Disney Classics Screenshot Comparisons

[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.

[Lutz]

Originally Posted by 78deluxe

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.

There's a doco on the BLADE RUNNER blu ray where they talk about the matte paintings and that when shot on film the colour changes. They boasted that they employed an artist who knew exactly how to paint things in boosted colour so that it would read as the correct colour they wanted on film when shot - so they wouldn't have to colour correct in post.

I might be misremembering but I believe this is also covered in the BAMBI DVD docos that Walt instructed everyone to paint one level brighter to compensate for the loss in colour in the film transfer. And I might be really misremembering here but they also talk about how the grain gives second life in animating the images.

Bottom line: if you're not compensating for the way things look on film you're an amateur.