Sign In

The Lion King (1994) - 35 mm — Page 2

Author
Time

getting the original crocodiles and waterfall would be cool!
wonder why they ever changed the crocodiles

Author
Time

Just to let everyone know: The scanner got the print on Wednesday and will hopefully be able to scan it soon.

Author
Time

Donors now got a first sample from the scanner. Please check your PMs if you haven’t already.

Here are some screenshots - please note that this won’t be the final grading, it’s just to get a first impression:

vlcsnap-2019-10-26-15h07m35s481.png
vlcsnap-2019-10-26-15h07m47s334.png
vlcsnap-2019-10-26-15h07m55s139.png
vlcsnap-2019-10-26-15h08m24s271.png
vlcsnap-2019-10-26-15h08m08s037.png
vlcsnap-2019-10-26-15h07m22s046.png
vlcsnap-2019-10-26-15h07m27s101.png

Author
Time

The picture looks stunning. So nice to see it with grain and such.

Author
Time

When I decided to compare the Blu-Ray with the sample, I discovered an alteration that seems very puzzling. See for yourself:

No, you’re not seeing things, Disney removed Mufasa’s teeth at one point during “Circle of Life”. Does somebody have the Special Edition DVD so we can confirm that these teeth were removed for the 2002 IMAX re-release?

Author
Time

Avatar_Emil_Borg said:

When I decided to compare the Blu-Ray with the sample, I discovered an alteration that seems very puzzling. See for yourself:

No, you’re not seeing things, Disney removed Mufasa’s teeth at one point during “Circle of Life”. Does somebody have the Special Edition DVD so we can confirm that these teeth were removed for the 2002 IMAX re-release?

I Knew This Alteration Way Before You Guys Knew It, I’m Glad Finally You Noticed It. 😊

Author
Time

I know a guy on the Italian forum of Reddit exiles who can convert stuff to 3D, so if I receive a copy, I’d very much love to send the original versions of the altered clips for him to convert to 3D, for those who really enjoy the 3D version (such as myself).

Author
Time

jolennon said:

The picture looks stunning. So nice to see it with grain and such.

I agree. Film grain and rich photochemical hues create a glorious look and feel that digital images cannot capture or reproduce.

Author
Time

jolennon said:

The picture looks stunning. So nice to see it with grain and such.

I agree. Film grain and rich photochemical hues create a glorious look and feel that digital images cannot capture or reproduce.

Author
Time

VintageMan94 said:

Any Updates on it yet?

Donors got a release just in time for christmas.

But as already mentioned in the thread about “The Little Mermaid” I can’t release them for everyone for certain reasons and I’m not taking further donations right now since all the projects are fully funded and I don’t just want to take money without a certain purpose to use it right now.

Sorry to everyone who didn’t find this in time, but that’s all I can say for now.

Author
Time

On a slightly different topic, does anyone here have the Zulu dub of Lion King ripped straight from a DVD or Blu-Ray?

Author
Time

MonkeyLizard10 said:

getting the original crocodiles and waterfall would be cool!
wonder why they ever changed the crocodiles

One of the co-directors stated they weren’t satisfied with the original version because they were in a rush to get the film done. Guess they thought the new versions were better.

Btw any update on this? The Lion King is my favorite animated Disney movie.

Author
Time

Papai2013 said:

Film grain and rich photochemical hues create a glorious look and feel that digital images cannot capture or reproduce.

That - at least in that generalization - isn’t true, but a statement rather driven by (somewhat understandable) nostalgia and a breeze of voodoo which is especially famous in the audio sector, where any digital step in between is coming right from the devil himself.

I am quite confident that given the right amount of effort (and money), one could take any “oh so glorious look and feel” of a film print, have it scanned with the very best of scanners, sample it at insane rates, bit depth, color space, precision and whatnot and have it reproduced in a similar - way over the top - method and no one would be able to pass a “blind” test (admittedly a term which doesn’t figure in the best way in this case). Same would be true in the audio domain where a lot cheaper equipment would suffice for people to be unable to distinguish the oh so much natural vinyl sound from its PCM (or even lossy encoded) pendant.

Thus, Disney and others fiddling around with the originals is by far rather a political problem than a technical one.

Author
Time

This would include the Frank Wells remembrance, and of course the 1990 Disney logo.

Author
Time

little-endian said:

Papai2013 said:

Film grain and rich photochemical hues create a glorious look and feel that digital images cannot capture or reproduce.

That - at least in that generalization - isn’t true, but a statement rather driven by (somewhat understandable) nostalgia and a breeze of voodoo which is especially famous in the audio sector, where any digital step in between is coming right from the devil himself.

I am quite confident that given the right amount of effort (and money), one could take any “oh so glorious look and feel” of a film print, have it scanned with the very best of scanners, sample it at insane rates, bit depth, color space, precision and whatnot and have it reproduced in a similar - way over the top - method and no one would be able to pass a “blind” test (admittedly a term which doesn’t figure in the best way in this case). Same would be true in the audio domain where a lot cheaper equipment would suffice for people to be unable to distinguish the oh so much natural vinyl sound from its PCM (or even lossy encoded) pendant.

Thus, Disney and others fiddling around with the originals is by far rather a political problem than a technical one.

Try harder toots.

Author
Time

SpookyDollhouse said:

little-endian said:

Papai2013 said:

Film grain and rich photochemical hues create a glorious look and feel that digital images cannot capture or reproduce.

That - at least in that generalization - isn’t true, but a statement rather driven by (somewhat understandable) nostalgia and a breeze of voodoo which is especially famous in the audio sector, where any digital step in between is coming right from the devil himself.

I am quite confident that given the right amount of effort (and money), one could take any “oh so glorious look and feel” of a film print, have it scanned with the very best of scanners, sample it at insane rates, bit depth, color space, precision and whatnot and have it reproduced in a similar - way over the top - method and no one would be able to pass a “blind” test (admittedly a term which doesn’t figure in the best way in this case). Same would be true in the audio domain where a lot cheaper equipment would suffice for people to be unable to distinguish the oh so much natural vinyl sound from its PCM (or even lossy encoded) pendant.

Thus, Disney and others fiddling around with the originals is by far rather a political problem than a technical one.

Try harder toots.

toots?
like what tools are you referring to?

From ccateni 😉