Audio Errors of Restoration..

[Marky_198]

Well, the IMAX trailer does look more correct.

One question though: When did you first get the books that told you the LD master of Pinocchio was correct? Because many books for the film have been released in the last 70 years, and many of them could've been printed using the negatives from the 1978 release onward.

And, like everyone says(even I noticed), the colors of the restoration look very much like those in the original 1940 trailer on the second disc.

You completely blow off the experts who've seen the original film AND the restored version, because they missed a few lines of dialogue(only people who obsess over that stuff would actually notice/care), and when it comes to video, you think your word is law.

And yet, You seem to ignore all evidence against you're opinion. You say that we willingly take every pill we're given without thought, but you seem to be feeding yourself poison, poison that's killing every ounce of credibility you ever had on this site.

Buzz Lightyear: "You are a sad, strange little man"

Well, thank you. I've always said these colors looked more correct, but it's a pity some people needed this IMAX trailer to believe it. If they would have taken a closer look at all the material out there that has ever existed they could have known it years earlier........

About the material. I have a huge collection of books, they vary from 1941 to 1995. Each and every still from the film looks about the same. Yes, even in the oldest books. Although the pictures look older, the colors and look are still the same. They're also the same as the film stills the used in cinema's I collected over the years. They too look the same and the different cinema releases also look the same. You don't think those cards that were taken from the theatrical film print at every release are wrong, do you? Especially as the colors are the same from the releases from 1940 to 1989.
I also have some original film stills I bought in the studio's, and I've been collecting litho's with film stills over the years and I have quite a collection of all the classics from 1938 to 2009.
Each and every shot of Pinocchio looks like something between the first vhs release and the laserdisc release. Perhaps a little less red.
But definitely NOT like the blu-ray.
Also, I have many trailers of the film from all it's theatrical releases (which also look the same as everything of the film that ever existed) but that so called "1940 trailer" on the second disc you're talking about, is recolored like there's no tomorrow. It was really embarrassing to watch as it's not done very well. They probably deliberately tried to make it match the look of the film now. Just like they deliberately make before/after pics on the back of dvd's look wrong, and they call the messed up new soundtrack mix in mono-desguise the "original track". Just to make a point.

So there is almost 70 years of evidence.

There is no evidence against my opinion. The only thing people come up with is "the newest must be the best!!!".
And we all know how true that was in the BATB case.....

"Well, the IMAX trailer does look more correct."
That's what everyone says now. Why couldn't you believe it with all the other proof I've mentioned for years? Just like with Pinocchio now?

[Flanger-Hanger]

Where and how were the caps for these books taken or printed? Or the lithographs for that matter (which I would never trust except for the CAPS films)? How old are the film stills (are they promotional, fake ones too like the one Future Shop gave me with Sleeping Beauty)? Unless you got ones from the original negatives (which you don't no one has, just copies and God only know how far removed they are).

Colours are not the same from 1940 to 1989. They change over time (hell they used to put the film reels through washing machines to attempt to remove dirt and scratches!), and for the umpteenth time they did not make film print copies from the originals after 1978.

I do think those cards are wrong, you can't expect something to remain exactly the same for that many decades. Copies made from, copies made from copies are all removed from the original prints and should never be judged.

As already mentioned film "stills" and lithos are not always even used from the film, the are ofetn made for promotional reasons and may not be taken with the best prints or technologies. You say they look "a little less red", so what does that mean? Another vague statement that could imply the fact that they artificially gave everything a red tint in "restoring" it to achieve a certain look.

You say all video releases prior to this look the same but there's no way in hell the 1985 VHS looks like the 1992 one.

No that's not 70 years of anything, it's just worthless guessing on your part. Don't bother posting until you actually have some physical evidence posted to prove your point.

[Flanger-Hanger]

As for your books, posting even, ya know a title, might help me understand what you're saying. A year and author wouldn't hurt either.

ALL the books you say? Well here's a pic from The Art of Animation 1997 edition (the one promoting Hercules), unadjusted in any way, just scanned from a page. It should be noted however that my scanner makes everything look brighter and when compared with the book itself the colour are darker, but still bright.



Compared with the Blu-ray:



I think they got it right considering it looks like my book.

[Flanger-Hanger]

If you say bright colours didn't exist back then, I'm gonna smack you with Oliva de Havilland:



Here's a pic from the old DVD:



Compare the red of Pinocchio's shorts with the picture from the book, they don't even come close, but the Blu-ray looks much more accurate.

[Marky_198]

Ok, we don't agree about the colors. Just believe what you want to believe ok? I guess you won't believe me until Disney comes out with the actual otv....

And it's not just about the colours in the first place. The whole texture is different.

And to stay on topic, the wrong, new, messed up soundtrack is also far, far away from the original. What are your views on that?

[Marky_198]

An interesting article about restorations of pre-1989 classics:

Color reproduction

"Let's start on a detour: When I see an original painting in a gallery I’m usually quite astonished by how much it differs from the reproduction in the exhibition catalog – not to speak of other prints or digital formats. Reproductions are not only lacking nuances but sometimes certain hues (or all of them) are so different that the general impression of a picture comes across as totally different."

"What bothers me most is the technique of separating the characters from the backgrounds in order to remove grain and lighting inconsistencies (see 2nd disc of "Sleeping Beauty"). This results in a CG-compositing look that draws attention to the absolute rigor of the backgrounds. As the ever changing grain rightfully may be seen as a flaw inherent to the medium, it nevertheless helped to keep the image alive. Without the grain, the characters' color areas are even flatter looking and the movie seems to freeze whenever a cel is held for several frames (quite often in "Dalmatians"). This ultimately draws our attention to the artificiality of the animation instead of letting us engage with the story.

As much as I admire the painstaking work of Disney's restoration team to make the new DVD look so gorgeous: if I watch "101 Dalmatians" I want to see a movie made in 1961 restored to its original splendor. If I wanted to see a state-of-the-art film of 2008, I'd go to see "Wall-E" or "Sita Sings the Blues."


http://colorfulanimationexpressions.blo ... on-of.html

[2099net]

An interesting article about restorations of pre-1989 classics:

Color reproduction

"Let's start on a detour: When I see an original painting in a gallery I’m usually quite astonished by how much it differs from the reproduction in the exhibition catalog – not to speak of other prints or digital formats. Reproductions are not only lacking nuances but sometimes certain hues (or all of them) are so different that the general impression of a picture comes across as totally different."

What's even more interesting in the same article is

When it comes to restoring animated movies, the original artwork's color (which might also have faded) may differ greatly from the color timed premiere print that should serve as a frame of reference. As Bordwell points out (referring to "Funny Girl" (Wyler, 1968)), even with Technicolor dye-transfer movies sometimes there are not just one original print but several different ones. So if there is no clear frame of reference, particular characteristics of film stock, colored lighting under the camera, the amount of glass and cels overlaid, production notes etc. have to be taken into account.

Which basically says what I've always said. I believe the people doing the restoration try their best to get the colours as close as possible to the "original" - even though there is no "definitive" evidence that they can use.

"What bothers me most is the technique of separating the characters from the backgrounds in order to remove grain and lighting inconsistencies (see 2nd disc of "Sleeping Beauty"). This results in a CG-compositing look that draws attention to the absolute rigor of the backgrounds. As the ever changing grain rightfully may be seen as a flaw inherent to the medium, it nevertheless helped to keep the image alive. Without the grain, the characters' color areas are even flatter looking and the movie seems to freeze whenever a cel is held for several frames (quite often in "Dalmatians"). This ultimately draws our attention to the artificiality of the animation instead of letting us engage with the story.

As much as I admire the painstaking work of Disney's restoration team to make the new DVD look so gorgeous: if I watch "101 Dalmatians" I want to see a movie made in 1961 restored to its original splendor. If I wanted to see a state-of-the-art film of 2008, I'd go to see "Wall-E" or "Sita Sings the Blues."


http://colorfulanimationexpressions.blo ... on-of.html

I would say firstly the Sleeping Beauty restoration he's talking about was from what? 1998? Probably started a year or so before too. So its over 10 Years old. It's when digital tools were first starting to be used for the restoration. I wouldn't expect the most recent restoration to have any techniques in common. Do you know how fast image processing technology is advancing? It's more than doubling in power every year.

However, that blog poster does mention 101 Dalmatians' restoration as exhibiting similar issues - not that I can say that I see them. But if they are there, I would consider it more likely a general application of DNR to remove grain than specific foreground-background separation. Frankly, I doubt they need to do that at all anymore.

EDITED TO ADD
Oh and of course, when encoded to MPEG2, minor grain on static backgrounds could be "removed" (or at least softened) due to the MPEG2 compression process. It's not a particularly efficient codec - its what? 20 years old now?

[KubrickFan]

Ok, we don't agree about the colors. Just believe what you want to believe ok? I guess you won't believe me until Disney comes out with the actual otv....

And it's not just about the colours in the first place. The whole texture is different.

And to stay on topic, the wrong, new, messed up soundtrack is also far, far away from the original. What are your views on that?

The soundtrack had to be made again, by actual people. Small differences can occur when a person has to make something again. These things happen, because there's no unlimited amount of time and money for every restoration of every film ever made. Surely you must understand that.
And all this time you keep hammering about the colors, referencing things that shouldn't be references, and now all of a sudden it isn't about the colors? About the texture? And what does that mean precisely?
And no the Laserdisc and previous dvd are not the otv, stop calling them that.
And now you've started a thread complaining about cell shadows, things that always were there. I don't think you have any legitimate reasons to complain anymore. I think you're complaining just to complain right now.
We get it, you don't like the new versions, nor will ever like them. Then stop moaning about it in every thread at this forum and watch the older versions, if that makes you happy. These complaints can hardly be called constructive anyway.

[my chicken is infected]

Thank you for saying exactly what I was thinking but in far kinder words, KubrickFan. It's getting tiresome and boring to see the same arguments and such repeated over and over and over and over again in every single thread lately.

[Disney Duster]

But if they are there, I would consider it more likely a general application of DNR to remove grain than specific foreground-background separation. Frankly, I doubt they need to do that at all anymore.

Don't do what anymore? General DNR? I hope that's stopped, and I think it has. A recent Pinocchio review said they found a way to remove the grain but keep about all the image detail (if not all of it). I think they even mentioned the Blue Fairy's sparkles. This has me wonder if Cinderella got the same treatment, what with the sparkles looking half there in it's last restoration, but that's for another thread sometime!

Anyway, Marky, that candle and lighting thing, I wish that I, or somebody, could talk to someone about why this great looking lighting has been removed, or at least is less there in the restorations. In the screencaps I've seen, Pinocchio's recent restoration has actually retained some of the light, more so than the old restoration, just not as much as the laserdisc. But I really wish I could talk to a restorer or someone who would know about it at Disney to know why this great lighting is hardly there now.

As for the texture, removing the grain could have removed it, but also they try to take out all paint crawl, and some have noticed brush strokes are also removed. That's all in addition to them trying to smooth out the colors. Smoothing out the colors could make it look like flattening out the colors. So now it's solid blocks of color instead of, well, textures. I would like to talk to people at Disney about this, too.

It would be great if you could tell us about your books and scan the pages. If you can't, the only thing you might be able to do is try to make examples of the light sources, shadows, and textures, point them out to us, maybe by circling them or something. You could also try writing to Disney, I hear written, not E-mailed, letters work better. I might do that myself someday.

KubrickFan, we don't know if Marky was talking about the cel shadows in that other thread. But I did notice, in that comparison Flanger-Hanger gave, there is one string, the one closest to us, near Pinocchio's right arm, which I guess has a clear cel shadow in the picture from his book, but in the Blu-ray screencap, it's now more blurry and gray...! Why couldn't a high-def restoration make that better...?

[KubrickFan]

As for the texture, removing the grain could have removed it, but also they try to take out all paint crawl, and some have noticed brush strokes are also removed. That's all in addition to them trying to smooth out the colors. Smoothing out the colors could make it look like flattening out the colors. So now it's solid blocks of color instead of, well, textures. I would like to talk to people at Disney about this, too.

That's simply not true. I've definitely seen the brush strokes and many paint fluctuations on the Blu-Ray.

KubrickFan, we don't know if Marky was talking about the cel shadows in that other thread. But I did notice, in that comparison Flanger-Hanger gave, there is one string, the one closest to us, near Pinocchio's right arm, which I guess has a clear cel shadow in the picture from his book, but in the Blu-ray screencap, it's now more blurry and gray...! Why couldn't a high-def restoration make that better...?

Because you're comparing a picture from a book with an actual frame of the film. The pic is not a frame of the film, and they cannot be compared to each other, whatsoever. Plus, the Blu-Ray image has been severely reduced in size, so you can't see it properly too.

[2099net]

But if they are there, I would consider it more likely a general application of DNR to remove grain than specific foreground-background separation. Frankly, I doubt they need to do that at all anymore.

Don't do what anymore?

Separate the foreground elements from the background elements.

General DNR? I hope that's stopped, and I think it has. A recent Pinocchio review said they found a way to remove the grain but keep about all the image detail (if not all of it).

There you go then. Restoration techniques are constantly moving forward.

I think they even mentioned the Blue Fairy's sparkles. This has me wonder if Cinderella got the same treatment, what with the sparkles looking half there in it's last restoration, but that's for another thread sometime!

Well Cinderella's restoration is a few years old now. As I say, computing power and applications for image processing are progressing at a frightening pace. I'm sure the new Sleeping Beauty AND Pinocchio restorations used few, if any, of the same applications as the Cinderella one did.

[Disney Duster]

Well Cinderella's restoration is a few years old now. As I say, computing power and applications for image processing are progressing at a frightening pace. I'm sure the new Sleeping Beauty AND Pinocchio restorations used few, if any, of the same applications as the Cinderella one did.

Well, the restorer interviewed said that since Bambi they've been going back to the original negatives in the restorations, and they've all been like that since Bambi, which is why Sleeping Beauty, perhaps Pinocchio, and definately Snow White were restord again/ are getting done again, to give them restorations like those. They said they would be using the last DVD restorations from Bambi n up for the new Blu-rays, which may suck for me, depending on if the encoding for Cinderella is done right this time, or whatever Blu-ray can do for the film. But I secretly hope they go back and fix a lot more than just the encoding...but that's for another thread. However, if you still think that Sleeping Beauty and Pinocchio got new, better (more sparkle friendly!) applications, then maybe there's hope for Cinderella if it gets done again, which the restorer said was possible for all the films to get done again, just in like a decade from now.

As for the texture, removing the grain could have removed it, but also they try to take out all paint crawl, and some have noticed brush strokes are also removed. That's all in addition to them trying to smooth out the colors. Smoothing out the colors could make it look like flattening out the colors. So now it's solid blocks of color instead of, well, textures. I would like to talk to people at Disney about this, too.

That's simply not true. I've definitely seen the brush strokes and many paint fluctuations on the Blu-Ray.

Well, I haven't watched the whole restored film yet, but hearing that is good! But Animated Views interviewed a restorer, who talked about removing paint crawl and noise from the restorations, and how Pinocchio had a lot of it, that they would be getting rid of. But other review places have noted the brush strokes being smoothed out, leaving only solid blocks of color, in other releases of other films. You can't say it's not true, it's just that you found instances left alone in the Pinocchio DVD and Blu-ray this time.

And thanks for the good suggestion that string may look blurry and gray because the picture's so small.

[KubrickFan]

Well, I haven't watched the whole restored film yet, but hearing that is good! But Animated Views interviewed a restorer, who talked about removing paint crawl and noise from the restorations, and how Pinocchio had a lot of it, that they would be getting rid of. But other review places have noted the brush strokes being smoothed out, leaving only solid blocks of color, in other releases of other films. You can't say it's not true, it's just that you found instances left alone in the Pinocchio DVD and Blu-ray this time.

And thanks for the good suggestion that string may look blurry and gray because the picture's so small.

Paint crawl and noise was there in abundance, I agree. It looked awful on the previous restoration.
By the way, they wouldn't smooth everything out, it would simply cost too much to replace it in every frame. And reviews tend to differ from time to time, so I would just check it out yourself. I can just tell what I saw myself.

Thank you for saying exactly what I was thinking but in far kinder words, KubrickFan. It's getting tiresome and boring to see the same arguments and such repeated over and over and over and over again in every single thread lately.

Well, I was grinding my teeth when I was writing it, so I'm glad it came off as nice . And I wouldn't thank me if I were you, you'd probably be made out as a Blu-Ray fanatic as well . Sad but true.

[Flanger-Hanger]

Here's the full size cap Dusty:

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/screensho ... position=5

You'll notice the "blurriness" is the same kind of cell shadow that exists elsewhere, not only in this particular frame, but in other scenes of the movie invloving puppet strings. Nothing to fret about.

As for that infamous candle (which some people should really shove up their rear ends,) has it occurred to anyone that two separate restorations (2003 and 2009) should achieve similar results while using obviously different technology is probably a good indicator that the shot is correct? The artificial orange tinge to everything mixed with the format's incapability to show sharpness may have given a seemingly correct look in 1992, but in no way a correct one.

[Disney Duster]

Well thanks Kubrick and Flam-Ham!

It really would be extra expensive to pay people to, basically, digitally paint? We've know they digital re-paint, or paint-over, in restorations. We've seen it in Sleeping Beauty's previous DVD restoration feature, and evidenced by screencaps of Cinderella showing one thing being mistakenly colored one way originally, and re-colored to be more correct in the new restoration for the DVD.

Anyway, I hope Marky sees that larger screencap. But I still don't know if those are the gray lines he's talking about. I'll have to wait and see.

It does also reinforce what I asked him in the other thread: are some of the things, like the softness and grayness, only in the DVD, and not in the Blu-ray?

[Flanger-Hanger]

DVD isn't sharp enough to correctly show those lines so you can't really judge that (or anything really) based on the DVD. It's just a down converted image of what was intended to be seen and it doesn't accurately reflect the work put in to the restoration.

[Marky_198]

So if there is no clear frame of reference, particular characteristics of film stock, colored lighting under the camera, the amount of glass and cels overlaid, production notes etc. have to be taken into account.

Which basically says what I've always said. I believe the people doing the restoration try their best to get the colours as close as possible to the "original" - even though there is no "definitive" evidence that they can use.

But it also means that the "premiere print", the "first print", that was basically the film they made and released, is a product of all these factors (particular characteristics of film stock, colored lighting under the camera, the amount of glass and cels overlaid, production notes etc), and this look can never be achieved by digital restoring the original cells whatsoever.
The lighting, the look, the texture, everything will be different and IS different as we see in the recent restorations. So I would say that only copies of (or prints from) the original print would be accurate and as close to the original as you can get.

[Marky_198]

The soundtrack had to be made again, by actual people. Small differences can occur when a person has to make something again. These things happen, because there's no unlimited amount of time and money for every restoration of every film ever made. Surely you must understand that.
And all this time you keep hammering about the colors, referencing things that shouldn't be references, and now all of a sudden it isn't about the colors? About the texture? And what does that mean precisely?

And now you've started a thread complaining about cell shadows, things that always were there. .

First of all, they didn't have to ruin the soundtracks like this.
I have this 2003 dvd edition of Pinocchio and it sounds stunning.

http://www.dvd.nl/reviews.php?reviewid=1030

It's a dolby digital 5.1 mix, but no shifted lines, instruments, chorus parts, missling lines, etc. So can you tell me why they suddenly HAD to do this for the latest release?

And I've said it was about overall look, details, lighting and texture all the time. Disney Duster has some great points about this. The article writer too.

And you don't read well, because I didn't complain about cell shadows. That's an issue Julian brought up. I complained about the soft, grey-ish layer that's over the image in all the new restorations which makes the image look soft and the characters look clay-ish.

[KubrickFan]

But it also means that the "premiere print", the "first print", that was basically the film they made and released, is a product of all these factors (particular characteristics of film stock, colored lighting under the camera, the amount of glass and cels overlaid, production notes etc), and this look can never be achieved by digital restoring the original cells whatsoever.
The lighting, the look, the texture, everything will be different and IS different as we see in the recent restorations. So I would say that only copies of (or prints from) the original print would be accurate and as close to the original as you can get.

But that film was made out of nitrate for Pinocchio, which simply crumbles after a long period of time. Copies of copies simply add more grain to the film itself, as well as other anomalies.
And I don't think you understand the principle of restoring a film. Restoring simply means bringing the current film back to it's original state. Have you looked at The Godfather? It looks just like the original film did back in the seventies.