Disney Classics Screenshot Comparisons

[filmmusic]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Just how much grain did the original artwork have?

I'm sorry, but this argument that is used over and over, is not really an argument.
The original artwork was filmed! So as to be a film!
A grainless image (the original artwork) may seem pretty as a single photo, but is another thing when you see a film of a series of these photos thus giving the impression of movement.

And I say this again, the Bluray isn't the original artwork EITHER! (unless it's a CAPS film -although there are arguments about that too.).
There is grain (not moving) on the background, which wasn't painted by the artists.
let alone the fact that the characters are redrawn with thicker lines to seem good in HD.

Recently a friend of mine, a graphic artist, who doesn't even care for grain at all like me, told me how awful Snowhite Bluray looked to him. Like they applied a filter all over and textures were vanished, lines were thickened, the whole thing was flat etc.
It surprised me coming from him, who isn't a "nitpicker" as you would call me, as far as films are concerned.
He suggested that they must have done this so as to create a pseudo-HD, like "vectorizing" the whole image so that if you raise the resolution the result remains the same and doesn't lose "quality" (eg. blurring and stuff)

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by filmmusic

I'm sorry, but this argument that is used over and over, is not really an argument.
The original artwork was filmed! So as to be a film!

Film was a "necessary evil" to get the public to see them. You can bet your entire fortune that if Disney had CAPS available to him from the start he would have used it. Because it lets them get as close as possible to the original artwork without the dust, noise, and yes...grain of film. Not to mention the generations of going from negative to interpositive to master to mass produced prints.


Even going straight from the negative will have far, far less grain than a print, not to mention different levels of color and contrast. So using a print as a comparison is ludicrous.

[Lnds500]

Originally Posted by filmmusic

This is coming from an IB Technicolor 35mm fim print from the re-issue in the 60s.

So, is that... a good thing? It's obviously a duplicate but is it a good duplicate, how worn is it etc?

I'd prefer black crush than grainless flat images.
it's a matter of what do you have as priority.

Another comparison:
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/153657

Your love of grain is clouding your judgment. The "de-grained" image has more information. Isn't the whole "grain is good" argument about how de-graining the image removes the finer details of an image?

Well, in this case, **** grain, you lose image info!

[filmmusic]

Originally Posted by Lnds500

Isn't the whole "grain is good" argument about how de-graining the image removes the finer details of an image?

Well, in this case, **** grain, you lose image info!

well for me it's not ONLY about detail.
i prefer grain because it gives life and depth to the animation and ties harmonically all the elements together (foreground with background).
So, as I've said I prefer that even if I have to see some darker areas here and there.

I don't know about the quality of the print in motion (I know that 3 minutes appear a bit blurry because there was warping), but the screenshots look quite good.
And as you see the colors are also quite good. I mean they are not faded to red or anything.
Of course a scan of the original negative would be much better, but comparing to Bluray I prefer this look since we don't have anything better.

[Lnds500]

So as some of you have noticed, imageshack has gone to s**t so I will probably be moving all the comparisons on flickr sometime in January (hopefully).

[Poya]

Originally Posted by Lnds500

So as some of you have noticed, imageshack has gone to s**t so I will probably be moving all the comparisons on flickr sometime in January (hopefully).

Are you almost finished with that?

[miniroll32]

Just out of interest, I've made a little comparison between the Blu-ray of The Little Mermaid (bottom) and a documentary recorded shortly after the movies original release (top).

[filmmusic]

Lnds i'm trying to send you a private message but it seems your folder is full!

[Lnds500]

Originally Posted by filmmusic

Lnds i'm trying to send you a private message but it seems your folder is full!

Send again

[DawnShadow]

I'd love to see these comparisons re-uploaded

[78deluxe]

Originally Posted by filmmusic

I'm sorry, but this argument that is used over and over, is not really an argument.
The original artwork was filmed! So as to be a film!
A grainless image (the original artwork) may seem pretty as a single photo, but is another thing when you see a film of a series of these photos thus giving the impression of movement.

And I say this again, the Bluray isn't the original artwork EITHER! (unless it's a CAPS film -although there are arguments about that too.).
There is grain (not moving) on the background, which wasn't painted by the artists.
let alone the fact that the characters are redrawn with thicker lines to seem good in HD.

Recently a friend of mine, a graphic artist, who doesn't even care for grain at all like me, told me how awful Snowhite Bluray looked to him. Like they applied a filter all over and textures were vanished, lines were thickened, the whole thing was flat etc.
It surprised me coming from him, who isn't a "nitpicker" as you would call me, as far as films are concerned.
He suggested that they must have done this so as to create a pseudo-HD, like "vectorizing" the whole image so that if you raise the resolution the result remains the same and doesn't lose "quality" (eg. blurring and stuff)

The idea that the original intent was for the imperfections of film to be a part of the plan is unsubstantiated as far as anything I've heard or read.

Do you think musicians in the 1930s intended for the recordings they made to have noise, flutter, speed and pitch fluctuation? Of course not, but that was a limiting factor of the technology they had at the time. I'm sure the vast majority would have preferred better sounding reproduction of the instruments and voices recorded. Just like I'm sure the artists painting the cells would have loved for the original cells to be seen in the best quality possible in motion.

Animating hand painted cells in the time frame is no different.

[Warstorck]

Originally Posted by DawnShadow

I'd love to see these comparisons re-uploaded

I second that motion.

[thinredline]

Cinderella

(image taken from originaltrilogy.com)
original 35mm print (left), Blu-ray (right):

[Poya]

What have they done to Peter Pan?:

[crazybeats]

It's a shame many movies look nothing like they did when originally released but that's just how it is.

[AnhKiet911]

Thanks for the comparisons!

[StarkRomanoff]

Originally Posted by thinredline

Cinderella

(image taken from originaltrilogy.com)
original 35mm print (left), Blu-ray (right):

The Cinderella blu has been on my wishlist for years but my god they destroyed the detail! I much prefer the duller film print than a bright blob in this case.

[Hardback247]

Originally Posted by StarkRomanoff

The Cinderella blu has been on my wishlist for years but my god they destroyed the detail! I much prefer the duller film print than a bright blob in this case.

Is there any chance for a new restoration for the Signature Collection?

[Jim Collins]

Originally Posted by Hardback247

Is there any chance for a new restoration for the Signature Collection?

No other movie was digitally restored for the Signature Collection, so propably no

[Poya]

SO GLAD this is getting attention on Twitter!:

https://twitter.com/stephen_duignan/...45621945323520