The LaughingPlace Store

Jeff Lange Presents: 2015 Mickey’s Very Merry Christmas Party at Walt Disney World. (DVD)

Cool Cop Antenna Topper

Mickey Silhouette in Corners Beveled 4 x 6 Photo Frame

Mickey and Frieds "Hello! from Florida" Postcard

Disney Animated Films
Topic: Cinderella Restored Wrongly

Disney Dusty
Thu 10/25/2012 1:14p
Hello everyone. I should have made this thread a long time ago so the new Cinderella Diamond Edition release could fix these problems or actually restore the entire film over again the right way, but here I have proof that for the 2005 Platinum Edition release of Cinderella, they restored the film wrong, and even may have re-painted or changed things in it on purpose.


The first thing is an example of where the artists, in trying to make everything look like clean and perfect solid color, (and perhaps also to match the rest of the times that color was in the film, depending on the lighting) have accidentally colored a part wrong. It is the first proof that Disney doesn't merely/actually restore their animated films, they also paint/re-color parts of them in trying to make them [i]look[/i] like they're perfectly, pristinely restored.

So here we have Cinderella before the 2005 restoration, and then Cinderella from the 2005 restoration. In these images, look at Cinderella's brown top and skirt:

Did you notice that in the 2005 restoration they accidentally made Cinderella's skirt the same color as her top? It's the first evidence they don't restore things in a way that naturally returns things back to their original form. They do other things which just try to make it look like the original, except even snazzier for a new modern generation.

The next one is of the stepmother, Lady Tremaine. In these pictures, take a look at Lady Tremaine's shawl and the light parts of her hair:


Notice that in the 2005 restoration the blue-purple color of her shawl runs into her hair? It looks to me like the lighter parts of the stepmother's hair were originally the same grayish silver color of her shawl, or very close to it. So it looks like evidence that they are changing the colors of the film from not what they are really supposed to be, because maybe her shawl and hair were both supposed to be the same gray color but the heads at Disney wanted them to make the shawl bluer, much like they made Cinderella's silver dress bluer, hm, right?

Speaking of, here's an example of this re-coloring that seems to prove more than ever that they paint over these films instead of just actually restore them. In the first image, before the 2005 restoration, Cinderella is in a very silver gown with a bustle (the puffy material at her hips) that is a lighter silver while her sleeves and gloves are more white. In the second image, from the 2005 restoration, not only is her dress bluer (which I've kept wondering if it's to match the Disney Princess marketed blue dress that they think looks better...), but it's quite obvious they didn't restore it properly, but rather, painted over it, because the bustle is now the same shade and color as her sleeves and gloves. In fact, when taking the image into MS Paint, for each bustle I just clicked once on an area with the paint can tool using red paint, and it filled in a big solid color space from her bustle to her gloves, even covering where the inked outline should at least be to seperate the bustle and gloves from each other! In fact you'll notice [u]many[/u] of the outlines and details, like those on her dress, are gone, probably painted over as well. The 2005 restoration picture was taken exactly as is from [url=]Disney Screencaps[/url], you can take the images from there and try it yourself if you want. Anyway here's the pictures:


And people laughed when me and [b]Marky[/b] said Disney's restorations were more like them using MS Paint to paint over the films!

The next example is one of the Fairy Godmother's appearence, which looks like to be an example of a causality of the restoration's efforts to remove dirt and grain, which I've heard one way of doing so is cutting out the animation and "dustbusting" the frame and then putting back in the animation. I don't know what went on, maybe they didn't bother to carefully cut out all the animation, or maybe in removing grain and dirt they removed the tiniest details like the stars of Disney dust, but...

In the first picture, notice the stars of fairy dust on the Fairy Godmother's coat. In the second picture, the one from the 2005 restoration, the stars are gone. And yes, I swear these are the very same frames:


So Disney has removed actual animation in their restoring. It's very bad, very careless, and not okay at all.

Finally, the biggest tragedy to me, of course. The debauchery of Walt Disney's, and my own, favorite piece of Disney animation, the transformation of Cinderella's gown. In these sets of pictures, all you have to do is look closely at the Disney dust, the magic fairy dust around her, most especially looking at the dust around her arms and head:



So did you notice that in the second picture of each set, the ones from the 2005 restoration, that they have diminished and even possibly somewhat removed some of the magical special effects animation? It even looks like the magic dust above her arms and head has mostly dissappeared. And this was Walt Disney's favorite animation.

I also have a full HD (apparently, from Disney Screenaps again), but cropped picture of Cinderella in mid-transformation to show you all how it looks close up. On the entire thing it looks like not all the detail of the image is there, but look especially at Cinderella's hands and thumb, especially her right hand and thumb ([i]her[/i] right, not you're right!). Doesn't it look like they cropped off some of the detail, for whatever reason, in their "restoring"?


So there it is. I hope I have properly shown and explained to everyone how Disney did indeed restore Cinderella for 2005 in not just a wrong way, but a terrible, careless, disrespectful way.

If you don't believe the Blu-ray still has these problems, here are the Blu-ray versions:

_____________________ [URL=][img][/img][/URL]

And here's some extra ones:

And here's a comparison of the old restored version on the 1997 VHS and the Blu-ray:


Thank you for taking the time to read all this.
Witches of Morva
Thu 10/25/2012 2:50p
ORWEN: One thing I noticed about the restored version of Cinderella is that the sleeves on her rag dress are now a pale green instead of pale blue. But I thought maybe that the green was the original color instead of blue. Now I'm not so sure.

ORDDU: Apparently the same type of restoration happened with the latest restoration of Sleeping Beauty. the shawl for Briar Rose was alway purple for many years. In the latest restoration it is now maroon. Some may not mind these changes but it does make one wonder how anyone dares to change colors from what Walt Disney originally intended.
basil fan
Thu 10/25/2012 3:31p
I agree that Disney doesn't care nearly enough about their films. Just because most people won't notice is no excuse.

Disney Trivia Quiz
Fri 10/26/2012 2:21p
A few of these appear to be legitimate issues (mostly due to overfiltering from what I can gather, a common problem with nearly all home video releases).

However, here's a pro tip: If, at any point, you find yourself making ANY color judgments based on a Macrovision copyguarded VHS tape, you've lost the argument, as well as any claim to credibility. The VHS format was crap, and one big reason was its *horrendous* color reproduction.

Even if you miraculously managed to land yourself a VHS copy that was bang on with the original master, or used a LaserDisc, your VHS player, video card, and even cabling are still more than sufficient to scramble the color values and make your screen caps totally invalid.

And in those screen grabs, did you make adjustments to gamma and color temperature so they'd look correct on computer monitors? Which ones - PC or Mac? Yeah, thought so.

This deserves a special comment:

>>Some may not mind these changes but it does make one wonder how anyone dares to change colors from what Walt Disney originally intended.<<

You can not get "what Walt Disney originally intended" from an analog video transfer. Period. Video technology has not been capable of reproducing consistent color values until relatively recently. You're not seeing "what Walt Disney originally intended" on the earlier video releases. You're seeing "the best they could do with the technology of the time".

Even now, the color you see is highly dependent on the equipment you're watching it on (which, if you haven't had it professionally recalibrated, is off by a mile anyway).

Find something else to stew over.
basil fan
Sat 10/27/2012 8:14a
When making comparisons between two home video releases, we laymen can't really know which is the correct version. We may assume it's the earlier, but that might not always be the case.

A valid point from one who is familiar with the technical aspects of such things. Why not say it kindly?

It's Tough to Be a Bird
Disney Dusty
Sat 10/27/2012 12:23p
Some of you are saying I'm talking about colors that changed, but I'm not. I am presenting real evidence of things being painted over or missing lines or missing animation. Did you even read what I said?
Witches of Morva
Sat 10/27/2012 12:51p
ORDDU: It was my sisters and I who brought up the color change issue--not meaning to dilute the points you were making, duckling.
Disney Dusty
Sat 10/27/2012 12:54p
I wasn't saying anything against you. I was talking about the other people, who said I was just talking about colors.
Sat 10/27/2012 2:11p
I read it entirely just out of respect for your passion which is very generous. I hope you continue to share and thank you.
I have noticed the new computer generated animation seems to give the extra finishing detail for maximum perfectionism to "key moments" and not so much to all the rest of the movie.
My passion for the beauty of the older movies is like comparing a piece of artwork that has gotten more beautiful with the patina of age. Not so sure i will feel astonished by the beauty of computerized artwork. Sometimes i think this new technology is too perfect and therefore my brain thinks something is not correct and therefore feels fake.
i do not mean to disrespect all of the talented artists future or is amazing to witness future and past developments... I think we can agree with that.
Mon 10/29/2012 8:52a
>>A valid point from one who is familiar with the technical aspects of such things. Why not say it kindly?<<

Sorry. This is a particularly sore point with me. Disney has been known to be terribly sloppy with their home video releases, but a bunch of random charges by armchair quarterbacks who know nothing about film or video don't help the situation. They make it worse.

>>Some of you are saying I'm talking about colors that changed, but I'm not. I am presenting real evidence of things being painted over or missing lines or missing animation. Did you even read what I said?<<

I did, and I looked at your links (the ones that worked). And most of the issues you raise are, in fact, issues related to the color values, although you may not realize it. That includes most of your missing lines, sparkles, etc. The VHS, for instance, has completely different gamma settings, which are exaggerating the darkest and lightest elements in the frame, such as outlines and sparkles. Color-wise, the Blu Ray has it right, at least in your examples.

Now, it appears you are correct that *some* outlines may be missing. This is a very common problem with animation transfers, and is caused by overuse of DVNR. Here's an article about it from the standard definition days. Things have improved since then, but not entirely:
The computer mistakes outlines for scratches, and removes them. IF your frame caps are accurate, then this is a valid criticism, perhaps even worthy of taking up pitchforks and storming the castle over.

The problem is that you destroy your credibility with your other criticisms. I can't even be sure if your screen caps are an accurate representation of what's on the Blu Ray. You clearly have downressed them from the original 1080p, which means you're not showing us the full detail. Thin lines tend to disappear when you do that.

I did get a chuckle out of the last frame comparison in the last link, where you complain about the lack of "warm glowing light" on the Blu Ray (the VHS has way too much red in all your caps, so there you go), while ignoring the two horses in the tunnel that **aren't even visible** on the VHS. And the cut-off edges at the top and right. And the excessive video noise. And the jagged horizontal lines .....

(Just for the record, I have no way of checking out the Blu Ray for myself at the moment, since I just moved and am "between TVs". Give me a few weeks.)

All times are Pacific Time (US)

Note: Information on the discussion boards is sometimes based on rumors or incorrect information and should not be assumed true. Messages do not necessarily reflect the opinion of or its editors.

More messages: 1-1011-2021-3031-4041-49

              < Previous Topic

Next Topic >              

You must be a registered user to post messages.
Click here to register.

After registration you will automatically be brought back to this topic

Now Playing
Monsters, Inc March
Riders in the Sky / Monster's Inc Scream Factory (Monsters Inc)