Search results

Hello, It's me again. I've thought things up once again. I would like to write I am very sorry for my vulgar and rude critics about the Pinocchio Blu-Ray edition. I think it looks very impressive, is extremely detailed, sharp, clean, but on the other hand we can even see the subtle paint...

I haven't. My mistake, I confused the words "GWTW" with something else.

I realise that. It's just I think that there are still some people that find these old prints the best. I am one of these people. When it comes to old movies I don't really care about the technical correctness that much. I had a video-tape with the old Snow White recorded - that is how I got...

That's not what I think, more detail is visible because the resolution is higher, but they [brush strokes] look plain and less detailed. As for the 2003 dvd I have suspitions it has lots in common with the new restoration. And it looks very similar with the yellow-pastel workshop and the blue...

What about "For Your Eyes Only"? I think action scenes were a bit chaotic in QoS, although there was something interesting of this approach to shooting action. The new Bond creation seems fine, I only would like Bond to be a bit more experienced, sure of himself and like in the old days in...

Yes. And the fact that there is still detail in animation doesn't change the fact that it can be simplified. Look at Honest John pointing at the advertisement of Stromboli - at the white brushes on his fur, and compare the old version with the new, you will see the difference.

I don't understand why not releasing the old dyed, faded, scanned originals along with new restored versions, just like with the Blade Runner, and give the viewer an option. After all - there is so much talk about it.

Oh - about the blue. Maybe it could have existed, but I don't really think it did. It would have shown itself on the gold edition, just like the blue of Pinocchio's tie, or the Blue-Fairy's dress.

I know it has been [discussed]. And still I didn't see any final statements. Just some talk that the colors always vary... It was said in the posts that a dye print can be no reference, if so there is really no reference, because drawing the cells is just the beginning. In the gold version...

I wrote "would make" and not "did make", which means I understand I can be wrong. I still can't imagine how this kind of blue could be the result of photographing a cell like the one above, and the warm wood-like brown-orangeness of Gepetto's workshop could be the result of film degradation...

OK, so it is a reproduction of a cell. Why would they change colors on a reproduction of a cell? And the old dvd still was made by Disney. And I think at the time it came out it was said to be true to the original, too. The colors seems more interesting on it for me, and more realistic. I...

1. the cell (I don't know about it's authenticy though) 2. the dvd screenshot 3. my favourite. 7 the blu-ray shot. One more thing - I've heard the people at Disney are keeping their original films in salt so they don't get damaged, and that a film gets damaged most when being projected...

1. I am not an expert, but I prefer the old pumped transfer (even though it is a bit aged), as the light looks more natural. 2. I thimk cells and "hand-painted originals" shouldn't be used as a precise reference, (it was written some posts ago), because they appear with different coloring on...

I don't want to sound rude, but... ... how long more will we have to wait to have Disney cartoons properly restored. I took the Gold Edition screencap of the Blue-Fairy scene, and started manipulating it... After removing a bit of the red layer, adding a bit to the blue layer and increasing...