Pinocchio Platinum Edition Discussion Thread

[2099net]

So, basically what you're saying is that the film print used for the VHS/Laserdisc transfer wore out and became MORE colorful? In that case, we should petition all the studios to ditch the digital restoration process for something older!

No wait, worn out is often brighter, not more colorful, and a certain amount seems to be retained in the 2003 DVD release.

No, he's probably saying the print was worn out (as you say, often brighter) so they messed around with the brightness and contrast settings when transferring it. To be honest, don't you think the contrast on the first two images is a little too much? To me its obviously been tweaked.

Why does everyone think you get a film, and encode it on DVD or whatever without manual image calibration first? You can have the same film and give it to different encoding companies, and the DVDBever site shows this:

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDCompar ... hedark.htm
A Year 2000 film (so its certainly not "old and worn" and the film source would have been preserved properly, now people understand about film decomposition more). And yet, 3 DVDs, 3 different colour schemes! And who's to say which (if any) of those are right?

You don't just get a film and pump out a transfer, especially in the days when transfers were basically just copies on other photochemical film - the photochemical development process is far from simple. Now adays, copies are digital, but just like you can change photos on photoshop if the think the source is somewhat lacking, so can digital copies be changed in the same way.

[Marky_198]

Honest reply? No, I don't like it. I personally prefer the two upper pics.

Until rock-hard proof that the lower pic is screwed up emerges, it remains the assumed correct colouring for the film.

See?

The whole world would agree with you on that first one.

But "correct" colouring? If having no lighting, no effect of the flame on the wall, his face, etc, would be "correct", then how did this beautiful effects miraculously appear in the earlier versions?

[Marky_198]

Maybe I havn't really been reading thoroughly enough, but I fail to see how any of these screen comparisons have anything to do with the new PE's restoration.

As far as I've always thought of restorations is that the company does the best they can do to restore back to a picture's original version. .

We should at least be worried, because what happened in the Pinnocchio screenshots above is exactly what happened to Beauty and the Beast.

And about that 2nd thing you say, many people working there have said they deliberately modified the picture.
I wonder what Walt himself would say about what they are doing to his films. Because 1 thing is sure, that latest Pinnocchio master doesn't work at all......

[Rudy Matt]

But "correct" colouring? If having no lighting, no effect of the flame on the wall, etc, would be "correct", then how did this beautiful effects miraculously appear in the earlier versions?

Because the earlier versions are too dark, meaning you can't see the details in the shadows, so the new restoration shows the proper black levels for the first time?

Don't be so reactionary. Different does not equal wrong.

[Marky_198]

Because the earlier versions are too dark, meaning you can't see the details in the shadows, so the new restoration shows the proper black levels for the first time?

Don't be so reactionary. Different does not equal wrong.

It's not even about lightness/darkness or colors.

Any fool can see the 3rd one just doesn't work.
Imagine you would blow the candle out, it would make absolutely no difference on Pinnocchio's face whatsoever.....
That's just unacceptable. How could you not care?

[ajmrowland]

So, basically what you're saying is that the film print used for the VHS/Laserdisc transfer wore out and became MORE colorful? In that case, we should petition all the studios to ditch the digital restoration process for something older!

No wait, worn out is often brighter, not more colorful, and a certain amount seems to be retained in the 2003 DVD release.

No, he's probably saying the print was worn out (as you say, often brighter) so they messed around with the brightness and contrast settings when transferring it. To be honest, don't you think the contrast on the first two images is a little too much? To me its obviously been tweaked.

Why does everyone think you get a film, and encode it on DVD or whatever without manual image calibration first? You can have the same film and give it to different encoding companies, and the DVDBever site shows this:

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDCompar ... hedark.htm
A Year 2000 film (so its certainly not "old and worn" and the film source would have been preserved properly, now people understand about film decomposition more). And yet, 3 DVDs, 3 different colour schemes! And who's to say which (if any) of those are right?

You don't just get a film and pump out a transfer, especially in the days when transfers were basically just copies on other photochemical film - the photochemical development process is far from simple. Now adays, copies are digital, but just like you can change photos on photoshop if the think the source is somewhat lacking, so can digital copies be changed in the same way.

I never said that a digital transfer doesn't need effort. Of course the DVD encoding companies have to tweak things a little for Home Entertainment. I read a lot of BD reviews and 5 star PQ/AQ clearly isn't the easiest to achieve.

And with the first two screenshots, I've gotten used to watching the PE, and I prefer fantasy over reality(though a perfect blend of the two in the color design would get my vote).

As for the cartoonish look on BatB, even the Lion King has that quality, as it too was made on CAPS and it still keeps much of the majesty and power of the original, IMO, even though scenes were reanimated.

God, this arguing about transfers is giving me a headache, and im not talking about the info provided here. Whatever happened to just simply enjoying a movie for fucking's sake!?

[stewie15]

Am I the only one who sees hints of pink in the flame in the first 2 pictures?

Whatever happened to just simply enjoying a movie for fucking's sake!?

Thank You!!

[ajmrowland]

Am I the only one who sees hints of pink in the flame in the first 2 pictures?

Whatever happened to just simply enjoying a movie for fucking's sake!?

Thank You!!

Finally! Someone with some sense on this board!!! I swear the more we inquire about something, the more confusing it is.

And no, I just looked back, and they do have hints of pink in the very center of the flame.

[jrboy]

http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product. ... d=10824855

[ajmrowland]

http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product. ... d=10824855

Is this also for the Blu-ray?

[Goliath]

Whatever happened to just simply enjoying a movie for fucking's sake!?

It's hard to enjoy a movie when it has been botched.

Now God knows I'm no expert on transfers and all that technical stuff (as evidenced by my infamous questions about aspect ratios), and ýou all know I'm not splitting hairs about picture quality either (as you've read, I think BluRay is a scam, for example).... BUT!....

Marky IS right! He's right about having no shadow on the wall and Pinocchio's face anymore and it doesn't make sense. I believe the first screen cap (out of the three posted) is the right one. Do I know for SURE? No, but using rational thought would lead one to that conclusion.

[CampbellzSoup]

Where's my Amazon goodies?

[Disney Duster]

Yea I just have to chime in that Marky is very correct with this one. The candle doesn't look like it has any light, any effect, in the scene. In the two previous transfers, there was lots of light around the candle and it showed on Pinocchio. In the new one, the light is just about gone. Pinocchio isn't nearly as lit up, it's like he's not effected by the lighting at all, in fact it's like there's no lighting at all. And that flame is pink, of course.

[ajmrowland]

Well, at least it was only the SE, and the PE is likely to have an entirely new master. I'll bet that a lot of the light is added back into the shot. Either way, this release is still a first-day buy for me, as I haven't owned it for almost 10 years.

[nomad2010]

Yea I just have to chime in that Marky is very correct with this one. The candle doesn't look like it has any light, any effect, in the scene. In the two previous transfers, there was lots of light around the candle and it showed on Pinocchio. In the new one, the light is just about gone. Pinocchio isn't nearly as lit up, it's like he's not effected by the lighting at all, in fact it's like there's no lighting at all. And that flame is pink, of course.

i agree. interestingly enough, i did the same as in the beauty and the beast thread, i messed with the cap til i got it close. this was almost too easy however. basically the RGB was edited, barely, which darkened it, and it seems that the picture had been added a TON of cyan in the coloring process. when stripped of it it appears very similar (in background and table at least) and the glow seems to be back but even more so most likely due to the odd restoration. it's a little lighter mind you and far less blurry. it also seems reds were hightened so they appear more red instead of brown.

[2099net]

Do I even exist? Is anyone reading my posts?

Manually changing the FULL RGB screen grab to the limited NTSC colourspace has a similar effect - see



See, it makes the shadows darker right away.

Images on a computer are not the same as images viewed on NTSC equipment. Why do you think Photoshop comes with a NTSC colourspace filter?

Of course its not totally the same, but look, the white's aren't white anymore! So what would somebody do if the white isn't white? Boost the brightness maybe?



But then you have to tweak the contrast too to darken the image or its just washed out.



As look - the shadows are back.

of course, there's plenty of ways the image could be manipulated, chroma balance, luminance, gamma correction... but you have to get away that screen grabs on computers AUTOMATICALLY represent the image as it appears as viewed on a television. The two formats have totally different colour spaces. Unless you know how the screen grab was taken, and with what settings, its next to meaningless as it has no context.

You also have to get away from the idea that what you're used to is also something that will have been altered, probably quite dramatically, for television/home viewing. Yes, in doing so, they obviously sought to replicate the original as closely as possible on the less capable system, but you can't just take those transfers and re-use them on purely digital media.

[Marky_198]

Thank you Goliath and Disney Duster.

Nomad2010, I see what you mean by adjusting the image, but the thing is, it doesn't look like that on the dvd. Ouf course the colors will look different as you change an image. But even though the colours come close, it still looks way flatter and cartoonish than the small insert.

And 2099net, I have all masters of Pinnocchio on laserdisc, vhs and dvd, and the 3 screenshots look exactly like how they look on all my tv's.
And I didn't take that screenshots.

[2099net]

And 2099net, I have all masters of Pinnocchio on laserdisc, vhs and dvd, and the 3 screenshots look exactly like how they look on all my tv's.
And I didn't take that screenshots.

Because they were all done from the same transfer? The international Special Edition (which is the one I assume you don't have) was the first DVD with a transfer specifically done for DVD.

Remember, before DVD, hardly any new home video releases boasted "restoration" or even "new transfers" and specific restorations weren't common at all. Mainly because such improvements would be hard to spot on the limited VHS resolution.

[nomad2010]

Thank you Goliath and Disney Duster.

Nomad2010, I see what you mean by adjusting the image, but the thing is, it doesn't look like that on the dvd. Ouf course the colors will look different as you change an image. But even though the colours come close, it still looks way flatter and cartoonish than the small insert.

oh no, that wasn't my point! i was just trying to point out how strange it was the they were able to take out the glow of the candle but with different filters it's back, even though it doesn't appear to be there. Yes it looks flat but that is because it is a screencap and also you can't get the dimension that seems to appear on VHS screencaps, they are blurry so they appear to have more depth even though they don't. It's just not possible.

[geniuswalt]

I don't know if this image shows the restauration we can expect from this upcoming release. This screencap was taken from the Bluray disc for "The art of Disney".