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.drfsupercenter wrote: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.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.
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!
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
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.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