Thread replies: 20
Thread images: 3
Thread images: 3
left: a vhs tv recording from 2001
right: the "digitally remastered" dvd version from 2006 (which is the first time a boy named charlie brown was ever released on DVD)
what happened here was they tried to color in the ground, but it looked like shit, and instead of removing it, they kept it for the entire shot (top row)
the shot changes, and like 10 seconds later we come back to the previous shot, but this time the ground is normal (except for the fact that they made the colors look depressing as shit)
fuck these lazy attempts at "digital restoration"
>>
Sometimes it's less "laziness" and more "not enough funds", "impossible to find or destroyed cels/negatives" or "technologically impossible".
But I agree. I actually think the top doesn't look that bad.
>>
>>93852398
>"digital restoration"
>literally cut a sixth of the movie
>>
>>93852517
Ugh, blame retards who think film noise and black bars means it's not High Def.
>>
>>93852398
MGM and Paramount are the kings of making shots inconsistently colored. I hate them.
>>93852465
"impossible to find or destroyed cels/negatives"
"technologically impossible"
That wasn't the case here.
I looked it up, and found that Paramount released the DVD, they are notorious for doing lazy restorations.
>>
>>93852398
It looked fine to begin with. Jesus Christ.
>>
I can do a better 'restoration' with GIMP
>>
>>93852705
Do it then. That would be pretty cool.
>>
>>93853647
i second this
>>
File: Snoopy.png (686KB, 1008x373px) Image search:
[Google]
686KB, 1008x373px
>>93853647
>>93855227
Took me around 7 minutes. I used edge detection to smoothen the image out, then messed around with the color settings.
The left picture is the restored one.
>>
>blue rays of old cartoons and Disney movies somehow look worse than VHS copies
What awful timeline is this?
>>
>>93855454
I was thinking the whole special but that's cool
>>
>>93856479
That's too much work for one man.
>>
>>93855454
that grass isn't meant to be green though.
>>
>>93856983
It's not that hard with the good tools. Just do it for one frame, then run a scipt to apply to every frame
>>
>>93855454
This honestly should fucking shame Paramount
>>
>>93857705
The grass is always greener on the other side, though.
>>
>>93857705
I kind of got carried away there.
>>93857713
Maybe I'll do a couple of minutes or so.
>>
>>93855454
>when a /co/ user is better at restoring films than a multi-billion dollar company
what has the world become
>>
>>93852398
And they cropped it to fit 16:9
Wish they would just fucking stop, I hate this shit.
Thread posts: 20
Thread images: 3
Thread images: 3