DVDizzy Forum

Scamander wrote:And even if this is a little far-fetched, it is perfectly clear that there was absolutely no money invested in this "restoration", let alone time. Which means it was done in-house and Disney is the only one to blame for it.

This.

I was tempted to ask earlier whether we know of the restoration house that did this botched job. I never suspected Lowry (Cinderella excepted, I believe their standard is very good), and I think you're right that this is an in-house restoration.

Either that, or Disney gave the film to a smaller restoration house (let's say it's called ABCD) for a minor digital clean-up, and when ABCD gave the nicely restored film back to Disney, an insider decided that ABCD's minimal but faithful restoration brought out the roughness of the Xerox line-art more than ever and decided to intervene on behalf of all that just want their movies on Blu-ray to look nice and smooth and clean and glossy. I really believe a genuine (and good) restoration might have been carried out on SitS only for it to be tampered with by a Disney insider after being delivered.

I own this, and honestly the transfer looks fine to me in motion.

Yeah. I always find transfers look better in motion than in stills.

Also, better this than nothing.

Let´s remember this is one of the lesser known Disney movies and as such they could have very well done nothing to it and people would´ve had to just accept it.

DC Fan wrote:Also, better this than nothing.

Let´s remember this is one of the lesser known Disney movies and as such they could have very well done nothing to it and people would´ve had to just accept it.

It would have been a thousand times better, if they just had put it on the disc as it was, before their "restoration".

Are you honestly suggesting that people should be happy, the film was destroyed instead of released unrestored?
I'd take this over this every day. Thank you very much.

Can´t see the images.

Still, for what I read it looks much better in movement that stills.

Plus, taking in consideration how expensive Disney BR are I do prefer/want a clean presentation instead of them porting a mediocre transfer.

DC Fan wrote:Can´t see the images.

Still, for what I read it looks much better in movement that stills.

I don't even own the Blu-ray but can see the flaws perfectly well on the few imdb clips- and yes, in motion.

Plus, taking in consideration how expensive Disney BR are I do prefer/want a clean presentation instead of them porting a mediocre transfer.

If the previous HD transfer is mediocre, the new one is disastrous. It is clean, yes, but it lacks also every detail, destroys the original sketchy look of the early xerox films and smudges all the line art away (to a degree that characters in the background don't have faces anymore).

Films on Blu-ray should be a close representation of the original look of the film and SitS offers not only less detail than the SD DVD, but is also far from the original look. If you are happy to take all this shit, just because you want a clean image, you are part of the problem. Film grain is part of analog film and shouldn't be filtered. If you want a clean picture, turn on the degrain-tools of your TV, goddammit.

http://www.landofwhimsy.com/archives/20 ... y-blu-ray/

To those of you saying the film looks ok and fine in motion - I thought the same until I did my own comparison with the 45th Anniversary DVD. (I don't always trust screenshots.) After comparing a few scenes I will not be viewing the Blu-ray again - it's a travesty! It IS noticeable in motion. The DVD image is so much better. I've now watched the 45th Ann. DVD twice - I'll happily stick with it. Do your own comparison - you'll be surprised!


Matt:)

I never thought it was going to be this bad! After watching it I was very disappointed. I've wrote an angry email to Disney! If they're going to charge premium prices for bootleg quality might as well save my money and get a bootleg lol hopefully if all of us complain maybe they will fix the issue!

I finally got to see screen shots of the movie and in fact look blurry. So, it is in fact a bad restoration.

I know that it was mentioned that there´s no chance the European release would have a different transfer...but let´s wait and see.

After all, Europe didn´t get the Diamond Edition of Peter Pan. So, maybe the video transfer was a different one as well.

MattDean wrote:
It really is a terrible job. It's no longer a Disney classic - it is a Lowry (?) remake!

Matt.

I agree, it is horrific. But honestly, Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty and BATB are just as bad. This are not Disney Classics anymore.

Dvd:



Blu Ray:

^There is critical and then there is obsessive!

That Sleeping Beauty still is one shot from an otherwise outstanding transfer and restoration. Cinderella's restoration is debatable. BaTB had some altered colors (supervised by the creators of the film)... Saying these are no longer Disney Classics is hysterical... Sorry but it is.

"Cinderella's restoration is debatable"

Have you lost your mind? What is debatable about this? A quarter of the film is removed. That is plain wrong.

About Sleeping Beauty, there are many scenes that would shock you. Things that you might not notice at first. Just like some nitwits on here did not even notice the flaws in the Sword in the Stone Blu Ray.

And again, it is not about the colors. BATB has severe detail loss as well. In clothes, skin, lines, etc.

My point is, people are acting like this is something new happening, while it is going on for years. This is probably done by the same company that butchered the other classics.

"Saying these are no longer Disney Classics is hysterical......."
If you like it or not, there is a difference between the look of this classics that made the world love them so much, and the look of direct to dvd sequels. Have you ever noticed that difference, or does it all just look the same to you?

Marky_198 wrote:"Cinderella's restoration is debatable"

Have you lost your mind? What is debatable about this? A quarter of the film is removed. That is plain wrong.

Debatable in the sense that the clean-up has definitely gone too far. Debatable in that when it comes to the colors (as Im sure you would also say is also wrong - cause you are quite the "original-colors guy") nobody can say for sure unless they have seen the original print (and none of us have) with a movie as old as this many factors are at play when it comes the the coloration...

Marky_198 wrote:About Sleeping Beauty, there are many scenes that would shock you. Things that you might not notice at first. Just like some nitwits on here did not even notice the flaws in the Sword in the Stone Blu Ray.

Ok so maybe it's not one scene literally, but that doesn't change the fact that I think Sleeping Beauty has one of the better transfers of the bunch. Considering this movie is more than 50 years old I think it looks quite good. For starters I appreciate that we got the 2.55:1 aspect ratio, and I think the colors look great and the backgrounds have great detail...

Marky_198 wrote:And again, it is not about the colors. BATB has severe detail loss as well. In clothes, skin, lines, etc.

I haven't noticed any severe detal loss in BaTB... The movie is done digitally, so there wouldn't need to be painted over anything... The colors aside the transfer for this movie is also one of the better IMO... The 3D-BD's colors are much better than those on the regular BD so I've pretty much made my peace with it by now...

I think maybe you have come to glorify VHS and DVD too much... The depth and look you love so might be partly to decompression and wear and tear...

Marky_198 wrote:

MattDean wrote: It really is a terrible job. It's no longer a Disney classic - it is a Lowry (?) remake!
Matt.

I agree, it is horrific. But honestly, Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty and BATB are just as bad. This are not Disney Classics anymore.

In all honesty, Lowry's restoration are still in high-quality, despite the changes compared to its earlier film presentations. Yes they look more like digital-to-digital restorations rather than film-to-digital, but the amount of detail is unbelievably high, and at times, a better substitute than VHS (can't say much about Laserdiscs since I never grew up with these). In the case of Cinderella, colors might have washed out the detail, but it still blew my mind when remembering the VHS days. Sleeping Beauty: ... wasn't the first 2003 DVD also from Lowry earlier? In all regards, the latter is still better. Beauty and the Beast: okay, that was mainly a digital project to begin with, so despite the changes... should it matter this much if these don't affect the story itself? I couldn't care less if Cinderella's colors override the detail, I just want to enjoy the film, not so much nitpick needlessly... unless the terrible picture ruins the movie experience, but here, to me, it actually doesn't! ... but what can you do? We now have kids getting used to pure digital animation, so Disney had to remove the grain AND the amount of dirt that is inside the animation.

Let's look at it this way: these restorations do look better than the 2006 restoration of The Little Mermaid. Yeah, you can bullsh*t all you want on Lowry, but this restoration was NOT done by Lowry, and unfortunately, the different company overdid this. Thankfully, this won't affect the 2013 HD restoration. Yet again, the 2006 restoration wasn't truly meant for Blu-ray at the time since its main version was the DVD.

Now, it's 2013. Sword and the Stone should NOT be of lower quality than the earlier Lowry Restorations! And charging a premium price on top of it! Purely inexcusable! Inconceivable, mind you!

If you like it or not, there is a difference between the look of this classics that made the world love them so much, and the look of direct to dvd sequels. Have you ever noticed that difference, or does it all just look the same to you?

... Even with the debatable Lowry restorations, I'd still say that there's a big difference when it comes to comparing the two. Let's see: high budget high quality animation made for theaters vs. low budget low quality animation made for VHS/DVD/Blu-ray (whichever) ... Rarely do I not notice a difference nor do I notice the DTV sequel being better looking than the original film.

disneyftw1 wrote: In the case of Cinderella, colors might have washed out the detail, but...
Should it matter this much if these don't affect the story itself? I couldn't care less if Cinderella's colors override the detail, I just want to enjoy the film, not so much nitpick needlessly... unless the terrible picture ruins the movie experience, but here, to me, it actually doesn't! ... but what can you do?

I disagree with your opinion 100%.
YES, it matters,. The original artists put a tremendous amount of work in these details. All those realistic details, lines in dresses, nuances, sleeves, created fabrics MADE this film. How can you say something like that after seeing that screenshot comparison? It does not even look like a dress anymore! I'm glad for you that you obviously don't care, but I do, and a lot of other people do too.

What can I do? Not much, except hoping that the people working on them start to care too and realize that they make these classics look like direct to dvd sequels and suck all the life out of it.

disneyftw1 wrote: Now, it's 2013. Sword and the Stone should NOT be of lower quality than the earlier Lowry Restorations! And charging a premium price on top of it! Purely inexcusable! Inconceivable, mind you! .

What exactly is your vision of "lower quality"?
Removed details?

That's the whole point in this discussion.

271286 wrote:

Marky_198 wrote:"Cinderella's restoration is debatable"

Have you lost your mind? What is debatable about this? A quarter of the film is removed. That is plain wrong.

Debatable in the sense that the clean-up has definitely gone too far. Debatable in that when it comes to the colors (as Im sure you would also say is also wrong - cause you are quite the "original-colors guy") nobody can say for sure unless they have seen the original print (and none of us have) with a movie as old as this many factors are at play when it comes the the coloration...

Marky_198 wrote:About Sleeping Beauty, there are many scenes that would shock you. Things that you might not notice at first. Just like some nitwits on here did not even notice the flaws in the Sword in the Stone Blu Ray.

Ok so maybe it's not one scene literally, but that doesn't change the fact that I think Sleeping Beauty has one of the better transfers of the bunch. Considering this movie is more than 50 years old I think it looks quite good. For starters I appreciate that we got the 2.55:1 aspect ratio, and I think the colors look great and the backgrounds have great detail...

Marky_198 wrote:And again, it is not about the colors. BATB has severe detail loss as well. In clothes, skin, lines, etc.

I haven't noticed any severe detal loss in BaTB... The movie is done digitally, so there wouldn't need to be painted over anything... The colors aside the transfer for this movie is also one of the better IMO... The 3D-BD's colors are much better than those on the regular BD so I've pretty much made my peace with it by now...

I think maybe you have come to glorify VHS and DVD too much... The depth and look you love so might be partly to decompression and wear and tear...

I totally agree with you! I like both Sleeping beauty and Cinderella restorations. I do agree that sword In The stone was terrible restoration lacking detail.

Marky_198 wrote: YES, it matters,. The original artists put a tremendous amount of work in these details. All those realistic details, lines in dresses, nuances, sleeves, created fabrics MADE this film. How can you say something like that after seeing that screenshot comparison? It does not even look like a dress anymore! I'm glad for you that you obviously don't care, but I do, and a lot of other people do too.

What can I do? Not much, except hoping that the people working on them start to care too and realize that they make these classics look like direct to dvd sequels and suck all the life out of it.

... Ok. From the looks of things, I'm definitely not looking at these things in the right mind as much as you and everyone else do. (and for reasons that I cannot disclose, I am not in a good mood right now) I don't know why I didn't think about the care and attention of the art just now. Doesn't make me an idiot or an ignorant to animation, 'cause Animation is definitely an important essence in History, and its History is a significant one to many. It's just that nowadays, I have other things to care about more than Animation. I do care at times, but never to the extreme (... all the time).

I'll try to make time to look at the actual Blu-ray of this film and see if it actually should matter. Judging a screencap based on a DVD source might be different than seeing the detail, in motion, in HD.
... But I'd still say Shame to Disney for how they treated an unappreciated 60's classic. I may not nitpick that much on Cinderella's Restoration, but here... Entirely different story.

MickeyMouseboy wrote: I totally agree with you! I like the Cinderella restoration. I do agree that sword In The stone was terrible restoration lacking detail.

So you hate this:



And you love this:




Hmmm




And people laughed when I said Disney's restorations were more like them using MS Paint to paint over the films...

Nobody laughed when you used that for Cinderella. Just everything else up to this point.