DVDizzy Forum

delete post.

Oh, yeah, I kinda like that second one. I think I will use that in my proposed Pinocchio DVD idea. Look here to view and scroll down until you reach my post of my Pinocchio DVD (you'll have to do a bit of scrolling because it's down near the bottom of the page, but it's there, just scroll down 'til you see it): http://www.ultimatedisney.com/forum/vie ... &start=320.

drsd2kill wrote: * there is still a lot of visible cel dust that has not all been filtered and removed, indicating less of a digital overhaul than some other films (BAMBI & CINDERELLA come to mind...)

I must say I enjoy having this version of the film, while I find the new CINDERELLA completely unwatchable.

What about SNOW WHITE? Doesn't that one have a lack of cel dust and a digital overhaul the likes of which is more or less dust-free?

Wow, Lowry actually did a pretty neat job on his one...

I wonder if this transfer is on all the R2 (re)releases,or just the UK one??

I can't believe the pictures of Pinocchio with the candle, the apple and the bed.

The whole atmosphere is ruined.
It looks like my 5 year old niece's colour book.
While the earlier screenshots of them look actually like an animated movie.

271286 wrote:Wow, Lowry actually did a pretty neat job on his one...

I wonder if this transfer is on all the R2 (re)releases,or just the UK one??

Nope, my dutch dvd has the same transfer.

delete post.

When are we getting a Platinum edition of Pinocchio? in 2009?

Barbossa wrote:When are we getting a Platinum edition of Pinocchio? in 2009?

Let's hope for the next 2 years, "Pinocchio" will be release on DVD. I remember seeing it since I was a baby when I first saw that movie along with "The Small One" which was before that.

disneystarsfan wrote:Before and After: I decided to restore the candle, book, cat, gold fish, and opening title's brightness since it was completely lost from the 2003 UK Version.

2003 UK Version = 1st Pic
What it should look like = 2nd pic

I think we should all be reminded of the following things on the changes of the restoration based on this screencaps before judging it:

1) The brighter colors that you can see on older transfers are not necessarily the intended ones, as in: the colors on the original cells. They appear brighter on screen, I think maybe because of the methods they used until digital technology. I saw recently a screencap of the latest very bright DVD version of the Aristocats (you know, shinny, "happy" too-lively colors) and next to it an original cell, and I can tell you that the DVD transfer was all wrong ! I think this will go away with the next Aristocats restoration. This is true for other Disney films before and after having being extensively restored for special edition releases. My point is this: the current digital restorations aim at being the closest to the original cells as possible and not reproduce the mistakes, or older "tones" or whatever you call it, of older transfers. So it's not because a newer transfer is different and not as bright as the older one that it's not the best, and the closest to what the animators have drawn.

2) Screencaps made on computer do not give justice to what you actualy see of a DVD in movement. You ain't really seen it until you've seen the real thing in movement, and we can't judge a picture and restoration only based on screencaps made by a software. We know it's been true for other Disney restorations.

And I own this 2003 edition and can tell you that the film looks better than ever, and just like I was saying, the too-bright and too-accentuated colors are gone and it looks really more natural. It's all better !

Brighter colors as you've redone it on this caps are good for promotional material such as poster or something like that (aimed at kids primarly; it's the role of bright and shinny colors...) but not for the film itself ! It might look good on the screencaps but I can assure you that it'd look AWFUL on a DVD if you watched it in movement ! Trust me: the new transfer is the best way to go, and by far !

Jordan wrote:And I own this 2003 edition and can tell you that the film looks better than ever, and just like I was saying, the too-bright and too-accentuated colors are gone and it looks really more natural. It's all better !

It may look more natural, but that's the critical point here. Movies from that era (the Technicolor ones) almost always looked exaggarated in their color schemes. Since the term 'natural' is being used on most of the remasters (they think it has to be adjusted to our vision on things), people automatically think the film used to be this toned down version.
I don't know if it was supposed to look the way the Lowry transfer did, if it does, then it's a great transfer. But we must be careful with what we say. It's a movie that's sixty years old. No one here has seen it in the theatres when it came out then. So how could we exactly know what is the right transfer?

Does anyone else find it odd that PINOCCHIO has been released twice on video claiming to be "fully restored"? The same goes for THE JUNGLE BOOK, THE LITTLE MERMAID (what a marketing ploy - it was made in 1989, people), BAMBI, CINDERELLA, LADY AND THE TRAMP, SLEEPING BEAUTY, etc. PETER PAN has had THREE video releases claiming to be "full restored" and all three look quite different!

From the screen captures I've made, it appears that the mid to late 90's THX Disney "restorations" were the worst. I am ambivalent about many of the Disney DVDs released since 2001 with SNOW WHITE - my opinion varies with the film. SNOW WHITE, BAMBI, LADY AND THE TRAMP, SLEEPING BEAUTY - I'm happy with those. THE LITTLE MERMAID, THE JUNGLE BOOK, ROBIN HOOD I'm mostly okay with. PETER PAN and CINDERELLA (especially) I find very much changed for the worse, especially the latter title with its miscoloring that changes from shot to shot of the whites of the stepmother's eyes - white to gray to bright blue!

"So how could we exactly know what is the right transfer?"

We can't.

But we can see that the 3rd screenshot of (for example) the candle scene looks ridiculous and isn't working at all. The candle looks fake, the atmosphere is gone. The glow on the wall and the table don't match the candle at all. It looks flat and empty.

All these things are perfect in the other screenshots, so let's just be objective and judge the screenshots.

The 2003 version looks awesome except for one thing, the hue of the colors is SO much different. I'd like to see the original movie in the theater and see how close the hues are. It looks to be like they took some liberty to change the color hues. I don't like the idea of changing the colors that much.

drsd2kill wrote:1992 trailer
<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f112/ ... ailer1.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting"></a><BR>
<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f112/ ... ailer2.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting"></a><BR>
<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f112/ ... ailer3.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting"></a><BR>
<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f112/ ... ailer4.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting"></a><BR>
<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f112/ ... ailer5.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting"></a><BR>
<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f112/ ... ailer6.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting"></a><BR>

Where can I find the vid for the 1992 trailer?

TheValentineBros wrote:Where can I find the vid for the 1992 trailer?

Not to be mean or anything, but there really was no point in quoting the whole entire message. You could have easily left off the pictures, saving UD bandwith in which is so desperately needs. So remember, try not to quote pictures, only unless there is a specific picture that you are referring to in your reply. Thanks.

I agree that the shot with the candle looks a bit awkward to me; the glow seems gone and in other shots the color seems toned down a bit, but I can't really judge the transfer until I've watched it on my TV. I've been grabbing screen-captures from DVDs for years now and they always seem to look darker and a bit dull on my monitor while they look great on my TV, so I can't fully judge Pinocchio until the Platinum Edition is released.

One other thing I forgot to mention. When I looked at some screen-captures from Peter Pan's Platinum Edition, Captain Hook looked very pale (it looked disgusting), but again, when watching it on my TV, I didn't notice a thing.

A couple comments.

One, the 2003 version looks like a Cinderella, where the colors are WAY off the other two releases. I'm not sure, however, which it's supposed to look like... The Jungle Book had a Limited Issue that was totally weird color-wise and in comparison the PE looks off.

Two, For those of you who want the PAL DVD, you have to realize that PAL DVDs are either telecined (possibly the worst thing you can do if you're gonna watch it in NTSC, IMO, as it's nearly impossible to fix) or sped up by 4% (this is fixable, but most people just record it to NTSC... like all the bootlegs of Song of the South)

However, Japan has a DVD that looks like the 2003 SE, and guess what, Japan is NTSC!
http://www.amazon.co.jp/gp/switch-langu ... ge=en%5FJP

I may buy this in the future, just to get the RKO bumper... it depends if the PE of Pinocchio is the same master used in the 2003 or if they try to re-restore it or something.

Does anyone here have the Japan DVD by any chance? I'd walk you through how to copy a DVD so I could get one if so

southeast asia also got the special edition treatment..and its ntsc too

btw what is this??

http://www.amazon.co.jp/%E3%83%94%E3%83 ... gy_d_img_b

im digging the covers!