DVDizzy Forum

It's also kind of silly for a site that focuses so much on audio/video to just brush Blu-Ray away like the review did. I mean, some reviews of the films say things like "it's worth an upgrade for the picture difference alone!" Like, the old Gold Collection DVDs that are being replaced by Annivesary Editions -- the review says to upgrade some just based on a very, very slight better picture with slightly differing colors. But when a format comes along that offers stunning/incredible/better than movie-theater picture, they just brush it off?

Marky_198 wrote:

wallymatters wrote:

I only came here to tell you just how silly you are. The well respected folks over at AVSForum.com are laughing at you...

"Well respected folks"? Haha well, that's funny

I suppose sometimes the fetish for the newest stuff takes over, but If that makes people not see the fact that scenes don't work anymore, that they don't care at all if there's a shadow left, a source of light whatsoever, I wouldn't exactly call them "respected folks". It's sad really.

"Well respected" is much more than I can say for you. That forum and many of its members are however. I'd suggest you visit, but your dim intellect would not last long.

lighthousemike wrote:
4. As a reviewer you MUST upgrade to BD - cuz like it or not thats where we are all headed, you sound like Blockbuster back in the late 90s, staying away from DVDs - we all know how that story ended, don't we.

Oh?

ToyStoryFan wrote:It's also kind of silly for a site that focuses so much on audio/video to just brush Blu-Ray away like the review did. I mean, some reviews of the films say things like "it's worth an upgrade for the picture difference alone!" Like, the old Gold Collection DVDs that are being replaced by Annivesary Editions -- the review says to upgrade some just based on a very, very slight better picture with slightly differing colors. But when a format comes along that offers stunning/incredible/better than movie-theater picture, they just brush it off?

They couldn't compare because they didn't receive both complete packages. All they received was the Blu-ray package that contains a copy on the DVD version of the film. They DID NOT get the entire 2-Disc DVD package. In order to review the entire DVD package the entire thing needs to be there. I know many of you already consider DVD dead and already wrote it off as if it no longer exists nor matters. I agree 100% with what the review said.

This hit the nail on the head:

"Those who have made the upgrade to Blu-ray, however, are an extremely vocal minority, online at least. I understand that to a point. They've invested in their high-tech toy and now they want other people to do the same, like they did for DVD (but not for niche laserdisc). Some of them have a strange way of expressing that desire, however. Such fanatics come across as some of the most unpleasant people you'll ever "meet", even by Internet standards where hostility is often second nature. It isn't enough for people to accept Blu-ray's existence, they have to renounce DVD and devote their life to high-definition.

I can only imagine the flavorful reaction that this ramble will receive among those types, who have already taken me to task for mentioning Blu-ray promotion tactics without unwavering appreciation. With virtual pitchforks, a ringleader with a history of electronic trash talk, and a plan to smite my differing opinion, here's what they will say: I must not really love movies, I shouldn't be a reviewer, I'm still clinging to VHS, and I can't afford Blu-ray in my pitiful, ignorant life. Actually now that I've already said it all, they might need to be more creative or even -- perish the thought -- understanding."

Famed restoration expert Robert Harris weighs in on the Pinocchio Blu-Ray...

----

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/ht- ... u-ray.html

The miracle workers as Disney have taken an old nitrate SE negative, and turned it into an extraordinary entertainment fit for the 21st century.

With all of the original elements safely duplicated with redundancy, I have no problem with yet another new incarnation of majestic, classic Disney animation.

Compared to the last SD release, resolution is far beyond in every way, the last looking very much the dupe of a dupe that it was. Tens of thousands of bits of "Disney dust" have been eliminated along with whatever wear there was, and color and detail have reached a new high.

Because of the original printing process, what you can now project or view in your home theater will be far sharper and with higher resolution that one could see at the Bijou in well... February of 1940.

While a 70th Anniversary Edition sounds nice, it just isn't so. Pinocchio premiered in the U.S. on February 7, 1940.

Regardless of age, which Disney still does not discuss -- only a small mention of "2009 Blu-ray Release," this set, labeled "2-disc" which is actually a 3-disc, will charm and terrorize the youth of the 21st century anew.

On a personal note, as someone affected, I applaud Disney's intro against second hand smoke. The execs have sent the correct message. Nothing healthier for someone in utero than a nice smoke.

Pinocchio has been brilliantly re-worked and brought to Blu-ray. This is a disc perfect in every detail, inclusive of the original RKO Radio logo.

Once again, the technical staff and vendors used by Disney have performed in a yeoman-like fashion.

Pinocchio is Highly Recommended!

Happy 69th Pinocch!

RAH

wallymatters wrote: Well respected" is much more than I can say for you. That forum and many of its members are however. I'd suggest you visit, but your dim intellect would not last long.

I have visited the forum and I noticed the people on there are extremely passionate about video/audio and everything new.
Just like I notice that many people on this forum are actually more interested in the films itself.

And please stop with your "respect" nonsense.
They are respected? Yes, by eachother maybe, but not by anyone who understands animation or anyone that bases their views on actual facts instead of taking everything for granted.
Their (and your) attitude is actually quite ignorant and naive.
If you don't see the huge ERRORS that occured in the Blu ray version of Pinocchio I guess we're done talking. It just shows how much some people care about the actual film.

So it really comes down to this;
Is it about the content or is it just about the format?
I think it's quite clear.

I actually don't read the DVD reviews on this site because of their anti-Blu statements and because I have moved away from that format. I'm not sure why this site announced it was going Blu if it had no intention of following through. Also it is extremely difficult to get excited about a stale Pinocchio DVD review when we know there is a Pinocchio Blu-ray out there. Does Ultimate Disney really want to be left behind when most every other site reviews Blu-ray. I think we need a Blu-ray forum stat otherwise these arguments will continue and for no reason at all, it is proven that Blu-ray is better so can we not continue fighting over a proven fact. No offense to the reviewer, I only mean to offend the DVD format, moving on...

Marky_198 wrote: And please stop with your "respect" nonsense.
They are respected? Yes, by eachother maybe, but not by anyone who understands animation or anyone that bases their views on actual facts instead of taking everything for granted.
Their (and your) attitude is actually quite ignorant and naive.
If you don't see the huge ERRORS that occured in the Blu ray version of Pinocchio I guess we're done talking. It just shows how much some people care about the actual film.

So it really comes down to this;
Is it about the content or is it just about the format?
I think it's quite clear.

Okay, what 'errors' are we talking about? Just because you think it's wrong, doesn't mean it is. And what facts are you referring to, exactly?
And what about the Robert Harris quote, you've chosen to ignore? He thinks it looks good, and he's an expert. Or is his opinion wrong, because he views Blu-Ray as the better format?

Rudy Matt wrote:
The miracle workers as Disney have taken an old nitrate SE negative, and turned it into an extraordinary entertainment fit for the 21st century.

Because of the original printing process, what you can now project or view in your home theater will be far sharper and with higher resolution that one could see at the Bijou in well... February of 1940.

There you have it. The proof that what's on the disc is NOT what the original filmmakers intended.
It's a shame.

KubrickFan wrote:
Okay, what 'errors' are we talking about? Just because you think it's wrong, doesn't mean it is. And what facts are you referring to, exactly?
And what about the Robert Harris quote, you've chosen to ignore? He thinks it looks good, and he's an expert. Or is his opinion wrong, because he views Blu-Ray as the better format?

Many errors. Please read my earlier posts.

Marky_198 wrote:Please read my earlier posts.

No thanks.

ichabod wrote:

Marky_198 wrote:Please read my earlier posts.

No thanks.

What is this supposed to mean? He asked for the errors, I described them. You are not interested in seeing the errors?
Or are you afraid that your vision about the film on blu ray might be changed if you know the truth?

Marky_198 wrote:
Many errors. Please read my earlier posts.

I only heard you complain about the candles, which wasn't even an error. The old dvd looked way too bright and the colors were blown out. Gepetto's house looks like it's on fire.

Marky_198 wrote:There you have it. The proof that what's on the disc is NOT what the original filmmakers intended.
It's a shame.

It's impossible to replicate the theatrical experience of almost seventy years ago. The technicolor process is highly unstable when colors are concerned, and every printing process would turn out different from the earlier ones. So, even if they did it again it would still turn out different.
So, unless you want to advocate every dvd of every film made in technicolor out there, you should just enjoy this film, which is restored superbly, and looks great (even on dvd).

KubrickFan, do you see the difference between a Disney Classic look and a Saturday morning cartoon sequel look?

That's what it's all about.

Marky_198 wrote:KubrickFan, do you see the difference between a Disney Classic look and a Saturday morning cartoon sequel look?

That's what it's all about.

Oh, now it's about the difference between the film and a Saturday morning cartoon? Because it's the first time you mentioned that.

Yes, I know it, and it doesn't apply here. Most of the cartoons have bright colors, and that would only apply to the 2003 version of the film, and not the new restoration. Do you really think the 2003 version would have been seen in the theaters? It looks awful. It has edge enhancement, blown out colors (I mentioned that already) and a lot of the details that were revealed by the new restoration can't even be seen in the old version. Or were those added by Disney too? To give it a Saturday morning cartoon look? I highly doubt that.
But I'd like to hear some real arguments from you. All you've done is refer to older posts, in which you don't give any arguments. If I give arguments, you simply ignore them and give another moot point as an argument.

Will Pinocchio's soundtrack be re-released like SBs?

Marky_198 wrote:

Rudy Matt wrote:
The miracle workers as Disney have taken an old nitrate SE negative, and turned it into an extraordinary entertainment fit for the 21st century.

Because of the original printing process, what you can now project or view in your home theater will be far sharper and with higher resolution that one could see at the Bijou in well... February of 1940.

There you have it. The proof that what's on the disc is NOT what the original filmmakers intended.
It's a shame.

[Bangs head repeatedly against wall]

No, its the best you've ever seen it because all the film prints were made from analogue copies of analogue copies (perhaps of several generations). You can't keep accessing the original negatives willy-nilly to make distribution prints because each time you do, you risk damaging them. What would happen if in say, 1975 Disney returned to the original negatives to strike new prints and accidently scratched the negative? It would be a complete disaster, which is why it was almost never done. Even VHS copies didn't use the original negatives. Why run the risk when the format was so poor, it wasn't needed? Any colours were likely to be the result of manual compensation to compensate for degeneration between copies. They also most likely adjusted colours for expected viewing conditions in people's homes - which are different than the expected viewing conditions in a darkened cinema.

It's only now, where DVD and especially Blu-ray highlights the inadequency of these multiple-generation copies, that studios are starting to go back to the original negatives. But now they can copy them digitally. Which means no loss of quality. So Mr Harris is right, this is the best you will have ever seen the film since its premiere, perhaps the best since even the first copy directly made from the original negatives (although I doubt a positive copy has ever been made from the original negatives - only secondary negatives). It's nothing to do with the restorers "changing" anything, its just how things work.

Analogue copy = lossy, Digital Copy = lossless.

As for colours, in another thread I've already shown evidence that the colours changed - but I will repeat it again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Techni_col ... hival_work

Wikipedia wrote:. However, because of the variation in color balance per print, dye-transfer prints are used in the professional restoration world as only a rough guideline.

And that's talking about Star Wars from 1977! How do you expect anyone from the 1930's to know without doubt what Pinocchio was supposed to look like?

I've added that bit, because you seem so keen on people looking up your past comments.

I've been quite anxious to read Luke's review, and so far, so good. I have to say that the Blu-Ray rant is, at least in my opinion, highly understandable. The fact is, as nice as Blu-Ray is, I have to admit that aside from the HD-quality picture, it's not really much more than a glorified DVD. If it were being treated as the laserdisc was (a lesser yet appreciable format for the diehard collectors), then it wouldn't be too big a deal. But to essentially guilt-trip people into getting it when it may not entirely be for them is a bit uncalled for, especially in this economic climate. And the fact that Disney have not let copies of the Pinocchio DVD but have let the Blu-Ray go out is really quite shameful, as it's just more of the usual "apply some pressure".

I know that I'll get a whole load of "how dare you!" and "you need to get glasses to examine the eye-piercing quality!" comments from whatever I write about Blu-Ray at this point in time. The fact is, I would love to get a Blu-Ray player and a HD-TV and all that jazz in the future. I have seen Blu-Ray images in shops and showrooms and the picture quality is amazing. But the fact is, I'm still a student, and I can't afford such a thing at this point in time. By no means am I exceedingly poor, but I can't exactly go spending money on things which are essentially luxuries. If I worked and had a decent income, I would have bought a Blu-Ray player and a HDTV TV by now. The fact that some of the Disney classics are coming out on Blu-Ray and having quite a few incentives (well, the amazing picture quality and the visual commentaries...random people sending me messages during the movie isn't anything good in my opinion ) is really a kick in the teeth.

I'm no reyquilla, but anything that has "two disc" or "platinum edition" tempts me a bit, even if it means double dipping. Even though I used to have the old Peter Pan DVD, I still went and indulged in the relatively mediocre Platinum Edition from a little while back. I also caved in and got the Sleeping Beauty DVD, my excuse being that it was in German (since I'm studying French and German and just happened to be in Switzerland in the week that it came out - the German DVD is pretty much the same as the UK and US one), but I feel somewhat like I wasted my money because I know that there's a better thing out there (the Blu-Ray), and by the time that I actually get a Blu-Ray player, it'll be back in the vault. And obviously, since I love my film history and the bonus features are a big draw to double dipping, then getting the Blu-Ray is also a bit pointless, as the second disc would have to wait for two or three years before seeing the light of day. I really wanna get the new Pinocchio release, as I've been wanting to see it get a good release for so long, but I don't know what to do about buying it.

As for the new films (Bolt, Bedtime Stories etc), I don't see there being anything too bad about a slightly earlier release-date, especially since it's only two days. In England in the late 90s (and even as late as 2001 or so), most films got made available for rental two or three months before they got made available for sale. And I seem to remember a TV spot for the rental release of one of the Austin Powers films, which said "available to rent on VHS and available to buy on DVD!" or something like that. Maybe I'd have to be in the States and see exactly how things are unfolding there, but to be honest, I wouldn't bother too much about it. As long as the studios do stop making Blu-Ray something to obsess so much over to those who don't really need it, then everything will be okay.

Tens of thousands of bits of "Disney dust" have been eliminated along with whatever wear there was, and color and detail have reached a new high.

Apparently this reviewer doesn't know that Disney Dust is the magic that comes from the wands I believe Disney Duster siggie has slight more info on the term.

Also, Rudy Matt seeing you post constantly Blu Ray review after review is getting annoying it's as if your trying to prove some point and shove Blu Ray down our throats at the same time.

I agree with Luke's review, it's the best one I've read as of yet. Good Job Luke.

As a reviewer you MUST upgrade to BD - cuz like it or not thats where we are all headed, you sound like Blockbuster back in the late 90s, staying away from DVDs - we all know how that story ended, don't we.

Luke doesn't HAVE to upgrade unless he wants to, or unless he's able to financially. Did you ever think one factor in his not upgrading could be it's too expensive at this time?

Chernabog_Rocks wrote:

Tens of thousands of bits of "Disney dust" have been eliminated along with whatever wear there was, and color and detail have reached a new high.

Apparently this reviewer doesn't know that Disney Dust is the magic that comes from the wands I believe Disney Duster siggie has slight more info on the term.

That reviewer is Robert A. Harris, a respected and well-regarded film restorer and preservationist. So I think he knows what he's talking about. He simply refers to the dust that has gotten between the cells and the backgrounds. That doesn't belong there, and has been removed accordingly.

....so how come he's not complaigning about Blu Ray?