RU.08 said:
That’s absolutely unnecessary, have a look at the samples I’ve posted from Cindy and that’s from a 35mm print! What Disney did was convert what was hand painted animation into digital animation - all the “flaws” from the manual process were wiped away. And then they changed the colours and god only knows why, but they basically boosted them up to the levels of Aladdin and Lion King instead of leaving them how they were.

Disney probably changed and boosted the colors to try and give the film a more modern look compared to the more subdued colors found on the original version although IMHO they should have kept the base colors more faithful in appearance to the original colors as seen on the negatives because the new color palette just don’t look very good in comparison.

RU.08 said:
And not only that but they wiped out intended details in their “restorations” as well:

DANG I knew that there was some detail that was lost in the “restoration” but I didn’t think there’d be THAT much detail lost during the process, if Walt were alive today and saw how Disney in the modern age was butchering his work in such a fashion you can bet that heads would be rolling over crap like this, changing the colors on its own is bad enough, removing details that are meant to be seen is completely unacceptable and Disney should be ASHAMED OF THEMSELVES for allowing such garbage to bear the Disney name.

Examples like this provide the best argument for why fan efforts to preserve film prints whether they be 16mm, 35mm, or 70mm is so important in this day and age because those film reels aren’t going to last forever, and sometimes even the original companies that made said films end up getting something in their process wrong somewhere along the line whenever they go back to work on a new release of their older films like Disney ended up doing in the case of their BATB and Cinderella Blu-Rays.