post #31 of 109
3/9/09 at 12:44pm
Be a part of the community.
It's free, join today!
|
Originally Posted by Brian Borst
Oh, it's definitely handpainted to my eyes. The subtle paint touches like the feather on Pinocchio's hat, or Geppetto's hair comes across much better. There are also several instances when you can see a slightly different hue to something, just for a frame. It really gives the film the traditional look it's supposed to have, and I'm glad it isn't fixed.
|

|
Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet
The BD is hand-painted and looks like the cel-art is projected right in front of you without anything in the way. Literally. Sort of like digitally scanning the cel art rather than filming it. It's really stunning. While it's fair to say that the "film layer" has been removed from view in this restoration, it's not fair to say that the hand-drawn artwork has been removed or obscured. Quite the opposite: you're seeing detail in the hand-drawn artwork that's never before been visible. It's breathtaking on a wide-angle projection screen.
All that's been cleaned is the noise later in the chain like grain and grime. Be careful depending too much on that older DVD image as a point of reference; the color palette is very skewed from the original painted artwork and the frame-by-frame timing errors due to aging might be confused with hand-applied paint variances which they are not. The artists were purposefully doing their best to keep the painted art consistent one frame to the next especially with color tone and intensity. What does change frame-by-frame is the "dry brush" contouring to the cat, the surface of the whale, the sea-surf etc. Those are the places where it's paint-related and it's still there. The blu-ray is the closest thing to the original hand-painted artwork any consumer has ever seen. Release prints which are inevitably several generations removed and include all sort of color-timing differences that may or may not be consistent with the original artwork aren't the best point of reference for hand-drawn/painted animation. |
|
Originally Posted by Keith Paynter
Don't gush too much just yet. Some of the pics over at DVDBeaver.com suggest some very noticeable DVNR atop Pinocchio's eyes in the Stromboli pic:
![]() (Click that pic for full size...) I'm inclined to think some of the cel color is just a little too smooth, especially on Dishonest John. (Not using the original DVD as a comparison) |
|
Originally Posted by Stephen_J_H
I would hesitate to rely on screencaps when it comes to line detail and quality. You need to see the movie in motion to make that judgment.
|
| Well, you make some pretty good points; although I'm not sure what you are referring to when you use the term "film layer". That sounds vaguely like a euphemism for grain. If it is then I would like to know why grain removal on old live action films is unacceptable: yet, grain removal on old animation classics is just the opposite. The cels were transferred to film, so why is it suddenly okay to remove the "film layer"? |
| Don't gush too much just yet. Some of the pics over at DVDBeaver.com suggest some very noticeable DVNR atop Pinocchio's eyes in the Stromboli pic: |
|
Originally Posted by Stephen_J_H
Actually, no. Some new releases (HSM 3, Bolt) are packaged with BD+DVD+DC, but so far, no classic titles are packaged this way. Sleeping Beauty didn't have digital copy either, and frankly, I could care less. The demographic for the classic films isn't looking for digital copy.
|
|
Originally Posted by Keith Paynter
Don't gush too much just yet. Some of the pics over at DVDBeaver.com suggest some very noticeable DVNR atop Pinocchio's eyes in the Stromboli pic:
![]() (Click that pic for full size...) |

