DVDizzy Forum

Fflewduur wrote:(BTW, there is no necessary contradiction between painstaking restoration and the use of DNR.)

If DNVR is done incorrectly leaving traces of its use then the restoration can't claim to be painstaking though! I was simply stating that *if* indeed traces on DVNR are visible on the blu-ray then their restorations could be better.

And for the record I was just linking to the article for the sake of it. I am one of the more staunch believers that the teams restoring the films are not a bunch of slack jawed yokels who don't know what they're doing and are doing the best job they can.

I have said umpteen times in many threads that the only source of reference most of the people who whine are old VHS or unrestored DVD copies which are nowhere near an accurate representation of how the film should look. After all the PE is the only release with a print that was restored from the original negatives.

What would be interesting however would be to look and see if that minstel fella appears in any of the concept art/production galleries and see whether his color matches the green of the 2003 or the more olive yellow of the 2008

There are several comments at the link (including by Disney artist Floyd Norman) by people who've actually seen the film projected in a theater. According to their comments, the 2008 restoration is a lot closer to what they saw than the 2003 one. Also, Lindsay Mayer from Blu-Ray.com posted caps that show the 2008 DVD has saturation issues that the BD doesn't. While Norman admits that the new one isn't perfect, he says it's still amazingly close. If I have to have a flawed copy of the film, I'd prefer a few minor color oddities (such as the hypnotized Aurora scene) than regular flickering, bleeding reds, and a cropped image.

ichabod wrote: If DNVR is done incorrectly leaving traces of its use then the restoration can't claim to be painstaking though! I was simply stating that *if* indeed traces on DVNR are visible on the blu-ray then their restorations could be better.

When professionals use these tools like DNR (or are monitoring for evidence of their use), they do so <b> in full resolution and in real time</b>. Most of the public has never seen the inside of a post-production facility, so from where are these amateur digital video experts gaining their expertise? Most likely from the same sort of posts they're making. I think the great Sleeping Beauty aspect ratio debate should have proven just how valuable a web-based education can be.

So I'm disinclined to give those kinds of complaints the benefit of the doubt. I've seen entirely too many discussions in which someone feels justified in trashing a given transfer based on a couple screencaps alone, without even having seen the release in question.

Fflewduur wrote:When professionals use these tools like DNR (or are monitoring for evidence of their use), they do so <b> in full resolution and in real time</b>. Most of the public has never seen the inside of a post-production facility, so from where are these amateur digital video experts gaining their expertise?

Yes but it can't be denied that so called "professionals" have completely destroyed some animation through DVNR through lack of knowledge of where the levels should be set! Some classic animation has been so badly affected its noticeable even in real time.

Just because something has been done by a professional, still doesn't mean it can't be a complete and utter mess.

I'd also like to point out DVNR or something like edge enhancement is most likely not done during the restoration, but as part of the encoding to disc. So it most likely has nothing to do with DTS Images either way. We know DVNR is applied during disc authoring because some times (primarily Warners) have had DVNR (or even edge enhancement) applied on Blu-ray's of recent releases, and the same films released by another distributor overseas is without the DVNR.

That's what annoys me the most about these threads. Even colour timing can be different as a result of the encode than what was on the master to be encoded. That's why most DVD and Hi-Def reviews take time out to discuss flesh-tones in their reviews. When an source is being put through a lossy encoder to create the MPEG or VC-1 files which ultimately appear on the disc, its another process open to abuse ("hey, remove the grain and we'll get a smaller encode file" or "are those the colours? They look a bit dull, let's pump them up a bit"), totally out of control of the restorers who generally are people to care about films and how they look first and foremost.

^I have this urge to say "You're so smart Netty ".

That's very interesting. I had no idea about that part of the process.

well, its making a digital copy of the elements they are handed (be they digital or analog). It pretty obvious settings can be changed - just like people can get a picture and photoshop it before saving it on their webspace or whatever.

Digital Noise Reduction can be used because it enables the footage to be compressed more efficiently. Remove random film grain, and you have images more suitable for a compression system based on similarities between successive frames. So, in some cases, there may be a business decision for applying noise reduction over "people don't like grain". For example, in Woody Woodpecker's case, which has been criticised for DNR, it was probably used to squeeze more shorts on the disc.

As for colours, its probably personal. Look at some reviews of different versions of the same film. Some mention different colours - even on films that were new and day and date releases on the normal DVDs and revisited later. Why would modern, non-restored because they're new, films have different colours on different releases? Probably because different people encoded them, on differently calibrated machines or with different personal colour preferences.

See for example

Brokeback Mountain (both NTSC and both released within a short time-frame of each other - the collectors edition is brighter)
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDReview ... review.htm

Shallow Grave (NTSC vs PAL - note the totally different encodes (bitrate meter) and totally different colours and even framing)
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDReview ... _grave.htm

Truman Show (NTSC vs PAL - again different colours from two encodes)
http://www.celtoslavica.de/chiaroscuro/ ... ruman.html

Twelve Monkeys (all NTSC - the SE released only 2 years later - has a new encode and again different colours and saturation and also note in this example PAL and the 1st NTSC are more or less the same)
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDCompar ... onkeys.htm

2099net wrote:For example, in Woody Woodpecker's case, which has been criticised for DNR, it was probably used to squeeze more shorts on the disc.

But in the case of Woody some shorts are DVNRed others aren't, same with the Looney Tunes Golden Collection and the Disney Treasures, a few odd shorts here and there are affected by DVNR but not all of them. Impying that the DVNR was not done just at the compression stage.

Hey everyone, here's some...evidence, or really good reasoning, as to why the new restoration is probably more correct.

Look at the screen caps of the minstrel. In the one where he is green, also, the chalice he is holding has a green shine, as does other dishes and plates and tableware in the scene. Doesn't it make more sense for the (probably) gilded tableware to be...gold?

Also, look at the caps of King Stephen's robes. In the older restoration, they also look a little green, but we know they are supposed to be gold!

The old 2003 version seemed to have either a green or blue tint to the whole thing. That's why I think the gift of Beauty, from Flora, the red fairy, would look pink like in the new 2008 restoration, instead of the blue way it looked in the old 2003 restoration.

Something I don't understand though is why people have such a problem with the hypnotized Aurora scene, thinking it's wrong. Her hair is bright sunshine gold, why is it a problem if the restoration shows more of it's color than before? The bright green/yellow light couldn't light her hair? I think the new restoration showing her closer to her natural, un-darkened, un-greened colors, looks better, more visually appealing, and more striking to the viewer.

It's such a drastic change that I might have a problem with it were not for the fact that the old restoration definately seems a little too dark, dull, and blue/green, and Floyd Norman says it looks much closer to the original he saw with his own eyes.

Disney Duster wrote: Something I don't understand though is why people have such a problem with the hypnotized Aurora scene, thinking it's wrong. Her hair is bright sunshine gold, why is it a problem if the restoration shows more of it's color than before? The bright green/yellow light couldn't light her hair? I think the new restoration showing her closer to her natural, un-darkened, un-greened colors, looks better, more visually appealing, and more striking to the viewer.

It's such a drastic change that I might have a problem with it were not for the fact that the old restoration definately seems a little too dark, dull, and blue/green, and Floyd Norman says it looks much closer to the original he saw with his own eyes.

I think you are right!

But in the "hypnotized Aurora scene" it looks like her hair has an enormous glow, caused by the light, but the rest, her shoulders and the surrounding things, even her face don't glow at all.
So it doesn't really make sense.

Well, it looks like they also made her skin a little closer to it's warmer, natural color in some shots during the hypontism, but not as well as with her hair. I know it doesn't look quite right, but maybe it's the closest they could get...and I like how it looks over the old version.

I found a previously viewed Sleeping Beauty Special Edition DVD on the sale for $7.95 at the rental store in my town! I was so pleased to see it! I wanted it for the bonus features that didn't get transfered over to my Platinum edition. When I started actively collecting in late 2004, I think there were a lot of DVDs I was after so I could have been too busy with collecting those to pay much attention to Sleeping Beauty SE because otherwise I would have bought it when it was still brand new in stores. I asked the cashier lady to hold it for me because I didn't have enough cash on me to buy it. I'm going back in a day or so to pick it up. Just had to share my great (and low-priced) find!

Sky Syndrome wrote:I found a previously viewed Sleeping Beauty Special Edition DVD on the sale for $7.95 at the rental store in my town! I was so pleased to see it! I wanted it for the bonus features that didn't get transfered over to my Platinum edition.

Great find, Sky!

Once you go back to get it, listen to the audio documentary/commentary! It's one of the best Disney has ever made, and it's a pity that it's not on the PE (though some comments were edited in to the new commentary).

albert

I've been noticing too at the Moviestop I go to that people have been trading in their old Sleeping Beauty as well as Snow White and Pinnochio.

Has this comment ever made its way to this board? it probably has, possibly even by me, but I'll post it again any way.

Disney animator Floyd Norman posted a comment over at Cartoonbrew on this issue.

Whenever Disney does a restoration there are always the purists who cry, foul! Disney has screwed up once again.

The truth is — it ain’t 1958 anymore, and everything concerning our technology has changed. It’s a lot like the debates I hear over analog and digital recording. Many audio purists hate the new technology because it simply isn’t faithful to the music.

Eyvind Earle painted his backgrounds based not on how they would look to the eye — rather how the backgrounds would look on film. How the camera would “see” them.

I’m probably the only one here who saw the film back in 1958 at the Disney studio. We shot the film on 5247, a film stock that’s probably no longer in use. Film stock, timing, and other factors determined how the picture would look back then.

I still find it amazing that all the “experts” who know exactly how the film should look, never even saw it back in 1958.

I’m not knocking the guys who did the restoration either. It’s a tough job in any case. I’m just saying that imperfect as it is — the Blue-Ray version comes pretty darn close to what I saw back in 1958. Sure, I could nit-pick every scene, but overall, it’s a pretty good job. Of course, you’ll never please everybody.

I know I have friends and colleagues who will probably disagree with my opinion. And, that’s cool. This restoration is not flawless, and there will always be problems when it comes to interpretation.

http://www.cartoonbrew.com/disney/sleep ... etter.html

Kyle wrote:Has this comment ever made its way to this board? it probably has, possibly even by me, but I'll post it again any way.

Disney animator Floyd Norman posted a comment over at Cartoonbrew on this issue.

Whenever Disney does a restoration there are always the purists who cry, foul! Disney has screwed up once again.

The truth is — it ain’t 1958 anymore, and everything concerning our technology has changed. It’s a lot like the debates I hear over analog and digital recording. Many audio purists hate the new technology because it simply isn’t faithful to the music.

Eyvind Earle painted his backgrounds based not on how they would look to the eye — rather how the backgrounds would look on film. How the camera would “see” them.

I’m probably the only one here who saw the film back in 1958 at the Disney studio. We shot the film on 5247, a film stock that’s probably no longer in use. Film stock, timing, and other factors determined how the picture would look back then.

I still find it amazing that all the “experts” who know exactly how the film should look, never even saw it back in 1958.

I’m not knocking the guys who did the restoration either. It’s a tough job in any case. I’m just saying that imperfect as it is — the Blue-Ray version comes pretty darn close to what I saw back in 1958. Sure, I could nit-pick every scene, but overall, it’s a pretty good job. Of course, you’ll never please everybody.

I know I have friends and colleagues who will probably disagree with my opinion. And, that’s cool. This restoration is not flawless, and there will always be problems when it comes to interpretation.

http://www.cartoonbrew.com/disney/sleep ... etter.html

Well, finally a reaction from someone who was actually involved with the production. Thanks for sharing this, Kyle.
There are many sides and opinions to a restoration, and there will always be complaints to it. The recently restored Godfather Part 1 and 2 got complaints, and probably every other film got some as well. The problem with old films is that you may never get them exactly the way they looked in the theaters so many years ago, because of the reasons Mr. Norman already stated above. This restoration still looks amazing, and will hopefully be a sign of things to come.

I actually want him to nitpick - so we have it documented how it looked back then.

I got my copy of the Blu-ray release (region B) today. I dare think this really means an improvement to the 2002 DVD release (of which I own the German version).

Interestingly enough, the Scandinavian release has the audio commentary spoken not only in English but in Danish, Finnish, Norwegian and Swedish, too. Do other Blu-ray releases have dubbed audio commentaries?

I made a small image comparison between the R2 pan&scan DVD, R2 widescreen DVD (2002) and the new Blu-ray. This demonstrates the framing and colouring differences (click the images to view full resolution)...

R2 pan&scan


R2 widescreen


Blu-ray


R2 pan&scan


R2 widescreen


Blu-ray


Also Grand Canyon short shows considerable improvement:

2002 DVD:


Blu-ray:

Why did we get cropped Grand Canyon?! That's not right! Right?

Disney Duster wrote:Why did we get cropped Grand Canyon?! That's not right! Right?

Grand Canyon is not cropped, it's merely shown on a 16:9 frame on the bottom which it fills more than the 4:3 image above.

Grand Canyon looks amazing in HD.