I've tried to link in the first post any preservations that have a home here on OT.
There is an analog preservation site that several members here belong to with additional projects. You might want to check it out.
I don't know to what degree Disney animators took into account film stock once they started using CAPS.
TLM was made in a fairly bleak period for Disney's animation department. A lot of the really experienced animators had left. It doesn't strike me that they went through all the same things as they did with their Technicolor collaboration days with answer prints and all.
Besides, by the 90's film stock was a much different (better) beast than in Disney's early days.
Considering that fully CAPS produced films look fairly identical in nearly all their DVD and BD releases, I don't think ANY adjustment is being made (or is needed) when Disney digitally transfer those films.
Several DVDs that did have an intermediate film stock before DVD don't look significantly different (color-wise) from the later all digital transfers from CAPS.
Either they have been REALLY good at matching the film prints or the CAPS could be as accurate a reference as plain cells at this point. Rightly or wrongly.
BUT the CAPS segments are at least stable and already digitized. I'd rather they went that way than adjusting colors and brightness because they'd be too dark while you're wearing 3D glasses.
The Platinum Edition's several mini flaws being corrected at least shows that people familiar with the film were at least involved in the restoration.
At this point, it's probably just a bunch new college grads hacking away with Photoshop or something making the adjustments with no real knowledge of the film.
Seriously, would you leave real obvious flaws (hand out of place, shirts changing colors, etc.) in a new restoration from a new print, but still take the time to paint a KNEE out?!
Fidelity to the original film was not their agenda. 3D eye candy for a new generation well timed to tie into Once Upon a Time's Ariel appearance, the Magic Kingdom's Little Mermaid ride and whatever else TLM branded stuff IS the goal.
They're probably using some annoying buzzy word like Synergy.
What really puts me off is we know that this films has Disney's first use of CAPS for the wedding scene.
This means that there is footage in the film that is available purely digital and can be used as a reference for the rest of the film. Every indication is that they aren't doing that though. This is the third or fourth color scheme for the film.
So far, I honestly don't get everyone's excitement. From what I've seen/heard so far it looks like Diamond-Edition-Business-as-usual.
Hmm. Will check that on the last two releases now...
Edit: Saw it... also very glad they fixed it. Like the teleporting raccoon in Bambi, once you see it, you can never un-see it.
It sure doesn't look like it was the animators intent. If it wasn't fixed in the Diamond Edition, it's because no one who worked on the film was involved in the restoration and the error has been forgotten.
I'm just waiting for the wonderful people at the Blu-ray.com to put out comparison screenshots of all the releases.
What is a Grimsby error?
I maintain these changes are deliberate not accidental. Left in their original state, I think it would cause problems when viewing in 3D.
What disturbed me most is that Ariel is repainted to look like her grotto is in full daylight.
I am Flounder's sigh.
I've recently been rewatching all Disney animated films (more or less in chronological order) and on a bigger TV than ever before.
I'm also seeing thing I haven't seen before.
Tonight I sat through Pete's Dragon (Gold Edition, which is possibly the same transfer/restoration as all DVDs).
Besides the obvious over scrubbing of grain, I saw something I'm hesitant to claim as true.
Did they regrade it to orange/teal or try to? Most white areas seemed pushed to bluish and a lot of people seemed sunburned.
My problem is I no longer have any older editions to compare it to.
Can anyone confirm or deny this?
Does the newest transfer (BD) look better? Did they use less DNR.
Is there something that I should be recommending as a 'purist' version? The problem is, I know all older versions are severely cut down.
Btw, did anyone else see the mention that Disney is planning a non-musical reboot of this film? Ugh.
I... uh... (facepalm). Could someone else answer this? I can't type from the laughing.
link343 said:
Doctor M, I was thinking about this last night. Have you taken in account the topless woman controversy into consideration when finding a purist version of The Rescuers? I know it's an extremely minor point, but I think it's worth pointing out.
I know when Disney released it on Home Video for the second time, they caught the frames and recalled the VHS. I don't think the frame was in the first DVD release.
I know nothing of this... at all. It was not taken into account, do you have links with more details? Is there an available version besides some non-recalled VHS that can be recommended for purists?
Edit: A quick Google tells me the nudity as added in post production... so NOT the intent of the animators. Probably Tyler Durdan's father having some fun then.
Can the nude frames be considered more accurate or less? How badly has Disney edited to remove them?
The DVD is a later version? I didn't know that happened. Cool.
Are the versions identical, just different formats? Because, yeah, usenet would be great (or Mega, or whatever).
Welcome, Freddy2, and thank you for the input. I hope you are cool with your screenshots being linked. Those sort of comparisons are really impressive and extremely difficult to replicate. (Especially when analog sources are involved.)
I've made corrections to the Cinderella entry in the first post and have reworded the recommendations.
Some of the lost detail is very much lost (e.g., the bow). In some cases I'm not so sure.
The fairy dust looks like lost detail, but you can actually count the specks in both versions and the only real difference is that it is now smaller in diameter.
Fattening the dust is the sort of manipulation that would have been done for home video to keep it from disappearing between scan lines of the TV.
I'm trying to be even handed until we have cells or some other source to confirm which detail is actually lost.
We are in complete agreement with the colors being badly messed with. They are.
I have also now been more specific that the VHS and LD are the preferred format. The screenshots you posted make it apparent the LD2DVD transfer has some issues (possibly in the LD itself) that wash out the details it is meant to be preserving. (Without VHS vs LD screenshots, I'm not sure where the issue is.)
Whatever method you used to take those VHS screenshots would be a great way to make a VHS2DVD transfer.
I hope I am now more clear, VHS and LD are the purist source for Cinderella, period.
If you can tolerate incorrect colors and some unfortunate loss of detail, the Diamond release has amazing clarity and some additional detail that even the analog sources lack. Which is why I say, at best, it is only 'acceptable'.
The 'acceptable' suggestion is also intended to be more accessible for those that may not be able to track down and/or play vid tapes or LDs. In the case of Cinderella that's a problem since there are no digital home video releases that predate the restoration. Snow White in an even worse situation since I've seen no pre-restoration home video version at all.
Romulans are close relatives of Vulcans which have very long lifespans.
It's possible Nero wouldn't look much older. The ear point missing gives the impression of time passing even if you didn't know he was in a Klingon prison.
Because of the most recent film, I actually now care less about this edit ever coming out. I've decided to just avoid the rebooted Treks.
AntcuFaalb said:
Doctor M said:
Jay said:
Doctor M said:
If we're talking requests, how about one email per thread for replies.
Preferences > Topic and Post Settings > When I'm subscribed to a topic, send me an update only once until I view the topic again.
Was that always there?
Since I signed-up, at least.
Jay said:
Doctor M said:
If we're talking requests, how about one email per thread for replies.
Preferences > Topic and Post Settings > When I'm subscribed to a topic, send me an update only once until I view the topic again.
If we're talking requests, how about one email per thread for replies.
Yay!
According to admin I spoke with Disney films are allowed if they aren't recent. It's why I was able to get pre-approval for the ones I posted.
Upload rule 2 allows something commercially available: "- If a TV rip's content differs from that of its commercially-available release, the TV rip is allowed."
Rule 7 says: "NO recent DISNEY, or fox , or hbo, or big company w/ lawyers."
So it passes both those rules. It shouldn't be a problem.
Big update to the guide. Added info on several new releases. I'll reserve judgement on the Little Mermaid until its official released.
Changes cover: Cinderella, Lady and the Tramp, Sleeping Beauty, Sword in the Stone, Aristocats, Robin Hood, Oliver & Company and The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh.
Xerography era Blu-rays did not fare well.
As always, disagreement, comments and debate is welcome. I'm not the final word on this and certainly not much of an expert.
@Mazaliche - I researched a few releases of Melody Time when I was working on it. I've never seen a Portuguese audio track. There aren't even that many subtitle tracks outside of Spanish.
From Aristocats (the first post Jungle Book film) to Beauty and the Beast, most of these films have had a full frame release on DVD. Usually in the Gold Edition. I've noted most of them in the first post.
If I missed any, you can check out editions here: http://www.dvdizzy.com/disneyanimatedclassics.html
I believe from Fox and the Hound on, Disney started moving back towards natively wide formats.
As far as Beauty and the Beast goes, 1.66:1 (the OAR) isn't that far off from 1.77:1. Yes some image is lost, but not a lot. You're talking about 3% each side. You lose more than that in overscan.
Heck, a lot of films lose that just in the transfer process. For example, the Jungle Book full frame version SHOULD be everything animated, but the widescreen release, while cropped at the top and bottom shows some image on the sides not present in the 4x3 release.
It's not technically pan and scan, just sloppy work. This isn't limited to Disney, a lot of studios do it when transferring films.
I wouldn't mind seeing a screenshot comparison of the LD to the PE DVD showing how much is being lost or gained.
70mm. Cool. That'd be a great track to have.
Btw, some suggestions if anyone is planning to re-edit the Little Mermaid BD.
If you need the Limited Edition audio track, PM me and I'll get a clean rip. The version on my release was cut to fit.
I can also provide the original 'knee' clip from the original disc.
If you are going to sync a new audio track, do not do it by eye. Some people are more sensitive to desync than others.
Count frames to match or use an editor and run the audio tracks side by side. When you hear an echo, go back, cut, adjust and repeat.
Finally, EmpireSB gave me a good idea. It would be fantastic if someone could do a digital laserdisc rip of the original laserdisc stereo track.
A lossless mix of the original theatrical release would be a real nice option in addition to the re-release DD track.
Btw, I dug out some screenshots of the Euro Diamond Edition of Jungle Book.
Yes, it looks as bad as Sword in the Stone. It's also badly compressed. I saw one person referred to it as a blockfest.
Lower expectations accordingly.
I'd post screenshots, but I'm lazy.
...and the final product isn't always representative of what is released in other countries. Jungle Book is the same era and uses xerography like Sword in the Stone. I don't see the U.S. release looking much better than SitS does.
As far as the Little Mermaid audio: The first LD release of LM has Dolby surround (2 channel prologic), which would be based on the ORIGINAL Dolby theatrical mix. IIRC, in theaters it was a sort of analog equivalent to DD 5.1. This disc is pan and scan.
The 1998 LD contains the 5.1 digitally remaster soundtrack from the 1997 release as well as a mono and Dolby surround track. I'm not sure if the latter two are downmixes of the '97 mix or from the '89 mix.
The first DVD is pretty much identical to the 1998 LD. It is non-animorphic letterboxed and contains the 5.1 digitally remastered track.
Imdb claims there was 70mm 6-track original release mix. I couldn't prove it, but it's possible.
I couldn't tell you if there is much difference between the '89 and '97 mix. It's most likely that they just reproduced the Dolby analog mix as a Digital mix because theaters were changing over.
This would be unlike the DEHT mixes where they assume you only have TV speakers and are half deaf.