DVDizzy Forum

Marky_198 wrote:But the basic thing is, this extreme sharpness doesn't do the classics any good.
Flms on cinema screens were never that sharp. Not like this.
HD ruins the classics. That's a shame.
That's why everything is so flat and visible. It sucks all the life out of it.

I have nothing against you but what you've said should be winning awards for its stupidity

Does it hurt when you open your eyes every day or would it be better if you were partially blind because the world was never meant to be seen in the clarity of your eyes. I really think you find enjoyment in saying ridiculous things and getting people on these boards upset as there is no way you can believe what your saying. Going by the fact that these movies were filmed in a higher resolution then HD, one could assume that they were indeed meant to be seen this sharp and WERE seen in more clarity during there original theatrical run. Like I said, just knowing that you figured out how to turn on a computer suggests that your capable of understanding this and that the stupid things you say are for nothing more then you enjoyment.

In-light of this fact, hopefully no more time will be wasted on you

jpanimation wrote:

Marky_198 wrote:But the basic thing is, this extreme sharpness doesn't do the classics any good.
Flms on cinema screens were never that sharp. Not like this.
HD ruins the classics. That's a shame.
That's why everything is so flat and visible. It sucks all the life out of it.

I have nothing against you but what you've said should be winning awards for its stupidity

Does it hurt when you open your eyes every day or would it be better if you were partially blind because the world was never meant to be seen in the clarity of your eyes. I really think you find enjoyment in saying ridiculous things and getting people on these boards upset as there is no way you can believe what your saying. Going by the fact that these movies were filmed in a higher resolution then HD, one could assume that they were indeed meant to be seen this sharp and WERE seen in more clarity during there original theatrical run. Like I said, just knowing that you figured out how to turn on a computer suggests that your capable of understanding this and that the stupid things you say are for nothing more then you enjoyment.

In-light of this fact, hopefully no more time will be wasted on you

Oh my god.

jpanimation, I bow down to you.

I'd WIST all that, but there's a character limit for signatures!

albert

Escapay wrote:And welcome to our side, Nandor! It's fun! We have [...] milk duds (the real ones, not the milk buds!)

Chocolate ánd caramel? Oh, I feel better about this side already!

I have nothing against you but what you've said should be winning awards for its stupidity

I'd WIST this if I did that sort of thing. It had to be quoted, at least ^^

Escapay wrote:BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

*hangs head in shame*

Escapay wrote:And welcome to our side, Nandor! It's fun! We have popcorn and milk duds (the real ones, not the milk buds!) and skittles and poisoned dragon's liver!

But Snow White and her furry little chipmunk friends prefer the taste of Goodtimes Milk Buds!

jpanimation!

And enigmawing!

jpanimation wrote: Going by the fact that these movies were filmed in a higher resolution then HD, one could assume that they were indeed meant to be seen this sharp and WERE seen in more clarity during there original theatrical run. :

Have you actually ever been to a cinema?

You're right, cinemas aren't 4k resolution, but they ARE twice the resolution of 1080p, so your point gets negated there.

Now for an actual example of "blurriness" (which I admittedly found several times in the movie), here's a screencap from the most recent DVD (I haven't had a chance to put in the old DVD for a comparison):



It's probably the worst example I found. And all I can really say is that I highly doubt that the image was blurred/partially doubled from the restoration, I imagine they did the best they could with the original negative.
What did cause this, though? It almost looks like a double-exposure.

It ptrobably is, saying as the bg isn't blurry at all.

Marky_198 wrote:

jpanimation wrote: Going by the fact that these movies were filmed in a higher resolution then HD, one could assume that they were indeed meant to be seen this sharp and WERE seen in more clarity during there original theatrical run. :

Have you actually ever been to a cinema?

Yes, most recently Toy Story 1&2 in digital 3D. The extremely high resolution digital source from a digital projector was, now hold on as this might me hard to swallow, an improvement over my current VHS copy. The high resolution didn't seem to bother the audience either and they were even enjoying it *gasp*

Now wether the extra resolution flattened the image, as you so intelligently put it, I couldn't tell you as I was watching it in 3D. Regardless, it was a higher resolution than "HD" and I doubt the theater gets too many requests for the resolution to be turned down to get rid of all those sharp fine details and match their more "accurate" low-resolution laserdisc version.

enigmawing wrote:Now for an actual example of "blurriness" (which I admittedly found several times in the movie), here's a screencap from the most recent DVD (I haven't had a chance to put in the old DVD for a comparison):



It's probably the worst example I found. And all I can really say is that I highly doubt that the image was blurred/partially doubled from the restoration, I imagine they did the best they could with the original negative.
What did cause this, though? It almost looks like a double-exposure.

That looks more like an interlacing problem, which would be a fault of the dvd itself. Or the capturing program went all screwy. I don't think it's the original negative.

enigmawing wrote:Now for an actual example of "blurriness" (which I admittedly found several times in the movie), here's a screencap from the most recent DVD (I haven't had a chance to put in the old DVD for a comparison):



It's probably the worst example I found. And all I can really say is that I highly doubt that the image was blurred/partially doubled from the restoration, I imagine they did the best they could with the original negative.
What did cause this, though? It almost looks like a double-exposure.

Being as that's from the DVD its probably just 2:3 pulldown. In effect to get 30 frames (NTSC) out of 24 frames (Film) film frames are duplicated and merged. It's virtually undetectable on viewing where the eye smooths everything out (but can cause "juddering" on quick pans). It's been part of putting film on NTSC since the beginning of the format and has been used on TV transmissions, Laserdiscs transfers, VHS transfers and now DVD transfers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3:2_pulldown#2:3_pulldown

Ah, thanks for the info. I did notice this happening in the movie several times; not just when I took a capture, but from actually watching it in motion (which is why I took the capture).

That blurriness was also in the old DVD, I think.

From the sound of it, Marky's fled again.

Marky is never really gone. He lives in the hearts of all of those who deep down secretly think video technology should have stopped with projectors.

No, I'm just waiting while more of you are finding out that many scenes actually ARE very blurry, and what you guys have to say about it.

Especially because the scenes look perfectly beautiful on laserdisc, and they are just as blurry on Blu-ray.

I hear if you say "Bloody Marky" in front of a plasma screen TV three times, he appears and destroys all your Blu-ray discs.

SpringHeelJack wrote:I hear if you say "Bloody Marky" in front of a plasma screen TV three times, he appears and destroys all your Blu-ray discs.

I think that would be fun to try! (not if it worked, though.... It would suck to have to replace them)

Marky_198 wrote:No, I'm just waiting while more of you are finding out that many scenes actually ARE very blurry, and what you guys have to say about it.

Especially because the scenes look perfectly beautiful on laserdisc, and they are just as blurry on Blu-ray.

What, you mean when I already discussed it four times earlier and gave the explanation for it?

KubrickFan wrote:
Misalignment of the multiplane camera planes, or damaged ones. The laserdisc version simply wasn't sharp enough to show it.

KubrickFan wrote:
Like I said, it was always there, you just couldn't see it because of the fact that for one, Blu-ray has a much higher quality than Laserdisc, and two, there was a new 4K scan and probably 2K restoration done. I doubt that was the case for the Laserdisc edition, so this one reveals more flaws than the much older Laserdisc.
But I thought you didn't watch Blu-ray anymore? They hurt your eyes, didn't they? So how would you know the difference.
And if it's really the case that the Laserdisc is much sharper, then it's still not good. 1937's technicolor was incredibly soft, so they might've screwed with the sharpness for the Laserdisc.

KubrickFan wrote:
This 'damage' was always there, if you're referring to the thing I think you are. There are some slightly softer frames because of the misalignment or damaging when they did the multiplane shots seventy years ago. Entire shots being soft are probably your imagination, because they're not there.

And it's funny that you should talk about intentions by filmmakers, because you so easily dismiss them when you don't like it (Beauty and the Beast, for example).
Point is, Theo Gluck and his team did a wonderful restoration of Snow White. If you don't want to see that, please stick to the Laserdisc and stop complaining about it.

KubrickFan wrote:
Do you even read what others write? It's not extremely sharp, Snow White looks quite soft because of the Technicolor process used back then. And again you keep forgetting that 35mm film has a much higher quality than Blu-ray has, so it cannot look sharper than film.

And still you don't seem to listen. I also still cannot understand why you keep bothering with Blu-rays if all you ever do is complain about them.
So here's also the review of Robert A. Harris, film restoration expert. I really hope you'll read it and understand why the way Snow White looks on Blu-ray is the right way.
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/forum/t ... in-blu-ray