Jungle Book PE trailer here: http://disney.go.com/disneyvideos/an...ms/junglebook/

Irony of ironies: The official Disney website Peter Pan PE trailer uses footage from the "uncorrected" 2002 transfer: http://disneyvideos.disney.go.com/mo...s/5266503.html

I wote Robert E. Seletsky who wrote this article about the problems with the Wizard of Oz transfers (http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/articl..._reactions.htm) for DVD Beaver and he wrote this back:

Robert's Dracula article: http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/articl...a_misfires.htm

TFF! I spit my drink out reading this. My desk and laptop thank you!

Technicolor live-action tends to have off-white white levels (usually amber or gold tinged), anyways .The 2005 transfer looks exactly like the 1998 re-issue dye-transfer print I saw back in 2004.

As for Peter Pan, everyone is comparing it to an old laserdisc, which is ridiculous. Just because it's more saturated doesn't mean it's correct. A lot of old pre-DVD transfers pumped up the color on Technicolor films. If someone could just track down some 35mm dye-transfer frames, we'd have a better idea of the color timing. Disney screws a lot of stuff up, but it's annoying to see something that finally looks right be blasted. I'm surprised how the 2007 is getting criticized while people are overlooking the DVNR and edge enhancement on the previous 2002 DVD.

I've never heard of the amber/gold white level. I've heard Technicolor makes pure white bluish, which was corrected on-set by using usually pinkish tints in clothing, props and backgrounds. E.g.: Judy Garland had to wear a pinkish blouse on the set of the Wizard for it not to register as bluish. Thanks to the yellowing (i.e. away from blue) choices of the digital restoration, that blouse is back to appearing as pinkish and all the other colour values have been modified in the process: her periwinkle dress has become lavender/lilac and the witch's face appears as lime-green.
What a great memory you have. The 1998 re-issue dye-transfer print is a chemical pre-digital restoration, which got the colour right. The 2005 DVD transfer was made from a digitally re-aligned - and colour-corrected, unfortunately - copy entirely in the digital domain. The two versions are only similar because they are the same film.
Who did what now? Who has compared it to an old laserdisc? The reviewers? The posters in this thread?
Does that mean that you have heard someone somewhere say that he/she preferred the old laserdisc because it was more saturated? I never saw the old laserdisc but I have seen the two previous DVD incarnations of this film. And the problem with the latest incarnation is not that it's saturated or not saturated but that the colours are OFF by a country mile, simply because we are in a "let's get away from the cold artificiality and harshness of threatening too-blue Technicolor and get back to more earthy, soothing, warming, comforting nature tones, like, man" phase of fashion.

DVNR (Digital Video Noise Reduction) is a bad thing but taking the trademark blue out of Technicolor digitally is a good thing?

No, your statement that it's "over saturated" is ridiculous. Your statement that comparing it to the LD is ridiculous, is also, ridiculous.

It's obvious that the colors in the new version are incorrect. I cannot fathom how you can look at the comparison frames and state that it "finally looks right"

Based on what, the previous transfers?

Exactly. Because the previous transfers were based on a chemical restoration of the original Technicolor elements before the revisionist digital colour manipulation of know-nothing computer nerds who have never seen a Technicolor film on a screen bigger than a PlayStation and have totally missed the point about Technicolor's marvels.

Well, that shows how much you know.

What we have here is revisionism of the worst kind...

If any of the "Nine Old Men" that Disney is proud to parade around in their making-of documentaries are still alive today, they are probably dying of shame and sorrow after seeing this latest DVD transfer of Peter Pan.

The so-called restorers of DTS Images who did this job are like dwarves standing on the shoulders of giants - the people who pioneered, perfected and used Technicolor - who have the technical power to destroy 50-plus years of history and tradition by simply turning a knob on their consoles and saying: "Oh, let's make the Darling household look like Martha Stewart's latest line of home decor accents for a change!" or "Let's make Mermaid Lagoon look like the entrance hall to the Rodeo Drive Barbie Superstore! My 4-year old daughter just loves when we shop there!"

Just because there's a traditional restoration does not mean the transfer made from it is accurate. I think it's slightly pompous to describe LDI's staff as such. You've spent countless hours going over films frame-by-frame and would know the details about what goes into a film transfer? As a video editing student, I know that know-nothing computer nerds wouldn't last a day in the industry (at least beyond internship). Most video labs have actual video projection rooms. It's not the 1990s anymore where it's all viewed on a CRT monitor.

Technicolor isn't just about bright colors. One benefit of Technicolor is the ability to go with vibrant to subtle color schemes, as demonstrated by Gone with the Wind. As the years went on, re-issues ended up pumping up the colors to the point of looking cartoonish (especially the 1990s re-issue). Then again, adjusting to meet sensibilities of today's audiences isn't that different from colorization... which isn't a bad thing, right?

Just look closer at the 2002 DVD and you'll see greyish whites, while the 2007 consistently has milky whites. Michael's pajamas look really weird in bright pink, while a subtle pink looks more correct. Wendy's lips probably shouldn't stick out as much as Tinkerbell's glow. Skin tones shouldn't look sunburnt.

...and Mermaid Lagoon shouldn't be so flagrantly vaginal.

And the film was already shot in colour. It didn't need to be re-colourized for post-9/11 sensibilities.

This is just one of the Disney remastering jobs that have been questionable. There was a thread on these boards a few years ago about the platinum edition of Beauty and the Beast being too bright, while the original release was suitably dark and gloomy in the appropriate parts.

Funny thing is, none of the usual DVD reviewers (including dvdtalk) have picked up on this issue. I know DVD Josh has challenged the dvdtalk reviewer in the DVD Review forum ( http://forum.dvdtalk.com/showthread.php?t=494589 ) but to no avail so far. As far as I know, only one reviewer (already quoted: http://www.ultimatedisney.com/peterp...umedition.html ) noted the colour differences but shrugged them away.

It's as if, out of simple force of habit, none of the reviewers take time to compare transfers and they automatically rubberstamp anything that comes out of the Disney vaults with the usual malarkey boilerplates: "painstakingly restored", "never looked better", etc.

This home theater forum has tackled the issue with lots of screen caps ( http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/...d.php?t=253014 ) of the various editions and complaints from reviewers that (1) Disney isn't very forthcoming with free advance copies and (2) the Disney site doesn't even show excerpts from its actual 2007 edition, as if it had something to hide. Also see this Ultimate Disney forum: http://www.ultimatedisney.com/forum/...ic.php?t=18606


I have also written to DVD Beaver and DVD Savant about the issue and await reactions.

Patrick are you like 80 years old? Did you see the movie in theaters upon its release and now have such a clear memory of how the colors looked that you can hold yourself out as 100% that the PE accurately represents those colors? I would imagine not.

There's something wrong with this transfer, plain and simple. The Mermaid lair shows these problems very nicely. Color pallete is shifted, sharpness is notably decreased, and a nice "haze" has set in.

I'll give you that it's possible that BOTH transfers might be incorrect. But there's definitely something wrong with the PE. check out this nice collection of screenshot comparisons:

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/...7&postcount=21

Every single one is better on the SE than the new PE, ESPECIALLY in the flesh tones dept. Tink is YELLOW FFS in the PE!!

DVDJosh, in your post in the Review thread, you wote:

My question: What is DVDT? DVD Talk? (Pardon my ignorance.)

As for Patrick, he is also involved in the Home Theater Forum discussion and got confused. Which explains his mention of the laserdisc in this thread. HTF has lots of side-by-side screen shots from the two previous laserdisc editions as well as the two previous DVD editions.

And, for what it's worth, I'm not 80 years old but I do remember seeing Peter Pan on the big screen during its first re-issue. And the PE sure doesn't show the film I remember!

Yes you are right, DVDT = DVD Talk. I did see many of Patrick's posts in the HTF thread, but didn't think it fair to carry them over here. I don't agree with his comments in either forum, though. The screenshots speak for themselves.

Pardon my ignorance again : Yellow FFS?

Never mind! I found this on an online dictionary:

oh what to do. I don't have the SE so I guess I'll be stuck with the PE

I bought the PE, and despite the best efforts of this thread we enjoyed it thoroughly as we watched it last night.

The wonderful sound remix of the PE makes it a very entertaining experience, especially if you're not familiar with - or don't care - what the film used to look like or should look like.

you mean the toning down of the redness in the skin colours of the Indians... ?

I was only kidding about "post 9/11 sensibilities". But it is more and more evident to me that the shifting of all colours to the yellow end of the spectrum was done as a radical gesture to make the film look modern and contemporary and to distance it as much as possible from the glistening and vivid animation of the Technicolor era, which must now be considered "old-fashioned".

With this much gold and yellow in the picture, lamplight looks much warmer and the film takes on the look of a live film like the recent live version of Peter Pan, for instance. Everything else follows: Big, yellow patches in the middle of Neverland, a Mermaid Lagoon that looks like a close-up of female reproductive organs with blonde pubic hair, toned-down pinkish Indians, Mr. Smee dressed in baby blue, zebra-skin cushions that have gone from bluish-black to middle brown, a goldenrod-tunic Peter Pan, a yellow-skinned Tinker Bell, etc.