Old Disney Classics

[Marky_198]

I have a question for you guys.

What do you think is wrong with the Sleeping Beauty fully digitally restored version that came out a few years ago?

Nothing, if you ask me.
It looks clean, fresh, but still like the 50's with respect for the movie.
Just perfect.

BUT, as is presented in the trailer now, they are going to change a lot again for the next dvd edition. The backgrounds in the forest will be more blue than green, etc, etc, etc.

Why?

Because that's what the filmmakers intended? And the last fully digitally restored version is wrong? In 2008, for the first time they realise how it should be?

[Ariel'sprince]

with gray\white dress it looks like a film from 50 years ago while blue dress and blonde hair makes it shine,and look new,and I prefer it.

And of course it's wrong to accept a movie for what it is, it's better to make evrything as modern as possible....
It looks like you are a true fan with respect for the movies....

I"m a true fan and I"m saying this because I"m a true fan.
Do you want a VHS quality? I don't think this is wrong,they want to make more shinning,what's wrong about that? it's DVD,not VHS.
And yeah,they also changed the shade of Ariel's flipper and I don't think it's wrong,It's more shinning.

[yukitora]

This has probably been said, but it's pretty clear that Cinderella and it's franchise was directed at young girls, not Disney purists, which is probably by their spruced it up so much, so it looked like a new movie, which kids would be interested in.

They certainly kept the dated feel to Snow White, which is actually marketed to purists, and the other platinums.

[Ariel'sprince]

No,it's not,Cinderella is a film for every,espically for the Disney fans,same for every Disney movie.

[2099net]

I think there's lots of reasons Snow White's restoration does not have the same visual quality as Cinderella's.

It was restored sometime pre-2001. So it's been restored with technology close to, or even over a decade old. In graphical manipulation of data on a computer, 10 years is a life-time!

Secondly, I'm not sure the colours have any less luster than those on Cinderella - look a Grumpy's nose for example, or the Queen's Purple/Blue dress and robe. Those are bright colours! But Snow White like Pinocchio, Fantasia and Bambi, has a different colouring technique. They lots of areas of colour with shading over the top, including "blushing" on skin etc. Cinderella - at the cells posted earlier in this thread show, does not have this level of detail. They just have solid colour, with lineir shadows/highlights when applied.

In Snow White's case as well, it appears to be an artistic choice to have dull, muted backgrounds. There's a lot of brown and grey throughout the film.

Look at the live-action book in the opening. It obviously has the qualities associated with Techinicolor - deep, bright vidid colours looking more "real" than reality.



And look at the queen here, she has more colour than the Fairy Godmother in Cinderella!



But colour wise, I think Snow White is just as vivid as Cinderella if you consider the pallete originally used.

Finally, Snow White seems to suffer from grain more than Cinderella, which is vertually grain free. This is either because Snow White was shot on inferior film stock (not that unlikely considering the age of the film) or when Cinderella was restored they used a computer filter to remove most of the grain.

[Marky_198]

You are right, the colors are almost as bright as the Cinderella restoration.
To be honest, I don't see why people like the Snowwhite restoration at all.
Snowwhite and the Queen look like CLOWNS.

No respect for the movie at all. I have the fully restored version of the movie that came out in 1994 on dvd now, and it looks perfect, crystal clear, clean, fresh colors, BUT with respect for the movie. No clowns there.

Which brings me to this, can someone please answer this?

WHAT do you think is wrong with the Sleeping Beauty fully digitally restored version that came out a few years ago on dvd?

Nothing, if you ask me.
It looks clean, fresh, but still like the 50's with respect for the movie.
Just perfect.

BUT, as is presented in the trailer now, they are going to change a lot again for the next dvd edition. The backgrounds in the forest will be more blue than green, etc, etc, etc.

Why?

Because that's what the filmmakers intended? And the last fully digitally restored version is wrong? Now, in 2008, for the first time they realise how it should be?

[2099net]

I wouldn't worry about the Sleeping Beauty Blu-ray/DVD trailer, because as far as I know, Disney has never shown the "restored" version on their trailers "before and after" shots before, they sort of fudge the issue.

I'm sure somebody will correct me if that's wrong.

[Marky_198]

No, but it WILL be changed again.

[disneyfella]

Part of the reason for the restoration could be that this version is intended for a blu ray release and will probably be seen on high definition television sets (Not to mention the marketing value of a "fully restored film"). I don't believe that the film print we saw on that anniversary disc set was sub par by any means, but then again I haven't watched it on a blu ray disc with a big screen high definition television I honestly don't think the Disney film restorers are out to ruin their most prized possesions.

p.s. Albert, you're such a gentleman....

[Escapay]

This has probably been said, but it's pretty clear that Cinderella and it's franchise was directed at young girls, not Disney purists, which is probably by their spruced it up so much, so it looked like a new movie, which kids would be interested in.

No,it's not,Cinderella is a film for every,espically for the Disney fans,same for every Disney movie.

I think yukitora meant that even if Cindy is a film for everyone, the dumbass bastards at Disney Marketing decided that they'd aim primarily for the Bratz generation when it came to merch for the movie. Thus, ugly clipart on toy boxes, ugly clipart on the storybooks, and a restoration that to some apparently looks as bad as the ugly clipart that kids today would associate Cindy with.

Snowwhite and the Queen look like CLOWNS.

No respect for the movie at all. I have the fully restored version of the movie that came out in 1994 on dvd now, and it looks perfect, crystal clear, clean, fresh colors, BUT with respect for the movie. No clowns there.

because as far as I know, Disney has never shown the "restored" version on their trailers "before and after" shots before, they sort of fudge the issue.

Usually on the DVD trailers they have that "restored to beyond its original brilliance" line with the split-screen comparison, but those are usually exaggerated as well.

I honestly don't think the Disney film restorers are out to ruin their most prized possesions.

Tell that to Marky!

p.s. Albert, you're such a gentleman....

Albert

[Chernabog_Rocks]

In Snow White's case as well, it appears to be an artistic choice to have dull, muted backgrounds. There's a lot of brown and grey throughout the film.

I was reading through a book that mentioned about the colors used, here's what it had to say:

Color Palette

Snow White was released at a time when virtually every feature film was black and white. Since critics feared audiences couldn't tolerate the bright colors associated with animated cartoons for the length of a feature, the color palette for Snow White was given careful consideration.

Also on the same page it mentions this about the dwarves.

The Dwarfs' costumes stressed earth tones and muted colors, rather than the bright colors normally used for comic personalities.

[deathie mouse]

Ok.
Where do I start , where can I go that I haven't been before?

Sequential 3-strip Technicolor is a black and white color separation process, with subsequent color dye transfer prints.

In the Disney Technicolor camera black and white film is used and the cel+background are shot through 3 color filters into three successive exposures (3 frames exposed per image) to make a full-color black and white separation record. The red green and blue filters are very pure with the black and white negative's spectral sensitivity (its reaction to the spectrum of colors) fairly even and matched to the filters transmittance bands. For example Kodak Wratten No 25 (red), 58 (green) and 47B (blue) can be used. (Anyone that has used Calibration DVDs like A Video Standard has seen filters similar to these). If you saw those 3 filter's colors in a chromacity chart, you'd see they fairly match the original NTSC's color gamut which is 40 to 50% more area than what you've been accustomed seeing on normal TVs (SD and HDTV) or computer monitors all these years, which have either SMPTE "C", PAL EBU, or sRGB/HDTV color primaries. Re-read that: the Technicolor black and white negative color separations have, and are capable of recording a color gamut/space 40-50% wider (deeper, more saturated) than what you've seen in the last 30 years of NTSC TVs (SMPTE "C", P22), PAL TVs, computer, and HDTV monitors (remember, original NTSC gamut is not modern NTSC gamut, modern NTSC gamuts is actually SMPTE "C" gamut, they just keep calling it NTSC) (that's why I call the original, original).

And black and white negatives don't fade in color, because they're not in color.

So therefore the Technicolor negative can reach deeper more saturated color than images you see on a normal TV or computer monitor.

These Technicolor b/w negatives were exposed onto a set of matrices that absorbed pure cyan, magenta, and yellow dyes which then were transfered to the Technicolor IB print. Dye transfer color is one of the highest quality color processes. And just like a photographer can manipulate a black and white negative to make a great custom print, similar contrast/mask dye concentrations manipulations could be done to to get the look and color the artist wanted on the Technicolor print.

Furthermore a cel is reflection art. While a technicolor print is a transmittance medium. Apart from wider color gamut differences, there's also another variable that affects the color space: density of the image, or "Luminance". Reflection material has only a contrast (difference between the whitest part and the darkest part) of about 200:1,
its maximum density not very high. While a movie print made from a negative (or a slide/transparency) can have much much more density and contrast ratio reaching into the thousands. This gives the image a much more vibrant, contrasty and saturated look. Just compare a photographic slide or transparency to a photographic paper print. That's exactly the same as comparing a movie print, to a cel: transmissive slide (movie print) vs reflective media (cel + background). On a cel, white highlights or luminous colors can't go higher than paper white, while on a movie print, they glow brighter than surface diffuse white therefore looking like a true source of light, unlike on the reflective cel, and of course blacks and deep colors on a cel can't go darker and deeper that the reflective pigment black, while on a print they can go a 1000 times deeper than the paper white and therefore, darker than on the cel itself. .

Furthermore, all photographic processes change colors in some manner, so the final resulting color on the Technicolor print might be different than on the cel, so Technicolor had color consultants and Disney too, which would choose a particular color pigment or color fabric to be used so that when photographed and printed through the whole Technicolor process would give the desired results on the print

To use a made up example, if a certain mustard yellow gave a lemon yellow on the Technicolor print in the color tests,, the actor would wear a mustard yellow shirt or the cel be painted mustard yellow if you wanted it to be lemon yellow on screen.

With that longwinded explanation I'm sure you'll see that just by reproducing or "restoring" the colors to look exactly like the reflection cel, that s just a restoration of the artwork. Not necessarily of The Movie.

A straight print from an Ansel Adams black & white negative is not necessarily an "Ansel Adams Print". I might look faithful to the scene photographed in front of the camera but it might not be the art, the image, that was intended.



Now back to the subject and the comments. Shooting movies in the Technicolor process stopped in the mid 50's (sequential Technicolor animation by Disney continued for a while after). In the 70's Technicolor stopped production of Technicolor IB prints, so after that if you wanted a print from even a Technicolor negative you'd need to make it on Eastmacolor (regular color process used today). In this process all the color dyes are already in the print material and the individual dyes react to the other colors, instead of being kept separate and transfered like in a Technicolor print. So the prints would look different and often less contrasty or saturated.

Furthermore, these Technicolor films are sometimes 70 years old, and unless one has a reference Technicolor print to compare, most people might not have ever seen what the original color was.

Arrive at today: Disney or anyone with the b/w separation negatives can scan them into RGB and recombine them electronically in any kind of mixture (color matrix) . As I mention above, sRGB/HDTV,PAL,modernNTSC colors might not match the original Technicolor ones. . Netty is right in that these purer colors transfers might be closer to the Technicolor quality that other older transfers specially ones made with non Technicolor materials. But at the same time as I mentioned above, if the transfer is made to look like the reflection art cel precisely, that might or might not accurately reflect the intended look of the original transmissive print on a screen

There's also a new development, in that there are now new monitors coming out (those extended gamut fluorescent and LED backlight displays etc) that are starting to have a color gamut closer or equivalent to the wider gamut color spaces like the original NTSC and Technicolor, and a HDMI color standard to go with it (xvYCC).

.

See aprox Technicolor/original NTSC/xvYCC (wide extended gamuts) triangle area left, relative to the narrower (current NTSC/PAL/HDTV) color gamut spaces triangle area, right:

<IMG SRC="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... 1_sRGB.png" HEIGHT="490" WIDTH="444">


It has taken more than half a century for consumer displays to reach that extended gamut in a few newer "extended gamut" HDTV displays and computer monitors models. "The wider spectrum of LED backlighting replacing cold cathodes has enabled this extension of the LCD display color gamut." <- from wiki.

btw a gilcee if I'm not mistaken was a high quality inkjet print a few years ago (I haven't checked photo printers lately)

[Marky_198]

"Snow White was released at a time when virtually every feature film was black and white. Since critics feared audiences couldn't tolerate the bright colors associated with animated cartoons for the length of a feature, the color palette for Snow White was given careful consideration."

Exactly.

It's almost funny that there are people today that say this ""restored" bright, clowny version that hurts your eyes (even today) was like the original version.

[Marky_198]

Ok.

There's also a new development, in that there are now new monitors coming out (those extended gamut fluorescent and LED backlight displays etc) that are starting to have a color gamut closer or equivalent to the wider gamut color spaces like the original NTSC and Technicolor, and a HDMI color standard to go with it (xvYCC).

)[/size]

That gives hope for the future.
Too bad they had to mess things up so bad before they got to this discovery.

[Marky_198]

I

.

Ins't this a screenshot from Cinderella 3, direct to dvd?

[2099net]

^ No It's not. It's from Cinderella. It's a different size as it's from a NTSC disc, while the Snow White captures are from a PAL disc.

As for the Clown Colours on Snow White - most of the film is still muted and earthy. Most of the backgrounds for example - including the forest which is more muted than you would expect. So too is the Dwarfs clothing.

The only bright colours are those intended to be bright.

I think Deathie's Quote says in the best:

Now back to the subject and the comments. Shooting movies in the Technicolor process stopped in the mid 50's (sequential Technicolor animation by Disney continued for a while after). In the 70's Technicolor stopped production of Technicolor IB prints, so after that if you wanted a print from even a Technicolor negative you'd need to make it on Eastmacolor (regular color process used today). In this process all the color dyes are already in the print material and the individual dyes react to the other colors, instead of being kept separate and transfered like in a Technicolor print. So the prints would look different and often less contrasty or saturated.

[Flanger-Hanger]

Ins't this a screenshot from Cinderella 3, direct to dvd?

No it's from the first one. And Marky, you might want to stop complaining about Cindy and take a good look at some of Disney's back cataloged titles on DVD like The Gnome-Mobile, Babes in Toyland, The Moon-Spinners, Miracle of the White Stallions or even more recent films like The Rocketeer. THOSE films have poor to zero restoration work and are worth complaining about.

[Jules]

Though at the moment I have nothing significant to add to the discussion, I just have to say that this is what a thread should be like. Informative, interesting and downright bitchy!

Keep the posts coming. I love these in depth Disney discussions!

[Disney Duster]

I think perhaps the cell for sale on that site is framed, so the glass in front will be pushing the cell flat to the background. I see no reason why that site (presumably a respected retailer) would lie.

Well, in a way I guess it would be lying, but I don't think the site is intending to lie. Even cereal boxes have disclaimers saying "Not actual size" and other packaging says, "Product may look different from photo" and something to that effect. Yes, the site has no disclaimer, but maybe they feel people won't care.

And actually, the pictures you posted just continue my dissatisfaction with the restoration. Firstly, the pictures of Cinderella under the moonlight differ a lot. It even shows an example of one of the things I noticed the restoration did, it made some of the outlines thinner and even disappear. Just compare Cinderella's face in the cel and the screencap, among the other parts of her. The stepsisters' pictures differ, just less so. I didn't actually have a lot of problems with the stepsisters' colors, I thought they looked how I remembered them in most scenes. Disney would rather change Cinderella because she is what little girls will be looking at. Finally, as deathie said, the cels and the technicolor prints are supposed to look different, anyway, so they shouldn't necessarily match the "orginal cel setups".

However, thank you for going this far into the search for the truth. Some day I will post pictures that will reveal why the restoration is incorrect.

Marky, I, too, am worried about Sleeping Beauty's radically different looking restoration when it was already restored to what I thought was perfect before. However, like they said, with new technologies they are able to make even better restorations. Let's just see if it is better or if it will only be differently colored.

[steve]

Marky, I, too, amd worried about Sleeping Beauty's radically different looking restoration when it was already restored to what I thought was perfect before.

Em, the new Sleeping Beauty DVD isn't available for quite a while yet - how do we know what on earth the new restoration looks like? "Radically different"? Huh? I hope you're not basing any opinions on the "comparison" seen on the trailer - those things are always exaggerated.