Disney, DVD, and Beyond Forums
https://dvdizzy.com/forum/
Thanks for posting that pic. I was mostly just curious to see if her dress was always purple in those shots or if they just changed it now.Flanger-Hanger wrote:Flora's dress was always purple in the dark. That's just how they painted it to make it look like the lighting in a certain scene adjusted the colour.
From the old DVD:
note the purple.
Not the laserdisc or the previous dvd's, those can always be erroneous. Just because it was released earlier doesn't mean it's the right one.CampbellzSoup wrote:When you guys talk about original colors...exactly what are you basing this on? The laserdisc transfer? How do we even know that is accurate? I love this restoration, perfection IMO.
Sweet.KubrickFan wrote:Not the laserdisc or the previous dvd's, those can always be erroneous. Just because it was released earlier doesn't mean it's the right one.CampbellzSoup wrote:When you guys talk about original colors...exactly what are you basing this on? The laserdisc transfer? How do we even know that is accurate? I love this restoration, perfection IMO.
The restoration team on Sleeping Beauty went to the Animation Research Library, and used several backgrounds, production cells and multiplane glass levels to scan them into the computer for reference. So they are the right colors this time.
But you didn't mention Technicolor. You see, the colors of the cels, and backgrounds, changes once shot, or whatever's done to it that's in Technicolor. The disney artists knew the colors on the screen would not look the same as the cels and planned exactly how they wanted to make the film look. If the restorers didn't do the Technicolor stuff...it's so very wrong.KubrickFan wrote:The restoration team on Sleeping Beauty went to the Animation Research Library, and used several backgrounds, production cells and multiplane glass levels to scan them into the computer for reference. So they are the right colors this time.
Yet, it still looks gorgeous, and at least the artists would want their own work on the screen, wouldn't they. It just shows how talented they were.Disney Duster wrote:But you didn't mention Technicolor. You see, the colors of the cels, and backgrounds, changes once shot, or whatever's done to it that's in Technicolor. The disney artists knew the colors on the screen would not look the same as the cels and planned exactly how they wanted to make the film look. If the restorers didn't do the Technicolor stuff...it's so very wrong.KubrickFan wrote:The restoration team on Sleeping Beauty went to the Animation Research Library, and used several backgrounds, production cells and multiplane glass levels to scan them into the computer for reference. So they are the right colors this time.
The people at Lowry also scanned the full Technirama negative. That's how they found out the image was bigger than the expected 2.35:1.Disney Duster wrote:But you didn't mention Technicolor. You see, the colors of the cels, and backgrounds, changes once shot, or whatever's done to it that's in Technicolor. The disney artists knew the colors on the screen would not look the same as the cels and planned exactly how they wanted to make the film look. If the restorers didn't do the Technicolor stuff...it's so very wrong.
We are very fortunate in that we have access to the Studio's Animation Research Library (ARL), which contains millions of artifacts spanning the history of the company's animation projects. This includes production cels, backgrounds, and multiplane glass levels. We routinely select dozens of pieces that are then scanned, and split back out to RGB "SE" channels to then be recombined to emulate as best as possible the original photographic methods to ensure that the colors are reproduced much as they would have been (albeit without dye-transfer technologies). These newly photographed set-ups become our wedges that are given to our colorist (Tim Peeler at Technicolor Digital Intermediates) to further aid in this process.
Of course none of this work is done in an information vacuum since personal opinion foisted as fact never accomplishes anything. Hence the Restoration Team also includes colleagues such as animator Andreas Deja, and special projects director Dave Bossert, both from Disney Animation Studios, and Bruce Tauscher from the Mastering group. They bring a wealth of knowledge about the history of the techniques and the prevailing production conditions and thus help us ensure that we don't inadvertently alter the integrity of the original animation.
The cels themselves still retain the color. We have not seen anything that would lead us to believe that cels have faded severely or would in any other way not be representative of the original colors.
And speaking of Technicolor IB, on Sleeping Beauty (and other recent projects), I have been able to get us access to a dye transfer print to really help us understand how the prints were meant to be seen. There is no question that the original cels were designed with a color palette that accounted for SE photography and not for EK color negative. As this film is our first animated classic on Blu-ray we wanted to make sure we did everything possible to fully present the original splendor of the production.
<a href="http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/ ... l">Link</a> to the cited discussion.KubrickFan wrote: Anyway, here's a quote from Theo Gluck, Director of Library Restoration and Preservation for Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures:
</snip>
Hmm, that's strange. I could swear I also added the link to the entire interview of him by Robert Harris.Link to the cited discussion.
I understand people's desire to have it presented exactly the way it was in 1959, but I think sometimes filmmaker intent conflicts with that, and it's obvious they designed the movie for 2.55:1. Between filmmaker intent and theatrical exhibition, I always side with the filmmaker. Besides, I don't get why people make such a big deal over this and yet seem perfectly okay with CAPS films being presented in 1.66:1 on DVD when they were 1.85:1 theatrically. It's the exact same thing, only done vertically rather than horizontally.Theo Gluck wrote:Well... there were multiple signs pointing us to presenting the film in a 2.55:1 aspect ratio for this Blu-ray release.
First and foremost - once our partners at Lowry Digital scanned the full image area on the Technirama negative and we started viewing dailies it became immediately apparent that we were not looking at a 2.35 AR. We normally do not have any crop applied when screening dailies so we knew we were seeing everything possible that is on the negative.
In addition - when we were looking at surviving cels and backgrounds at the Studio's Animation Research Library (which is an invaluable resource), it was quite obvious that the layout design and camera marks were set for 2.55.
Then there is the fact that in a memo dated July 28, 1953, the Studio green lit the CinemaScope version of Lady and the Tramp, while it also established a "Standard Version" and a CinemaScope Version production number for Sleeping Beauty -- #2082 and #2083. As the CinemaScope standard at the time was 2.55, (and that is clearly evident in Lady and the Tramp) Sleeping Beauty too would have been designed at 2.55.
In the end, Lady was adapted for CinemaScope but it was truncated on the left side of the screen when it went out with an optical track since the CinemaScope presentation spec had changed by the time the film was ultimately released in 1955. Sleeping Beauty fared far better as it had been designed to be in CinemaScope and thus could be trimmed to meet the requirements of 2.35 CinemaScope 35mm prints. But in the final analysis, there is animation all the way out to the far edges of the frame that had not been seen. It is this full 2.55 version that is coming out on Blu-ray on October 7.
Bless you, Kelvin.Disneykid wrote:Between filmmaker intent and theatrical exhibition, I always side with the filmmaker.
I'd argue that both should be offered to the public, if possible. The filmmakers' intent is naturally and undoubtedly significant but also the original theatrical exhibition must not be tossed aside since when a work of art is released to the public it no longer belongs solely to the creators or the company but gains a life on its own. So, respecting the audience's experience with the original theatrical release is also essential. I would say 60% filmmaker intent and 40% original theatrical release.Disney Kid wrote:Between filmmaker intent and theatrical exhibition, I always side with the filmmaker.
See, I'd agree with that too, but not necessarily for the reason of "respecting the audience's experience". If the filmmaker wants to include the theatrical edition, by all means, I'm not stopping them. Yeah, it's nice to acknowledge the audience that helped make the film successful, but then what do we do about movies that the audience hates? Should that get the same courtesy even if the theatrical edition is an abysmal mess compared to a more-fleshed-out Director's Cut? I mean, who wants to see the 149-minute version of Heaven's Gate when the 220-minute Director's Cut is much better? Should that truncated mess be available simply to appease any few and far between fans who say, "I like the theatrical version, why can't I get it on DVD?" They can't please everybody, so they might as well please what the filmmakers prefer, as the majority often will (or should) agree with the filmmaker.sotiris2006 wrote:I'd argue that both should be offered to the public, if possible. The filmmakers' intent is naturally and undoubtedly significant but also the original theatrical exhibition must not be tossed aside since when a work of art is released to the public it no longer belongs solely to the creators or the company but gains a life on its own. So, respecting the audience's experience with the original theatrical release is also essential. I would say 60% filmmaker intent and 40% original theatrical release.Disney Kid wrote:Between filmmaker intent and theatrical exhibition, I always side with the filmmaker.
Wait, I'm confused. So, we should always have what Walt wanted, but there are some things that Walt wanted that can only be in small limited quantities because it's not the same as what he wanted earlier?Mike Duster wrote:In the case of Sleeping Beauty, the original theatrical version should be available, even in small limited quantities, because, that is how it was when Walt was alive, how he finally decided it would be (even though it's not what he originally wanted it to be).
