AwesomeJ

Just color-corrected the film’s original teaser trailer on 35mm, and for those who haven’t seen the link for the 35mm original trailer that I also color-corrected, check them both out!

Teaser:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1av3KRbQCOV3EA6tpBuYsOpX_v8DhoKj-/view?usp=sharing

Trailer:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1D0orLH-JTtGYoa-waiZAdbS-aqYz37wH/view?usp=sharing

RU.08 said:

AwesomeJ said:

I have some screencaps of a laserdisc copy that I color corrected a while back, so I don’t know if this is 100% accurate to the original theatrical presentation but I hope these help when the thing is finally scanned:

Laserdiscs are colorcorrected for the living room by the telecine operator, aka the colorist, like this:

So basically it has its own colortiming. The telecine prints are more expensive to make than projection prints, although they’re usually 16mm not 35mm, and they’re printed low-contrast so that they can be transferred for broadcast and/or home video (you can also transfer off the interpos or a dupe negative as those are also low-contrast film that will transfer acceptably on a telecine). For a bright film like Toy Story it may not look too different, but for films with many dark/night scenes those in particular will look nothing like how they look theatrically. Beauty and the Beast for example is really ruined by the home video colortiming. BATB is an example of a film that probably shouldn’t have been released to home video, but we are where we are and today everything now goes to home video eventually. Certain decisions are even made for both home video and broadcast at the time of filming, for example in Hollywood they shoot alternate scenes for broadcast where they know that something will have to be censored for US domestic TV.

For the theatrical prints the way it works is that the interpositive is colortimed and then when theatrical prints are struck the printer is fully calibrated for the film and the print is struck reel-by-reel. So for example if you’re printing 200 prints you print 200x reel 1 and then 200x reel 2 and so-on. Some prints will be intentionally printed 2 stops brighter and those are Drive-In prints (prints for outdoor projection). The interpos is struck off the original negative or off a dupe negative, in this case the original negative would have been a digital film-out (there may be more than one “original negative” if they made more than one film-out). Now the resolution Toy Story was outputted to wasn’t 2048x1556 so I don’t know if they upscaled it for the printer, or window-boxed it and then did an optical enlargement off the o-neg - either is possible and we should see if there was any attempt at “filmizing” it when it’s scanned.

So would these be an accurate representation for the color timing of the film on 35mm? https://www.ebay.com/itm/274752644977?hash=item3ff888a771:g:N2YAAOSwJHBgcGoU&amdata=enc%3AAQAIAAAAwEZZ6wwtSPUyHPs0a35yHiYRR9MF9AIY1ohi%2BWRIMQwItBKVYlTA3KKZHNxz%2B5Ap8%2FJ6LyNNduTWtgZbqvbfwkF%2BIqhVEN0%2B9la8Sdf6QCcjmsiu%2BdURlFw6M9x0tBZJexJsW6meJJK808aO9wisp3LNd525mpRzdRlxw7ArfwznWoCCwELItyh7zTHns9vTLy7BVDo6yQI62RA5pHMeuKKPW6Ju1BiH1xHJhR%2BxS4S2ydgRYAWBI%2F6N%2BICs0DwwCw%3D%3D|tkp%3ABk9SR9a86bK0Yg

I was rather disappointed with the color grading of the 35mm scan of the trailer, it looked washed out and had more cooler colors than warmer ones, so I decided to color correct it! Here is a link to the trailer, now with a much more vibrant color palette! Tell me what you guys think!

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1D0orLH-JTtGYoa-waiZAdbS-aqYz37wH/view?usp=sharing

TristAndShout64 said:

AwesomeJ said:

TristAndShout64 said:

ScruffyNerfHerder said:

I’m really looking forward to your results. I just donated $15. 😃

Thank you so much! Your donation got us to exactly $700!!

I’m currently on vacation, but I’ll make another post when I get back on Wednesday. 😁

So, whats the next course of action?

Raise more money! Now that we’ve reached the cost of services (cleaning and scanning) we just need enough money to ship the print around to the various places it needs to go.

I’ll make a proper follow-up post when I have the chance, including a rough estimation of how much more money we’ll need (nothing concrete until we can get canisters and weigh the print). For now, I encourage people to continue donating if they’re interested! 😃

Is there a rough estimation for how much more money is needed?

TristAndShout64 said:

AwesomeJ said:

TristAndShout64 said:

ScruffyNerfHerder said:

I’m really looking forward to your results. I just donated $15. 😃

Thank you so much! Your donation got us to exactly $700!!

I’m currently on vacation, but I’ll make another post when I get back on Wednesday. 😁

So, whats the next course of action?

Raise more money! Now that we’ve reached the cost of services (cleaning and scanning) we just need enough money to ship the print around to the various places it needs to go.

I’ll make a proper follow-up post when I have the chance, including a rough estimation of how much more money we’ll need (nothing concrete until we can get canisters and weigh the print). For now, I encourage people to continue donating if they’re interested! 😃

Alright, great! Are there two separate places for cleaning and scanning?

TristAndShout64 said:

ScruffyNerfHerder said:

I’m really looking forward to your results. I just donated $15. 😃

Thank you so much! Your donation got us to exactly $700!!

I’m currently on vacation, but I’ll make another post when I get back on Wednesday. 😁

So, whats the next course of action?

Spawnomorph said:

Akutchand10 said:

Oh, Toy Story (1995) in glorious 4K! How can I contain my excitement? I had the privilege of watching a work-in-progress (WIP) version of this film, painstakingly scanned from 35mm. And guess what? They need donations! How delightful, because I definitely want to fund someone’s passion project. But hey, who needs a finished product when you can experience a half-baked version, right? Anyway, if you’re in the mood for some “WIP magic,” check out the link here: https://casinoplinko.com/. Just be sure to bring your sarcasm hat and maybe a pinch of skepticism. Happy “donating”!

what a weird post right?

Yeah, I actually thought it was gonna be a link to the WIP of the movie, which is something I’ve only seen part 3 of on Youtube, this dude’s a scammer probably.

TristAndShout64 said:

Dozer Davis said:

I am looking forward to donating sometime next week when I get paid. I love this movie to death and seeing it on a vintage format is definitely something for me and I assume everyone else.

Wonderful, that would be greatly appreciated. You’re definitely not the only one who loves this movie and wants to see this project come to fruition. We’re approaching our first monetary goal so any help is appreciated at this point! 😃

HAttackontheBun said:

I was just wondering since this was an Australian print, will the final scan include the Buena Vista International logo or will this be cut out?

I guess it depends if it’s on the print or not. If it is, then it’ll likely be included in the final scan (unless people think we should do otherwise).

Personally I’d like to see it without it (if its included in the scan that is), as the Laserdisc never had the international logo (which may mean the scan might not have it since the laserdisc was a transfer of the film negative).

TristAndShout64 said:

NeonBible said:

I’ve donated $15.

Thanks TristAndShout64 for taking on this project.

Hal 9000 said:

Just donated $15. I saw this movie many times in the theater and these images just feel right for this movie.

Wow, two $15 donations in a day? Thanks you guys! These have pushed us to $630 in total, so we’re staggeringly close to reaching our starter goal. I’ll try and get the remaining costs worked out soon or at least come up with some rough estimate for us to go off of.

Charles Threepio said:

I’ve just donated a dollar towards this scan. It’s not much, but as you said, every little bit counts.

Haha, I appreciate it Charles. We were actually at like $599.44 when you sent your dollar, so you officially put us over the $600 mark. That’s certainly worth something, so thanks a ton!

Goes to show not only how much this film means to so many people but also how much people really want to see this film in its original theatrical presentation and finally see this project come to fruition!

Charles Threepio said:

Yeah, it’d be in the same speed as North American film prints.

Oh okay, great!

Charles Threepio said:

AwesomeJ said:

RU.08 said:

There’s no “speeding up” or “slowing down” of film, it’s shot how it is. You can run the camera slow or fast and get the result that when played at 24fps you get fast or slow motion. Toy Story was rendered frame-by-frame for standard 24fps projection.

Quick question though, I know that when films are in other countries that speak English, the Region code (PAL for example) speeds/ pitches the film up on DVD and VHS. Being that this is an Australian film reel that is being scanned was the same process applied before it was given to Australian theaters or would it be the same speed as a North American reel and the speeding up/ pitching up only happens after the movie is released on DVD/ VHS in English speaking European countries? PAL is the region code for Australia as I found out.

I would think so, yes.

Before DVD release or after?

Charles Threepio said:

AwesomeJ said:

RU.08 said:

There’s no “speeding up” or “slowing down” of film, it’s shot how it is. You can run the camera slow or fast and get the result that when played at 24fps you get fast or slow motion. Toy Story was rendered frame-by-frame for standard 24fps projection.

Quick question though, I know that when films are in other countries that speak English, the Region code (PAL for example) speeds/ pitches the film up on DVD and VHS. Being that this is an Australian film reel that is being scanned was the same process applied before it was given to Australian theaters or would it be the same speed as a North American reel and the speeding up/ pitching up only happens after the movie is released on DVD/ VHS in English speaking European countries? PAL is the region code for Australia as I found out.

I would think so, yes.

The latter or the former?

RU.08 said:

There’s no “speeding up” or “slowing down” of film, it’s shot how it is. You can run the camera slow or fast and get the result that when played at 24fps you get fast or slow motion. Toy Story was rendered frame-by-frame for standard 24fps projection.

Quick question though, I know that when films are in other countries that speak English, the Region code (PAL for example) speeds/ pitches the film up on DVD and VHS. Being that this is an Australian film reel that is being scanned was the same process applied before it was given to Australian theaters or would it be the same speed as a North American reel and the speeding up/ pitching up only happens after the movie is released on DVD/ VHS in English speaking European countries? PAL is the region code for Australia as I found out.

TristAndShout64 said:

SpookyLemon13 said:

I’ve donated $10 - I always liked the way it looked on VHS and thought the DVD looked very flat in comparison

Well thank you very much! I added $5 to match another donation and that puts us safely at $570.

I totally agree with you on the DVD transfer- I grew up with that version of Toy Story, and there’s arguably an objective quality to it- what with it being a direct digital transfer of course- but I’ve fallen totally in love with the film version over the past several months. The color palette and film grain add so much depth and give it such a distinct look. The VHS is definitely my preferred way to watch currently, though I need to get another Laserdisc player so I watch it that way.

Agreed! The film version has a lot more vibrant colors and better contrast compared to the direct to digital transfer. It definitely makes the film look a tad less dated and a lot easier on the eyes, in a similar way to the early Pixar shorts, specifically Andre and Wally B, Reds Dream, Tin Toy, and the uncensored version of Knick Knack, which all had releases that used the original film reels for the DVD or Blu ray releases, most likely because the files were way too old and harder to bring back for a direct to digital release compared to Toy Story (if Pixar today compared the hardware for Toy Story to a Model T Ford, god knows what Pixar’s hardware would be like in the 80’s, the wheel?) My point is that those shorts look great on film, and after seeing the laserdisc and film version scenes from the bonus features on the Ultimate Toy Box DVD, I think the film will look astonishing as it was in theaters back in 95 when the reels finally get scanned.

bradb2a89 said:

I’m a huge fan of the film, and Toy Story holds a special place in my heart. Being able to see it in 4K would be absolutely amazing!

Agreed! Definitely will be better than the 4K blu ray we got, we’ll finally have the true version of the film as it was shown back in ‘95!

TonyWDA said:

MonkeyLizard10 said:

Going back to the other topic of 5.1 audio, another option, although unfortunately not for a lot of movies, is to use the Cinema DTS audio. 1995 would be far enough back for this film to have one.

I’m almost certain that Toy Story never played anywhere with Cinema DTS audio in '95, but it did receive a DTS LaserDisc. If someone can arrange a bit-perfect capture of the soundtrack, it’d be a terrific addition to this project.

When you say soundtrack, do you mean the one specifically from the DTS LaserDisc? Because I got the one from the Ultimate Toy Box DVD on hand if any of you guys want it for the project (The 10th anniversary edition has a weird subtle audio overlap for some reason).

RU.08 said:

There’s no “speeding up” or “slowing down” of film, it’s shot how it is. You can run the camera slow or fast and get the result that when played at 24fps you get fast or slow motion. Toy Story was rendered frame-by-frame for standard 24fps projection.

Agreed, however, when you compare both the Laserdisc and the DVD, if you overlay them both over each other in a side by side comparison (something I did in iMovie as a test), the laserdisc goes out of sync with the DVD very quickly. So yes you are right, the film was not “slowed down” or “sped up”. The film just gained and lost some frames in some shots on the film out. So yeah, it was rendered frame by frame for standard 24fps projection, its just that when Pixar were processing the film for celluloid, the Avid Video Composer caused the movie to gain and lose a frame in all of the shots.

AwesomeJ said:

Charles Threepio said:

For film-out, they would most likely have sped up the footage slightly to fit within the 24fps rate of 35mm film.

They did (sort-of), Craig Good mentioned that Pixar at the time was using using an Avid Video Composer instead of an Avid Film Composer for the film out and because of this some shots grew or shrank by a frame on the film out.

Charles Threepio said:

For film-out, they would most likely have sped up the footage slightly to fit within the 24fps rate of 35mm film.

They did, Craig Good mentioned that Pixar at the time was using using an Avid Video Composer instead of an Avid Film Composer for the film out and because of this some shots grew or shrank by a frame on the film out.

HAttackontheBun said:

Hey, I was just wondering, is this scanned at 23.976 fps or 24 fps?

Considering the movie was rendered out at 23.97 fps (my source is Craig Good, who was the Supervising Layout artist for the film), the scanned film is most likely going to be the former frame rate.

AwesomeJ said:

RU.08 said:

AwesomeJ said:

I have some screencaps of a laserdisc copy that I color corrected a while back, so I don’t know if this is 100% accurate to the original theatrical presentation but I hope these help when the thing is finally scanned:

Laserdiscs are colorcorrected for the living room by the telecine operator, aka the colorist, like this:

So basically it has its own colortiming. The telecine prints are more expensive to make than projection prints, although they’re usually 16mm not 35mm, and they’re printed low-contrast so that they can be transferred for broadcast and/or home video (you can also transfer off the interpos or a dupe negative as those are also low-contrast film that will transfer acceptably on a telecine). For a bright film like Toy Story it may not look too different, but for films with many dark/night scenes those in particular will look nothing like how they look theatrically. Beauty and the Beast for example is really ruined by the home video colortiming. BATB is an example of a film that probably shouldn’t have been released to home video, but we are where we are and today everything now goes to home video eventually. Certain decisions are even made for both home video and broadcast at the time of filming, for example in Hollywood they shoot alternate scenes for broadcast where they know that something will have to be censored for US domestic TV.

For the theatrical prints the way it works is that the interpositive is colortimed and then when theatrical prints are struck the printer is fully calibrated for the film and the print is struck reel-by-reel. So for example if you’re printing 200 prints you print 200x reel 1 and then 200x reel 2 and so-on. Some prints will be intentionally printed 2 stops brighter and those are Drive-In prints (prints for outdoor projection). The interpos is struck off the original negative or off a dupe negative, in this case the original negative would have been a digital film-out (there may be more than one “original negative” if they made more than one film-out). Now the resolution Toy Story was outputted to wasn’t 2048x1556 so I don’t know if they upscaled it for the printer, or window-boxed it and then did an optical enlargement off the o-neg - either is possible and we should see if there was any attempt at “filmizing” it when it’s scanned.

I know this is off topic from Toy Story, but Beauty and the Beast was ruined on the home release? What was the difference of the colortiming of the original theatrical presentation and the home release?

RU.08 said:

AwesomeJ said:

I have some screencaps of a laserdisc copy that I color corrected a while back, so I don’t know if this is 100% accurate to the original theatrical presentation but I hope these help when the thing is finally scanned:

Laserdiscs are colorcorrected for the living room by the telecine operator, aka the colorist, like this:

So basically it has its own colortiming. The telecine prints are more expensive to make than projection prints, although they’re usually 16mm not 35mm, and they’re printed low-contrast so that they can be transferred for broadcast and/or home video (you can also transfer off the interpos or a dupe negative as those are also low-contrast film that will transfer acceptably on a telecine). For a bright film like Toy Story it may not look too different, but for films with many dark/night scenes those in particular will look nothing like how they look theatrically. Beauty and the Beast for example is really ruined by the home video colortiming. BATB is an example of a film that probably shouldn’t have been released to home video, but we are where we are and today everything now goes to home video eventually. Certain decisions are even made for both home video and broadcast at the time of filming, for example in Hollywood they shoot alternate scenes for broadcast where they know that something will have to be censored for US domestic TV.

For the theatrical prints the way it works is that the interpositive is colortimed and then when theatrical prints are struck the printer is fully calibrated for the film and the print is struck reel-by-reel. So for example if you’re printing 200 prints you print 200x reel 1 and then 200x reel 2 and so-on. Some prints will be intentionally printed 2 stops brighter and those are Drive-In prints (prints for outdoor projection). The interpos is struck off the original negative or off a dupe negative, in this case the original negative would have been a digital film-out (there may be more than one “original negative” if they made more than one film-out). Now the resolution Toy Story was outputted to wasn’t 2048x1556 so I don’t know if they upscaled it for the printer, or window-boxed it and then did an optical enlargement off the o-neg - either is possible and we should see if there was any attempt at “filmizing” it when it’s scanned.

I know this is off topic from Toy Story, but Beauty and the Beast was ruined on the home release? What was the difference of the colortiming of the original theatrical presentation and the home release?

I have some screencaps of a laserdisc copy that I color corrected a while back, so I don’t know if this is 100% accurate to the original theatrical presentation but I hope these help when the thing is finally scanned:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-vVn7LJKyVUNcUQwD3Rs_xX_SL50E9qe/view?usp=sharing, https://drive.google.com/file/d/18vgpDcsCXpKLm-SBnvZ-Lkkl-2yFRTBi/view?usp=sharing, https://drive.google.com/file/d/1AO_XqhqgDYSFGhjoWyD3UUo46Bcr9zag/view?usp=sharing, https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MvYEdq2Tuoso79_P1QBBzfWb2u2xNlFw/view?usp=sharing, https://drive.google.com/file/d/1P7esWdSjB5n-4Oi8B-B0H1ldplcKSBq5/view?usp=sharing, https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Tjm67v9pbxh_AOhMonXD4hKWzzo6i0WD/view?usp=sharing, https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TrJfQhEG0mrKo0STOazehp56v6ewu5Hb/view?usp=sharing, https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VwZUK97I7bpr-tZRDzV6uGtmgzDVoT45/view?usp=sharing, https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XCPgJO30Jld8C_VbjZrV8ootFr4eE0dd/view?usp=sharing, https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_oBNsQEyHkKumnm7QK8iWURKJVrg5k0n/view?usp=sharing, https://drive.google.com/file/d/1aZhtKIPL8N8nhxQF9JElegH0Ta2d2k_O/view?usp=sharing, https://drive.google.com/file/d/1c_yAxR-gu0YpHGPB-ATIQ55PwP6FXN8t/view?usp=sharing, https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kyE8qWd3wMr7MvpZT18T12jZ11IeZV5P/view?usp=sharing

ValenStudios said:

TristAndShout64 said:

AwesomeJ said:

zerocool said:

im 100% sure it will too. just gotta find someone who can do a CC 😉

He mentioned that the thing has a pinkish tint to it, I’m sure there’s probably some way to fix that using Adobe Premiere or something possibly, but I don’t use Premiere so I’m not entirely sure.

Yeah, it’s noticeable but pretty slight and I imagine we can color correct it if we have to. That’s assuming it really is pink, one person who DM’ed me suggested it might just be the person’s camera lighting, though I’m not too sure how likely that is.

Anyways, here are the pics from the eBay listing where you can see what I’m talking about (you can also see these in the link I included in the FAQ). Make of them what you will!

Oof, I can definitely tell there’s a pink tint, though it doesn’t seem that aggressive.

Its quite apparent in the Disney logo, which is supposed to be more turquoise-ish (I’m colorblind), but the tint makes it look pinkish.

zerocool said:

im 100% sure it will too. just gotta find someone who can do a CC 😉

He mentioned that the thing has a pinkish tint to it, I’m sure there’s probably some way to fix that using Adobe Premiere or something possibly, but I don’t use Premiere so I’m not entirely sure.