Cool_Cat
  • Cool_Cat
  • Advanced Member Topic Starter
2016-03-10T14:56:17Z
So, since 2012 any new restoration on WB DVD sets has the colors and brightness completely off. People started to talk about this in the Little Quacker thread, so I wanted to make its own.

The same problem was also on The Chronological Donald Volume 4, and the colors were off in the same way, which probably means the same team was behind both.

Pretty much in both the Disney and WB sets, sky blue turns into darker and over saturated blue, green turns into yellow and red is very dark. It seems also there's a lot of grain in the picture and different shades of colors get horribly merged together creating a visual artifact.

UserPostedImage

UserPostedImage

Now onto the WB sets

UserPostedImage

2012

UserPostedImage

1998

UserPostedImage

2015

UserPostedImage

1995

I really hope this problem will be fixed, even though WB seems to have no interest in new releases anyway.

DevonB
2016-03-10T21:10:39Z
Well, I do know that the WHV restoration budget just wasn't there to put in extra time for color correction or tinkering with the picture contrast/brightness.
nickramer
2016-03-10T21:18:58Z
I think we're getting a little too fussy on restorations.
LuckyToon
2016-03-10T22:18:40Z
引用:

I really hope this problem will be fixed, even though WB seems to have no interest in new releases anyway.



I know how it is, but it's maybe because of restoration budget costs.
Cool_Cat
  • Cool_Cat
  • Advanced Member Topic Starter
2016-03-11T14:50:52Z
That's not the case. The color correction is intentionally done in the same way to all the shorts. They all have the green turning into yellow and such. It feels more like they hired a new team or something, and considering how the same problem is on the Donald Duck DVD it doesn't seem to me a coincidence.

I personally prefer to watch the later released shorts with the older transfers, especially on Tom and Jerry.
bodek610
2016-03-11T18:39:00Z
@Cool Cat - you missed the screen of 1998 remastering of "Rabbit Seasoning".

Cool_Cat
  • Cool_Cat
  • Advanced Member Topic Starter
2016-03-11T18:50:37Z
bodek610
2016-03-11T19:12:28Z
Nevermind them.

In other case "Light vs. Dark" (a.a.p. print, 1995 print, 2004 print and 2014 print) of "Slick Hare", 1947


a.a.p. print:
Slick Hare a.a.p.

Turner 1995 print:
Slick Hare 1995 print

DVD Golden Collection 2 2004 print:
Slick Hare 2004

Blu-Ray Platinum Collection 3 2014 print:
Slick Hare 2014

The weird thing is that, more you can see on the Blu-Ray "Dark" print than in "Light" Turner and DVD prints of this cartoon.
Blob55
2016-03-12T13:23:49Z
What's with the over/under scan? was the frame zooming in/out during that scene?
Cool_Cat
  • Cool_Cat
  • Advanced Member Topic Starter
2016-03-13T13:07:08Z
It depends how much they zoomed into the reel. Usually in the mid 1990s Turner transfers you could see the edges of the reel but that's not the case of Slick Hare.

The PC transfer has at least a restored track, like all the dark transfers do.

On pre 48 shorts the dark ones still look better if they weren't previously restored on a GC, like Hop Look and Listen, and that's because Turner didn't have access to the original negatives.

Post 48s instead end up looking worse in the dark transfers. All the Hippety Hopper shorts except the first look much better in the late 80s transfers I recorded from TV weeks ago.
mgmfan
2016-03-13T16:40:49Z
Originally Posted by: nickramer 

I think we're getting a little too fussy on restorations.




Yes yes yes. Especially when we know WHV doesn't have the money/motivation to do anything about it.
Users browsing this topic