A Few Words About A few words about...™ Walt Disney's Alice in Wonderland -- in Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[FanboyZ]

Originally Posted by FanboyZ

Because Robert A. Harris says it's not.

I realize this sounds mean, I meant it to be kind of funny.

 

I think the screencaps look great and I'm looking forward to picking this up on release day.

 

[Douglas Monce]

Originally Posted by bigshot


I have seen original IB Tech prints and production artwork on just about all of Disney's features. I know how the colors should look. I know a lot of other people who have as well. For animation fans over 40, it isn't all that rare, particularly in Los Angeles where we regularly have screenings of films at UCLA and The L A County Museum of Art.

Thank you Stephen. I understood than you had seen the original art cells, but I wasn't clear if you had actually seen the Technicolor IB prints.


I will reserve judgment until I actually see the blu-ray myself, however while the screen caps of the blu-ray look different than the previous versions, its not so radically different as to destroy the general look of the original film. Its clearly better than one version that had lost all detail in the shadow areas. Hearing all the hand wringing here I was expecting to see something with neon colors or blooming reds or something, but it’s hardly THAT bad.


Is it the original? Maybe not. Is it watchable? To me it appears to be.


Doug

 

[Robert Harris]

Great thread!

A few points:


Please keep in mind that in regard to original prints, ie. prints from the initial release in 1951, proper color will only be evident if screening via carbon arc projection, or a light box set up with proper illumination.


Having taken another look at the new Blu-ray, and comparing it against the examples of frames on Beaver, I'm seeing the Blu-ray as looking very close, but without some of what appears to be an occasional boost in color. Facial tones on the Blu-ray have a bit less of a pushed appearance, and are more normal.


Also, having taken another look, one of the things that has not been discussed is how the film looks as an overall. And my thought would be pleasing, yet with a purity in the whites that never would have been possible in dye transfer.


Lastly, unlike Mr. Worth, who is an expert in his field, I do not have the absolute color scales of the film at the ready. My presumption is that like the other Disney classics, Alice has been cleaned and modernized, which to the great majority of viewers will be a good thing. While they'll never know that there may have been more to the imagery in terms of color or shading, much like the Patton debacle, they won't care. The images provided will be found pleasurable.


As to those original colors, as I've explained, the situation from cell, the layer of the cell, the negative stock, grain structure, production of matrices, types of dyes, the imbibition process, the final approved answer print vs. prints from the distribution run, where in line the print being viewed fit into the production run, re-issue prints, changes in dyes, changes in types of projection illumination, and the amount of salt on the popcorn, all comes into play. And that playing field, into which those creating the files for this new Blu-ray have walked, is not an easy one. Agree with the final look of the Blu-ray or not, what went into its creation was a near-heroic effort.


In the future, I'll make an effort to screen a reel of an original 1951 print and see, at least in a general sense, as it won't be a final approved answer print, what the film looked liked sixty years ago.


As you were.


RAH

 

[bigshot]

Have you seen the trailer for Alice on the Mexican bluray of Dumbo? When I saw that I was encouraged, but the grabs at DVD Beaver are totally different. It would be interesting to compare the two. More than any other studio, Disney's distribution prints were very carefully timed at Technicolor. Disney had a very special relationship with Technicolor going all the way back to the earliest days of three strip. It's interesting that the transfers of the thirties three strip shorts on the Warner Archive collections look so much better than Disney's features. Even on DVD-R they look more like three strip technicolor than most parts of Fantasia. Not all of the transfers Disney does have inaccurate colors. Dance of the Hours was quite good, albeit over scrubbed for the textures. The absolute worst color balance I've seen is the Pastoral sequence, which was originally in very soft pastels. Now it's in electric screaming primaries. I haven't seen anyone mention yet, but the fireplace in Gepetto's workshop originally had a ripple glass effect of heat distortion. That has been totally removed in the recreation. The ripple glass in the underwater sequence has been altered significantly too. It's interesting that Disney is spending great amounts of money to remove effects that cost Walt Disney a great deal of money in the first place. Those ripple glasses were manufactured by Zeiss in Germany specifically to Disney's specifications. They cost a small fortune and no other studio had anything that compared. They were used on many Disney productions until the mid 70s when Don Bluth went looking for them and found them shattered and abandoned on top of a cabinet in the multiplane room. Tinker Bell's glow was double exposed on top of her body originally, but in the most recent recreated version, they're underneath her. Apparently the people who were rotoscoping her off the backgrounds weren't able to maintain that so they just scrubbed it all off and matted a bit of the old glow back in underneath the cleaned up image of her. The process used to clean up these films involves digitally rotoscoping the character off of the backgrounds. The background and characters are cleaned up separately, and then the characters are recomposited back onto freeze frames of the backgrounds. This results in rock steady backgrounds under characters that still have a little bit of weave from the gate. Originally, Disney animation looked super smooth, but this has added a tiny bit of jitter to the animation. Most people wouldn't notice this, but the animators I've spoken to all complain about it. It's really bad in parts of Snow White because they had problems with the nitrate cels shrinking slightly under the hot lights in the camera room. The weave in the characters exaggerates the fluctuations in the original animation. As for judging color with different kinds of projector illumination- that isn't really a serious problem. As long as the relationships between the colors are the same, the eye adjusts for shifts in overall color. The big problem is when individual colors are adjusted independent of the colors around them. This totally messes up the harmony of colors. When I first got the Sleeping Beauty bluray, I kept fiddling with the remote trying to get the colors back into line. But it was impossible because individual colors on the characters had been changed so much. It's funny, but the orange fairy is a dozen different sets of colors in the recreation, but none of them are orange.

 

[Phoebus]

On the Fantasia side I have to say that I thoroughly enjoyed both nutcracker suite and rite of spring. I didn't mind the Sunflower edits, much to my surprise, but found the second half rather dull following the deliciously restored Rite of Spring (whose impressionism, colours and pressures I can only liken to the post jupiter flight of "2001", curiously).

I just didn't find myself transported by the erm.. colours later on. Even Bald Mountain seemed flat to me. I respect them, but I am surprised how much I have taken to Rite of Spring on the recent bluray - and stop playback at that point.


Sadly, there was no 1080p restoration of the Clair de Lune sequence, which upset me, as it is so enchanting. The whole BD-Live portal screen was just peculiar - at all sorts of levels. Yes, if this was to show the sunflower sequence, say, to interested observers, but rather perverse to shrink all the guilty pleasures of the previous Anthology, relegated as something lesser than the latest Tinkerbell CGI trailer, say.


At least the UK had commentaries this time, which were lacking on the previous dvd set.


Interestingly I watched Victory Through Air Power soon after the Fantasia bluray and saw rather a lot that reminded me of Fantasia style effects in some of the animation sequences. [One wonders if Air Power was one of the most historically important features Disney produced, particulary as its key concepts don't seem to have gone away many decades later.]

 

[bigshot]

Buray.com has some screen shots of scenes DVD Beaver doesn't show. Every one blown out into gaudy glowing primaries, except oddly enough the Cheshire Cat who has been repainted in with very odd muddy maroon stripes. The Hatter and Hare have been really dialed up in intensity. They fluoresce. Check this out (a little bright but the basic correct hues) http://images.fanpop.com/images/image_uploads/The-Cheshire-Cat-disney-635712_720_576.jpg Now the grab from the bluray... http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/screenshot.php?movieid=7709&position=4 It's hard to tell which scene this is. Could this be in the middle of a dissolve or something? It's strange that the warms and cools have been completely reversed. Update Edit: I found this image online... http://www.donstinson.com/scatt/calicocat/Purrplexity.jpg This is a recent limited edition serigraph print. I've never seen any production cels in this palette, but the Cat is in two different sequences. Maybe he has two different sets of colors. I'd have to check the film to see. Odd. I'm familiar with that pink body color though. It's an organic dye pigment rather than a mineral pigment. It tends to bleed over the lines through the surrounding colors over time and it always stains the cel stock. I've seen quite a few Cheshire Cat cels like that.

 

[Paul Penna]

Originally Posted by bigshot

If that's an accurate comparison, all I can say is holy mackerel. Looks like I'll be cranking down the color saturation on the Blu-Ray. Not that doing so, or even that the DVD itself reflects the original intention, but it's revealing nonetheless.

 

[Craig Beam]

Got my copy early! My local [name of store removed by moderator] had it out yesterday morning, but I didn't grab it because I didn't have my $10 off coupon yet... today, however, was a different story. I stopped in after work tonight to grab it. It rang up $29.99, but they honored their website pre-order price of $19.99. Minus the $10 coupon, and it was mine for $9.99. I also picked up Pleasantville, which also isn't due out till tomorrow.


Now to compare the blu-ray against my Masterpiece Edition DVD....

 

[FoxyMulder]

Originally Posted by Paul Penna

If that's an accurate comparison, all I can say is holy mackerel. Looks like I'll be cranking down the color saturation on the Blu-Ray. Not that doing so, or even that the DVD itself reflects the original intention, but it's revealing nonetheless.

The DVD is not a good guide to go by, i also wouldn't dial anything down because even if you think it improves something you probably also end up hurting some other part of the image on the transfer, once your monitor/projector is calibrated you should leave well alone at least in my opinion.

 

[Craig Beam]

After comparing the Masterpiece DVD to the blu-ray, well... the blu-ray definitely pops. It doesn't look like the colors were necessarily changed.... the image is just much more vibrant and bright. The whites are really, really white. It's like switching between the "cinema" and "vivid" pre-sets on a TV. I didn't find it necessarily offensive, but it's a bit jarring when A-B'ing the two sources.


The blu-ray is certainly lovely, and the clarity is stunning. I didn't see evidence of "scrubbed" backgrounds. I definitely saw texture. As bright as the image is, it still looks hand-drawn.... it's just significantly sharper than it's ever looked before.


Is the image faithful to the original intent? I'm not qualified to say. Yes, it looks different than I've ever seen it look, but it's not a deal-breaker for me. The film itself is just too much fun. Bring on Bambi and Dumbo!

 

[Ruz-El]

Originally Posted by Craig Beam

After comparing the Masterpiece DVD to the blu-ray, well... the blu-ray definitely pops.

That kind of makes sense after looking at the above mad hatter screen grabs. The Masterpiece DVD looks almost faded or muted with age, whatever the term is. I was under the impression, and I'm absolutely only speculating on this, that the look of these Blus were designed to look like what the cells would if you didn't have to "print" them to film or whatever. The analog equivalent of a CGI cartoon being ported directly to disc instead of transferring a print to disc. The popping blu ray screen grab of the Hatter looks like that to me.

I of course have no idea what the cells actually look like having never had them in my hand. I'll let the experts argue that one out ha ha.

 

[FanboyZ]

The more I think about it, Harris seems more correct in his statements.

It's impossible to gauge what the proper color should be.

 

[rich_d]

Originally Posted by FanboyZ

The more I think about it, Harris seems more correct in his statements.

It's impossible to gauge what the proper color should be.

Do you really think they tried? If not, what's your point?

 

[PaulaJ]

Disney has posted a "trailer" for the restoration on youtube which may give a better idea of the Blu-ray...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYR-bZdXUiE&feature=pyv&ad=7948932883&kw=alice%20in%20wonderland

 

[rich_d]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaulaJ

Disney has posted a "trailer" for the restoration on youtube which may give a better idea of the Blu-ray...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYR-bZdXUiE&feature=pyv&ad=7948932883&kw=alice%20in%20wonderland

A better idea of the blu-ray? Not really. There is no way that the blu-ray trailer shows the true difference in color with Alice's hair. I watched parts of the film last night and her hair matches up well with DVDBeaver's screenshots in my opinion and significantly different than the trailer. Even in the trailer there is still a touch of mustard (for lack of a better word) color in Alice's hair and absolutely none in the blu-ray disc I viewed.

My viewpoint is that 'alterations' as being widely discussed in this thread come down to reasonableness. Do I think it's reasonable that guide wires on the model jet in Goldfinger have been removed? Yes. Do I have a significant problem with inkier blacks than may have never been there on many a Criterion release? No. Did I have a problem with the changed emerald greens (among other things) in the prior release of The Wizard of Oz (fortunately corrected greatly in the last release)? Oh, heck yes. With Alice in Wonderland, I think they went too far, sounding the reasonableness alarm, as Alice's hair is shockingly different (among other things). It's not that I mind that something is different per se (as with the other examples I gave). But, I do believe that there is a balance between commercial goals and respecting a treasured film as originally released and I think, in this case, it is out-of-balance.


On the positive side of things, I can't imagine some six year old dismissing this film as 'just some old' film. I don't know where on the spectrum it now falls between a 60 year-old film and the most recent animated classics, but certainly on blu-ray it is 'eye-candy' with a depth-of-field unmatched in its prior versions - both factors that are hard to dismiss out-of-hand. Added to the wonderful and interesting story, hopefully additional generations will continue to love this film as I do.

Hopefully, the Disney folks will reign things in on future efforts. What would the animated portion of Mary Poppins look like if the chalk artist intent of the animated scenes now becomes over-the-top colors? Would they also 'amp up' the beautiful background scenes in the non-animated portions of the film? What would London on the rooftops look like then? Yikes.

 

[PaulaJ]

Ah well, I was hoping that the trailer would be more accurate but you confirm that it's not. Alas.


Really, I do NOT understand Disney's stance on the colors at all. Actually I wasn't even planning to buy Alice so it's kind of a moot issue for me for this particular title, but revamped colors affect other titles that I do want. Plus I don't think little kids would have rejected Alice if the colors had been the original more subdued palette, anyway. I went to a 35mm screening of Frankenstein this weekend (in *gasp* black and white!) and the little five year old girl next to me was riveted. So were all the other little kids in the audience. (There were a lot of little kids, it was an afternoon screening and their parents had brought them.) At the end the kids all clapped enthusiastically, including that little girl next to me, who also yelled (I love this) "Encore! Encore!"


Please... you're getting me scared about what Disney may do to Mary Poppins (one of my most favorite movies ever) if they ever get around to releasing it in Blu-ray. Now something else to worry about.

 

[bigshot]

I attended a screening of Laurel and Hardy's early silent short Putting Pants on Phillip, and there was a boy about 12 years old a few rows in front of me who was laughing so hard he couldn't breathe. These films don't have a time. Executives seem to think they need to dumb everything down for kids. They're probably just dumbing them down for themselves. Here is a copy of a theatrical trailer that a film collector has transferred and uploaded to YouTube. Notice how some colors are bright and others are subdued. The characters and backgrounds work together and seem to be part of the same image, not blown out glowing characters jumping out at the eye in front of the backgrounds. Also note how every scene has an unique color harmony- not just a jumble of bright primary colors. This transfer is a little dark and fuzzy, but you can clearly see the difference in colors. Here is a quick and dirty transfer of the 1951 trailer. This telecine is flatter in contrast and a little washed out, but notice how even with an imbalanced transfer, the basic color harmonies still hold together. It isn't difficult to get the colors in the ballpark. It's much more work to go in and monkey with individual colors and recolor everything. Now here is the DVD release. See how there are plenty of bright colors, it's just not ALL bright colors... There are contrasts of bright against muted, light against dark.and warm against cool. They've warmed up the yellows in this transfer. You'll notice that there are no real lemony yellows left. But they shifted the yellows across the board, so it doesn't mess up the overall balance. If the bluray has this balance, I'll be happy, but the frame grabs don't show that. They show individual colors, particularly on the characters, goosed to eye blinding levels. Amazon should have my copy to me by the weekend. I'm interested to see what it looks like. Hopefully, just turning down the saturation will help. But that didn't work for Sleeping Beauty. It was so far off in so many different directions, it couldn't be helped. Aside to Paula... I'm glad to hear you got to see Frankenstein on film. I'm jealous! Universal lost most of its library of projection prints of classic movies in the recent fire. Glad Frankenstein survived the flames. (he always does!)

 

[PaulaJ]

Steve, they mentioned the Universal fire at the Frankenstein screening and said this was the ONLY remaining print. YIKES. I sure hope Universal is planning to make additional prints soon. The print we saw was in excellent shape, thank goodness.

 

[bigshot]

Unfortunately, I doubt if Universal will ever replace all the prints they lost. There isn't a strong revenue incentive. Digital distribution is so much less expensive. The non profit I work for still funds true film restoration, but our pockets aren't very deep.