Sign In

Info: Recommended Editions of Disney Animated (and Partially Animated) Features — Page 29

Author
Time

20k Leagues never received a BD release, so an HDTV version is a close seconds for High Def.

The Aristocats HDTV doesn't suffer from excessive DNR like the BD.

Aladdin is post changes, but IMO, the original color palette was kept and the animation additions kept to a minimum. I know it's better than the BD on the aspect ratio department, having more information on the top and bottom, and I've heard the BD has some encoding issues.

Author
Time

nirbateman said:

The Aristocats HDTV doesn't suffer from excessive DNR like the BD.

 Yeah, it looks great, BUT... it's cropped!

So, I prefer the original DVD.

Author
Time

To be fair, although they are usually similar, Aladdin has not had a U.S. release on BD yet.  We can only hope it comes out better.

I always have mixed emotions about HDTV/webdl versions.

It's fine if the movie doesn't exist with that transfer or in a digital format, but on the whole it rarely looks much better than a good DVD.  The over-compression needed for broadcast tends to scrub the detail you SHOULD be gaining from HD.

Most of the time they use the same bitrate, and in the case of HDTV the same mpeg2 codec.  That'll never look much better than a properly encoded DVD.

Dr. M

Author
Time

AFAIK 20K Leagues and Black Cauldron are not available on BD, and the itunes versions have pretty low bitrates

Aladdin HDTV *should* be the old versionDon't know if Aristocats HDTV version is better than BD, probably not...

The ResolveR ultimate restoration workstation | [Fundamental Collection] thread | blog.spoRv.com | fan preservation forum: fanres.com |

Author
Time

_,,,^..^,,,_ said:

Don't know if Aristocats HDTV version is better than BD, probably not...

 The aristocats HDTV is miles better than the Bluray!

It retains the grain!

There is a custom BD-50 of it in circulation.

Author
Time

titanic said:

_,,,^..^,,,_ said:

Don't know if Aristocats HDTV version is better than BD, probably not...

 The aristocats HDTV is miles better than the Bluray!

It retains the grain!

Thanks for the useful info!

There is a custom BD-50 of it in circulation.

Not sure about the need of a such big size... a [spoRv] version, with 5 languages and subtitles, with a good average bitrate (25-30mbps) to retain all the grain, will fit in a BD-25...

The ResolveR ultimate restoration workstation | [Fundamental Collection] thread | blog.spoRv.com | fan preservation forum: fanres.com |

Author
Time

Doctor M said:

Fantasia (1940): ... The laserdiscs were the last release to still have the Deems Taylor's narrations.

DVD and BD (2000 and 2010) have the restored runtime, but with new narration by Corey Burton. ...

Purist recommendation: 2001 60th Anniversary DVD (also available as a 2000 Fantasia/Fantasia 2000 box). ...

Ultra Purist recommendation: If you want Deems Taylor you'll want the shorter running laserdisc.

Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fantasia_(1940_film):
Fantasia has received three home video releases. The first, featuring the 1990 restored theatrical version, was released on VHS and laser disc on November 1, 1991 as part of the "Walt Disney Classics" line. ... This version was also released as a DVD in 2000, outside of the U.S. ... [emphasis mine]

Would this indicate that the non-Region-1 2000 DVD, with original Stokowski score and Taylor narration (besides it being on digital media, but not knowing included extras) would be a preferred recommendation over the laserdisc?

Author
Time

@Spaced Ranger - That's the first I've heard of a DVD release with Deems Taylor.  I'll update the first page, but has anyone here actually seen the 'outside the U.S.' release?

Dr. M

Author
Time

@Doctor M & Spaced Ranger

The wording is a bit sketchy, but it simply means that what you see on the LD is what you see on the DVD, the full roadshow version, and that it has been released outside the US under the "Walt Disney Classics" banner, since before that, a different video master was used, showing the orchestra preparing for the concert instead of seeing Deems Taylor.

However, the next paragraph mentions: " In the 2000 and 2010 releases, Deems Taylor's voice has been overdubbed throughout by Corey Burton because most of the audio tracks to Taylor's restored scenes have been lost"

So, I'm sorry, but it seems that the changes to the narration for the 2000 restoration were universal and final.

Author
Time

_,,,^..^,,,_ said:


There is a custom BD-50 of it in circulation.

Not sure about the need of a such big size... a [spoRv] version, with 5 languages and subtitles, with a good average bitrate (25-30mbps) to retain all the grain, will fit in a BD-25...

 It's 29GB in size.
6 languages, 6 subtitles and 25mbps bitrate.

Author
Time

Doctor M said:

@Spaced Ranger - That's the first I've heard of a DVD release with Deems Taylor.  I'll update the first page, but has anyone here actually seen the 'outside the U.S.' release?

 I have a Greek PAL DVD of Fantasia under Walt Disney Classics banner, but it doesn't have Deems Taylor narration!

Author
Time

titanic said:

_,,,^..^,,,_ said:


There is a custom BD-50 of it in circulation.

Not sure about the need of a such big size... a [spoRv] version, with 5 languages and subtitles, with a good average bitrate (25-30mbps) to retain all the grain, will fit in a BD-25...

 It's 29GB in size.
6 languages, 6 subtitles and 25mbps bitrate.

So I think I do not need to work on it... even if 29GB for a BD-50 it's still a waste of space...

*************************************************************

An important, philosophical question: do the grain should be preserved in animation?

I mean, grain was part of live action films since the beginning (even if today's digital camera do not have it, but this should be discussed in another thread), and movie as medium cannot exist without grain... animation, on the other hand, was not "born" with grain, but grain was a "forced" consequence of animation transferred on film... so, to me, grain should not be part of animation; do you agree?

The ResolveR ultimate restoration workstation | [Fundamental Collection] thread | blog.spoRv.com | fan preservation forum: fanres.com |

Author
Time
 (Edited)

_,,,^..^,,,_ said:


An important, philosophical question: do the grain should be preserved in animation?

I mean, grain was part of live action films since the beginning (even if today's digital camera do not have it, but this should be discussed in another thread), and movie as medium cannot exist without grain... animation, on the other hand, was not "born" with grain, but grain was a "forced" consequence of animation transferred on film... so, to me, grain should not be part of animation; do you agree?

A very good question.

(Okay, I was just going to leave it there.)

My only opinion on the matter is we have no sources without grain to work with.  As such, any grain removal will damage detail or cause artifacts.  That I don't like.

Dr. M

Author
Time

_,,,^..^,,,_ said:


*************************************************************

An important, philosophical question: do the grain should be preserved in animation?

I mean, grain was part of live action films since the beginning (even if today's digital camera do not have it, but this should be discussed in another thread), and movie as medium cannot exist without grain... animation, on the other hand, was not "born" with grain, but grain was a "forced" consequence of animation transferred on film... so, to me, grain should not be part of animation; do you agree?

 well, I don't agree.

Grain is part of a film.

And since we're watching animation films and not just moving pictures, we should see them with the grain, as they were originally released in theaters.

Also to me, aesthetically, grain gives life to a film.

A comparison of the HDTV version of Aristocats to the Bluray, shows this evidently! The BLuray seems flat and lifeless.

Look at the Thunderbean restoration of Gulliver's travels!

It's exquisite preserving the grain!

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Doctor M said:

_,,,^..^,,,_ said:


An important, philosophical question: do the grain should be preserved in animation?

I mean, grain was part of live action films since the beginning (even if today's digital camera do not have it, but this should be discussed in another thread), and movie as medium cannot exist without grain... animation, on the other hand, was not "born" with grain, but grain was a "forced" consequence of animation transferred on film... so, to me, grain should not be part of animation; do you agree?

A very good question.

(Okay, I was just going to leave it there.)

My only opinion on the matter is we have no sources without grain to work with.  As such, any grain removal will damage detail or cause artifacts.  That I don't like.

Agree, but for example, during my work on BATB, I found that on laserdisc, grain was almost absent, while a lot of noise was present due the intrinsic nature of the media; after I "polished" the image, it lost a little bit of detail, but earned many other qualities, and so the final result was really better than the source IMHO.

Then, with a quite good "polished" image, at first I thought to add a grain plate to it, but then I decided to not apply it, because it was not part of the animation "soul"... did I take the right decision?

The ResolveR ultimate restoration workstation | [Fundamental Collection] thread | blog.spoRv.com | fan preservation forum: fanres.com |

Author
Time
 (Edited)

_,,,^..^,,,_ said:


Then, with a quite good "polished" image, at first I thought to add a grain plate to it, but then I decided to not apply it, because it was not part of the animation "soul"... did I take the right decision?

 Not all people love grain. It's a matter of taste.

Then i guess you did good.

I see that you're asking about this, obviously reading my comment on the BATB thread.

Well, adding grain to an already processed video is not very good, so you took the right decision in that regard. But I said I'll add grain  just to fake a filmic experience.

Of course the ideal would be to have a 35mm film reel of the film to preserve, and in that situation, a removal of grain would be sacrilege to me!

Author
Time

The fact is not that I do not love grain, at the contrary, I DO, and a lot!

But, to me, film should have it, while animation, even if, as you wrote, "lived" on film, should not, for the simple fact that grain in film was part of it - and film without grain, fine or coarse, could not exist (at least, "at the time" of film), and the director of photography used it to give the film the final look that could be seen in the theater, while grain in animation film was a "consequence" of the process...

For example, what if Disney in person had the chance to choose to release his animated features with or without grain?

Today, in our digital world, there are few, great directors that could still choose to actually "film" their movies, while some others are forced by studios to use digital cameras for mere economic reasons; and many others apply grain to digital sources to make them more "filmic" - this is why grain plates are gaining success today.

Not the same (IMHO) for animation: there is no need to give life to a lifeless source (beware, in this context intended as not live action!) - but, again, this is just my personal POV.

Last thing: even a century ago, it was possible to project animation on film without grain, just drawing it on blank film:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drawn-on-film_animation
of course, as it was a really time consuming process, it was not widely used, but still possible to obtain grain free animation before CGI!

The ResolveR ultimate restoration workstation | [Fundamental Collection] thread | blog.spoRv.com | fan preservation forum: fanres.com |

Author
Time
 (Edited)

In the end, maybe there is no right or wrong answer, and it's purely a matter of taste.

I love grain in animation because it reminds me of "live-action" films while grainless animation films remind me of cheap TV or direct to video animations.

Between these 2, i certainly prefer (aesthetically) the 2nd!

http://i1.someimage.com/Vk94Vvc.png

http://i1.someimage.com/Rf0gP95.png

Look how the wall, or trees etc., gain texture with grain..

Author
Time
 (Edited)

I agree that HDTV version seems better - I like its color grading better; but IMHO it's more due to the fact that BD is softer, and seems out of focus... just a proper sharpening (that is not harmful as when used with film), a ColourMatching touch (to get the HDTV color grading) and you should admit it's better than before...

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/84474

even if it still lacks a bit of detail in comparison to HDTV, almost surely a byproduct of excessive grain removal; but BD has more image on top and bottom...

What do you think?

The ResolveR ultimate restoration workstation | [Fundamental Collection] thread | blog.spoRv.com | fan preservation forum: fanres.com |

Author
Time
 (Edited)

The sharpened version still has no texture. The character cells may end up just "cleaned", but the painted backgrounds get smeared away by DNR. The brushstrokes on the brick walls are gone.

titanic said:

while grainless animation films remind me of cheap TV or direct to video animations.

Irony: Hunchback of Notre Dame vs DTV sequel.

Author
Time

I like a little grain, a little texture, but if something's blanketed with it then it's a bit much.

"Right now the coffees are doing their final work." (Airi, Masked Rider Den-o episode 1)

Author
Time

_,,,^..^,,,_ said:

I agree that HDTV version seems better - I like its color grading better; but IMHO it's more due to the fact that BD is softer, and seems out of focus... just a proper sharpening (that is not harmful as when used with film), a ColourMatching touch (to get the HDTV color grading) and you should admit it's better than before...

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/84474

even if it still lacks a bit of detail in comparison to HDTV, almost surely a byproduct of excessive grain removal; but BD has more image on top and bottom...

What do you think?

 Well, it's better now, but you know my reply. Still I prefer the grainy one.

Author
Time

drngr said:

The sharpened version still has no texture. The character cells may end up just "cleaned", but the painted backgrounds get smeared away by DNR. The brushstrokes on the brick walls are gone.

titanic said:

while grainless animation films remind me of cheap TV or direct to video animations.

Irony: Hunchback of Notre Dame vs DTV sequel.

 I don't understand!

The sequel has more grain than the first film itself! hehehe

how can that be?

Author
Time

nirbateman said:

The wording is a bit sketchy, ... the next paragraph mentions: " In the 2000 and 2010 releases, Deems Taylor's voice has been overdubbed throughout by Corey Burton because most of the audio tracks to Taylor's restored scenes have been lost"

So, I'm sorry, but it seems that the changes to the narration for the 2000 restoration were universal and final.

In Wikipedia's Video section, the 1st paragraph states "the 1990 restored theatrical version, was released on VHS and laser disc on November 1, 1991". That paragraph ends with "This version [the 1991 release] was also released as a DVD in 2000, outside of the U.S. ...".

I was hoping the non-Region-1 world would have the 1991 release on DVD, too. But we couldn't expect Disney to come out with an even newer general release sometime later that same year (could we?). Anyway, titanic's Greek PAL "Classic" DVD is evidence that the Wikipedia entry is wrong. *sigh*

Author
Time

_,,,^..^,,,_ said:

For example, what if Disney in person had the chance to choose to release his animated features with or without grain?

That's quite easy to answer.  Disney would have CHOSEN grain-free movies, but then he would have altered his animation process to account for it.

The fact is that cell animated features have been optimized during production to look appropriate on film stock.  It's the same reason why sampling the colors on cells is the WRONG way for Disney to color time new digital releases.

I like grain, but to me adding grain to processed video is just as much a travesty as completely scrubbing existing grain.  It's just artificial and the damage has already been done and you're obscuring more image detail.
If it's not there, it's not there.

Laserdiscs and most SD releases tend to be scrubbed to some degree to look good on home video.

In fact many companies used the same amount of scrubbing on their first HD releases (HD DVD and BD) as they used for DVD and those releases were dreadful.

It's an unfortunate fact of SD sources.

Dr. M