Throughout all the reviews at this website there is usually a section that discusses the quality of the video and audio. The reviews will often mention whether or not the film has, flecks, graininess or "artifacts."
My question is why are the films deteriorating? Assuming they were not created using that nitrate film, why should the original animation classics have any problems? some of these reviews are of movies that Disney made as late as the 1960s. (I haven't read any of the reviews yet for the later animation movies - maybe it is an issue there too!)
Also can someone please tell me what is meant by flecks and artifacts. Also it is kind of hard to imagine any graininess in an animated film.
So I assume that somehow the films degrade and Disney is either lazy or no money to "restore" them. Further, do films constantly have to be restored even if they are modern films done on modern film medium?
Deterioration of Animated Classics; what's happening?
-
Pluto Region1
- Special Edition
- Posts: 684
- Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:13 pm
- Location: Where Walt is Buried
-
deathie mouse
- Ultraviolet Edition
- Posts: 1391
- Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 1:12 am
- Location: Alea jacta est
ok , films are physical entities unless rendered purely on CGI or shot with a digital camera (like Sin City and Corpses Bride at HDTV resolutions)
Film is light sensitive silver grains that turn black or colored dyes clouds replacing them (for colour film
) suspended in a gelatin coated onto a hard base. Like nitrate base in the "olden times" as you mentioned and current safety film after the 50's and even harder polyester ("Estar" base)
Since they're physical things they're prone to physical deterioration and external element damage.
Physical imAge deterioration is the result of light, heat, humidity, chemicals in the air (pollution), and chemicals carried over from the developing process that migfht not been totally stabilized or cleaned. (archival processing)
External elment damage could be dust and scratches and tears, mishandling etc.
Or even putting recently discovered unique surviving elements that were lost for 40 years and then found, thru a "rejuvenating process" that subsequentlty damaged it in a couple of years. like the uncut print of the Alamo
As years go by, the base can deteriotate (for example Nitrate base can even spontaneously burst into flame!) , the safety film shrink and yellow, and the color dyes in the emulsion fade (they're kinda organic stuff) (Silver since its metal, don't fade, so b/w images ussually don't dissapear )
All this changes can be retarted by clean chemical processing in the first place when developing the negatives, and subsequent proper cold dark dry storage.
And of course dust can accumulate and scratches accumulate when the negatives are handled.
To completely arrest this deterioration films would have to be frozen or something permanently. But with proper care things could last hundreds of years. The problem is that sometimes (often??) films are not properly cared for. But there's no reason for a properly stored (emphasis on properly) Silent film negative or print from the 19th century to look as good as it did back then. The thing is sometimes they don't discover the improper storage till its already deteriorating por too late.
Nobody thought about Blu-ray home video profits in the 21rst cenrtury back then
Flecks and artifacts must refer to dust scratches and all the detritus that shows up on prints that may have acumulated over the years,., this can be cleaned physicaly sometimes but if embedded on the emulsion, then only "digital image restoration" can get rid of it.
Now about graininess, as photographic film images are created by grains of silver all film images have grain if you look at them close enough. Depending on the film emulsion and the negative size the film may apear grainy or grainless at normal viewing distances ( which i consider to be around 1.5x the picture height for theatrical movies) (hey i'm wAtching a movie not a home video )
graininess don't increase after time, it's fixed at the time the negative is created. What happens on prints and home video transfers is they could use a copy or a copy of a copy or a copy of a copy of a copy of the negative etc etc and each copy adds its own grain to the image . All prints are COPIES with more grain than the negative (as they have the negative grain PLUS the print grain) unless youre watching a Kodachrome (positive transparency slide emulsion) film and mmmm thats not Hollywood films
Most prints these days are even 3rd and 4th copies as in:
Negative --> Interpositive --> Internegative --> Theatrical Print
old film prints might been done directly from the negative so that's one reason the negative is damaged.
Video transfers should try to use ther earliest element posible but they don't always do it cus they don't have it or they don't wanna risk the original precious negative no more.
Now apart from grainy sources, why graiuny DVDs? could be they overcrank the sharpness and the grain is put more clearly in relief.
I still think a properly made DVD from a 35mm original negative should be almost grainless (if the directors intentions wasn't to add a grainy look on purpose that is) cus DVDs at 480 pixels per picture height have very little resolving power to resolve grains that make up 2000 line images or smaller! (a line (or detail) on a film is made up of several smaller grains clumped toguether creating it )
In any case the graininess is inherrently part of the image on the original negative, a nescessary evil for some an aestetic quality for others so even animated films (not done on a computer of course) might have grain, the question is how much, and of course in these days of digital image manipulation another question shows up, should we leave the slight negative grain in, clean it up just a little, or in some cases (like film cel art) eliminate them totally?
Usually original camera negatives have little grain visible at normal viewing distances and again the resolving power of the video (be it 480 DVD or even1080 Blu-ray) might even merge the visibility of the individual grains into less than what's on the film (if you have specks of grain forming the image that are 1/2000th or smaler in size making a 1000 line image, they would be fainter on even a 1000 line High Def transfer while the 1000 line actual image would come thru fine and strong. You'd probably need a 2000 pixel tall scan or higher to get all the grain even tho you might not get much more detail in the actual image for example)
Now about actually visibly degraded film video transfers:
if a film is faded (usualy color films) you have to either opticaly make a increased contrast dupe, or on the other end of the technology spectrum a digital version with contrast altered digitally. (There's a couple other methods to do it in between those two) Sometimes a combination of methods is used.
These things are costly and they can give excellent results sometimes and not so hot in other ocassions, but if that's what survives of the movie (theres lots of movies that have their negatives destroyed or totally ruined and even the copies are bad), that's all you get.
depends also in how much money and time you have to restore and the capabilities of modern current technology.
When you increase contrast, or push color, for example, you do it at the expense of increasing visible noise, or "grain" if you will, and any scratches and dirt in the film will be magnified etc .
) (like many "remastered" CDs today that sound different (and worse) that older CDs or Lps done correcty back then )
Now about Disney films, most Disney animated classics and shorts are kinda little different case than most movies cus they were shot in the Technicolor Sequential Process so that means they were shot in tricolor B/W film separations and as i said b/w film doesn't fade. So all this modern restorations what they ussually do as opposed to old "non restored" video transfers is make the transfers hopefully from these fairly well kept b/w tricolor separtations into RGB computer color and with higher resolution scans that are then downrezed into video sizes for DVD and we get the full original brillianceTM, while older transfers might had been done in normal resolution video equipment from prints and internegatives (and prone to fading) done a long time ago from the original Technicolor elements at some point in their "ancient" history.
theres also a side note that the Technicolor process had two parts, one was the camera shooting into three b/w negatives, and the second part, that were technicolor prints made from them with pure dyes that dont fade in a process similar to printing a magazine. In the 50's hollywood stopped shoting color films like that (but not Disney! cus he had the Technicolor Sequential Camera) and subsequently used the current type of 'color in one' negative (the kind you buy in Walgreens) (which fades) but kept making printing films in Technicolor for several films and was latter in the 70's they stopped printing that way and started using the 'color in one' fading prints exclusively (Disney also did the prints this way after that) and at one point the Tech b/w negatives musta been copied onto 'color in one' imternegatives for easy printing, and thus this all was before home video. In fact it was almost the same year BEta and VHS appeared. And TV stations and video houses got then prints made that way from then on.
The End
(for example I have 4 differenmt Wizard oF Oz sourced videos: Tech print aparently made specially for NTSC TV, Technicolor theatrical print, Color Interpositive made from Technicolor b/w separations, and now the new Ultra Resolution transfer made from the b/w elements .)
So hope this explains a little why video transfers are not always perfect and films have to be restored sometimes.
Of course many transfers could be bad cus they don't do them right
Film is light sensitive silver grains that turn black or colored dyes clouds replacing them (for colour film
) suspended in a gelatin coated onto a hard base. Like nitrate base in the "olden times" as you mentioned and current safety film after the 50's and even harder polyester ("Estar" base)Since they're physical things they're prone to physical deterioration and external element damage.
Physical imAge deterioration is the result of light, heat, humidity, chemicals in the air (pollution), and chemicals carried over from the developing process that migfht not been totally stabilized or cleaned. (archival processing)
External elment damage could be dust and scratches and tears, mishandling etc.
Or even putting recently discovered unique surviving elements that were lost for 40 years and then found, thru a "rejuvenating process" that subsequentlty damaged it in a couple of years. like the uncut print of the Alamo
As years go by, the base can deteriotate (for example Nitrate base can even spontaneously burst into flame!) , the safety film shrink and yellow, and the color dyes in the emulsion fade (they're kinda organic stuff
) (Silver since its metal, don't fade, so b/w images ussually don't dissapear )All this changes can be retarted by clean chemical processing in the first place when developing the negatives, and subsequent proper cold dark dry storage.
And of course dust can accumulate and scratches accumulate when the negatives are handled.
To completely arrest this deterioration films would have to be frozen or something permanently. But with proper care things could last hundreds of years. The problem is that sometimes (often??
) films are not properly cared for. But there's no reason for a properly stored (emphasis on properly) Silent film negative or print from the 19th century to look as good as it did back then. The thing is sometimes they don't discover the improper storage till its already deteriorating por too late.Nobody thought about Blu-ray home video profits in the 21rst cenrtury back then
Flecks and artifacts must refer to dust scratches and all the detritus that shows up on prints that may have acumulated over the years,., this can be cleaned physicaly sometimes but if embedded on the emulsion, then only "digital image restoration" can get rid of it.
Now about graininess, as photographic film images are created by grains of silver all film images have grain if you look at them close enough. Depending on the film emulsion and the negative size the film may apear grainy or grainless at normal viewing distances ( which i consider to be around 1.5x the picture height for theatrical movies
) (hey i'm wAtching a movie not a home video )graininess don't increase after time, it's fixed at the time the negative is created. What happens on prints and home video transfers is they could use a copy or a copy of a copy or a copy of a copy of a copy of the negative etc etc and each copy adds its own grain to the image . All prints are COPIES with more grain than the negative (as they have the negative grain PLUS the print grain) unless youre watching a Kodachrome (positive transparency slide emulsion) film and mmmm thats not Hollywood films
Most prints these days are even 3rd and 4th copies as in:
Negative --> Interpositive --> Internegative --> Theatrical Print
old film prints might been done directly from the negative so that's one reason the negative is damaged.
Video transfers should try to use ther earliest element posible but they don't always do it cus they don't have it or they don't wanna risk the original precious negative no more.
Now apart from grainy sources, why graiuny DVDs? could be they overcrank the sharpness and the grain is put more clearly in relief.
I still think a properly made DVD from a 35mm original negative should be almost grainless (if the directors intentions wasn't to add a grainy look on purpose that is
) cus DVDs at 480 pixels per picture height have very little resolving power to resolve grains that make up 2000 line images or smaller! (a line (or detail) on a film is made up of several smaller grains clumped toguether creating it )In any case the graininess is inherrently part of the image on the original negative, a nescessary evil for some an aestetic quality for others so even animated films (not done on a computer of course) might have grain, the question is how much, and of course in these days of digital image manipulation another question shows up, should we leave the slight negative grain in, clean it up just a little, or in some cases (like film cel art) eliminate them totally?
Usually original camera negatives have little grain visible at normal viewing distances and again the resolving power of the video (be it 480 DVD or even1080 Blu-ray) might even merge the visibility of the individual grains into less than what's on the film (if you have specks of grain forming the image that are 1/2000th or smaler in size making a 1000 line image, they would be fainter on even a 1000 line High Def transfer while the 1000 line actual image would come thru fine and strong. You'd probably need a 2000 pixel tall scan or higher to get all the grain even tho you might not get much more detail in the actual image for example)
Now about actually visibly degraded film video transfers:
if a film is faded (usualy color films) you have to either opticaly make a increased contrast dupe, or on the other end of the technology spectrum a digital version with contrast altered digitally. (There's a couple other methods to do it in between those two) Sometimes a combination of methods is used.
These things are costly and they can give excellent results sometimes and not so hot in other ocassions, but if that's what survives of the movie (theres lots of movies that have their negatives destroyed or totally ruined and even the copies are bad), that's all you get.
depends also in how much money and time you have to restore and the capabilities of modern current technology.
When you increase contrast, or push color, for example, you do it at the expense of increasing visible noise, or "grain" if you will, and any scratches and dirt in the film will be magnified etc .
As you can see the answer is in a sense yes they degrade even in modern stock if not properly stored. But no they dont have to restore them constantly, if they take measures, in fact i think we're almost to the verge where you can scan all film elements at 4k (4000 pixels across the width) or sometimes more, and save a kind of digital copy and use that and preserve the original negative from now on. When they "restore" a video, it means they didnt do it (transfer it) completely right the first time and this time they're supposedly doing it better or with better elements, or worse of worst, they're even altering it to make it look differentSo I assume that somehow the films degrade and Disney is either lazy or no money to "restore" them. Further, do films constantly have to be restored even if they are modern films done on modern film medium?
) (like many "remastered" CDs today that sound different (and worse) that older CDs or Lps done correcty back then )Now about Disney films, most Disney animated classics and shorts are kinda little different case than most movies cus they were shot in the Technicolor Sequential Process so that means they were shot in tricolor B/W film separations and as i said b/w film doesn't fade. So all this modern restorations what they ussually do as opposed to old "non restored" video transfers is make the transfers hopefully from these fairly well kept b/w tricolor separtations into RGB computer color and with higher resolution scans that are then downrezed into video sizes for DVD and we get the full original brillianceTM, while older transfers might had been done in normal resolution video equipment from prints and internegatives (and prone to fading) done a long time ago from the original Technicolor elements at some point in their "ancient" history.
theres also a side note that the Technicolor process had two parts, one was the camera shooting into three b/w negatives, and the second part, that were technicolor prints made from them with pure dyes that dont fade in a process similar to printing a magazine. In the 50's hollywood stopped shoting color films like that (but not Disney! cus he had the Technicolor Sequential Camera) and subsequently used the current type of 'color in one' negative (the kind you buy in Walgreens) (which fades) but kept making printing films in Technicolor for several films and was latter in the 70's they stopped printing that way and started using the 'color in one' fading prints exclusively (Disney also did the prints this way after that) and at one point the Tech b/w negatives musta been copied onto 'color in one' imternegatives for easy printing, and thus this all was before home video. In fact it was almost the same year BEta and VHS appeared. And TV stations and video houses got then prints made that way from then on.
The End
(for example I have 4 differenmt Wizard oF Oz sourced videos: Tech print aparently made specially for NTSC TV, Technicolor theatrical print, Color Interpositive made from Technicolor b/w separations, and now the new Ultra Resolution transfer made from the b/w elements .)
So hope this explains a little why video transfers are not always perfect and films have to be restored sometimes.
Of course many transfers could be bad cus they don't do them right
-
dvdjunkie
- Signature Collection
- Posts: 5613
- Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2004 10:05 am
- Location: Wichita, Kansas
Could you shorten your explanation down to about a paragraph. I got totally lost after the first couple of lines.
While I am the first one to appreciate "Techno-babble", I just think putting things into plain understandable English would be a lot better, especially for those on this site, and there a quite a few, who don't have English as their primary language.
All those things seem to be redundant after a while. Maybe you could put your lengthy explanations in a PM to that particular person and just a few lines of a condensed version for the rest of us.
While I am the first one to appreciate "Techno-babble", I just think putting things into plain understandable English would be a lot better, especially for those on this site, and there a quite a few, who don't have English as their primary language.
All those things seem to be redundant after a while. Maybe you could put your lengthy explanations in a PM to that particular person and just a few lines of a condensed version for the rest of us.
The only way to watch movies - Original Aspect Ratio!!!!
I LOVE my Blu-Ray Disc Player!
I LOVE my Blu-Ray Disc Player!
-
anger is pointless
- Special Edition
- Posts: 589
- Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2005 1:38 pm
- Location: texas
- Contact:
Toy Story was created on digital medium, so unless the movie is newly made (most of the STVs now, which are hand-drawn, and colored on the computer), it won't look as good.
I suspect Disney has several physical copies of their films, with one obviously being the 'original'. I'm sure Disney keeps all the old films anyway, even after they have been transferred to digital.
I suspect Disney has several physical copies of their films, with one obviously being the 'original'. I'm sure Disney keeps all the old films anyway, even after they have been transferred to digital.
I don't think dvdjunkie meant that he couldn't muster up the intellect to understand what Deathie said... I think he was just saying that a 1600 word essay was a bit much to put into a post.Alan wrote:Maybe you should slow down when reading it, or use a dictionary for any of those advanced words he uses.dvdjunkie wrote:Could you shorten your explanation down to about a paragraph. I got totally lost after the first couple of lines.
My DVD Collection:
http://www.dvdspot.com/member=DisneyGirl
http://www.dvdspot.com/member=DisneyGirl
-
Escapay
- Ultimate Collector's Edition
- Posts: 12562
- Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2004 5:02 pm
- Location: Somewhere in Time and Space
- Contact:
Hope deathie doesn't mind, but I made a "Reader's Digest" version, essentially snipping out what I thought to be extraneous...
Zulu, King of the Dwarf Peopledeathie mouse wrote:ok , films are physical entities unless rendered purely on CGI or shot with a digital camera (like Sin City and Corpses Bride at HDTV resolutions)
[snip]
Since they're physical things they're prone to physical deterioration and external element damage.
Physical imAge deterioration is the result of light, heat, humidity, chemicals in the air (pollution), and chemicals carried over from the developing process that migfht not been totally stabilized or cleaned. (archival processing)
External elment damage could be dust and scratches and tears, mishandling etc.
[snip]
As years go by, the base can deteriotate (for example Nitrate base can even spontaneously burst into flame!) , the safety film shrink and yellow, and the color dyes in the emulsion fade (they're kinda organic stuff
Flecks and artifacts must refer to dust scratches and all the detritus that shows up on prints that may have acumulated over the years,., this can be cleaned physicaly sometimes but if embedded on the emulsion, then only "digital image restoration" can get rid of it.
[snip]
Usually original camera negatives have little grain visible at normal viewing distances
[snip]
Now about Disney films, most Disney animated classics and shorts are kinda little different case than most movies cus they were shot in the Technicolor Sequential Process so that means they were shot in tricolor B/W film separations and as i said b/w film doesn't fade. So all this modern restorations what they ussually do as opposed to old "non restored" video transfers is make the transfers hopefully from these fairly well kept b/w tricolor separtations into RGB computer color and with higher resolution scans that are then downrezed into video sizes for DVD and we get the full original brillianceTM, while older transfers might had been done in normal resolution video equipment from prints and internegatives (and prone to fading) done a long time ago from the original Technicolor elements at some point in their "ancient" history.
[snip]
So hope this explains a little why video transfers are not always perfect and films have to be restored sometimes.
Of course many transfers could be bad cus they don't do them right
WIST #60:
AwallaceUNC: Would you prefer Substi-Blu-tiary Locomotion?
WIST #61:
TheSequelOfDisney: Damn, did Lin-Manuel Miranda go and murder all your families?
AwallaceUNC: Would you prefer Substi-Blu-tiary Locomotion?
WIST #61:
TheSequelOfDisney: Damn, did Lin-Manuel Miranda go and murder all your families?
Hehe... poor deathie seems to be accumulating a handful of "anti-groupies" - people that apparently hold perpetual contentions with him, yet follow his posts around anyway just to... uh, I dunno. Continually belittle him? *shrug*
I think the forum rules should be updated and clarified (and posted conspicuously!) to address this "hounding" problem we seem to be having on the forums. Because I don't think this rule is clear enough...
I think the forum rules should be updated and clarified (and posted conspicuously!
) to address this "hounding" problem we seem to be having on the forums. Because I don't think this rule is clear enough...
...a smidgen too vague, I think. But anyhoo - back to our regularly scheduled artifacty program!Do Not Attack Other Forum Members
You are entirely welcome to disagree with another forum member, but you must remain respectful of them. If you disagree, attack their argument in a civil manner. Do not attack them, that does not help you get your point across more convincingly and it makes for an unfriendly discussion area. It's not permitted here.
Life often leaves us standing bare, naked and dejected with a lost opportunity. Over the bleached bones and jumbled residues of numerous civilizations are written the pathetic words: "Too late."
~Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
~Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
-
Escapay
- Ultimate Collector's Edition
- Posts: 12562
- Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2004 5:02 pm
- Location: Somewhere in Time and Space
- Contact:
Anti-groupie, lol. We've got a lot of Eisner Anti-Groupies here, then.Paka wrote:Hehe... poor deathie seems to be accumulating a handful of "anti-groupies"
Does my Reader's Digest post come off as anti-groupie, though?
Cause I was just trying to make deathie-speak more user-friendly, lol.Zulu, King of the Dwarf People
WIST #60:
AwallaceUNC: Would you prefer Substi-Blu-tiary Locomotion?
WIST #61:
TheSequelOfDisney: Damn, did Lin-Manuel Miranda go and murder all your families?
AwallaceUNC: Would you prefer Substi-Blu-tiary Locomotion?
WIST #61:
TheSequelOfDisney: Damn, did Lin-Manuel Miranda go and murder all your families?
Oh no, Escapay! You undoubtedly have good intentions! Especially since you and deathie share common enemies.Escapay wrote:Does my Reader's Digest post come off as anti-groupie, though?
Zulu, King of the Dwarf People
I'll poke him in the direction of your post later on - I'm sure he won't mind your helpful gesture.
-
singerguy04
- Collector's Edition
- Posts: 2591
- Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 4:40 pm
- Location: The Land of Lincoln
My post wasn't "anti-groupie" either- I just thought that what Alan posted to dvdjunkie was a bit demeaning (esp for a 14 year old to say to an adult). The only "anti" think I've ever posted to Deathie was VERY warranted and it was after he posted something pretty s**ty directly making fun of me.Paka wrote:Hehe... poor deathie seems to be accumulating a handful of "anti-groupies" - people that apparently hold perpetual contentions with him, yet follow his posts around anyway just to... uh, I dunno. Continually belittle him? *shrug*
I think the forum rules should be updated and clarified (and posted conspicuously!...a smidgen too vague, I think. But anyhoo - back to our regularly scheduled artifacty program!Do Not Attack Other Forum Members
You are entirely welcome to disagree with another forum member, but you must remain respectful of them. If you disagree, attack their argument in a civil manner. Do not attack them, that does not help you get your point across more convincingly and it makes for an unfriendly discussion area. It's not permitted here.
And your little "poor Deathie" isn't exactly innocent himself.
My DVD Collection:
http://www.dvdspot.com/member=DisneyGirl
http://www.dvdspot.com/member=DisneyGirl
-
Pluto Region1
- Special Edition
- Posts: 684
- Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:13 pm
- Location: Where Walt is Buried
This should go in the FAQs or Hall of Fame!
singerguy - here is what I thought of Deathie's post:
Wow, Thank you Deathie! That is just the most comprehensive disertation on this subject one could possibly expect. I read your whole post aloud to my husband (who works in television and knows a little about the subject) and both of us we were just fascinated. I will have to save this for further study as it is not easily understandable off the bat for someone like me (a non-technical person), but I grasped a fair portion in the first read. (in other words I think it is dumbed down enough that with some careful reading, a novice can understand)
I propose this response should be saved somewhere for future reference for everyone here at the website - is there a hall of fame for responses? Or perhaps it should go on the faqs page!
(Well if I just dropped into what has been a long simmering battle here amongst members, I am sad to hear that. I actually saw someone call another person in another thread here an "idiot." I can't remember where it was but, that is just not necessary. I happen to be in a pirate reenactment group (in real life) and whenever I read our Yahoo Group emails, I can't get through 2 weeks worth of posts without discovering a fight going on between members. Quite sad really, and it always seems to be people over-reacting or taking something the wrong way and instead of counting to 3 or letting the perceived slight go, they feel compelled to fire back another volley. But ironically, it all seems to get smoothed out in the end as the same people have been members for over 12 years and they manage to pull through the small riffs. I didn't really take Escapay's cleaning up of the post as a slight to Deathie, but I am not Deathie and don't know how he/she feels or history of interaction with other members. I thought DVDjunkie was just being funny with his comment. I am sure everyone here can appreciate Deathie's knowledge in this area and if not, don't read the post. So far I have found everyone here to be perfectly agreeable and everyone seems to have different areas of expertise that combined you all are really a precious resource of knowledge. So I hope that there really isn't various camps with people attacking each other. Please tell me it isn't so!)
Wow, Thank you Deathie! That is just the most comprehensive disertation on this subject one could possibly expect. I read your whole post aloud to my husband (who works in television and knows a little about the subject) and both of us we were just fascinated. I will have to save this for further study as it is not easily understandable off the bat for someone like me (a non-technical person), but I grasped a fair portion in the first read. (in other words I think it is dumbed down enough that with some careful reading, a novice can understand)
I propose this response should be saved somewhere for future reference for everyone here at the website - is there a hall of fame for responses? Or perhaps it should go on the faqs page!
(Well if I just dropped into what has been a long simmering battle here amongst members, I am sad to hear that. I actually saw someone call another person in another thread here an "idiot." I can't remember where it was but, that is just not necessary. I happen to be in a pirate reenactment group (in real life) and whenever I read our Yahoo Group emails, I can't get through 2 weeks worth of posts without discovering a fight going on between members. Quite sad really, and it always seems to be people over-reacting or taking something the wrong way and instead of counting to 3 or letting the perceived slight go, they feel compelled to fire back another volley. But ironically, it all seems to get smoothed out in the end as the same people have been members for over 12 years and they manage to pull through the small riffs. I didn't really take Escapay's cleaning up of the post as a slight to Deathie, but I am not Deathie and don't know how he/she feels or history of interaction with other members. I thought DVDjunkie was just being funny with his comment. I am sure everyone here can appreciate Deathie's knowledge in this area and if not, don't read the post. So far I have found everyone here to be perfectly agreeable and everyone seems to have different areas of expertise that combined you all are really a precious resource of knowledge. So I hope that there really isn't various camps with people attacking each other. Please tell me it isn't so!)
Pluto Region1, Disney fan in training
-
Escapay
- Ultimate Collector's Edition
- Posts: 12562
- Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2004 5:02 pm
- Location: Somewhere in Time and Space
- Contact:
Re: This should go in the FAQs or Hall of Fame!
Pluto Region1 wrote:I propose this response should be saved somewhere for future reference for everyone here at the website - is there a hall of fame for responses? Or perhaps it should go on the faqs page!
All you have to do is search like half of deathie's posts, it's an encyclopedia, lol.As for the hostility amongst members, well, I can't speak for everyone else's problems, but for the monthlong feud between me and dvdjunkie, it's been over for awhile, so that's one less hostility for you to worry about PlutoRegion1
We all think we mean well in what we say, when in truth it may sound harmful to others even though that's now how we wanted it to come out, so I understand how some people feel. Having been called a girl because of my typing, or being accused of saying nothing about a controversial topic, I've had my share of insults from UD members. But it's all water under the bridge for me. I read things, and usually I just tell myself, "they're just people in front of a computer" and I feel better and don't have to go to therapy, lol.
Zulu, King of the Dwarf People.
WIST #60:
AwallaceUNC: Would you prefer Substi-Blu-tiary Locomotion?
WIST #61:
TheSequelOfDisney: Damn, did Lin-Manuel Miranda go and murder all your families?
AwallaceUNC: Would you prefer Substi-Blu-tiary Locomotion?
WIST #61:
TheSequelOfDisney: Damn, did Lin-Manuel Miranda go and murder all your families?
-
deathie mouse
- Ultraviolet Edition
- Posts: 1391
- Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 1:12 am
- Location: Alea jacta est
Miss MinnieMe, i didn't write something shi++y directed to make fun of you, and if that post offended you my apologies, but what I did was copy paste several posts of various members and just substitute the words DVD for Blu-ray, and VHS for DVD in them to highlight the irony in a thread where people were saying good riddance to VHS in a forum where at the same time on another thread people were saying they wanted any new format to fail cus it was gonna make their current format investment (in their eyes) instantly obsolete. If you couldn't see the irony of that and it touched a personal nerve in you I'm sorry but that was not its purpose. So again i'm sorry you took it that way. I guess i can't be too ironic in here. Or post detailed answers neither. So my apologies to dvdjunkie also (who has taken his Dethie The Simple crusade even to PMs now ) but sorry I'm not gonna simplify the way I talk or write for some people, I don' have to do that, (that's Escapay's job ) in fact i don't have to answer anybodys questions but i try cus i think seeking knowledge is fine and I try to be helpful as best to my ability. Nobody pays me anything to write here nor I get anything out of it except the satisfaction that some of you may know a little more about a subject i love with a passion. Pluto Region1 asked something interesting and since i saw she was making smart posts (very highly wanted by me) on another thread i decided to answer her question hoping for some subsequent good forum posting and discussion. And i hope she slowly realizes and gets knowledge by reading this and other posts, to for example, counteract her husband's (and many other's view) that "old" films have crappy image quality compared to modern films and other related stuff. Film technology shouldn't be a hush hush secret and we consumers be at the mercy of whatever the companies throw at us without being informed consumers. So that's one reason i made such a long post (in which i left OUT a lot of stuff to make it fit in one post even!) Film preservation is an important subject (after all is basically 20th century art preservation) and since here on UD we care about films many of us should be aware about all the little things that go into insuring that Cinderella or Bambi look as good on video as they do on the original NEGATIVE. As I mentioned, thanks to improvement in technology and i guess HDTV awareness and coming soon mass media delivery, hopefully many films are being scanned at 4k (HDTV would be 2K) and maybe that'll preserve a few more. And i should cut this short cus people apparently can't skip long posts that they don't wanna read with their page down key
peace and love
Or post detailed answers neither. So my apologies to dvdjunkie also (who has taken his Dethie The Simple crusade even to PMs now ) but sorry I'm not gonna simplify the way I talk or write for some people, I don' have to do that, (that's Escapay's job ) in fact i don't have to answer anybodys questions but i try cus i think seeking knowledge is fine and I try to be helpful as best to my ability. Nobody pays me anything to write here nor I get anything out of it except the satisfaction that some of you may know a little more about a subject i love with a passion. Pluto Region1 asked something interesting and since i saw she was making smart posts (very highly wanted by me) on another thread i decided to answer her question hoping for some subsequent good forum posting and discussion. And i hope she slowly realizes and gets knowledge by reading this and other posts, to for example, counteract her husband's (and many other's view) that "old" films have crappy image quality compared to modern films and other related stuff. Film technology shouldn't be a hush hush secret and we consumers be at the mercy of whatever the companies throw at us without being informed consumers. So that's one reason i made such a long post (in which i left OUT a lot of stuff to make it fit in one post even!) Film preservation is an important subject (after all is basically 20th century art preservation) and since here on UD we care about films many of us should be aware about all the little things that go into insuring that Cinderella or Bambi look as good on video as they do on the original NEGATIVE. As I mentioned, thanks to improvement in technology and i guess HDTV awareness and coming soon mass media delivery, hopefully many films are being scanned at 4k (HDTV would be 2K) and maybe that'll preserve a few more. And i should cut this short cus people apparently can't skip long posts that they don't wanna read with their page down key peace and love
Last edited by deathie mouse on Wed Nov 02, 2005 8:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
Lars Vermundsberget
- Collector's Edition
- Posts: 2483
- Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2003 1:50 pm
- Location: Norway