Great additions, the middle one is really bland looking.
VirtualDub seems to have forgotten to handle external encoders between yesterday and today, even with the exact same parameters.
I have huffyuv captures of the 88 CAV, I'm just not sure about the encoding settings to mkv.
The left two are the older and newer LDs, respectively. The rightmost one is the DVD.
The 1988 Cinderella CAV is very similar to the 1990 Peter Pan one, except the print is a bit dirtier than that one. Very vivid colors (who knows if they're correct) and balanced contrast. Also seems to have better shadow detail than the 1995 one, but something of a blue-pink haze.
Left: 1988, Center: 1995, Left: 2005 (the latter two aren't my caps)
I would be inclined to agree, especially if you see this comparison of the 93 master, the 09 master, and a 35mm print: http://www.davidbordwell.net/blog/2012/02/28/pandoras-digital-box-from-films-to-files/ (scroll way down)
A blend using something like 2/3 of the LD's luma and 2/3 of the Blu's chroma could be ideal. I doubt it would work given the differences in framing and distortion on the older master.
Yup CAV. It's a different experience than the Platinum edition that's for sure, there's a togetherness to the elements.
Pinocchio 1987 LD came, the print is visibly worn and faded (very brown) and there's some black crush and warping. Still, the image is very natural. The comparisons in the OP are congruent with my findings.
The Blu-ray is 1.66:1
The red line is the video/TV/DVD framing, the cyan line is the 1.66:1 framing on the Blu-ray (ignore Tigger's tail, they're different frames). The grey area represents the 4:3 frame that would have to be filled out to accommodate the width of the 1.66:1 framing, note that that doesn't mean that the 4:3 version isn't hitting the top or bottom of the open matte, it's just a centered guess.
Here is a section of TFatH that uses a completely different matting than the problematic one from earlier in the film:
Doctor M said:
TServo2049 said:
As I said, pre-CAPS animated features were clearly shot with a lot of "breathing room" so they could be presented matted anywhere from 1.66:1-1.85:1. The 4x3 releases may be slightly cropped because showing the extra side information visible in the widescreen transfers would also reveal unwanted vertical info, like cels that end within the frame - "floating torsos", etc.
Jungle Book wasn't theatrically exhibited in 4:3, so both ratios are valid. But I do like the idea of showing as much of the exposed frame as possible - there are a few 90s animated films (not Disney) where the widescreen and 4:3 versions each show unique picture info, indicating that they were shot at something like 1.66:1, and there is part of the frame that's never been seen in any transfers.
But that's probably not going to happen any time soon...
Sure, you'd expect some cropping. But my point is that the anamorphic and wide releases of Jungle Book actually have more left/right information than the 4x3 releases.
If the 4x3 version is all the animation fit to be seen, the widescreen should ONLY be less on the top and bottom. That is not the case.
That seems to be standard for 4x3 versions. Disney has messed up in the past by using the 4x3 version of The Great Mouse Detective to make a 1.66 matte on the old DVD. This was corrected for later releases with a proper theatrically matted 1.75:1 version (but still neither 1.66:1 nor an acceptable transfer).
Sometimes they matte it improperly
There's a 4:3 HDTV rip of TFatH that uses the old transfer. The image isn't as contrast-heavy and grain is readily intact. A very pleasant viewing experience, however there are a LOT of soft shots that just seems to be inherent to the source.
I'd give the original Peter Pan LD the overall advantage for being able to withstand the most adjustments from a TV set compared to the other editions.
The Jungle Book LD has some unique colors and better animation lines, but the contrast ruins it. It's the only 4:3 transfer with colors similar to the Platinum and Diamond transfer, so there's that.
The Jungle Book
1992 Laserdisc vs 2014 DVD
It could be toned down slightly (might be my capture settings too), but there's enough dullness present that it couldn't be a uniformly boosted transfer. I'm not willing to say that it's the right color timing, but it's hard to argue that Wendy's dress is supposed to be grey instead of blue. It's like reverse Cinderella.
edit: for clarification I think that the general palette of the Diamond could be correct, it's just a poor representation of that timing.
As in the old set of screencaps, there's a HUGE difference with colors in Peter Pan. Vibrant colors on the LD without being oversaturated.
(Left: 1990 LD, Right: 2013 DVD)
I'm not so sure it will ever happen as their only truly filmic transfer had to have been an accident (Rescuers Down Under). I'll definitely try to post a few screencaps, equipment's good to go.
Hi, a few searches for this subject led me to this thread/forum.
I ordered a few pre-Lowry laserdiscs, I'll see how they compare.
The Jungle Book Blu-ray is the same restoration as the 2007 DVD (I'm sure there are a few minor tweaks but I no longer have the old disc for reference). The DNR'd line work doesn't hold up as well in 1080p compared to its non-Xerox based predecessors, soft shots are especially deteriorated. Color timing seems to be okay and doesn't have any glaring consequences because the film had flat lighting to begin with.
I'll post my thoughts on the 1992 laserdisc when it arrives.