Aladdin (1992) (Diamond Edition)

[Lnds500]

Originally Posted by dvdmike

What a convincing comeback, wow I am sold your argument and proof that backs it up are solid and have made me rethink my ways

Are we arguing that a digital film was DNRed (a process which is used to primarily remove the grain structure)? For real?

[spectre08]

it's so funny to watch you people act like DNR is the worst crime a studio can commit and that any DNR at all renders a film nearly unwatchable.

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by Lnds500

Are we arguing that a digital film was DNRed (a process which is used to primarily remove the grain structure)? For real?

Just because they should not, does not mean they would not

[Lnds500]

Originally Posted by dvdmike

Just because they should not, does not mean they would not

A digital film does not have grain unless the director or someone on the creative team specifically wants to add artificial grain in the image.

Aladdin never had any grain and hence there is no need for DNR.

Your whole argument is based on a wrong point.

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by Lnds500

A digital film does not have grain unless the director or someone on the creative team specifically wants to add artificial grain in the image.

Aladdin never had any grain and hence there is no need for DNR.

Your whole argument is based on a wrong point.

There is never need for DNR in the ways Disney use it, and it's noise reduction not grain reduction, anything they consider noise they can use it for.
And again, just because ether should not use it on a digital file does not mean they won't and did not.

People do lots of things that are not right, or they should not do, yet they do it.

[Falaskan]

Originally Posted by spectre08

it's so funny to watch you people act like DNR is the worst crime a studio can commit and that any DNR at all renders a film nearly unwatchable.

So true. Of course sometimes DNR is totally noticeable and other times negligible. I think most Disney blus fall in the latter category.

[spectre08]

Originally Posted by Falaskan

So true. Of course sometimes DNR is totally noticeable and other times negligible. I think most Disney blus fall in the latter category.

I was just watching Lost in Space last night thinking, "you know, it wouldn't have killed them to apply at least a LITTLE DRN to this movie"

dvdmike would probably slap me for such a statement

[Dragun]

Originally Posted by spectre08

it's so funny to watch you people act like DNR is the worst crime a studio can commit and that any DNR at all renders a film nearly unwatchable.

When it's used well we don't even notice it, but there are quite a few transfers that are overly scrubbed.

[jeangreyforever]

Isn't the bluray/DVD platinum transfer faulty anyway? The colors are brighter than the original film. For example, Jasmine's light blue outfit now looks turquoise. The trailer of the film and VHS looks a world different from the DVD and now Blu-Ray.

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by spectre08

I was just watching Lost in Space last night thinking, "you know, it wouldn't have killed them to apply at least a LITTLE DRN to this movie"

dvdmike would probably slap me for such a statement

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by dvdmike

There is never need for DNR in the ways Disney use it, and it's noise reduction not grain reduction, anything they consider noise they can use it for.
And again, just because ether should not use it on a digital file does not mean they won't and did not.

People do lots of things that are not right, or they should not do, yet they do it.

That's a very good point about noise reduction being separate from grain reduction and/or grain management. You know I don't mind a well-executed bit of the latter, but noise reduction is a heavy-handed, indiscriminate tool which when combined with poorly managed dirt/scratch removal is a one-two punch that's left far too many shitty-looking Blu-rays in its wake.

[The_Iceflash]

Originally Posted by dvdmike

There is never need for DNR in the ways Disney use it, and it's noise reduction not grain reduction, anything they consider noise they can use it for.
And again, just because ether should not use it on a digital file does not mean they won't and did not.

People do lots of things that are not right, or they should not do, yet they do it.

You're too obsessed with your narrow ideology that you neglected to use any logic. There is no grain in Aladdin so DNR will NOT be used. I don't care what you say about "anything they consider noise". If you claim there is any DNR used on it then it is purely a figment of your imagination and no one who has any knowledge about film restoration will take your claim seriously.

Knee jerk, predictable reactions to any DNR like yours is why I can't take film restoration criticisms around here seriously.

Originally Posted by spectre08

it's so funny to watch you people act like DNR is the worst crime a studio can commit and that any DNR at all renders a film nearly unwatchable.

It's what happens when people take their ideologies to ignorant, knee-jerk reactionary levels. All credibility is gone, especially when they talk about DNRing a CAPS film. Pure ignorance.

Originally Posted by jeangreyforever

Isn't the bluray/DVD platinum transfer faulty anyway? The colors are brighter than the original film. For example, Jasmine's light blue outfit now looks turquoise. The trailer of the film and VHS looks a world different from the DVD and now Blu-Ray.

WTH? Why do we always assume something looking different means it's faulty and wrong? Some of us really need to get over that one.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by RBBrittain

Believe what you want, but what he said was true; Disney maintains one Pixar Image Computer for the sole purpose of reading the files from CAPS movies like Aladdin for transfer to newer technologies. When it's time to make the UHDBD master, they should be able to go back to the original CAPS data files and reassemble it, much like Pixar films are re-rendered from their original data files.

CAPS files were finished at 12-bit 2K res according to this (and also wiki): https://groups.google.com/forum/#!to...me/WOkkuV0Yr7w

...which, for the late '80s/early '90s, was state-of-the-****ing-art and then some! And even though it puts paid to any notion of a 4K rebuild in terms of spatial resolution (aside from upscaling), the 12-bit colour depth will ensure that some extra value can still be gleaned for future video masters.

[ChipmunksDad]

Originally Posted by spectre08

it's so funny to watch you people act like DNR is the worst crime a studio can commit and that any DNR at all renders a film nearly unwatchable.

I was just thinking people should be happy they can watch movies they've enjoyed over and over again in the home at will. So there's a little unnoticeable DNR. Dear God, it's the end of the world. 30 years ago people would have begged for DNR. My favorites are comparisons of BD to DVD. Maybe they'd like to go back to VHS. LOL

[ChipmunksDad]

Originally Posted by jeangreyforever

Isn't the bluray/DVD platinum transfer faulty anyway? The colors are brighter than the original film. For example, Jasmine's light blue outfit now looks turquoise. The trailer of the film and VHS looks a world different from the DVD and now Blu-Ray.

Seriously. Go back to VHS.

Of course it looks different. It looked different in the Theater too. Probably had projector smudges on it. It doesn't mean the original print had it.

[Nightman04]

Aladdin is finally getting a US bluray release. As far as im concerned this is the what everyone should be doing right now.

[RBBrittain]

Originally Posted by Nightman04

Aladdin is finally getting a US bluray release. As far as im concerned this is the what everyone should be doing right now.

[Show spoiler]

Hold the Carlton till October -- unless you're Alfonso Ribeiro, that is.

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by The_Iceflash

You're too obsessed with your narrow ideology that you neglected to use any logic. There is no grain in Aladdin so DNR will NOT be used. I don't care what you say about "anything they consider noise". If you claim there is any DNR used on it then it is purely a figment of your imagination and no one who has any knowledge about film restoration will take your claim seriously.

Knee jerk, predictable reactions to any DNR like yours is why I can't take film restoration criticisms around here seriously.



It's what happens when people take their ideologies to ignorant, knee-jerk reactionary levels. All credibility is gone, especially when they talk about DNRing a CAPS film. Pure ignorance.



WTH? Why do we always assume something looking different means it's faulty and wrong? Some of us really need to get over that one.

Nice, real nice

[The_Iceflash]

Originally Posted by ChipmunksDad

I was just thinking people should be happy they can watch movies they've enjoyed over and over again in the home at will. So there's a little unnoticeable DNR. Dear God, it's the end of the world. 30 years ago people would have begged for DNR. My favorites are comparisons of BD to DVD. Maybe they'd like to go back to VHS. LOL

They do. http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/top...s/topic/15617/ Pure ignorance.

Of course such ignorance is disguised under the guise of "high standards". High standards indeed.

[David M]

Originally Posted by dvdmike

They can still DNR a digital file, and did with the UK disc

What makes you say that (that the UK version is NR'd)?