DVDizzy.com

Home | Reviews | Schedule | Cover Art | Search The Site
DVDizzy.com Top Stories:

It is currently Sat Jan 20, 2018 12:51 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 772 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 39  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 12, 2009 5:17 pm 
Offline
Platinum Edition
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2003 3:00 pm
Posts: 9416
Location: UK
drfsupercenter wrote:
Quote:
I'd just like to point out, changes in colour are common place on various media formats - it is impossible to determine which is correct and which is wrong for the majority. Even Disney films, when they were rolled out every 7 years or so. For all we know, each re-release could be on totally different film stock, from totally different chemicals with totally different properties.


What you're saying is correct - however, Beauty and the Beast (along with all the other ones made using CAPS) have digital masters. Last time I checked, digital colors never fade or lose quality over the years.
And look at the DVD of Mulan. The newer 2-disc release is a direct encode from CAPS, and I haven't heard any complaints about the coloring of it. Though oddly enough, whoever did the UD review was saying it wasn't as amazing as the digitally restored ones... you obviously can't digitally restore a digital film, there's no point! :roll:


I mentioned other CAPS DVDs earlier, and how nobody complains about them. And while the files on Beauty and the Beast are digital, it was distributed on film to theaters. There was no digital projection in 1991 or whenever the film was first released. So the digital files were still subject to the various potential colouring issues I've mentioned.

I don't think the DVD captures look any less "lifeless" or "2d" than the "original". I said it before and I'll say it again, those LD screengraps look too dark. I refuse to believe that's how the director's intended the film to look. It's more horror film lighting than fairytale lighting.

Beauty and the Beast was only Disney's second full length CAPS film and artistically has more range and depth than The Rescuers Down Under. Perhaps they were still experimenting with CAPS and its transfer to film, and were somewhat surprised at how dark the final film prints looked themselves?

So yes, I believe the DVD can be "closer" to their original intent. I've never said any Disney restoration is "perfect" only as close as the restorers can get to the original.

As for restoring "Beauty and the Beast" the word Disney marketing is using is wrong, plain and simple. It's "marketing" speak, not "fact" speak. There's no point in going on about it.

EDITED TO ADD

And then of course, even if you saw Beauty and the Beast at the cinema, who's to say what you saw was correct? What reflective index did the screen have? How did that affect the colour?

http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/ ... creen1.htm

HowStuffWorks wrote:
There are four main categories:
Matte white: < 5 percent reflectivity, black is very dark gray to black and the image is not very bright

Pearlescent: 15 percent reflectivity, black is dark gray and image is bright, provides best overall contrast

Silver: 30 percent reflectivity, black is medium gray and image is very bright, dark colors can seem a little dull

Glass bead: 40 percent or more reflectivity, black is light gray and image is usually too bright, normally used only under special circumstances


So two people, at two cinemas with different screens (and even at different viewing angles depending on the set-up) can have two different experiences from the same film print.

_________________
Most of my Blu-ray collection some of my UK discs aren't on their database


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 12, 2009 6:18 pm 
Offline
Limited Edition
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2008 10:59 pm
Posts: 1267
Location: Michigan, USA
Quote:
Note I said running time, sequence order and not changed backgrounds. I'm well aware of how the seamless branching works on the DVD, but that still doesn't change the fact that the IMAX restoration is the one everyone is going to get from now on (especially since it is already meant to look good in HD and therefore Disney will have t do nothing to it to impress Blu-ray owners).


I agree when you say the IMAX one is the only one they'll release from now on... but I'm not too happy about it.
Especially considering that CAPS has a resolution of 2048x1234*, which is still a lot better than Blu-Ray. They could directly dump it to a BR and it would look just as good as any other Blu-Ray Disc.

*To quote Wikipedia: "The final frames were of a higher resolution (2048 pixels across at a 1.66 aspect ratio) than HDTV, and the artwork was scanned so that it always held 100% resolution in the final output, no matter how complex the camera motion in the shot." I just used a calculator to come up with 1234 ;)

Quote:
I mentioned other CAPS DVDs earlier, and how nobody complains about them. And while the files on Beauty and the Beast are digital, it was distributed on film to theaters. There was no digital projection in 1991 or whenever the film was first released. So the digital files were still subject to the various potential colouring issues I've mentioned.


Yeah, but all the film reels would have been created from that digital master. So a direct dump of the digital master (without any sort of putzing with the colors as they did) would be the closest you could get to the *intended* OTV... wouldn't it? Seeing as how they created it that way for a reason?

_________________
Image

Howard Ashman:
He gave a mermaid her voice, a beast his soul, and Arabs something to complain about
Arabian Nights (Unedited)
Savages (Uncensored)
If it ain't OTV, it ain't worth anything!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 13, 2009 12:05 am 
Offline
Collector's Edition

Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 10:45 pm
Posts: 694
Quote:
Yeah, but all the film reels would have been created from that digital master. So a direct dump of the digital master (without any sort of putzing with the colors as they did) would be the closest you could get to the *intended* OTV... wouldn't it? Seeing as how they created it that way for a reason?


You assume, once again, that your videos and laserdisc represent the look of the film in theaters, while the DVD is a direct to digital port of the CAPS files, albeit altered for the "special edition" with the Human Again song added to it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 13, 2009 4:04 am 
Offline
Special Edition
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 30, 2008 6:44 pm
Posts: 363
Location: dfs
From what I have seen my guess would be that the VHS and laserdisc are the correct colors. And Beauty and the Beast doesn't have CAPS files. Pocahontas was the beginning of CAPS. At least I think. But either way if it does have CAPS files they were created from scanning the files into the computer and therefore the original colors must be there. The Imax was obviously brightened. What bothered me the most in the DVD was cogsworth's colors. He looked cheap instead of dark and rich. I would hope Disney would fix these colors because I think the DVD lost the romantic/haunting look it had when it was on VHS.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 13, 2009 4:29 am 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2006 12:20 pm
Posts: 3955
Location: Malta, Europe
nomad2010 wrote:
And Beauty and the Beast doesn't have CAPS files. Pocahontas was the beginning of CAPS.


CAPS was developed by Walt Disney Feature Animation and Pixar Animation Studios in the late 80s. It was tested on The Little Mermaid and The Rescuers Down Under made full use of it, becoming the first all-digital motion picture.

nomad2010 wrote:
But either way if it does have CAPS files they were created from scanning the files into the computer and therefore the original colors must be there.


Only the animator's pencil drawings were scanned into the computer. The colouring was done digitally.

nomad2010 wrote:
The Imax was obviously brightened.


Which is what Gary Trousdale and Kirk Wise wanted, regardless of whether you like it or not.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 13, 2009 8:00 am 
Offline
Limited Edition
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2008 10:59 pm
Posts: 1267
Location: Michigan, USA
Quote:
You assume, once again, that your videos and laserdisc represent the look of the film in theaters, while the DVD is a direct to digital port of the CAPS files, albeit altered for the "special edition" with the Human Again song added to it.


You're assuming that the DVD is a direct to digital port of the CAPS files... but it's not. It may be a direct port of the IMAX files, but those were modified from CAPS.

Quote:
Which is what Gary Trousdale and Kirk Wise wanted, regardless of whether you like it or not.


Well you're giving Disney too much credit. This isn't the first time (well chronologically it COULD be the first time) Disney has just blatantly messed up their DVD transfers... and there doesn't have to be a reason for it.
For all we know, Gary Trousdale and Kirk Wise wanted it a little brighter but may have been surprised by how the DVD turned out. It's horribly encoded.

I think most people here prefer the VHS/laserdisc colors, as do I. And why do you think so many people now hate George Lucas? I admire that they want to "fix" their movies but it's just a general no-no to mess with the OTV when you release a film. Had they put the special edition on one disc and put the proper OTV on another disc, it would have been fine.
But they didn't... instead they just used seamless branching to replicate the OTV using the modified IMAX version, which pissed off just about every fan of the OTV.

Plus, I don't think Disney even put a disclaimer anywhere on BatB's DVD saying it was modified from its original. They had enough common courtesy to do it for films like Saludos Amigos where all they did was edit one scene... but yet here they modify the whole movie and they don't even tell people that? Shame...

_________________
Image

Howard Ashman:
He gave a mermaid her voice, a beast his soul, and Arabs something to complain about
Arabian Nights (Unedited)
Savages (Uncensored)
If it ain't OTV, it ain't worth anything!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 13, 2009 8:34 am 
Offline
Platinum Edition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 12:26 pm
Posts: 9367
Location: North Carolina Gender: Male
Julian Carter wrote:
Which is what Gary Trousdale and Kirk Wise wanted, regardless of whether you like it or not.
You know, I think it's rather a strange way of thinking to say the creators have the ultimate say on a film after it's already been released before. After all, the audience is the one that watched the film and fell in love with it the way it was, not the way they changed it (ultimately making it sell enough that they're bothering with a special edition so in-depth it changes the film to suit Imax in the first place). If they decided to make Belle's skin green, would it still be okay? Because it wouldn't be any less a ridiculous change, imo, and the buyer isn't really getting what they paid for--the original version they've known all their life.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 13, 2009 11:45 am 
Offline
Member

Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 2:19 pm
Posts: 19
Disney's Divinity wrote:
Julian Carter wrote:
Which is what Gary Trousdale and Kirk Wise wanted, regardless of whether you like it or not.
You know, I think it's rather a strange way of thinking to say the creators have the ultimate say on a film after it's already been released before. After all, the audience is the one that watched the film and fell in love with it the way it was, not the way they changed it (ultimately making it sell enough that they're bothering with a special edition so in-depth it changes the film to suit Imax in the first place). If they decided to make Belle's skin green, would it still be okay? Because it wouldn't be any less a ridiculous change, imo, and the buyer isn't really getting what they paid for--the original version they've known all their life.


The audience isn't entitled to artistic say-so because all they've done is passively enjoy someone else's work. Without the creators there's nothing to watch and not a hint it's missing. The viewer's emotional investment in spending a hundred-plus hours of one's precious life watching a given film isn't even on the same plane as the time and self poured into the work by the filmmakers. (Anyone else who saw The Pixar Story make the inference Lasseter's marriage was in a wee bit of trouble about the time he had to rescue Toy Story 2?) And making film isn't making shoes or gasoline, it's mining the imagination, it's creating something out of nothing. To make it as a filmmaker it takes years, plus talent, practice, training, connections, perseverance, and luck; all that's required to be a fan is a few bucks and (maybe) a butt to sit on. One's memories are one's own, but the work belongs to the creator. I'm aghast at what George Lucas has done, but I'd defend to the end his right to do as he pleases with his own creations.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 13, 2009 12:28 pm 
Offline
Collector's Edition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2007 3:57 pm
Posts: 635
Location: The West Wing, UK
Anton Ego wrote:
Without the creators there's nothing to watch and not a hint it's missing.


But without an audience Disney would never have become a household name. Face it, the creators need to give respect to the public that have made them what they are. As a result they should not tamper with their films that, in some cases takes away the very reason why the public love them, wether they have the right or not.

_________________
<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n71/fandy27390/thevoicebanner-1.png" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

Don't Call It a Comeback, I've Been Here For Years...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 13, 2009 12:35 pm 
Offline
Limited Edition

Joined: Tue May 01, 2007 1:06 pm
Posts: 1019
Flanger-Hanger wrote:

Perhaps providing accurate information and well reasoned ideas instead of posting blurry screenshots and over the topic meaningless opinion might do the trick in convincing everyone that you know unequivocally what the "original" look of the film was. :wink:

.


To be honest, I don't care what the original look was/is.

I can look at both versions and see what works and what doesn't work.

I also found out it's not about the colors. It's about flattening the whole picture and taking all the feeling, depth and atmosphere out.

It really is the difference between a film with real characters with emotions and a generic cartoon. Between alive and flat/dead looking.
Not about colors.

<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n71/fandy27390/comp24.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n71/fandy27390/comp16.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n71/fandy27390/comp19.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n71/fandy27390/comp23.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n71/fandy27390/comp18.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>


Last edited by Marky_198 on Fri Feb 13, 2009 3:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 13, 2009 1:08 pm 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2006 5:59 pm
Posts: 3745
Location: S.H.I.E.L.D. Headquarters
Marky_198 wrote:
To be honest, I don't care what the original look was/is.


So I should care more about what your personal opinion is?

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 13, 2009 1:43 pm 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2006 12:20 pm
Posts: 3955
Location: Malta, Europe
Marky wrote:
I also found out it's not about the colors. It's about flattening the whole picture and taking all the feeling, depth and atmosphere out.

It really is the difference between a film with real characters with emotions and a generic cartoon. Between alive and flat/dead looking.
Not about colors.


Oh what philosophy! Plato, Aristotle and Pericles should all rot in the bowels of the Earth whilst there's you around! :roll:

Can you tell me what the bloody hell is less atmospheric and generic about the second set of screencaps!? Do you even know what you're talking about? I've had it with you and your colours and you and your Microsoft Paint!

Flangy wrote:
So I should care more about what your personal opinion is?


:clap: :clap: :clap:

Oh, and great post Anton Ego, and welcome to the forums!
:)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 13, 2009 3:12 pm 
Offline
Limited Edition

Joined: Tue May 01, 2007 1:06 pm
Posts: 1019
Flanger-Hanger wrote:
Marky_198 wrote:
To be honest, I don't care what the original look was/is.


So I should care more about what your personal opinion is?


You shouldn't.
But you could ask yourself why the original version would look like a generic cartoon, flat and dead with no emotions and feeling, and why it suddenly looked miraculously stunning and alive on the laserdisc release, and why they would go through all this effort to make it look cartoonish and dead again for the dvd release.....

And you could also ask yourself why so many people agree with me and think this look is pathetic and doesn't work anymore....


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 13, 2009 3:26 pm 
Offline
Limited Edition

Joined: Tue May 01, 2007 1:06 pm
Posts: 1019
Julian Carter wrote:

Oh what philosophy! Plato, Aristotle and Pericles should all rot in the bowels of the Earth whilst there's you around!

Can you tell me what the bloody hell is less atmospheric and generic about the second set of screencaps!? Do you even know what you're talking about? I've had it with you and your colours and you and your Microsoft Paint!

"Flangy wrote:
So I should care more about what your personal opinion is?"

Oh, and great post Anton Ego!



So someone saying: "I don't care about your opinion" is a great post in your opinion?
Wow, Plato, Aristotle and Pericles would be proud of you too! :)

And reading isn't your stongest suit either, because I said it wasn't about the colors. And you should be fed up with Disney and using Microsoft Paint, not with me.......;) And English is not my native language, but you get my point, right?

And what's generic and less atmospheric about the second screenshots?
If you don't see that and watch the classics with such a shallow eye, you might as well throw your whole dvd collection in the fire place.


<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n71/fandy27390/comp24.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n71/fandy27390/comp16.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n71/fandy27390/comp19.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n71/fandy27390/comp23.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n71/fandy27390/comp18.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 13, 2009 3:41 pm 
Offline
Member

Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 2:19 pm
Posts: 19
Beast_enchantment wrote:
Anton Ego wrote:
Without the creators there's nothing to watch and not a hint it's missing.


But without an audience Disney would never have become a household name. Face it, the creators need to give respect to the public that have made them what they are. As a result they should not tamper with their films that, in some cases takes away the very reason why the public love them, wether they have the right or not.


But without the filmmakers there's nothing from which to make a household name, just a big gaping hole where Snow White and Fantasia and Pinocchio and Sleeping Beauty should have been. There are choices that arguably shouldn't be made, but in principle that doesn't affect who may or may not make those choices (subject to the vagaries of entertainment contract law, which is a complicated and rather different discussion.) One's appreciation or enjoyment is one's own, but the work belongs to its creator. Consumers vote through consumption. Though the creative process may be collaborative, it is not democratic: this is not American Idol.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 13, 2009 3:45 pm 
Offline
Member

Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 2:19 pm
Posts: 19
Marky_198 wrote:
To be honest, I don't care what the original look was/is.


Which is precisely why your opinion of the work deserves minimal consideration.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 13, 2009 3:59 pm 
Offline
Platinum Edition
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2003 3:00 pm
Posts: 9416
Location: UK
Marky_198 wrote:
To be honest, I don't care what the original look was/is.

I can look at both versions and see what works and what doesn't work.

I also found out it's not about the colors. It's about flattening the whole picture and taking all the feeling, depth and atmosphere out.

It really is the difference between a film with real characters with emotions and a generic cartoon. Between alive and flat/dead looking.
Not about colors.


So now you seem to be saying, the "original" grabs look better because... what? they're slightly blurred? Got a bit of colour bleed around the edges?

Because that's what the animated spent time creating? Out of focus compositions with analogue colour bleed?

Look, just because technology at the time couldn't reproduce the theatrical experience at home does not mean that the home video experience was the theatrical experience.

As for the debate about the IMAX version and the original directors, who supervised the additional scenes? Who supervised the few bits of existing animation which were altered with no specific IMAX need? Who was responsible for the look of the IMAX version? Who asked for the DVD to be framed 1.85:1 when all other home media releases had been 4:3 or 1.66:1? They obviously had influence on how the DVD looked.

_________________
Most of my Blu-ray collection some of my UK discs aren't on their database


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 13, 2009 4:46 pm 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2006 5:59 pm
Posts: 3745
Location: S.H.I.E.L.D. Headquarters
Marky_198 wrote:
You shouldn't.
But you could ask yourself why the original version would look like a generic cartoon, flat and dead with no emotions and feeling, and why it suddenly looked miraculously stunning and alive on the laserdisc release, and why they would go through all this effort to make it look cartoonish and dead again for the dvd release.....

And you could also ask yourself why so many people agree with me and think this look is pathetic and doesn't work anymore....


Anton_Ego wrote:
Which is precisely why your opinion of the work deserves minimal consideration.


What he said.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 13, 2009 5:10 pm 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 6:20 pm
Posts: 3673
Location: Boston, MA
Wait, Marky, I'm not sure, are you trying to say that the new version looks like a flat, generic cartoon? Maybe you should repost the same images again.

_________________
"Ta ta ta taaaa! Look at me... I'm a snowman! I'm gonna go stand on someone's lawn if I don't get something to do around here pretty soon!"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 13, 2009 5:37 pm 
Offline
Limited Edition

Joined: Tue May 01, 2007 1:06 pm
Posts: 1019
Anton Ego wrote:
Marky_198 wrote:
To be honest, I don't care what the original look was/is.


Which is precisely why your opinion of the work deserves minimal consideration.


No, you don't understand me. What I mean to say is "I don't care what people say the original look was/is" because we don't have real proof (although it's quite obvious).

I firmly believe I know which version is closer to the OTV, but besides what I believe or what other people believe one can still say what works and what not, and have an objective view.

I do care about respecting the OTV. And there are some people on this board that seem to have no problem with this modifications, and don't care about the differences at all. Opinions like that deserve minimal consideration, because they don't have respect for the classics in the first place.


Last edited by Marky_198 on Fri Feb 13, 2009 5:45 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 772 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 39  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group