DVDizzy Forum

I don't know if anyone has commented on this before...

I was looking at the Sneak Peeks for National Treasure 2 and it has a preview for the new Sleeping Beauty Platinum Edition.



That "Restored" footage looks WAY different than the other one, kinda as drastic as Cinderella does. Now, I don't know which is "correct" but I do know there's quite a large difference there.

That's a *restoration* ?

Yeah, it looks more like someone having fun in Paint to me

Call me crazy, but I prefer the "Before" look than the "Restored" one. The restoration makes it too green for my taste.

I have been hearing a lot about the Cinderella restoration job and how bad it is. I wasn't here around the time the Cinderella PE came out. So could point me in the direction of some comparison screen caps please?

@Basilisk, I totally agree. That's what I'm pointing out, that the "restored" one is exactly the same video quality it's just greener and IMO not as good as the already existing DVD.

Not sure where that thread is... there are too many threads having to do with Cinderella for the search to be of use.

these pics are never accurate on the final presentation. right?

They're not that far off I think...

Either way, ugh. If this is what the PE looks like I won't buy it.

I prefer the Before version, it looks dreamy in those shades of colors. Wow, the Restored version has a lot of astroturf green!

That's exactly what I'm getting at.

Restored is not always better, Disney... First Classic on Blu-Ray may be, but what good is it looking like that?

Ain't the existing DVD already restored? Looks fine to me...

Maybe,is Aurora's Brair Rose dress purple insted of gray?.

Firstly, Disney's restoration comparisons on their trailers are NEVER made between the "old" transfer and the "new" one - they just fudge the issue by doing their own post processing on the current "old" transfer to make it look different. This is true for all restoration comparisons on all DVD trailers.

Secondly, if you check out the actual Sleeping Beauty Blu-ray thread, you'll see actual images, taken with a digital camera, from the actual Blu-ray disc:

http://www.ultimatedisney.com/forum/vie ... &start=700

Thirdly, I'd trust the judgement of a professional film restoration over almost anybody else when it comes to restoring a film to its "closest" colours, hue and brightness. Therefore I have no issues with the Cinderella transfer. As the thread below shows:
http://www.ultimatedisney.com/forum/vie ... saturation

I love when people get their knickers in a bunch based on an exaggerated shot in a promotional trailer.

I agree with netty, I'll trust the professional restoration company over a group of fans (no matter how well-informed they think they are).

Albert

Well taking pictures with a camera doesn't prove anything... I could easily mess with the color settings to make it seem one way or the other.

But given the existing pictures, I still thinks it looks overly bright... Unless the SE is too dark. I'm not a big Sleeping Beauty fan like I am the later films so I really didn't look into it that much...

However, when it comes to "professional restoration"...

Lowry, the people who do restoration for the Disney movies, also did Star Wars. We HAVE several theater bootlegs (from camrips to actual telecines) and it's very evident that the 2004 "Special Editions" were way off color-wise. Isn't it fair to say that Lowry isn't all it's cracked up to be? We can actually prove that they messed one series of films up... is it so far-fetched that they might be doing the same to Disney films?

drf wrote:Lowry, the people who do restoration for the Disney movies, also did Star Wars. We HAVE several theater bootlegs (from camrips to actual telecines) and it's very evident that the 2004 "Special Editions" were way off color-wise.

If you're basing the 2004 SEs to a 30 year old telecine (or *gasp* a 30 year old camcorder video), the color is naturally going to be off. But it doesn't mean that the telecine is the correct version.

For example, compare the old telecine of the filmed sequences for The Five Doctors to their newer versions:

Click Here.

Surely you can't say that the older versions is what they intended when it comes to color and saturation.

Likewise, with Star Wars, you can't really say that an old telecine is the proper version. Lowry worked extensively with Lucasfilm on the original camera negatives and restoration and has far better capabilities at restoration that a group of fans (again, no matter how well-informed they think they are). I'm not saying that any group of fans will always be wrong when it comes to what they think is "right", but just that Lowry, who is paid professionals, will always have the "upper hand" no matter how much bitchings and moanings is said.

Colors fade. The memory cheats. And what the restoration people do is try and match, as best as they can, to what is closest to the original theatrical presentation. Sometimes the decisions they make seem controversial (Cinderella colors), but they're working with far more resources than fans. More often than not, I'll trust the restoration team's judgment calls over anyone else's.

Albert

And let's not forget that Star Wars is perhaps the worst example to use in the case of film restorations since George Lucas prefers to update and alter the films with each new release rather than just making them look the way they did originally. So if the new DVDs don't match previous incarnations color-wise, it's because Lucas explicitly wanted it that way.

Lowry does what the studio and/or filmmaker wants them to. Spielberg was adamant that the Indiana Jones trilogy look the way they did when originally released. Because of this, the DVD restorations (while very clean and sharp) still contain fine film grain and don't look much different from other versions in terms of color-timing.

Oh, and judging color quality from a digital picture of a TV is just silly. It's a picture of a picture, so of course it's going to look off. That's why camcorder bootlegs have bad contrast and saturation. We can only use the photos as a reference to how the BD will be framed, and maybe to get an idea of how sharp it'll be.

George Lucas said that he liked the 2004 SEs... but they completely messed up the 5.1 audio and the majority of preservationists say the colors were off. (The 1997 SEs, which the 2004s were based on, at least had better colors)

Also, the "original theatrical version" releases that Lucasfilm FINALLY released are also said to have horrible colors compared to earlier releases, almost as if they said "Here, you stupid preservationists, take it!". They're all 2.35:1 and not anamorphic.

There's a certain forum out there that has many supporters and is working to create an accurate restoration from the existing materials. The fans say that the laserdisc versions have a more accurate restoration than the DVDs (either the Japan Special Collection or the Definitive Collection). And many of these people saw one or more of the films in theaters and (at least claim to) remember how it looked.

Another thing with Star Wars is they aren't so old that the home videos were released long after they hit theaters. At least with The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi, there were VHS and laserdisc releases just a year or two after the films were out in theaters, and while they may not be "restored" you can't argue that those colors would be too far off the original. Laserdiscs certainly don't fade like film does so I'd think it's fair to reason that the early laserdisc releases (though they are pan-and-scan) are the closest you'll get to theatrical colors.

I don't mean to turn this into a Star Wars discussion, I was merely bringing it up to show that Lowry has its share of controversy.

The one thing that really bugs me is the people who think that just because something is professional, that means it's correct. I'm not saying *I* can do better, but certainly SOMEONE can... the only thing Lowry has over the preservationists is actual copies of the film. (And for that matter, that forum almost obtained a 16mm film reel, and one of these days they probably will)

drf wrote:George Lucas said that he liked the 2004 SEs...

He also liked the CGI changes, but that doesn't mean they're the version that's correct.

drf wrote:Also, the "original theatrical version" releases that Lucasfilm FINALLY released are also said to have horrible colors compared to earlier releases, almost as if they said "Here, you stupid preservationists, take it!".

That's pretty much the only reason it was released. And it was taken from the 1993 laserdisc. Naturally its colors will be different from the 2004 restoration.

(of course, I've read that some bootlegs of the 1993 laserdisc look better than that and is anamorphic.)

drf wrote:The one thing that really bugs me is the people who think that just because something is professional, that means it's correct.

I'm certainly not saying it's 110% correct either (I still have issues with the Peter Pan restoration, but they're minor). I'm merely saying that when it boils down to which one I'd put my trust in, it's more than likely going to be professional restoration teams because that's what their career is in doing. They would/should know far more about film restoration than (once again) a group of fans, no matter how well-informed they think they are and no matter what kind of sources they acquire.

Using a non-Lowry example, I'll take the Warner Brothers and Richard Donner restoration/reconstruction of Superman II over the fan-created "Restored International Edition" because even though the fan version was able to acquire several notable sources for their version, it is still amateur work compared to what an officially-sanctioned version would be.

And going back to Star Wars, I've seen portions of the Phantom Edit, and while I agree, it makes some of the movie more bearable, it still doesn't make it the right/correct/proper version. A novelty, if anything.

(Then again, fan edits are different from preservationist edits, but it's still the same concept: a group of people who think they can do better than the official version.)

Albert

Lowry does what the studio and/or filmmaker wants them to. Spielberg was adamant that the Indiana Jones trilogy look the way they did when originally released. Because of this, the DVD restorations (while very clean and sharp) still contain fine film grain and don't look much different from other versions in terms of color-timing.

And that's why you don't see me complaining about Indiana Jones. I honestly didn't know that was Lowry until I looked it up... since it looks good the way it was released (and by "good" I mean it looks like it was old and not looking like it was made yesterday)

I have a feeling Disney thinks like Lucas does, wanting their classic films to look modern. You notice that the previews for the "new restorations" focus mainly on the "restorations" and not the movie itself? They almost never market them as "The original classic" like the VHS series did, and make sure that the packaging is shiny and attractive for the typical "American Idiot" (Thank you Green Day for the ever-so-accurate description)

And about those OTV DVDs of Star Wars... that's kinda what I'm talking about. Members on that forum have created DVDs using different laserdiscs as masters that look far superior to the "official" ones, and they even look as good as the special editions. At least the preservationists put research into it, probably moreso than Lowry!

(Then again, fan edits are different from preservationist edits, but it's still the same concept: a group of people who think they can do better than the official version.)

The reason I used those OTV DVDs as an example is that it's incredibly easy to make something better than the official version. I realize that Lowry is a professional studio, but quoting what Disneykid said, they only do what the studio tells them. If Disney wants their old movies to look bright and shiny and attractive to the general public, fine. But why is it so laughed-upon that they might just be off a little bit? Notice that I've never called the Platinum Editions bad digital quality-wise... They look fine if the intent is to make them look good on a typical TV. I just don't think they're preserving the original, instead they are appealing to the people who complain about picture quality...