Disney Classics Screenshot Comparisons

[Freddy2]

By now, seeing all these Screenshot Comparisons, reading many reviews, not always in agreement with "our" observations over here... and hearing people making comments about the latest releases, I decided to add a PQ Rating to this discussion... against better judgment, as I know many people will disagree...

Go here to see the results!

Have fun!

[filmmusic]

Lnds, have you made a comparison anywhere (or are you going to do one) on Fantasia?

I was just watching yesterday a bit of the DVD next to the Bluray, and i was astonished again (and frustrated I must say) at the change of the colors!
I was watching the first segment of Pastoral Symphony, and in the Bluray all the dark shades and shadows, have become extinct! Now everything is bright without any shadow at all!!
I am not sure, if this is how it was originally (and the DVD or the VHS was a bad transfer), or if they deliberately changed the colors for the new generation, but I didn't like it!

(not to talk about the Toccatta where the almost black backgrounds near the end, have become bright sky blue)

I just read the review here:
Fantasia's hand-drawn frames are as true to their source
well, "far from it"...

[Lnds500]

Originally Posted by filmmusic

Lnds, have you made a comparison anywhere (or are you going to do one) on Fantasia?

I was just watching yesterday a bit of the DVD next to the Bluray, and i was astonished again (and frustrated I must say) at the change of the colors!
I was watching the first segment of Pastoral Symphony, and in the Bluray all the dark shades and shadows, have become extinct! Now everything is bright without any shadow at all!!
I am not sure, if this is how it was originally (and the DVD or the VHS was a bad transfer), or if they deliberately changed the colors for the new generation, but I didn't like it!

(not to talk about the Toccatta where the almost black backgrounds near the end, have become bright sky blue)

I just read the review here:
Fantasia's hand-drawn frames are as true to their source
well, "far from it"...

It's high on my to-do list. I have the discs, all I need is the time to take the shots.

Disclaimer, I think the Blu-ray looks fantastic

[filmmusic]

well, i don't mind so much about this:
(left bluray, right DVD)




or this:




but I DO mind about this:




or THIS!!

[Freddy2]

Well, as soon as you're up to it Lnds500, we can make it a team effort: you're having the 2010 Blu-ray and the 2000 DVD and I can add the same shots for the 1991 VHS to the comparison... Should be interesting!
But while I agree that some of those darker shots showed a bit more punch, I still think the Blu-ray looks amazing and extremely close to the artists intent! The only problems I have with it are:

- it looks too good for a movie of this age; it looks like new, which it isn't;
- the voice is not the original one;
- and the sound is very bad: clear but with hardly any stereo seperation or FantaSound as it was called; here the VHS was a whole lot better.

[Khronikos]

Wow, some revealing pics. I have to say Sword in the Stone needs a fullscreen release alongside the cropped version. They both would do fine but I do see a couple shots I would like the fullscreen better. Some seem better in widescreen but I don't essentially like the extreme cropping in all shots at all.

Not that it matters as they butchered it anyway. FWIW Robin Hood looks mostly excellent in Widescreen. In all honesty the only one I have a problem with is The Jungle Book besides this one. Both have too much cropping and were clearly not suited best for this ratio. Aristocats is also mostly centered and looks fine at 1.66 as does Hound. Sword in the Stone I hope you get treated better at some point.

Also, Beauty and the Beast looks a crapton better. Anybody that cannot see that is blind I tell ya!

[Freddy2]

Hello again everyone... and especially Ken!

After reading your Winnie the Pooh review, I would like to say a few things.
First of all, thanks for the excellent review! I read a few things I didn't know yet, for example the effect the DNR had on the live action scene.
But in the end, I think you are a bit harsh on this one and... a lot too mild on Robin Hood.

As an example I made two mini comparisons for Winnie and Robin, based on the screenshots taken by "our" Lnds500!

First The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh, Left the DVD - Right the BD:



While I agree that at first, the brightness seems a bit much on the BD, I really can't find any details that are truly lost. Some bright blues are a bit lighter and some greens go a bit to the yellow side, but all surrounding shades are still there, even when some are a bit closer to each other. Quite a few others are actually even further apart and easier to see than before... Look for example at the:

- grass on the left of Christopher Robin's head;
- or the snow on the branches of the right tree.

And when it comes to what the light effect was supposed to be... No matter how difficult "should be" discussions are... When I ask myself whether or not colors and contrast are right, I often imagine to scene and its weather conditions. Both scenes are clearly "shot" with bright sunshine, judging by the shadows. But only the BD shots look sunny. The old ones look like there is bad weather coming in...
And then there was the DNR. While apparently, unfortunately, the live action scene was harmed a bit, no damage whatsoever has been done to the animation. All line detail is there and everything is perfectly sharp, no fuzziness at all! I guess they mastered the DNR process perfectly this time, but of course it is aimed at animation, so logically it has not been optimized for live action. A small price to pay, I would say.
One last note about the AR: while everyone here (could) know I really don't like it when they take away parts of the artistic animation, I must say they have done a good job on this one. Almost no shot looks bad, except for one or two. And as both shots above clearly show, they have done it on a scene per scene basis, as they should.


But now Robin Hood, again Left the DVD - Right the BD:



I'm not sure if I even need to say anything here... Look at the loss of detail in the grass on the BD. Look at the fuzziness of every single line. Look at the loss of detail and shades on the trees. Look at the odd color shift of Marian's robe: once it had four different shades of pink and purple. Now it looks greyish and the robe itself has the same color as her eyes, whereas before they were far far apart. The wanted poster looked like old paper with sharp printing on it. Now it looks flat and out of focus. Not to mention the DNR effect on the wood structure and the loss of contrast in the closet.

I could go on and on, but I won't...
Just my conclusion, that clearly Winnie's restoration is A LOT better than Robin's. Don't you think so too now?...

[Ken Brown]

Originally Posted by Freddy2

Hello again everyone... and especially Ken!

After reading your Winnie the Pooh review, I would like to say a few things.
First of all, thanks for the excellent review! I read a few things I didn't know yet, for example the effect the DNR had on the live action scene.
But in the end, I think you are a bit harsh on this one and... a lot too mild on Robin Hood.

As an example I made two mini comparisons for Winnie and Robin, based on the screenshots taken by "our" Lnds500!

First The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh, Left the DVD - Right the BD:

While I agree that at first, the brightness seems a bit much on the BD, I really can't find any details that are truly lost. Some bright blues are a bit lighter and some greens go a bit to the yellow side, but all surrounding shades are still there, even when some are a bit closer to each other. Quite a few others are actually even further apart and easier to see than before... Look for example at the:

- grass on the left of Christopher Robin's head;
- or the snow on the branches of the right tree.

And when it comes to what the light effect was supposed to be... No matter how difficult "should be" discussions are... When I ask myself whether or not colors and contrast are right, I often imagine to scene and its weather conditions. Both scenes are clearly "shot" with bright sunshine, judging by the shadows. But only the BD shots look sunny. The old ones look like there is bad weather coming in...
And then there was the DNR. While apparently, unfortunately, the live action scene was harmed a bit, no damage whatsoever has been done to the animation. All line detail is there and everything is perfectly sharp, no fuzziness at all! I guess they mastered the DNR process perfectly this time, but of course it is aimed at animation, so logically it has not been optimized for live action. A small price to pay, I would say.
One last note about the AR: while everyone here (could) know I really don't like it when they take away parts of the artistic animation, I must say they have done a good job on this one. Almost no shot looks bad, except for one or two. And as both shots above clearly show, they have done it on a scene per scene basis, as they should.


But now Robin Hood, again Left the DVD - Right the BD:

I'm not sure if I even need to say anything here... Look at the loss of detail in the grass on the BD. Look at the fuzziness of every single line. Look at the loss of detail and shades on the trees. Look at the odd color shift of Marian's robe: once it had four different shades of pink and purple. Now it looks greyish and the robe itself has the same color as her eyes, whereas before they were far far apart. The wanted poster looked like old paper with sharp printing on it. Now it looks flat and out of focus. Not to mention the DNR effect on the wood structure and the loss of contrast in the closet.

I could go on and on, but I won't...
Just my conclusion, that clearly Winnie's restoration is A LOT better than Robin's. Don't you think so too now?...

Two things are at play, both of which illustrate why it's extremely important to be careful when comparing BD screenshots to poorly compressed DVD screenshots. Artificial sharpening in old DVDs is so severe sometimes that it can add perceived or false detail that isn't there in the way that it interacts with and artificially sharpens lines, grain, etc. (More info on that can be found earlier in this thread and elsewhere.) Moreover, DVD presentations (particularly older, more problematic presentations) shouldn't be used to judge accurate color timing. Many times, the color timing seen in old DVDs is way off (brighter, darker, more saturated, less saturated, or completely skewed), and doesn't necessarily reflect the coloring, lighting or intentions of the animators or artists accurately.

It's a double-edged sword. On one hand, it's important to reserve the possibility that, if it's there, it's meant to be seen. On the other hand, it's important to remember the role of the filmmaker; that sometimes things are there that are meant to be obscured in shadow (like the contents behind Marian, in the darker portion of the image). It's tough to tell, honestly, especially when you don't have complete faith in the restoration. Perhaps Robin Hood is supposed to be lighter. Perhaps not. It's crucial to remember too that these things tend to vary from scene to scene, as remastering and restoration teams approach different shots and sequences in different ways, as specific problems and challenges present themselves. Without the original animators and filmmakers weighing in, though, answering what was meant to be will always be very difficult.

Robin Hood has a nice, filmic appearance, and grain is present. Pooh is brighter than it should be, with zero grain. Does that mean Robin Hood gets everything right? I'm sure it doesn't. But its problems struck me as limited to certain shots, not things that affect the entire film. With Pooh, the brightness cranking is present throughout (minor as it is) and the DNR is at work constantly (relatively minor as it may be). How much is affected and to what degree? I'm not sure. What I do know is that comparing the opening of The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh to A Day for Eeyore (which recycles the opening) demonstrates that Pooh has more problems than it may appear.

That's why I'm so glad these discussions can continue in the forum. A review is a moment in time, a thread like this can keep a discussion going as long as new information or exchanges are being presented. It also gives me more to pore over and consider come Disney's next release

(I will say, though, I think a big problem here is that I wrote so much on Pooh that it comes across as being a more negative review overall than it is! Next review, accurate but more concise. Gotta stop being so wordy )

[Ken Brown]

On a separate note, 95% of these debates and mysteries could be easily avoided at the outset if studios included even a brief behind-the-Blu featurette with each Blu-ray presentation; featurettes that touched on the work, techniques and decision making that went into these sorts of restorations and remasters. On those rare cases that restoration or remaster featurettes are included, it's almost always an enlightening experience that settles a lot and leaves much less to the imagination. It'll never happen, I know, but it'd be great

[chip75]

Originally Posted by Ken Brown

On a separate note, 95% of these debates and mysteries could be easily avoided at the outset if studios included even a brief behind-the-Blu featurette with each Blu-ray presentation; featurettes that touched on the work, techniques and decision making that went into these sorts of restorations and remasters. On those rare cases that restoration or remaster featurettes are included, it's almost always an enlightening experience that settles a lot and leaves much less to the imagination. It'll never happen, I know, but it'd be great

I'd love that to! I thought an introduction to The Terminator by James Cameron would have answered a lot of questions and calmed the endless debate. Same goes for The Fellowship of the Ring and countless others.

I'm sure I'm not alone when I consider restoration featurettes the most interesting of special features on DVD or Blu-ray.

[Lnds500]

Originally Posted by chip75

I'd love that to! I thought an introduction to The Terminator by James Cameron would have answered a lot of questions and calmed the endless debate. Same goes for The Fellowship of the Ring and countless others.

I'm sure I'm not alone when I consider restoration featurettes the most interesting of special features on DVD or Blu-ray.

Then again, I don't see anyone taking the stage to explain how they "restored" SitS. Disney's "restorations" beg many questions, the answers of which are quite conflicting with Disney's "family-friendly" attitude towards home media.

[Freddy2]

Originally Posted by Ken Brown

(I will say, though, I think a big problem here is that I wrote so much on Pooh that it comes across as being a more negative review overall than it is! Next review, accurate but more concise. Gotta stop being so wordy )

No need. Like to know what you're thinking. As if I'm not in the same boat as you, regarding being wordy!...
And by the way, in most cases I agree pretty much with your final verdict, give or take half a point. Notable exceptions being: Cinderella, Mouse Detective, Oliver, Robin and up until yesterday Aristocats!...

[yumny]

Originally Posted by Lnds500

Then again, I don't see anyone taking the stage to explain how they "restored" SitS. Disney's "restorations" beg many questions, the answers of which are quite conflicting with Disney's "family-friendly" attitude towards home media.

It would probably be the most hilarious thing ever if they tried explaining the SitS disaster.

"So.. um.." *sweats nervously* "We er.. er.. wanted to er.. make the er.. colors bolder? Yes, that's it. And um.. the grain.. to be kept to a minimum.." *sweats even more* "..because.. er.. well the public doesn't like that? So.. basically.." *the guy faints*

[Lnds500]

Originally Posted by yumny

It would probably be the most hilarious thing ever if they tried explaining the SitS disaster.

"So.. um.." *sweats nervously* "We er.. er.. wanted to er.. make the er.. colors bolder? Yes, that's it. And um.. the grain.. to be kept to a minimum.." *sweats even more* "..because.. er.. well the public doesn't like that? So.. basically.." *the guy faints*

"..and here you can see the beautiful animation lines [pause] ehm, that's strange - no lines here [skips frames], or here or [repeats indefinitely]"

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Ken Brown

Moreover, DVD presentations (particularly older, more problematic presentations) shouldn't be used to judge accurate color timing. Many times, the color timing seen in old DVDs is way off (brighter, darker, more saturated, less saturated, or completely skewed), and doesn't necessarily reflect the coloring, lighting or intentions of the animators or artists accurately.

On another forum someone commented that (they apparently prefer) the new "Mastered in 4K" version of looks more like the LaserDisc color timing.

[hazelwu]

Originally Posted by Lnds500

Then again, I don't see anyone taking the stage to explain how they "restored" SitS. Disney's "restorations" beg many questions, the answers of which are quite conflicting with Disney's "family-friendly" attitude towards home media.

Haha. Most likely because there was no restoration at all. It looks like an SD upscaled with digital manipulation.

[filmmusic]

WOOOOOOOOWWWWW!!!!!!

Another small studio shows again to me how bad is Disney in "restorations"!!

A bluray with Gulliver's Travels is being released !

Frame to frame comparison of a earlier (possibly slightly different) Thunderbean HD transfer of "Gulliver's Travels" (before cleanup) and the Koch release:
http://www.intanibase.com/forum/inde...10867#msg10867

aspect ratio: Intact!
grain: Intact!!


This is how all restorations should be made!!

I can't express how impressed I am!
This will be the release of the year for me!!!

I won’t make any claims that there is more picture showing here than other additions, or that the Fleischer family entrusted only us to do it right or anything like that-it’s just an honest transfer of the original film as it was made, in the correct aspect ratio, with extensive, time consuming digital restoration to remove print defects (and not lines on the characters) but not ‘over’ cleaned up or enhanced beyond what the film looked like.

http://cartoonresearch.com/index.php...ling-restored/

[Lnds500]

Originally Posted by filmmusic

WOOOOOOOOWWWWW!!!!!!

Another small studio shows again to me how bad is Disney in "restorations"!!

A bluray with Gulliver's Travels is being released !



aspect ratio: Intact!
grain: Intact!!


This is how all restorations should be made!!

I can't express how impressed I am!
This will be the release of the year for me!!!



http://cartoonresearch.com/index.php...ling-restored/

That is very impressive indeed. It's clear not a lot of money has been spent on removing dirt and scratches but even so, the new BD is the clear winner.

[filmmusic]

Originally Posted by Lnds500

That is very impressive indeed. It's clear not a lot of money has been spent on removing dirt and scratches but even so, the new BD is the clear winner.

well, from what I understood those screenshots are before clean up, but if you read the quote, they will only remove dirt and scratches. They won't do anything else on the picture.

in the last link I posted it says:

Before that, here are some stills from the transfer (pre-restoration) – click thumbnails to enlarge

about the round edges:

question:
Am I correct in thinking that those round corners of the frames in your screenshot are the actual corners of the physical film frame, and thus your transfer shows the true entirety of the picture, right up to the edges? If so, then I think you would beat even an official home video release from Paramount on that aspect (as if Paramount is ever going to release any animation sets before hell freezes over), as my understanding is that when film is transferred to video, normally the edges of the picture are cropped a bit, removing the round corners of the film frame as well as changing the aspect ratio from Academy 1.375:1 to 4:3 (a.k.a. 1.33:1).
Answer:
That would be right.... now, I can see the argument for not showing those corners and cropping in more, but this is the true aspect ratio of the original film, and the full 'real' composition. Of course, even a theater's aperture plate would sometimes cut some of the picture off, but since we can get the whole picture there, why not show it?

I LOOOOOOVE that guy!!!!!!!

"Please, please, please Disney, hire that guy to do all your restorations from scratch!"

[Lnds500]

Originally Posted by filmmusic

well, from what I understood those screenshots are before clean up, but if you read the quote, they will only remove dirt and scratches. They won't do anything else on the picture.

in the last link I posted it says:



about the round edges:



I LOOOOOOVE that guy!!!!!!!

"Please, please, please Disney, hire that guy to do all your restorations from scratch!"

It would be nice if they offered an additional version without the rounded corners. I prefer it this way, but a lot of people don't and I get their points.

I pre-ordered this btw. Shipping is very expensive (almost as much as the movie) but I wanna support this effort.