Disney Classics Screenshot Comparisons

[PeterTHX]

Twitter is moronic - as is complaining about Sleeping Beauty.

[Poya]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Twitter is moronic - as is complaining about Sleeping Beauty.

Hey, George, didn’t think I’d find you here.

[Lutz]

Originally Posted by 78deluxe

The idea that the original intent was for the imperfections of film to be a part of the plan is unsubstantiated as far as anything I've heard or read.

Do you think musicians in the 1930s intended for the recordings they made to have noise, flutter, speed and pitch fluctuation? Of course not, but that was a limiting factor of the technology they had at the time. I'm sure the vast majority would have preferred better sounding reproduction of the instruments and voices recorded. Just like I'm sure the artists painting the cells would have loved for the original cells to be seen in the best quality possible in motion.

Animating hand painted cells in the time frame is no different.

There's a doco on the BLADE RUNNER blu ray where they talk about the matte paintings and that when shot on film the colour changes. They boasted that they employed an artist who knew exactly how to paint things in boosted colour so that it would read as the correct colour they wanted on film when shot - so they wouldn't have to colour correct in post.

I might be misremembering but I believe this is also covered in the BAMBI DVD docos that Walt instructed everyone to paint one level brighter to compensate for the loss in colour in the film transfer. And I might be really misremembering here but they also talk about how the grain gives second life in animating the images.

Bottom line: if you're not compensating for the way things look on film you're an amateur.

[Rzzzz]

Originally Posted by StarkRomanoff

The Cinderella blu has been on my wishlist for years but my god they destroyed the detail! I much prefer the duller film print than a bright blob in this case.

Holy crap ! I had no idea they went this far. I thought they just cleaned the images up (restore color, remove debris, dirt , scratches, etc). This is HORRIBLE...

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Poya

Hey, George, didn’t think I’d find you here.

Wow, did you post that to Twitter?

[Galactus123]

Originally Posted by thinredline

Cinderella

(image taken from originaltrilogy.com)
original 35mm print (left), Blu-ray (right):

I was thinking about buying the blu-ray at some point but good that I saw this.

[flashpulse]

Originally Posted by Galactus123

I was thinking about buying the blu-ray at some point but good that I saw this.

The 35mm is actually more accurate in color for its time. Disney is now altering the color by trying to make their films more vibrant. I prefer the original myself. It's hideous that they are removing detail. I would like to see a true 1080p/blu-ray scan of these films with no alteration. That would be awesome.

[miniroll32]

Don't know if this has been discussed anywhere, but Disney+ has non-DNR versions of Robin Hood and The Sword in the Stone.

[jolennon]

Originally Posted by miniroll32

Don't know if this has been discussed anywhere, but Disney+ has non-DNR versions of Robin Hood and The Sword in the Stone.

Didn't know about Robin Hood. Do you know where I could find screenshots for comparison or a sample clip?

[MattDean]

Originally Posted by miniroll32

Don't know if this has been discussed anywhere, but Disney+ has non-DNR versions of Robin Hood and The Sword in the Stone.

If you’re talking about the films on Disney+ UK, SITS is the non-DNR version and looks great - but RH is DNR’d. I think RH may be the same version that’s on blu.

[jolennon]

Does anybody know where I could find an HD version of The Aristocats and Oliver & Company with the older masters? They used to be online a few years ago and the blu-rays are too cleaned up for my taste

[miniroll32]

Originally Posted by MattDean

If you’re talking about the films on Disney+ UK, SITS is the non-DNR version and looks great - but RH is DNR’d. I think RH may be the same version that’s on blu.

Not what I'm seeing. RH on Disney+ is an entirely differently transfer to the Blu-Ray.

It looks like a true restoration; grain is intact, photography artefacts left in, colours true to the cel setup.

[Farerb]

Originally Posted by miniroll32

Not what I'm seeing. RH on Disney+ is an entirely differently transfer to the Blu-Ray.

It looks like a true restoration; grain is intact, photography artefacts left in, colours true to the cel setup.

Why would they do this to Robin Hood and not Cinderella?

[Det. Bullock]

Originally Posted by farerb

Why would they do this to Robin Hood and not Cinderella?

My guess is that Robin Hood was probably just scanned and put through standard DNR for the Blu Ray while Cinderella had undergone the full digital "dissassemble and rebuild" degraining and color boosting procedure way before it was put on blu ray.

[WBMakeVMarsMovieNOW]

Originally Posted by flashpulse

The 35mm is actually more accurate in color for its time. Disney is now altering the color by trying to make their films more vibrant. I prefer the original myself. It's hideous that they are removing detail. I would like to see a true 1080p/blu-ray scan of these films with no alteration. That would be awesome.

I would be wary of going by some of the scans on originaltrilogy when judging colors. Many there are totally messing up the scan colors. I think they are maybe treating some very much non-sRGB colorspace as if it were sRGB/REC709 gamut or something.

I have some 35mm of certain things I've seen posted there and the colors on my 35mm are WAY, WAY more rich and vibrant than on many of the 35mm scans there of Disney stuff. For The Little Mermaid most of all. It's 1000x more vibrant than they show for their 35mm scans.

And for some older Disney stuff some of the old 35mm prints are simply, poor faded, old copy of copy of copy and while looking somewhat dull that might not be representative of how the better prints they made for original release looked.

The removing detail stuff for say Cinderella is real though and a pretty horrendous remastering job.

[Warstorck]

Originally Posted by WBMakeVMarsMovieNOW

I would be wary of going by some of the scans on originaltrilogy when judging colors. Many there are totally messing up the scan colors. I think they are maybe treating some very much non-sRGB colorspace as if it were sRGB/REC709 gamut or something.

I have some 35mm of certain things I've seen posted there and the colors on my 35mm are WAY, WAY more rich and vibrant than on many of the 35mm scans there of Disney stuff. For The Little Mermaid most of all. It's 1000x more vibrant than they show for their 35mm scans.

And for some older Disney stuff some of the old 35mm prints are simply, poor faded, old copy of copy of copy and while looking somewhat dull that might not be representative of how the better prints they made for original release looked.

The removing detail stuff for say Cinderella is real though and a pretty horrendous remastering job.

There was a V2 released of the little Mermaid scan about a month ago that has way better color.

[Rogue Deputy]

Originally Posted by Warstorck

There was a V2 released of the little Mermaid scan about a month ago that has way better color.

Would you mind PMing me about this version of The Little Mermaid? I'd love to check it out if possible.

[WBMakeVMarsMovieNOW]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Film was a "necessary evil" to get the public to see them. You can bet your entire fortune that if Disney had CAPS available to him from the start he would have used it. Because it lets them get as close as possible to the original artwork without the dust, noise, and yes...grain of film. Not to mention the generations of going from negative to interpositive to master to mass produced prints.

perhaps but it would not have had lines thickened and parts of the actual drawings removed by DNR or parts of images with grain frozen in place and other parts with no grain which all adds to a weird look for the latter stuff and a messed up and altered look for the first stuff

[WBMakeVMarsMovieNOW]

Originally Posted by miniroll32

Just out of interest, I've made a little comparison between the Blu-ray of The Little Mermaid (bottom) and a documentary recorded shortly after the movies original release (top).

the re-release prints (after they ran the whole thing through computers) seem muted compared to the original release prints if you compare 35mm frames from each you see intense, wild saturation in the original release prints that is often dulled in the re-release prints

[Blu-ray monster]

Originally Posted by Lnds500

36) Mulan (1998)


- This might be the sharpest-looking CAPS film I've seen. I may be mistaken, but the line-art is incredibly defined and detailed.
- Colours remain the same
- The are slight hints of aliasing in the ghosts' scene (check the screenshot). It must be a source issue cause not all of them have it.
- Video quality gets a 4,5/5 from me


Comparison Index:
DVD Special Edition (2004): DVD SE
DVD Special Edition (2004) [1080]: DVD SE (1080)
Blu-ray 15 Anniversary edition (US): Blu-ray


------- DVD SE ---------- DVD SE (1080) ------- Blu-ray

can you please repost this comparison.