshot (which on television looks actually normal) that the laserdisc is more accurate?

Actually, they are showing more from the sides than Walt ever wanted the audiences to see, so in that case it's also not the otv.

[CampbellzSoup]

Didn't they find the original score, and 20% more of the outside of the film for the first time to be presented to the audience since the actual viewing of it in the movies? So you're telling me from one screenshot (which on television looks actually normal) that the laserdisc is more accurate?

Actually, they are showing more from the sides than Walt ever wanted the audiences to see, so in that case it's also not the otv.

[ajmrowland]

That's not really the case, since Disney is basically contradicting their own statements about the technirama 70 presentation just by saying that. AND It's all the artwork that ended up on the main negative that the film actually was shot and printed on.

And If you think the LD could've been at all closest to the original LOOK of any film, even Aladdin and other CAPS movies, you need professional help. Until you get it, I'd Mod you if I could.

I don't deny that the SB cap you took from someone who took it from one scene is the way it is, but one frame hardly represents the whole film, and even HDTVs look different from each other when not set up properly.

If yous still say no one else here can accept facts, you're just being a hypocrite.

[Marky_198]

And If you think the LD could've been at all closest to the original LOOK of any film, even Aladdin and other CAPS movies, you need professional help. .

At least there is one thing we know for sure, and that is that a digitally repainted version is as far away as you can get from an original version.

[KubrickFan]

Didn't they find the original score, and 20% more of the outside of the film for the first time to be presented to the audience since the actual viewing of it in the movies? So you're telling me from one screenshot (which on television looks actually normal) that the laserdisc is more accurate?

Actually, they are showing more from the sides than Walt ever wanted the audiences to see, so in that case it's also not the otv.

He started producing Sleeping Beauty in CinemaScope, it was changed during production. So, the 2.55:1 aspect ratio is correct. And I really doubt that Disney would make a company repaint all the cells. There was probably a flaw in that one shot that would need to be repaired.

[Marky_198]

There was probably a flaw in that one shot that would need to be repaired.

I would expect them to be able to repair things properly, we live in 2009.

This look is just unacceptable. I could achieve the same results with the programm paint.

[goofystitch]

There was probably a flaw in that one shot that would need to be repaired.

I would expect them to be able to repair things properly, we live in 2009.

This look is just unacceptable. I could achieve the same results with the programm paint.

I believe KubrickFan was talking about a flaw in the animation process, not the restoration process. So you are basically saying that Disney should have gone in and modified the original film, which is contradictory to everything that you have previously said about you being against them correcting mistakes originally made in the film.

[Marky_198]

No, I said I'm against that, but if there is a flaw that needs to be repaired (because there was a hole in the negative or whatever), then they at least should repair it properly.

[Escapay]

This look is just unacceptable. I could achieve the same results with the programm paint.

Wanna put your money where your mouth is? You'll have to take your foot out first.

albert

[2099net]

They had to paint it. Did you listen to the explanation? The colours were fading and inconsistent from frame to frame. Even now, on the old DVD the colours still pulse. Would you have preferred that? .

No, but it does mean that the old laserdisc is closer to the otv than this new, repainted version.

This new version wasn't repainted. The old Laserdisc was, because the DVD Disney Duster is talking about (the Special Edition) reused the same transfer. You lose.

[KubrickFan]

There was probably a flaw in that one shot that would need to be repaired.

I would expect them to be able to repair things properly, we live in 2009.

This look is just unacceptable. I could achieve the same results with the programm paint.

Disney doesn't have an unlimited amount of money to spend on the restoration of one film. It doesn't work that way. Lowry works on a budget and a schedule, so it can happen that things slip by. The comment they made about Star Wars was that if it was up to them they'd still be working on it. That's probably true for every movie they work on. But that's simply not realistic.
Especially for example when the monitors they're watching on are smaller, or something. Things like a single faulty shot can get overlooked. It's still done by human beings.

[DisneyPrincessSyndrome]

Well, wherever the problem came from, I can see it on my standard definition DVD on our insanely huge/engery-hog widescreen TV.

Wow, I love the rant I fueled. Didn't think I could do it.

[ajmrowland]

How big is your tv? I have a 47" and 1080p looks lovely on that, and flaws are noticeable.

[DisneyPrincessSyndrome]

I have no idea, but it's 1080p, too. Other than that one scene with Merryweather looking somewhat off, the rest of the movie looks georgeous, to me, at least. I thought they did a good job last year when I bought the DVD until people started ranting and all.