DVDizzy Forum

Kyle wrote:George Lucas, is that you?

He didn't say they should edit scenes and add CGI to the movie .

In my opinion, restorations of cartoons should be practically (if not completley) grain-free. I've seen some live action films where removing all of the grain would take a bit away from it, but I just don't think that cartoons should have a bunch of noise in the picture.
To me, Cinderella's restoration does not look like it was made yesterday. It doesn't have all that extra shading that some newer animated films have. I think it looks fine.

2099net wrote:On page 3 you could say that Cinderella's magical dress is pale blue on the DVD while the LD was white, but then on page 4 the LD shows a distinctly grey wedding dress while the DVD shows a distinct white one.

You made a mistake. The LD shows her wedding dress as white and the DVD shows it as gray...which wedding dresses usually aren't, they are usually white. I've seen it as gray in images of cels online, but remember the cels aren't supposed to match the negatives or what we see on screen. Also, the cels I've seen actually look more like the laserdisc in her hair and skin color!

Now, I would like to show you what seems to be none other than a clear mistakes and detriments to the film in the DVD's restoration. Please look at these pictures, the restored laserdisc on the left, the "restored" DVD on the right. I wrote (Before) to indicate before the film was restored for the 2005 DVD, and (After) to indicate after that restoration.

WARNING: I did not take these screencaps, and they may very well be a frame or two off from each other.

Please look closely at the outlines on the stepmother's shawl from the laserdisc, then the DVD. At first I thought they disappeared, but they may just be a completely different color on the DVD restoration! In fact, when the lines were lighter than the shawl before, on the laserdisc, they became darker than the shawl in the new restoration! Also notice the outline of the arm on the left of the stepmother, Drizella's arm, with the green puffy sleeve. On the DVD restoration, it has almost disappeared.

You may also notice that they "corrected" the scene by making giving the stepmother's skirt the right color, instead of the color of the shawl. This is probably how it should have been, but that's still not how it originally was, and do we know if they talked to someone who would know how it should have been? In any case, this is evidence that the restorers do digitally re-paint the film for their "restorations".

Now, I actually think that in many instances, the laserdisc was brighter than the DVD! But naturally brighter. Earthier. Warmer. And it looks better. But then some things are darker...also for the better. Please look at this comparison. The DVD restoration has severely lessoned the menacing mood of the scene. Before, in the laserdisc, the whole scene was darker, thus more frightening, and the stepmother's eyes were brighter! You know, like when the room went dark and her eyes went bright in the shot just before this one, where she squints her eyes in a close-up? Remember how the scene went?


THANK YOU: to DRSD2KILL for the screencaps he made that I cropped to make the pictures in this post.

Yes, I did notice the undergarment on that frame being recoloured, but some time after I posted my post. I don't think the "correction" (and it is a correction as you can see the dark blue undergarment on other shots on both the LD and the DVD in the same set of captures) qualifies as proof that they "repaint" colours. You may as well say the correction of the disappearing skunk (was it a skunk?) in Bambi is proof that they re-arrange cels in their restorations. I don't particularly agree with such corrections, but I don't strongly disagree either.

Now as ragards to the wedding dress this is very interesting. I did flip through my [R1] Cinderella DVD after making that earlier post (and just to be sure I have done so just now) and the wedding dress is white when shown on my TV. (The possible exception is when she is in the window of the carriage waving, where it looks mildly grey - but I can put this down to shadowing). When she runs down the stairs and when she kisses the prince in the rear window (oo-er! That sounds rude!) the top half of the dress is white. I've put the DVD in for a screen grab and it is grey.



I've attatched a photo of my screen here above - although I know it doesn't really prove anything and it is suffering from a little over-exposure (sorry, but my digital camera only cost £20) But I swear that is an honest to goodness picture off my TV without me changing any display settings on my TV or the photo that was taken, and even though it is over exposed because the TV is the light source, the dress does look white. (However, I may have adjusted and tweaked the standard settings from their default in the distant past - but I have not set them especially for this experiment nor especially for Cinderella in the past)

Even more interesting is that this is on my Samsung TV's "Standard" setting. If I choose "Movie" everything has a yellow-ish sheen to it (especially noticable in other shots) and if I select "Dynamic" everything has a blue-ish tint to it (more like the screen caps from the DVD, but again I couldn't really describe the wedding dress as grey, but the blue is noticable on lots of shots).

Here is the Tremaine shot (again, being as the TV is the source of light, its over exposed) but you can see the lines of the dress are indeed light (actually, light and dark) On my TV, the shot does look more like Shot 1 (the LD) than shot 2 (the DVD).


Edit: I've taken a better image of Tremaine, but it's a lot bigger and clearly shows LIGHT outlines. And again, I swear this is unaltered and off my unadjusted Samsung LCD TV on "Standard" video setting.
http://www.jamesreader.plus.com/ud/wrap-better.jpg

Now, I hope Deathie will have an explaination for some of this, but I will say, relying on LD screencaps from an unknown source (how were they taken? I'm not suggesting they were taken from a monitor screen, but clearly something potentially happens to the image when it is taken from analogue to digital, perhaps even if directly in the PC itself) against a purely digital DVD grab is perhaps a flawed methology. So I encourage everyone to watch Cinderella on their TVs before making direct comparisons.

Yes, I acknowledge that I myself has been stupid for having this argument across many threads without directly referencing a TV.

2099net, I think there's something wrong with the settings of your tv.
From your post I get the idea that the way your tv shows the movie isn't accurate.

The "dynamic" and "movie" settings are off, like you said. Who says the "standard" setting is right?

The pictures you took actually look fine.
But that's not how the dvd looks on all the tv's I've watched it on.

Could it be that your opinion on the dvd is based on the way your tv shows it?
Which is not like how the dvd really is? You said yourself that some images on your tv look more like the laserdisc than the dvd.

As far as I know, the Standard settings are unchanged. (Although I admit, I may have adjusted them sometime since getting the TV and now).

But assuming I did adjust them, I didn't adjust them for Cinderella especially - I adjusted them for vewing in general. So any changes would have been made for TV viewing or other DVD viewing.

Standard implies well, "standard" and the default. Although like I said, Dynamic does look more like the DVD when viewed on a PC, and everything has a bluer tone to it. But regardless of weather Standard or Dynamic is right, I've obviously decided based on other viewing Standard is the setting for me.

Incidently the comparison shots on the Dresd2Kill PhotoBucket site, neither of them looks "older" or "newer" then the other. Neither of them looks obviously right or obviously wrong either. They just look different.

And if we're talking about the new DVD restoration being changed specifically to appeal to the modern audiece, why would a modern audience EXPECT grey wedding dress for example?

UPDATE
This explains why comparing the DVD on your monitor or DVD screenshots is not the same as on the TV - they use different methods to display their colours, with different calibrations - while VGA uses the full 0-255 values, NTSC and Y,Pr,Pb use 16-235. Thus "white" on a TV can appear "grey" on a monitor (depending on the conversion, values not within the 16-235 range can be simply discarded or remapped. Both will alter the colours.).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YUV
http://www.curtpalme.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10872

Also, if you are watching your DVD on a TV display via HDMI, play around with your super-white and RGB range settings. Again these alter how extreme whites and blacks are shown.

UPDATE NO. 2
This post confirms that DVDs are encoded 16-235, not 0-255 RGB
http://www.videohelp.com/forum/archive/ ... 24618.html

Output from the DVD MPeg2 encoder will be 8bit 16-235 luminance 4:2:0 YCbCr.

So you have to consider that in mind when viewing DVD captures taken directly on a PC. Both extreme white and extreme black (and similar colours) will be off.

UPDATE NO. 3
I've may my own composite of images after manually adjusting the RGB levels in Photoshop (its not perfect and I may have done it wrong, but the adjusted image is "whiter")

nomad2010 wrote:the colors are so bland and the opening scene looks awful.

I'm not sure if you know this or not, but that's how it's supposed to look. If you listen to the commentary, it's supposed to be a contrast between the gloomy world above the surface, and the bright and colorful world under the sea.

I have no complaints with the PE restoration, it looks a lot nicer than the VHS version I have.

2099net wrote:Yes, I did notice the undergarment on that frame being recoloured, but some time after I posted my post. I don't think the "correction" (and it is a correction as you can see the dark blue undergarment on other shots on both the LD and the DVD in the same set of captures) qualifies as proof that they "repaint" colours. You may as well say the correction of the disappearing skunk (was it a skunk?) in Bambi is proof that they re-arrange cels in their restorations. I don't particularly agree with such corrections, but I don't strongly disagree either.

But then what else could they have done to change the color of the garment? They could have used some tool to get the color from one of the scenes where the garment is colored, and put it on the garment in the scene where it's not...but with what, if not a digital paintbrush? They click on the part of the picture and choose "change color" or "fill"? That's still re-painting the picture!

Anyway, your research into this is admirable as well as pretty good. I watched my DVD on TV and the lines went in and out from light to dark and almost invisible. I don't understand how a restoration is good when something like this happens when it was never like that before (I also looked at various Youtube videos of the unrestored scene), or when the VHS looks okay in one setting but the DVD doesn't look okay in the same setting. Maybe the DVD was chosen to look one way, and actually the film can be viewed many different ways. The problem is, then, what is the version of the film that was the way it originally looked, and was intended?

Oh...and what about this fiasco? Some lines fade and blur, others completely disappear. I made arrows point to the problem areas, mostly where lines should be but aren't:

this is turning into a Cinderella Thread lol.

Vermin Friends wrote:

nomad2010 wrote:the colors are so bland and the opening scene looks awful.

I'm not sure if you know this or not, but that's how it's supposed to look. If you listen to the commentary, it's supposed to be a contrast between the gloomy world above the surface, and the bright and colorful world under the sea.

I have no complaints with the PE restoration, it looks a lot nicer than the VHS version I have.

oh no i understand that but it looks dull, too dull. I get that it's supposed to be gloomy and grey but this looks like a pitiful restoration job to me. I may just look at it a different way. I don't know.

Disney Duster wrote:

2099net wrote:Yes, I did notice the undergarment on that frame being recoloured, but some time after I posted my post. I don't think the "correction" (and it is a correction as you can see the dark blue undergarment on other shots on both the LD and the DVD in the same set of captures) qualifies as proof that they "repaint" colours. You may as well say the correction of the disappearing skunk (was it a skunk?) in Bambi is proof that they re-arrange cels in their restorations. I don't particularly agree with such corrections, but I don't strongly disagree either.

But then what else could they have done to change the color of the garment? They could have used some tool to get the color from one of the scenes where the garment is colored, and put it on the garment in the scene where it's not...but with what, if not a digital paintbrush? They click on the part of the picture and choose "change color" or "fill"? That's still re-painting the picture!

But its repainting a few specific frames for a specific purpose. I meant its not proof they repaint ALL of the frame in ALL of the film en mass. It not logically sound to say that because of this all the colours have been repainted in all the frames. That's like saying birds can fly, so all birds can fly therefore a penguin can fly.

Anyway, your research into this is admirable as well as pretty good. I watched my DVD on TV and the lines went in and out from light to dark and almost invisible. I don't understand how a restoration is good when something like this happens when it was never like that before (I also looked at various Youtube videos of the unrestored scene), or when the VHS looks okay in one setting but the DVD doesn't look okay in the same setting. Maybe the DVD was chosen to look one way, and actually the film can be viewed many different ways. The problem is, then, what is the version of the film that was the way it originally looked, and was intended?

Okay, the lines go in and out in the Tremain shot? That may explain my photo capture (and no, I didn't notice when I was taking the shot because I was looking at it on the view screen more concerned about getting a close approximation of the shot than actually looking at the scene, even though I did it three times!).

But DVD and especially my DVD set up is a lot more accurate than VHS when it comes to reproducing the source on the media - I'm watching Cinderella off a digital source (DVD) on a player that processes all the information digitally (my PS3) and sends it digitally across a digital connection (HDMI) and then (and only then) renders it in an analogue format in my TV (admittedly after some pre-processing is done by my TV while the signal is still in digital form). If that pre-processing alteres the contract and brightness, don't forget every single TV in existance allows users to alter the brightness and contrast, so no two TVs are likely to be the same unless profesionally calibrated.

The fact that you may have to mess about with either Full RGB settings or HDMI Super White output on the player and/or TV is also irrelevant really. (Incidently, I didn't). If you have equipment that needs a small fiddle, its up to you to make the most of it.

Oh...and what about this fiasco? Some lines fade and blur, others completely disappear. I made arrows point to the problem areas, mostly where lines should be but aren't:

None of the colours or lines have been lost. They are just different. if you play with the contrast of the image you posted, you can get an approximation of the original colours FROM the new colours. (Note this was done in about 5 seconds on Microsoft Office Picture Manager, which is hardly a shophisitcated image manupulator, and I didn't spend a lot of time attempting to match the colours exactly either)

<img src=http://www.jamesreader.plus.com/ud/adjusted.bmp>
Sorry, but I'm using Microsoft Office Picture Manager as the PC I havd with Photoshop is unavailable at this time, and it only saves as a bitmap so which may not display on all browsers, so I've done a link as well.
http://www.jamesreader.plus.com/ud/adjusted.bmp

Now, I have looked into my TVs settings some more since last posting and they were on the factory default for "Standard". I know this because I altered them and then reset them and they returned to the intial settings I noted on Sunday.

It should be noted on these default settings contrast is set very high (its 80 out of 100) and in order to approximate the LD colours on the image below, it was mainly the contrast setting that was altered (contrast was +57, brightness was +11)

As for the missing lines the jpeg photos we are using for the "masters" are heavily compressed to start off with, and due to how jpeg works, similar colours are lost in compression, to its only natural the lines on the "white" dress stand out more than on the "grey" dress. It's only natural that the lines are still less visisble when the picture is altered. All I know is the lines look OK on my viewing.

Now are the default TV settings ideal? DeathieMouse is absolutely certain that they are not. They certainly have not been professionally calibrated, but how many TVs have?

The fact it is not professionally calibrated is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. They're the settings that the manufacturers think show off the image to the best quality and they're the settings I've been watching for at least 12 months without noticing anything at all wrong with my picture. So as far as I'm concerned, the new Cinderella DVD does the job its supposed to, on my equipment without me having to change anything at all. So why should I complain?

Oh, I didn't mean it's proof they re-paint the whole film. It's just proof they re-paint some of it sometimes. It's proof they do more than just restore it to how it was originally.

Now, I really am trying to understand everything.

If I got you right, maybe your TV makes the film look different from mine does, and if I were to watch it on your TV, I would be fine with it?

Another weird thing, if you notice, is that some of the rice thrown in the wedding comparison photos kind of disappears into the blue part of the castle, in the DVD picture. Does it not disappear on your DVD? I'm sorry you have to keep looking at the film. I mean, you don't have to of course, but I can't believe you've been doing it for this. For me, actually. Thank you.

Even the lines on the steps disappear into the grayness. I don't get it.

And if the lines were there when it was white on the laserdisc, then less so when it was gray on the DVD, and then still less there when you adjusted the DVD picture to make it white...shouldn't that say it's not about adjusting color settings, they did something to the wedding dress? Or do the lines look as intact as they are on the laserdisc when you watch it on your TV?

But here's what I really don't get. I watched the unrestored film in some of the segments of the DVD, like in the making of. It actually looks, like Disneykid has said, like it was in between the old master and the new restoration. So why can I see the lines and the film looks fine without adjusting my settings, but for the restored feature presentation I would have to adjust my settings? Or would changing my setting even help? I watched the making of just now. The feature presentation and the film clips are both on DVD, and I can see the lines on Cinderella's wedding dress and the lines on the stepmother don't disappear for an instant in the unrestored film clips. So this makes me think that there's still something wrong with the new restoration, among other things I haven't talked about (things I have to research when I have time and get better sources). Is it some kind of bit rate or compression only for the feature presentation? How could something that supposed to make the film look better make it worse?

It's not the colour settings as much but the contrast. As regards to missing image data because it blends into nearby similar colours, increasing the contrast does tend to make the difference between similar colours stronger.

I must admit, if somebody asked be before this weekend what my contrast was set on, I would have said something like "around 50" - as I would assume 50 would be the average setting (i.e. the optimal normalised setting) However, my TV defaults to 80 and I can confirm that that is the factory setting. I've never noticed any TV transmissions, DVDs or BDs looking "high contrast" when watching on this setting, so I can only assume (in my case at least with a Samsung LCD screen) 80 is normalised.

I've just checked my computer monitor (a Dell) and after resetting that to the defaults, the brightness for that is set to 50 (as you would expect) but the brightness is set to 100! (I can't remember my TV setting's brightness, but it wasn't set to maximum!).

It should be noted though that the whites on my computer monitor do not look white, but a pale grey. Perhaps the contrast on the monitor should be turned up slightly?

2099net wrote: I must admit, if somebody asked be before this weekend what my contrast was set on, I would have said something like "around 50" - as I would assume 50 would be the average setting (i.e. the optimal normalised setting) However, my TV defaults to 80 and I can confirm that that is the factory setting. I've never noticed any TV transmissions, DVDs or BDs looking "high contrast" when watching on this setting, so I can only assume (in my case at least with a Samsung LCD screen) 80 is normalised.

There you have it.

You're used to watching dvd's that way.
If I would watch Cinderella in a completely different contrast, my opinion would be different too.
Because it changes everything, the colors, lines, etc.

Maybe that's why lines do appear on your tv that don't actually appear with normal settings in everyone else's home? Maybe that contrast makes the film look like Technicolor describes, while actually the dvd itself doesn't?

But Netty...in the wedding picture you changed to match the laserdisc's better contrast...to make the dress white...the lines still didn't show up as well (hardly showed at all)! So it can't just be contrast! You said "It's only natural that the lines are still less visisble when the picture is altered." Well...if that's the case, you still haven't proven they didn't do something to the lines.

You also said, "All I know is the lines look OK on my viewing." Well, do all the lines show? Because some of them are actually gone, more on the skirt. I know, I know, it's like doing a search for all this but some lines are half gone or all gone. And if you don't feel like looking anymore, Ok, I'll just keep thinking something happened to them that they messed up on. Though the fact the lines are less visible in the first place seems like messing up, if it looked better before and this restoration's supposed to make the film look better.

By the way thank you Netty for all that you have done so far. Truly shows you are a good, helpful, and, of course, smart person.

And I like what Marky said, goes with some thoughts I have.

Marky_198 wrote:

2099net wrote: I must admit, if somebody asked be before this weekend what my contrast was set on, I would have said something like "around 50" - as I would assume 50 would be the average setting (i.e. the optimal normalised setting) However, my TV defaults to 80 and I can confirm that that is the factory setting. I've never noticed any TV transmissions, DVDs or BDs looking "high contrast" when watching on this setting, so I can only assume (in my case at least with a Samsung LCD screen) 80 is normalised.

There you have it.

You're used to watching dvd's that way.
If I would watch Cinderella in a completely different contrast, my opinion would be different too.
Because it changes everything, the colors, lines, etc.

Maybe that's why lines do appear on your tv that don't actually appear with normal settings in everyone else's home? Maybe that contrast makes the film look like Technicolor describes, while actually the dvd itself doesn't?

But when I got my new TV a year or so ago, I didn't think "wow, everything looks totally different", so then you have to assume my previous TV's viewing preference was while not exactly the same as my Samsung's factory settings, incredibly close. So its not "completely different contrast".

The only way to settle the argument is for somebody to calibrate their TVs as best as they can, so I guess I'm going to have to do it.

[goes off muttering, closes the curtains and calibrates TV]

OK - I've done it using the Lion King THX calibaration on The Lion King (under the set-up menu) because I guess we've all got that.

I must admit, I couldn't do the first test at all, no matter what my contrasts the whites all looked the same white.

Here are my final settings:

Contrast 75 (being as I was unable to do the first test, this is somewhat arbitary though - I pretty much just gave up)
Brightness 85 (that surprised me)
Sharpness 15
Colour 45 (in the calibration, colour comes down to personal preference rather than having a defined test - such as "make the grey THX only just visible on the brightness test- but I would say anything over 55 would be pushing it into the gaudy)

The factory settings are

Contrast 80
Brightness 50
Sharpness 50
Colour 50

It should be noted that according to the THX set-up, the brightness is incorrect as there is no way the THX can been seen on the brightness calibration screen at a setting close to 50.

So I suggest everyone does the same, and then watch Cinderella on your TV after it has been calibarated to some form of standard, no matter how unprofessional, because its better than nothing, and that's what it's there for.

DisneyDuster wrote:But Netty...in the wedding picture you changed to match the laserdisc's better contrast...to make the dress white...the lines still didn't show up as well! So it can't just be contrast!

And I like what Marky said, goes with some thoughts I have.

But I've already explained that to some extent which satisfies me. Its not a total like to like comparison for a number of reasons

1) The Capture is scales down from full size, to on all of them the lines are thinner anyway.

2) And also the compression of the caputures is incredibly high, leading to all sorts of lossy errors. And one common form of lossy error on highly compressed jpegs is for similar colours to bleed into each other.

3) Also if we assume the 16-230 colour rule applies for "television RGB" over "computer rgb" then the colours on the capture originally would be somewhat closer to each other than on the LD capture which appears to be "computer rgb" from the start. (the 16-230 rgb has about 15% less range).

Finally, the lines or confetti are not technically colour concerns - lines may have been removed by DNR on the transfer for example.

Oh and finally, finally, I paused the [PAL] Cindrella DVD at that point (or close to it) and no, the lines are hard to see but I think thats because the compression on the DVD is so poor - it really is a blocky mess when viewed still frame.

OK Netty. Thank you. I don't have The Lion King and I live with my parents. They wouldn't let me "mess with" their TV. I may have to try it when I get my own.

But at least now we are getting somewhere with your last few statements. The compression of this DVD might be really bad, so then it may not be the restoration at fault for the detail losses. But if that's the case, why would everyone say the whole transfer, the whole presentation, was good? When it's clearly so bad. Something is wrong with Cinderella on DVD, if it's not the restoration. Or at least, not as good as it could be and oddly not as good as it was on the laserdisc.

But you also mentioned DNR could be a factor in the removal of lines. Is DNR the grain removal? I've been doing a lot of learning about grain at another forum, and I learned the whole picture is really made of grain, and it shouldn't be removed (except maybe excess that developed over time). As we all know, Cinderella's grain was completely removed. So if the DNR removed some lines, and maybe confetti...and Disney dust...and other things, that's really bad, and then you see at least that's a problem that should be fixed? Also, I thought grain removal, like dirt removal, was part of the restoration, hence why I chalked everything up to the fault of the restoration.

Disney Duster wrote:...I learned the whole picture is really made of grain...

I've read others saying stuff like the movie should look grainy because the picture is made of grain, but isn't that like saying that a movie shot digitally should look pixelated because the picture is made of pixels?

Okay - since I last posted, has anyone actually calibrated their TVs? Apparently not, so obviously this isn't such a hot topic as various multi-posted threads make it seem to be after all.

I must say, I have kept my brightness up, but I don't like it, and will most likely reset my settings to the default in the next few days. But at least I did it.

Disney Duster, don't get confused between the "restortation" and the "encoding". I suspect Cinderella does have significant DNR applied to it - but that doesn't necessarily mean it is the choice of DTS Images who did the restoration. There's many modern films being put onto DVD and Blu-ray with DNR applied, but that it a decision that can be made during the encoding process not when the film is made or shown at theaters. I know DTS Images (Lowry as it was then) were critisied for the DNR on Citizen Kane, but with a lot of modern films being DNRed (see the Digital Bits anti-DNR campaign in the DVD section of this forum) its looking more and more like this feature can be added as the movie is encoded.

The same could also be true of slight (and I emphasise slight) colour changes. This is why DVD reviews often mention flash tones or blacks in their image reviews. Each encoding also has calibration issues with it, you don't just put a source into the process and get the result out - various settings are adjusted and altered.

I know poor quality authoring can result in cock-ups outside the power of those responsible for the restoration work, as its happened several times with the Doctor Who Restoration Team's work. But there's also other examples involving Disney: the exchange for Disney's Pirates of the Caribbean on Blu-ray where a small number of scenes (not all scenes) were mis-framed, the incorrect colours on the True-Life Aventures "Prowler of the Everglades" and how half the print-run had "Secrets of Life" in P&S and another half had the correct alternating aspect ratio on another True-Life Adventure release. Those are just examples of alterations noticable, so replacements were offered. Who's to say how little or how much colours or cropping is tweaked from the masters handed over on all our Disney DVDs without anybody noticing?

I know that there is an element of "the restoration" applying to the actual restoration work and the encoding of said restoration onto the DVD, but I feel its unfair to blame DTS Images for what could be, in all probability, nothing to do with them as such. DTS Images could have handed over a restoration matching the original theatrical showing precisely, but that doesn't mean that would end up on the DVD once it is out of their hands.

The encoding of Cinderella does seem particularly poor, in some places more than others - just pause a scene at the end where Cindy is in her wedding dress and look at all the blocky artifacts for example - which I sure is responsible for some (if not all) of your complaints, rather than the "restoration" as such.

Well Netty, I said it's my parent's TV. Maybe I'll change my own TV when I'm on my own.

Thank you for all you have done. If it's true the restoration didn't do anything, and it was the DNR and encoding, then I will no longer blame Lowry or DTS.

Some things make me think. You said it can change from the theater to the DVD. Well, someone I talked to said Cinderella looked even better on DVD than in the El Capitan.

Also, Bambi and lots of other releases by Lowry didn't suffer Cinderella's fate.

However, I remember now that in the restoration feature of Sleeping Beauty, they actually showed re-painting some characters, but with some tool that got the original palette (apparently). So, it still makes me wonder, but now you have me swaying toward other things, not the restoration or re-painting, being the source of Cinderella's problems.

The colors I'm still a little fuzzy on, but you said that may not have to do with the restoration, either. I would like to believe the restoration is actually wonderful, so the film looks wonderful somewhere, just not on the DVD, with whatever happened to it.

Disney Duster wrote:Well Netty, I said it's my parent's TV. Maybe I'll change my own TV when I'm on my own.

DD I wasn't targeting that at you! So sorry if you took offense, but given the number of threads and number of responses on each thread, about various modern restorations, I would expect more than just you to be reading and replying to this thread.