ww12345
This user is offline.
And now, Ludwig van Beethoven!!!
zeropc
This user is offline.
someone made a comparison of the itunes movie store version (1080p at 1.33:1) vs the blu-ray.
please note that the itunes version has been resized for a closer comparison.
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/33385
ww12345
This user is offline.
Alas, no uncensored footage... :(
Lots of cuts through the Beethoven. I don't know if that's how it was cut for TV, or if that's how it was cut for the Educational Digest version. Either way, bummer...
I'll post pics later - decent color, but nothing we haven't seen.
ww12345
This user is offline.
Wow, tons more grain and info in the itunes version! Here's the link again for people who had trouble with it (like I did)...
SilverWook
This user is online.
I am ready for the trials!Sorry to hear it wasn't uncut. Maybe it was censored separately for educational prints?
ww12345
This user is offline.
Could be... What was the running time of the original? This one was only about 20 minutes...
bkev
This user is offline.
See You, Space Cowboy...Wow. Having a high-quality source that's *not* mangled makes it much easier to see that these new releases are ultimately tragedies. :/
SilverWook
This user is online.
I am ready for the trials!ww12345 said:
Could be... What was the running time of the original? This one was only about 20 minutes...
As it was originally a Walt Disney Presents episode, I presume 50 minutes?
Here's an old press photo with caption...
ww12345
This user is offline.
Well that was in there, but during the Bacchus sequence. No "second movement" sequence at all (the censored portion). Matter of fact, the zebras were cut from the Bacchus sequence entirely!
SilverWook
This user is online.
I am ready for the trials!Wow. Somebody wasn't taking any chances of offending anyone. Any clues to the age of the print?
ww12345
This user is offline.
Well, it's Mylar, so what's that, '84?
I could look for a date code on Eastman (actually SP) stock...
TServo2049
This user is offline.
This space for rentI know when Vault Disney was running the episode in the late 90s, it just spliced out the offending parts.
AntcuFaalb
This user is offline.
The Interweb is a Series of TubesWe need to take a closer look at the Snow White LD.
I'm still having trouble believing that it was reanimated. It makes no sense.
(It was, of course, the first film to ever be 100% remastered in a computer, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it was reanimated ala Sleeping Beauty.)
Why, after going through the whole reanimation process, would they do one of the following?
"And I'm shocked at you Moth3r for being off-topic, Because if people off-topic you say "stay on-topic, STAY on-topic, STAY ON-TOPIC", and we are not in the Off topic section of OT.com, now are we?" –pat man
"Look again." –Moth3r
TServo2049
This user is offline.
This space for rentThe 1993 digital restoration was output to film because it was done for theatrical re-release, as was the case with the Star Wars SEs.
Even uncritical accounts say they used digital paintbox technology to clean up dirt, scratches, etc. I don't even know if the technology existed to directly convert a 2K DI to D-1 or D-2 or whatever the storage medium was at the time.
AntcuFaalb
This user is offline.
The Interweb is a Series of TubesTServo2049 said:
I thought it was a combination photochemical/digital restoration like the Star Wars SE.
That makes more sense.
Some here think it was SleepingBeauty-level reanimated. That just doesn't make sense to me.
"And I'm shocked at you Moth3r for being off-topic, Because if people off-topic you say "stay on-topic, STAY on-topic, STAY ON-TOPIC", and we are not in the Off topic section of OT.com, now are we?" –pat man
"Look again." –Moth3r
TServo2049
This user is offline.
This space for rentAntcu, I revised my post, it was a fully digital restoration - I believe the first of its kind: http://articles.latimes.com/1993-07-31/entertainment/ca-18865_1_snow-white
I was getting mixed up with the YCM Labs photochemical restoration done for the 50th anniversary re-release. But yes, each frame of the 1993 digital restoration was output to film after completion, as the New York Times article describes: http://www.nytimes.com/1993/06/30/business/business-technology-snow-white-is-made-over-frame-by-frame-and-byte-by-byte.html
As I said before, the technology to produce a direct-digital transfer either didn't exist, was in the experimental stages, or would have been prohibitively expensive. It was major news when Pixar did a direct-digital transfer of A Bug's Life, in 1999.
And as far as The Sword in the Stone, Disney does have HD masters of quite a few of their catalog which have still never been released on physical media. To name a few; Honey, I Shrunk the Kids, Honey, I Blew Up the Kid, Homeward Bound: The Incredible Journey, A Goofy Movie. But this surprises me because it IS on Blu-ray, yet has an iTunes version that is superior! How often does THAT happen?
ww12345
This user is offline.
Yeah, whatever stuff they did to Snow White, step 1 was output to film. They ran off copies of it on both 35mm and 16mm, and my guess is they made the LD from a telecine of a print. Remember, this was before DI, so people were a lot more comfortable handling and telecining prints. I don't know that it had as drastic a reanimation (like Sleeping Beauty) but there can be digital enhancements without that level of computer work...
nirbateman
This user is offline.
I have the Snow White DVD which has a restoration featurette that touches on the 1993 restoration.
If anyone's interested, I'll post it to the group.
ww12345
This user is offline.
That might be interesting...
Doctor M
This user is offline.
Jedi Knightnirbateman said:
I have the Snow White DVD which has a restoration featurette that touches on the 1993 restoration.
If anyone's interested, I'll post it to the group.
It would certainly clear things up if you could.
ww12345
This user is offline.
I wonder if they used something like CAPS to isolate elements?
Yeah, that documentary would be interesting to see, provided it's not just a "glossy" picture of the restoration process (sometimes the Disney releases are like that...)
Doctor M
This user is offline.
Jedi Knightzeropc said:
someone made a comparison of the itunes movie store version (1080p at 1.33:1) vs the blu-ray.
please note that the itunes version has been resized for a closer comparison.
Is that legit? It makes the blu-ray look like somebody used temporal noise reduction, an edge enhancer and pushed it out the door. It's doesn't look like real HD at all.
ww12345
This user is offline.
That's what it looked like to me, too. Only way to check would be to compare it ourselves to the BD...
Doctor M
This user is offline.
Jedi Knightww12345 said:
Alas, no uncensored footage... :(
Lots of cuts through the Beethoven. I don't know if that's how it was cut for TV, or if that's how it was cut for the Educational Digest version. Either way, bummer...
I'll post pics later - decent color, but nothing we haven't seen.
If the film stock changes in the middle of the reel, I would think it has been re-edited. Is it possible someone cut it out on their own? Do you see any physical splices in the film?
ww12345
This user is offline.
No, I don't think that's the case. The edit was very, very professionally done, with brand new leader on the front. It was an ex-library print, and sometimes what would happen is a clueless projectionist would misthread the print and pull all of the sprocket holes for the first 300 feet or something...
My guess? Some idiot pulled all of the sprockets sometime in the late '80s or the early '90s, and the library requested replacement footage (which happened a lot), and spliced it in themselves. There are no physical splices in the film except for the one in the middle of "Bumble Boogie." There are lab splices/crossfades in the middle of the Pastoral and Once Upon a Wintertime, though...