Will we ever see restorations of the original 35mm prints of Disney animation classics? (2 Viewers)

[Robert Harris]

Alright, let me try. THIS is how traditional animation should look on Blu-ray:*

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Nausicaa-of-the-Valley-of-the-Wind-Blu-ray/10049/#Screenshots

*yes the caps are representative of the BD

As for 3 strip Technicolor, I think Warner's Looney Tunes Platinum sets turned out wonderfully (where applicable).

Alright, let me try. THIS is how traditional animation should look on Blu-ray:*

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Nausicaa-of-the-Valley-of-the-Wind-Blu-ray/10049/#Screenshots

*yes the caps are representative of the BD

As for 3 strip Technicolor, I think Warner's Looney Tunes Platinum sets turned out wonderfully (where applicable).

Not trying to be perverse, but I believe WB was also SE and not 3-strip. Different technologies, different problems, similar final results

 

[EddieLarkin]

I see. Are Disney the only people so far to go back to 3 strip negatives for animation on Blu-ray (though I know even they used SEs for some titles)?


Still, I stand by my Ghibli suggestion. Those guys aren't scared of grain, or concerned that their younger fans might not want to see it on a Blu-ray.

 

[Robert Harris]

I see. Are Disney the only people so far to go back to 3 strip negatives for animation on Blu-ray (though I know even they used SEs for some titles)?


Still, I stand by my Ghibli suggestion. Those guys aren't scared of grain, or concerned that their younger fans might not want to see it on a Blu-ray.

There was very little three-strip. The majority of Technicolor productions were SE. I don't recall the precise date, but it was relatively early on. Afaik, the only later 3-strip productions, were those that combined live action with animation.

 

[EddieLarkin]

Ah sorry, my ignorance has led me to believe that a majority of pre-50s animation was 3 strip, and only now am I realising how impractical that would have been. Though that begs the question, why wasn't SE used more for live action (was it ever?)?


Still, it'd be nice to see those true 3 strip Silly Symphonies on Blu-ray one day... (done properly, that is).

 

[Mark-P]

Live action successive exposure? Just imagine changing color filters on the lens 72 times a second!

 

[EddieLarkin]

Ha, I should go brush up on the finer details!

 

[Steve Stanchfield]

Some quick thoughts on successive exposure negatives (SEN):


Eastman's single color neg (1949/50) changed the way Technicolor operated for the better in many ways; lighting didn't have to be as bright, color could be captured more accurately in lower light especially, and the cost of having three strips of film running through a bulky, loud, hard to move camera were over forever. Technicolor continued to produce IB prints, but instead of working off three b/w negs, one neg could be edited and *then* split into the 3 printing matrices. This was the case in Disney films as well. I'm not sure what film was the first to be produced on the single color neg, but it was likely in the early 50s. This closely coincides with the end of nitrate as well. I think 'Alice in Wonderland' was done as a successive exposure neg, but not sure if Peter Pan was. Sleeping Beauty was shot in Eastman Neg for sure (in 70mm), as was Lady and the Tramp (35mm anamorphic AND flat, two different compositions for each scene), and then printed with the IB process. England continued to make IB prints well after the states had switched to Eastman. There are Technicolor prints of Star Wars and Close Encounters, and even Empire Strikes Back and the Black Hole, because Rank Labs kept making them. By the way, I've seen a reel of an IB Star Wars, and it was just beautiful.


All of that said, the b/w separation elements are excellent for preservation in that there's no fading of color.... Eastman color is another story!


For Gulliver, it seemed to me the best direction was to be closer to the theatrical presentation- but of course an HD screen isn't quite that. I played with degraining the image was the better part of a week, trying many versions of scenes and viewing them- and never liked how it looked. In some ways, it was very appealing at first, and clean, but didn't have the look of the original film in many ways. It made more sense to me to have the version Thunderbean put out to be for people who, like me, wanted to see the film as it was made. There's an argument to be made that Disney's versions are for most viewers, and they would prefer the film to look as if it was shot yesterday, so, then, in some ways, they are accomplishing that for that audience. For the film heads among us (all of the people here?) we'd like to see what was made above how amazingly still the background can be. In terms of more contrasty on Tech prints transferred, I'm not so sure- perhaps some scenes have a broader color and contrast, but I thought many scenes were lower in contrast. IB Tech for sure has it's qualities. It's perhaps not always as easy to adjust, but then again, we're beyond the color depth issues with older Telecines and NTSC (although with DVD there is still that issue).

 

[Robert Harris]

Some quick thoughts on successive exposure negatives (SEN):


Eastman's single color neg (1949/50) changed the way Technicolor operated for the better in many ways; lighting didn't have to be as bright, color could be captured more accurately in lower light especially, and the cost of having three strips of film running through a bulky, loud, hard to move camera were over forever. Technicolor continued to produce IB prints, but instead of working off three b/w negs, one neg could be edited and *then* split into the 3 printing matrices. This was the case in Disney films as well. I'm not sure what film was the first to be produced on the single color neg, but it was likely in the early 50s. This closely coincides with the end of nitrate as well. I think 'Alice in Wonderland' was done as a successive exposure neg, but not sure if Peter Pan was. Sleeping Beauty was shot in Eastman Neg for sure (in 70mm), as was Lady and the Tramp (35mm anamorphic AND flat, two different compositions for each scene), and then printed with the IB process. England continued to make IB prints well after the states had switched to Eastman. There are Technicolor prints of Star Wars and Close Encounters, and even Empire Strikes Back and the Black Hole, because Rank Labs kept making them. By the way, I've seen a reel of an IB Star Wars, and it was just beautiful.


All of that said, the b/w separation elements are excellent for preservation in that there's no fading of color.... Eastman color is another story!


For Gulliver, it seemed to me the best direction was to be closer to the theatrical presentation- but of course an HD screen isn't quite that. I played with degraining the image was the better part of a week, trying many versions of scenes and viewing them- and never liked how it looked. In some ways, it was very appealing at first, and clean, but didn't have the look of the original film in many ways. It made more sense to me to have the version Thunderbean put out to be for people who, like me, wanted to see the film as it was made. There's an argument to be made that Disney's versions are for most viewers, and they would prefer the film to look as if it was shot yesterday, so, then, in some ways, they are accomplishing that for that audience. For the film heads among us (all of the people here?) we'd like to see what was made above how amazingly still the background can be. In terms of more contrasty on Tech prints transferred, I'm not so sure- perhaps some scenes have a broader color and contrast, but I thought many scenes were lower in contrast. IB Tech for sure has it's qualities. It's perhaps not always as easy to adjust, but then again, we're beyond the color depth issues with older Telecines and NTSC (although with DVD there is still that issue).

I believe The Little Mermaid was the only Disney animated feature to be produced on Eastman tri-pack.


RAH

 

[Mark-P]

Yes. From what I've read successive exposure was used on all the Disney animated features right though the 1980s, including its use with CinemaScope and Technirama.

 

[MatthewA]

I was basically going to reiterate what Robert and Mark said; they used successive exposure on pretty much everything animated until The Little Mermaid. Shorts, features, the animated parts of live-action/animation hybrids, even the small amount of animation for TV pre-1985.

 

[Steve Stanchfield]

I believe The Little Mermaid was the only Disney animated feature to be produced on Eastman tri-pack.


RAH

Thanks Robert, and thanks for your continued and excellent efforts in preservation!


It would be nice to confirm with the current Disney preservation folks the shooting of some of the films to make sure the record is accurate on this. From past information, I'm not so sure it is, at least in the actual shooting of the films themselves. I'm usually not one to argue these kind of things.


From a preservation standpoint, it makes a lot of sense to have black and white separations on the films. There are preservation separations on (nearly) all the later films from what I've seen, but in the actual photography (from past information) it appears that many films were produced with a single color neg, including Fox and Hound, The Black Cauldron (shot in 70mm), The Great Mouse Detective, Oliver and Company and Little Mermaid.


From reviewing the past (old!) information I've had for many years, It looks like Sleeping Beauty was shot in 65mm (Vistavision format). The record does seem to indicate that this is a SEN. There was a reduction SEN (35mm Anamorphic) made from the edited camera neg, and a (picture) combined color neg (EK) in 70mm listed as printing materials (from 59). The record I've seen indicates the 70mm mags (master) for this printing are missing. As with any production, there is an almost astonishing list of elements that exist on many of these films, and what I do have is far from complete. I'm making the assumption that and IB system wasn't set up for the 70mm prints, but I could be wrong here (I think most if not all 70mm release prints from this era are Eastman stock).


From a production standpoint it honestly doesn't make sense to go through the progressive process just with animation, especially when considering optical effects in the more modern films. The only reason to make separations on the later films would be preservation. That said, I really *like* the idea that these were all shot progressively- a closer look at the studio records and holdings (and production records) I think will show differently. I did read the article that stated that Mermaid was the only film shot with a single neg. The preservation people there will know best of course, and perhaps at some point the record can be corrected or confirmed on the actual shooting of the films that were shot traditionally (under camera). The same article mentions Beauty and the Beast being shot progressively. There is a combined color neg imaged from caps, and that appears to be the material used to make the release prints on this film. In the end, it doesn't matter all that much, but it is nice to have an accurate record.

 

[Robert Harris]

Thanks Robert, and thanks for your continued and excellent efforts in preservation!

It would be nice to confirm with the current Disney preservation folks the shooting of some of the films to make sure the record is accurate on this. From past information, I'm not so sure it is, at least in the actual shooting of the films themselves. I'm usually not one to argue these kind of things.

From a preservation standpoint, it makes a lot of sense to have black and white separations on the films. There are preservation separations on (nearly) all the later films from what I've seen, but in the actual photography (from past information) it appears that many films were produced with a single color neg, including Fox and Hound, The Black Cauldron (shot in 70mm), The Great Mouse Detective, Oliver and Company and Little Mermaid.

From reviewing the past (old!) information I've had for many years, It looks like Sleeping Beauty was shot in 65mm (Vistavision format). The record does seem to indicate that this is a SEN. There was a reduction SEN (35mm Anamorphic) made from the edited camera neg, and a (picture) combined color neg (EK) in 70mm listed as printing materials (from 59). The record I've seen indicates the 70mm mags (master) for this printing are missing. As with any production, there is an almost astonishing list of elements that exist on many of these films, and what I do have is far from complete. I'm making the assumption that and IB system wasn't set up for the 70mm prints, but I could be wrong here (I think most if not all 70mm release prints from this era are Eastman stock).

From a production standpoint it honestly doesn't make sense to go through the progressive process just with animation, especially when considering optical effects in the more modern films. The only reason to make separations on the later films would be preservation. That said, I really *like* the idea that these were all shot progressively- a closer look at the studio records and holdings (and production records) I think will show differently. I did read the article that stated that Mermaid was the only film shot with a single neg. The preservation people there will know best of course, and perhaps at some point the record can be corrected or confirmed on the actual shooting of the films that were shot traditionally (under camera). The same article mentions Beauty and the Beast being shot progressively. There is a combined color neg imaged from caps, and that appears to be the material used to make the release prints on this film. In the end, it doesn't matter all that much, but it is nice to have an accurate record.

I assure you that there are multiple sets of protection on the animated features. Sleeping Beauty was shot 35mm TLA SE.

Also, historically, when it comes to see masters, their primary function was not preservation. They were generally produced to stop production insurance. In a number of cases, they were exposed, but not processed, when the film did not perform at the box office. A cost saving measure.


Little Mermaid was apparently the only Eastman production in 35mm.

RAH

 

[Konstantinos]

I think releases of scans of the original 35mm negatives are mandatory at this point we have reached:


special edition:

Platinum edition:

 

[Wayne_j]

That dress isn't even remotely the same anymore.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

I question the veracity of these screencaps, as they appear to show the same image area. When the Platinum Edition was released on Blu-ray. much was made of it being released for the first time in a 2.55:1 ratio as opposed to a 2.21:1 (70mm) or a 2.35:1 (Scope) ratio. Since this screencap is at the very least cropped (and also shows some geometric differences), I suggest the above is not a reliable comparison.

 

[Konstantinos]

I question the veracity of these screencaps, as they appear to show the same image area. When the Platinum Edition was released on Blu-ray. much was made of it being released for the first time in a 2.55:1 ratio as opposed to a 2.21:1 (70mm) or a 2.35:1 (Scope) ratio. Since this screencap is at the very least cropped (and also shows some geometric differences), I suggest the above is not a reliable comparison.

Is this reliable enough?

http://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.php?p=10391345&postcount=574


Also, I don't know if anyone here can see these 2 screenshos which clearly show that the film has been digitally tampered with, in contrast with what many believe...

http://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.php?p=10394502&postcount=598

 

[Stephen_J_H]

Comparing apples and pomegranates. When the SE "restoration" was done, Disney employed a technique that involved rotoscoping elements out of the background, fixing the elements and digitally recompositing. The Blu-ray was the first time Disney actually went back to the TLA SE negative, scanning and recombining the YCM records, then engaging in colour correction and cleanup for the finished product. I'm not saying the Blu-ray is perfect, but I am saying that there was actually less manipulation involved in its creation than the previous master.

 

[Konstantinos]

I am just saying that in this particular scene i believe the DVD is true to the original cells because the transition to pink, happens in one frame.

In the Bluray the transition is gradual, an effect that i don't think was possible back then to paint.

It was computer generated.

 

[Konstantinos]

Since Snow white is coming, here's some examples of how I think this film would be properly presented on Bluray (of course you can guess which is the original Bluray of the 2):

Of course this is one of the few instances that it doesn't seem we're losing detail on the Bluray, BUT the colors and the image generally feel flat and the grain would be the element that would tie the foreground and background together and breathe life to the film.

Also there seem to be some weird color changes? (eg. Dopey's eyes from blue to grey) Although I can't confirm in that instance, which is the original color.

 

[Robert Harris]

Since Snow white is coming, here's some examples of how I think this film would be properly presented on Bluray (of course you can guess which is the original Bluray of the 2):

Of course this is one of the few instances that it doesn't seem we're losing detail on the Bluray, BUT the colors and the image generally feel flat and the grain would be the element that would tie the foreground and background together and breathe life to the film.
Also there seem to be some weird color changes? (eg. Dopey's eyes from blue to grey) Although I can't confirm in that instance, which is the original color.

Not certain as to the point of your post, if you don't have original reference.