CINDERELLA DVD - digital restoration gone too far?

[goofystitch]

In Leonard Maltin's book, "The Disney Films," he quotes director H. C. Potter who, talking about Walt, had this to say:

He discovered that with Technicolor film, no matter what color you photographed, a certain blue would come out a little bit deeper, or a little bit lighter. Invariably there would be an alteration in the color value. His technical people finally worked out a whole palette that his artists used religiously. They would take the original color, and a chart on the wall would show how much change there was from what the artis had conceived into what the Technicolor would print. It ran six, seven feet high, and three or four columns. I always thought it was an example of how meticulous Walt was in trying to get something right.

That quote was from a section of the book that dealt with Mickey Mouse cartoons and the Silly Symphonys, leading me to believe that this color palette was around before Snow White was made and long before Cinderella was made. Therefore, wouldn't the colors seen on the master print be a better representation of what the artists wanted rather than the original cels? If I'm not mistaken, it seems that the artists used a guide to show them what the paint would look like on film, and they would use the shade that corresponds to how it would show up. It seems wrong that Disney would look at the cels and adjust the color of the film to match them, when the artists new about the color changes that occured when the cels were photographed and placed on film.

[Disneykid]

Wow, I own that book and completely forgot about that portion. This could explain the issue about character eyeballs looking blue on the DVD. The ink and paint department must've done it that way knowing it'd register as white on film. This also explains how they got a blue ball gown from silver during Cinderella's entrance to the ball. The only thing I'm confused about is that Lowry has been saying for years how they reference back to the cels during these restorations. If that's true, why don't their other Disney restorations look as tweaked as Cinderella? Alice in Wonderland, for example, has a brighter, more natural looking color scheme than its old transfer, but it still seems to remain faithful to the source. There's no bit in Alice that made me go, "Woah...didn't that used to be (insert totally different hue here)?" like I did several times with Cinderella. If Netty can risk his house being terrorized once more by another seance, perhaps he can summon Deathie's opinions on the other Lowry restorations and see if those, too, are as inaccurate as Cinderella and for some reason just don't look it as much.

[Wonderlicious]

Is it me, or was anybody else more shocked about the fact that there was pretty much no grain left in Cinderella on the DVD? Some of the other Disney restorations done by Lowry just a little bit earlier (Alice in Wonderland, Bambi etc) seem to look excellent, but still show their age by a tiny bit of nostalgic mild grain (for example, look at the white parts of Alice and the Queen's costumes in the croquet scene). However, Cinderella looked like it came off the CAPS system. It looked so clean, and for a film-negative based movie, it bordered on disturbing.

I don't really have much to add to the discussion aside from this that, and I couldn't have shed light on all these technical things anyway as I don't have a truly deep knowledge of the subject areas that Netty and co covered. All I have to say is that I like the colours on the whole, as they seem gorgeous and fruity and don't mind the changes to the minor mistakes. If I have a problem with the colours, it's that sometimes it can be like the Beauty and the Beast transfer in that it can look a bit too bright at times. Take the shot of the Stepmother following Cinderella up to the tower that was shown on page 1, for example. In the old transfer, the shadow seemed thicker and therefore added a deeper suspense, whilst in the new transfer, whilst there is shadow, you can see more of the Stepmother, making it look a little less dramatic.

[Disney Duster]

There's no bit in Alice that made me go, "Woah...didn't that used to be (insert totally different hue here)?"

That actually had be laughing out loud. I suppose it's funny becasue it's true.

And, also, like Wonderlicious said, I found the movie to be so bright, it was almost unbearable at times. I want to cringe at Cinderella's yellow hair when the birds tie her apron. And yes, the effect of the animation is sometimes lessened. For instance, just like the stepmother's scene in the dark is less dramatic, we see the Beast in plain light before Belle asks him to step into the light.

Another thing of note is that often colors represent something about character. Cinderella is pure and inncoent, so her dress being white would make sense. You could also say her gown was silver, which means sophistication, and would Cinderella is sophisticated(the story is about an upper-class girl who lost her place and then won it back). So if that white and silver are now blue, that's more than color your tampering with, but the meanings. Well, it was supposed to be blue when she was in the dark, and blue can also mean hope. Which brings up how the fairy godmother was Cinderella's hope, but her dress now looks more purple than blue...

[2099net]

If Netty can risk his house being terrorized once more by another seance, perhaps he can summon Deathie's opinions on the other Lowry restorations and see if those, too, are as inaccurate as Cinderella and for some reason just don't look it as much.

I know DM has expressed concern at Lowry's colour timings in the past, on other restorations they have done. And there's concern in general about the colous on the UK (and most likely the upcoming US) Ultimate James Bonds (just check out the HTF thread).

Nobody is saying Lowry is flawless, because they're not (the removal of the water down the windows on Citizen Kane and the recolouring of the light sabers on the Original Trilogy Star Wars films show that). But I do believe they try their best, and I do believe they understand how various negatives, film stock and shooting processes work, and aim to replicate them on film.

But the quote from the book does say certain blues come out deeper or lighter. So I can only assume if certain blues were used, the idea was for the final print to show a blue, even if it wasn't the one on the cel. Therefore, the eyes were supposed to be blue, not white or grey, and the same for the dress. I know it's only a small, throwaway aside really, so can't be too specific, but it does specifically mention blues... not colours, not white, not anything else, just blues.

Nobody here has seen the Technicolor prints. In general Technicolor does have "saturated" colours which look unreal. I questioned this to DM, and as he pointed out, does B/W look real? Don't forget Technicolor started when black and white movies were the norm. Neither gave a true representation of "reality", but both can be used stylistically (which is how I understand Technicolor was during its later years).

As this write up once again states "Technicolor became known and celebrated for its hyper-realistic, saturated levels of color, and was used commonly for filming musicals (such as The Wizard of Oz and Singin' in the Rain) and animated films (such as Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs and Fantasia)." (see here.

Therefore, I am convinced that while maybe not 100% correct, the new Cindrella restoration is closer to the original presentation than the faded VHS and LD release most of us are familiar with. I do however agree the VHS transfer looks more "natural", but I also think its doubtful the makers had "natural" in mind.

Is it me, or was anybody else more shocked about the fact that there was pretty much no grain left in Cinderella on the DVD? Some of the other Disney restorations done by Lowry just a little bit earlier (Alice in Wonderland, Bambi etc) seem to look excellent, but still show their age by a tiny bit of nostalgic mild grain (for example, look at the white parts of Alice and the Queen's costumes in the croquet scene). However, Cinderella looked like it came off the CAPS system. It looked so clean, and for a film-negative based movie, it bordered on disturbing.

Deathie says, being as Cinderella was made in the 1950's, it would have better film stock, and therefore less grain. In addition, the negative had more area than todays films, so the grain that was present wouldn't be as exagerated when "blown up".

[drsd2kill]

Why are people posting that the previous VHS and LD releases were faded? The 1987 video releases may have been, but the 1995 LD and VHS were restored from the original negatives. A book inside the CAV Laserdisc box set of CINDERELLA details the process whereby the sequential exposure Technicolor nitrate negatives were cleaned and recomposited to make the element used for the new digital transfer on that release. To say this "new element" was faded is a false statement. The color on that Laserdisc release is excellent, but with the advances in technology over the past 11 years it could obviously look much better in resolution, color, and sharpness. The artifacts of analog Laserdisc video mar that presentation as well, but to say it is faded and not an accurate representation of what the film is supposed to look like is not fair at all.

Lowry surely scanned these same sequential exposure Technicolor negatives into their computers at 4K resolution. They surely cleaned the image and did all kinds of corrections. But then they went further... There is a plastic-like appearance to the image that makes it look like it was made for video. The animation isn't as smooth or detailed. Subtleties in lighting and color are missing along with much of the mood.

[Jules]

Wow! This thread rocks!

SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO...

Where do I begin? Honestly, I am a Disney fanatic myself, but now we are entering areas of fanaticism that will drive us crackers if not controlled. I worry about this stuff aswell...about Cindirella's veil not looking like it should for like...2 seconds. But then, when is a film presentation perfect. Nobody is perfect! And I don't think Cinderella will ever be.

I think my above paragraph sums up what our attitude should be. You can't disgree, can you? If we always expect perfect. then we will always be disppointed. It's sad, but that's the way it is.

[drsd2kill]

There is a difference between perfect and sloppy. There is a difference between correct and lazily incompetent.

[Jules]

There is a difference between perfect and sloppy. There is a difference between correct and lazily incompetent.

I do not think that Cinderella's restoration is "sloppy" and "lazily incompetent". Personally, even if it does have serious errors, I can rest assured that Lowry Digital is a serious company that always does its best in its work.

Ok...maybe this time they made a mistake (if they did. We've yet to confirm that). But instead of seeing the things they got wrong, let's look at the stuff they got right.

Do not get me wrong. I care about all that you've been saying: the different shades of colour, different colour tones of overall film, variable thickness of lines... I'm taking them as seriously as you are. I'm just not being as fussy. Knowing myself, I think I DO have the capability of being this fussy...it's just that I don't have the energy, and when viewing things rationally, it's not healthy to start tearing your hair off because the outline of Cinderella's nose is now 1/50 thinner. I feel concerned aswell, but...

[thatartguy]

I can rest assured that Lowry Digital is a serious company that always does its best in its work.

Lowry Digital doesn't always do its best work. I know it was rushed, but the Star Wars Trilogy shows this to be true.

[xxhplinkxx]

I just hope they dont mess with The Little Mermaid too much...

[2099net]

I can rest assured that Lowry Digital is a serious company that always does its best in its work.

Lowry Digital doesn't always do its best work. I know it was rushed, but the Star Wars Trilogy shows this to be true.

I presume you mean the colour of the lightsabers. But is Lowry 100% to blame? Lowry's not to blame for the reversed sound channels, and ultimately it would have been Lucas himself who inspected and signed off the transfer. We also don't know how authored the discs - I believe that was done in-house, as was the menu design.

But no, regardless of this Lowry aren't perfect. But who is?

[thatartguy]

Not just they lightsabers. The entire movie looks like it was colored with neon crayons.

[Jules]

But no, regardless of this Lowry aren't perfect. But who is?

Exactly! Nobody is perfect. So, even if there are a ton of flaws in Cinderella's restoration, I still think it's damn good!

[musicradio77]

Why are people posting that the previous VHS and LD releases were faded? The 1987 video releases may have been, but the 1995 LD and VHS were restored from the original negatives. A book inside the CAV Laserdisc box set of CINDERELLA details the process whereby the sequential exposure Technicolor nitrate negatives were cleaned and recomposited to make the element used for the new digital transfer on that release. To say this "new element" was faded is a false statement. The color on that Laserdisc release is excellent, but with the advances in technology over the past 11 years it could obviously look much better in resolution, color, and sharpness. The artifacts of analog Laserdisc video mar that presentation as well, but to say it is faded and not an accurate representation of what the film is supposed to look like is not fair at all.

Lowry surely scanned these same sequential exposure Technicolor negatives into their computers at 4K resolution. They surely cleaned the image and did all kinds of corrections. But then they went further... There is a plastic-like appearance to the image that makes it look like it was made for video. The animation isn't as smooth or detailed. Subtleties in lighting and color are missing along with much of the mood.

My uncle has a copy of "Cinderella" since it was dubbed from another VCR with other non-Disney films. I was visiting in Florida last year when my Uncle had that. The 1987 original VHS release was kinda washed down, but until the 1995 VHS reissued was restored to its original nitrate negatives. But last year when it came out on DVD, it was beautifully restored to its original condition and it was the best film ever without those horrible unrestored colors used in the 1987 VHS release. I have a clip from a TV special "A Disney Christmas Gift" when Cinderella asked the Fairy Godmother to go to the ball in the "Bibbidi-Bobbidi-Boo" sequence. If Disney should re-release the 1982 special as part of the WDT sets, I hope the clip from "Cinderella" will replace with the restored DVD footage and added the Fairy Godmother's words "Merry Christmas, Cinderella!" where it goes into "The Night Before Christmas" with another restored DVD footage. I have the TV special taped from my uncle's collection a long time ago, but the clip from "Cinderella" was originally looked okay before the digital restoration took place.

[Disney Duster]

I have a clip from a TV special "A Disney Christmas Gift" when Cinderella asked the Fairy Godmother to go to the ball in the "Bibbidi-Bobbidi-Boo" sequence.

I actually own that Christmas special on VHS! It also had a clip from The Sword in the Stone that I really liked, and a cartoon with Pluto trying to decorate a Christmas tree with Chip and Dale! And you really like Pluto so I hope you have the whole special taped. I watched it a lot...and didn't understand why Cinderella was in it because there's no snow. Pumpkins grow in the fall, too! But it's my favorite Cinderella scene so I liked it anyway.

And as for the restoration, what people aren't getting is the restoration is supposed to make things that looked bad better, and not make the things that looked okay worse. Some colors were painted wrong, but now new areas have been digitally painted wrong when restored. Also, outlines are sometimes so thin you can't see them! Especially when Cinderella loses her shoe. Her dress has almost no outlines at all. Same with the coach as its leaving through the gates. It's annoying to know what was once there is now gone(or a perecntage of it is gone).

[drsd2kill]

I'm concerned about the lines being thinner in the animation because it drastically effects the quality of the animation. The animation on the CINDERELLA 1995 Laserdisc has a fluidity of motion that the DVD lacks. Looking at the video back and forth shows this in a way that still-frame captures can't.

Also, "even if it does have serious errors, I can rest assured that Lowry Digital is a serious company that always does its best in its work" seems like an oxymoron to me. Why trust blindly what people give to us, especially when there is compelling evidence it is seriously compromised?


[quote="Julian Carter"][quote="drsd2kill"]There is a difference between perfect and sloppy. There is a difference between correct and lazily incompetent.[/quote]

I do not think that Cinderella's restoration is "sloppy" and "lazily incompetent". Personally, even if it does have serious errors, I can rest assured that Lowry Digital is a serious company that always does its best in its work.

Ok...maybe this time they made a mistake (if they did. We've yet to confirm that). But instead of seeing the things they got wrong, let's look at the stuff they got right.

Do not get me wrong. I care about all that you've been saying: the different shades of colour, different colour tones of overall film, variable thickness of lines... I'm taking them as seriously as you are. I'm just not being as fussy. Knowing myself, I think I DO have the capability of being this fussy...it's just that I don't have the energy, and when viewing things rationally, it's not healthy to start tearing your hair off because the outline of Cinderella's nose is now 1/50 thinner. I feel concerned aswell, but...[/quote]

[BambiFan87]

Well just look at the dumbo restoration that Lowry didnt do. It sucks pretty much so they are a heck of alot better than who ever did that catastrophy!!!! or however you spell that lol

[Jules]

Well just look at the dumbo restoration that Lowry didnt do. It sucks pretty much so they are a heck of alot better than who ever did that catastrophy!!!! or however you spell that lol

I've yet to see the Dumbo restoration as I don't own the Dumbo Big Top Edition. However, UD says that it's actually pretty good. According to UD, the 60th Anniversary Edition has horrible picture quality (again, I haven't seen it as I have never owned Dumbo on any DVD edition), and the Big Top Edition improves upon it greatly.

[BambiFan87]

well then the 60th must have been unbareble