Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The 'Toy Story' You Remember

animationobsessive.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 348 posts

Re: The 'Toy Story' You Remember

#191

Post by gwbas1c »

janeway wrote: post #136

This topic is fascinating to me. The Toy Story film workflow is a perfect illustration of intentional compensation: artists pushed greens in the digital master because 35 mm film would darken and desaturate them. The aim was never neon greens on screen, it was colour calibration for a later step. Only later, when digital masters were reused without the film stage, did those compensating choices start to look like cre…

(Cough) Abstraction and separation of concerns.

In Toy Story's case, the digital master should have had "correct" colors, and the tweaking done in the transfer to film step. It's the responsibility of the transfer process to make sure that the colors are right.

Now, counter arguments could be that the animators needed to work with awareness of how film changes things; or that animators (in the hand-painted era) always had to adjust colors slightly.

---

I think the real issue is that Disney should know enough to tweak the colors of the digital releases to match what the artists intended.

Re: The 'Toy Story' You Remember

#192

Post by eleveriven »

nappy wrote: post #50

It's a surprisingly common error where someone picks up an old 35mm print and assumes it is somehow canonical... Besides whatever the provenance of these prints are (this gets complicated) the reality is that these were also made to look at best as they could for typical movie theater projector systems in the 90s. These bulbs were hot and bright and there were many other considerations around what the final picture w…

At the same time, I think the nostalgia people feel for those versions isn't necessarily about accuracy, it's about emotional fidelity

Re: The 'Toy Story' You Remember

#194

Post by thaumasiotes »

KaiserPro wrote: post #114

Aha! I used to work in film and was very close to the film scanning system. When you scan in a film you need to dust bust it, and generally clean it up (because there are physical scars on the film from going through the projector. Theres also a shit tone of dust, that needs to be physically or digitally removed, ie "busted") Ideally you'd use a non-real time scanner like this: https://www.filmlight.ltd.uk/products/n…

> Theres also a shit tone of dust, that needs to be physically or digitally removed, ie "busted"

Is that because you're just leaving the film out in a big pile, or because it decays rapidly?

I would have expected film to be stored in containers.

Re: The 'Toy Story' You Remember

#195

Post by eleveriven »

timenotwasted wrote: post #10

This makes so much more sense now. After having kids I've been watching my fair share of Pixar and I just never recalled how flat and bland everything looked but I would always chalk it up to my brain not recalling how it looked at the time. Good to know I guess that it wasn't just entirely nostalgia but sad that we continue to lose some of this history and so soon.

It's kind of sad that what felt like a defining aesthetic at the time is now basically an accidental casualty of progress

Re: The 'Toy Story' You Remember

#196

Post by eleveriven »

hekkle wrote: post #6

I'm surprised they can't just put a filter on the digital versions to achieve a similar look and feel to the 35mm version. It is clear that the animators factored in the colour changes from the original media to 35mm, so it seems a disservice to them to re-release their works without honouring how they intended the films to be seen.

It's not just about slapping on some grain and calling it a day; it's about honoring a whole set of artistic decisions that were made with that specific medium in mind

Re: The 'Toy Story' You Remember

#197

Post by eleveriven »

pavlov wrote: post #70

Film weave could also be worth mentioning. Movies projected on film look different not only because of the color and texture, but also a constant spatial jitter over time. When the film moves through the projector, each frame locks into a slightly different position vertically. That creates a wobble that's called "film weave." (If you want to create truly authentic-looking titles for a 1980s B-grade sci-fi movie, don…

Film weave is such an underrated part of that analog feel

Re: The 'Toy Story' You Remember

#198

Post by ancientworldnow »

pinebox wrote: post #176
KaiserPro wrote: post #114

Aha! I used to work in film and was very close to the film scanning system. When you scan in a film you need to dust bust it, and generally clean it up (because there are physical scars on the film from going through the projector. Theres also a shit tone of dust, that needs to be physically or digitally removed, ie "busted") Ideally you'd use a non-real time scanner like this: https://www.filmlight.ltd.uk/products/n…

> However! that doesnt affect the colour. That has been something I've wondered about since seeing frame comparisons of (probably) telecine'ed prints of The Matrix vs. the myriad home video releases.

I'm a colorist and it absolutely does effect color. Every telecine is different and will create a different looking scan. Telecine operators will do a one light pass to try and compensate but any scan needs to be adjusted to achieve what the artist's original vision was.

Re: The 'Toy Story' You Remember

#199

Post by eszed »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #194
KaiserPro wrote: post #114

Aha! I used to work in film and was very close to the film scanning system. When you scan in a film you need to dust bust it, and generally clean it up (because there are physical scars on the film from going through the projector. Theres also a shit tone of dust, that needs to be physically or digitally removed, ie "busted") Ideally you'd use a non-real time scanner like this: https://www.filmlight.ltd.uk/products/n…

> Theres also a shit tone of dust, that needs to be physically or digitally removed, ie "busted" Is that because you're just leaving the film out in a big pile, or because it decays rapidly? I would have expected film to be stored in containers.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it builds a static charge as it runs through the projector and attracts dust. I say this because I remember holding my hand near moving film in our (home) movie projector, and as a kid enjoying feeling the hairs on my arm standing up from the static. Maybe professional gear protects against that somehow, but if not that'd be why.
Post reply on HN