Disney Classics Screenshot Comparisons

[Det. Bullock]

Originally Posted by filmmusic

Can I ask something?
How can a man with a 3 people crew (!!) produce such impressive results (https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Fleis...8/#Screenshots), and a multi millior dollar company with I-don't-know-how-many-people in the restoration department, produce the worst restorations ever in animated classics?

Different priorities.

Disney works for the general audience while Thunderbean instead works with more aware animation fans in mind, perhaps even a bit of the "Scott and Lucas complex" going on with the Disney executives.

I would not be surprised to see more high fidelity Disney blu rays for the pre-CAPS era movies in some years if people start to become more aware.

Sincerely I didn't know what I was missing until I bought The Secret of Nimh, seeing a major cartoon on Blu without filtering or degraining was a revelation.

[filmmusic]

Originally Posted by Det. Bullock

Sincerely I didn't know what I was missing until I bought The Secret of Nimh, seeing a major cartoon on Blu without filtering or degraining was a revelation.

[Freddy2]

Originally Posted by filmmusic

How can a man with a 3 people crew (!!) produce such impressive results (https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Fleis...8/#Screenshots), and a multi millior dollar company with I-don't-know-how-many-people in the restoration department, produce the worst restorations ever in animated classics?

Well... first of all, definitely not all of their restorations are bad: I would say it's about 50/50 at the moment. Some of them are very good (Jungle Book/Little Mermaid), while others are horrible (Sword in the Stone/Cinderella).
So it's not the lack of technical skill in the restoration department that's causing those train wrecks. I would say it's the lack of executive decisions that's causing that "3 people crew" to excel; they're just fans!

[Lnds500]

Originally Posted by filmmusic

Beauty and the Beast was transfered to film so it is a film!

Since the film was released at cinemas through a transfer on film, IT IS a film!!

Well it's not. You must be one of the very few people who confuse film distribution with film elements. It simply doesn't apply here and I have explained why.

If they didn't want grain to go with it then they shouldn't have released it at cinemas but straight to VHS

Ok, makes no sense.

and Lnds, I didn't ask them to make a change and ADD artificially grain! I ask for them to preserve the original film! Not the drawings.

http://www.landofwhimsy.com/archives.../decloaking-1/
If it bothers you THAT much you can just add a grain effect on the movie. Most players have this!

Thankfully you are one of the very few people who like that but whatever

Yes, predator was shot on film, and BATB was transfered to film. The result is what counts.
And the end result is that both are films with grain.

No it's not the same. The original creation in Predator's case had grain in it. The original creation in BatB's case did not. It was added when it was transferred to theatres.

And another thing I am wondering:
If grain wasn't supposed to be in the picture and they didn't want it at all, I'm curious why they released publicity stills from the movie WITH grain!
Why didn't they just release the original caps files?

I don't know. Why do they use old restorations in their new trailers (BatB, TLM etc)?

Maybe that was what they had in hand (because that image was created a little before the movie's Special Edition in 2002).

Originally Posted by Det. Bullock

Sincerely I didn't know what I was missing until I bought The Secret of Nimh, seeing a major cartoon on Blu without filtering or degraining was a revelation.

DNR fiascos and just scanning a negative and putting it on a disc are the exact opposites, none of which is good.

Secret of Nimh could use a good, proper restoration.

[filmmusic]

Originally Posted by Lnds500

DNR fiascos and just scanning a negative and putting it on a disc are the exact opposites, none of which is good.

If I had to choose between the 2, I would definitely choose the 2nd. I don't mind a little dirt here and there (ok, you know i Love grain too), so.....

By the way, I watched yesterday Who Framed Roger Rabbit, and I was for once again IMPRESSED by the grainy cartoon in the beginning of the film!
How alive that seemed..

@Freddy
Well, the Jungle book has been degrained so it doesn't look good in my book. At all!
I agree though that little Mermaid is very good, judging from the screenshots.

edit: The thing I don't understand at all, is why in Little Mermaid they retained the grain, and in other older classics they degrained them completely!

[Lnds500]

Originally Posted by filmmusic

If I had to choose between the 2, I would definitely choose the 2nd. I don't mind a little dirt here and there (ok, you know i Love grain too), so.....

That we can agree on.

[filmmusic]

May I ask something else if someone knows:
all the animation classics that are 4:3 have rounded edges on film?
So when we see the VHS/DVD/Bluray of a Disney film for example, we're seeing the image inside the frame so as to avoid the rounded edges? (losing some of the picture)

[Det. Bullock]

Originally Posted by Lnds500

DNR fiascos and just scanning a negative and putting it on a disc are the exact opposites, none of which is good.

Secret of Nimh could use a good, proper restoration.

Sincerely, I prefer the latter, everytime I see a Sword in The Stone or Robin Hood screengrab...

Now, Nimh has a lot of issues due to being made low-cost but it mostly looks marvelous as it is, probably removing al the built-in dirt and scratches would take a lot of time and money (they used only basic DVNR for the BD) so I'm happy with the transfer as it is.

I'm not among those people who criticize even the CAPS movies releases because while it is true they had grain originally, it is also true that we have a grain free source ready to use in the original digital files, not differently from many films shot digitally and then put on film for showing in the theatres like Star Wars episode II, a digitally shot movie that came out when film was still standard in theatres everywhere, but those movies made without that ante litteram Digital Intermediate?
Well, I think they should be left as untouched as possible except for basic dirt/scratch removal.

Originally Posted by filmmusic

May I ask something else if someone knows:
all the animation classics that are 4:3 have rounded edges on film?
So when we see the VHS/DVD/Bluray of a Disney film for example, we're seeing the image inside the frame so as to avoid the rounded edges? (losing some of the picture)

Sometimes with older films they don't have exact information on the framing and so they decide to use the whole frame as sometimes those movies where projected this way in theatres, others instead prefer to take a guess as the difference with the academy ratio wouldn't be much.

[Freddy2]

Originally Posted by filmmusic

@Freddy
Well, the Jungle book has been degrained so it doesn't look good in my book. At all!

Well... it's not the degraining/DNR-ing itself that makes a restoration look bad, it's the way and the amount of DNR being used, causing detail to be destroyed; that's the main problem. And while Jungle Book looks rather clean, no actual detail has been harmed, so...

Originally Posted by filmmusic

edit: The thing I don't understand at all, is why in Little Mermaid they retained the grain, and in other older classics they degrained them completely!

They're getting smarter every year, aren't they!? Or is that wishful thinking?...

[FrameFecker]

Originally Posted by filmmusic

May I ask something else if someone knows:
all the animation classics that are 4:3 have rounded edges on film?
So when we see the VHS/DVD/Bluray of a Disney film for example, we're seeing the image inside the frame so as to avoid the rounded edges? (losing some of the picture)

In a very basic sense, yes. There's a bunch of shit kicking about outside the intended frame that aren't meant to be seen. There's also pan_and_scanning to be played with and aspect ratios and stuff.

[mcouzijn]

Thanks for the many interesting contributions to this forum, which I had found after buying the Robin Hood BR and getting astonished to find the aspect ratio slaughtered.

Disney apparently holds their customers in contempt by deciding for us what aspect ratio we prefer. And Disney holds their own legacy and their own artists in contempt by mutilating the works of art that made Disney great.

The axe I have to grind is not only about color or aspect ratio, but also about distorting the aspect ratio. Let me explain.

Most complaints about the aspect ratio are about the 'visible frame', sized 1.33 to 1, or 1.78 to 1. That is bad as it is, and I sympathize with the plaintiffs.

My complaint is about the apparently changed H x W ratio of the image, the ratio of height to width. When I saw the comparison of screendumps of 'Robin Hood' in this forum, it immediatey struck me that Little John was taller in the VHS and early DVD releases, and smaller in the later DVD releases. And compare the close-up shot of Prince John and his crown; not only is a part of the image missing on the top and the bottom, but his face has gotten more cramped vertically.

So I compared the aspect ratio' in these two images, and lo & behold: the image ratio has changed by about 10%. So Disney wants us to deal with distorted drawings and with animals about 90% of their original size. Most likely Disney considers this some kind of 'compromise' between increasing the frame aspect ratio (i.e. cutting off top and bottom of every frame) and retaining as much information in the 'new frame' as possible. But the result is yet another mutilation of the original image.

How come that in amateur fora such as this one more love for the original Disney artistry can be found than among those actually and professionally responsible for honoring Disney legacy?

[Lnds500]

Originally Posted by mcouzijn

Thanks for the many interesting contributions to this forum, which I had found after buying the Robin Hood BR and getting astonished to find the aspect ratio slaughtered.

Disney apparently holds their customers in contempt by deciding for us what aspect ratio we prefer. And Disney holds their own legacy and their own artists in contempt by mutilating the works of art that made Disney great.

The axe I have to grind is not only about color or aspect ratio, but also about distorting the aspect ratio. Let me explain.

Most complaints about the aspect ratio are about the 'visible frame', sized 1.33 to 1, or 1.78 to 1. That is bad as it is, and I sympathize with the plaintiffs.

My complaint is about the apparently changed H x W ratio of the image, the ratio of height to width. When I saw the comparison of screendumps of 'Robin Hood' in this forum, it immediatey struck me that Little John was taller in the VHS and early DVD releases, and smaller in the later DVD releases. And compare the close-up shot of Prince John and his crown; not only is a part of the image missing on the top and the bottom, but his face has gotten more cramped vertically.

So I compared the aspect ratio' in these two images, and lo & behold: the image ratio has changed by about 10%. So Disney wants us to deal with distorted drawings and with animals about 90% of their original size. Most likely Disney considers this some kind of 'compromise' between increasing the frame aspect ratio (i.e. cutting off top and bottom of every frame) and retaining as much information in the 'new frame' as possible. But the result is yet another mutilation of the original image.

How come that in amateur fora such as this one more love for the original Disney artistry can be found than among those actually and professionally responsible for honoring Disney legacy?

That's on me actually, not Disney. I made a mistake when capturing the screenshots from the DVD (and I may have done it again in other movies).

I captured Robin Hood in 720x576 which gives you an aspect ratio of 1,25:1.

I noticed the mistake at the time but since it didn't affect what this comparison is about, I didn't bother re-capturing each frame from the start.

The one I did immediately after Robin though is correct (Sword in the Stone - 768x576 = AR 1,33:1)

Sorry for the confusion.

PS. ImageShack has once again f*** up the comparisons pretty nicely.

[mcouzijn]

Originally Posted by Lnds500

That's on me actually, not Disney. I made a mistake when capturing the screenshots from the DVD (and I may have done it again in other movies).

Ah, thanks for explaining and for having the courtesy to admit a mistake. So I drop the 'distorted aspect ratio' complaint - but will, with many others, maintain the 'changed aspect ratio' complaint and my grudge about its consequential disappearance of part of the image.

According to IMDB, the original (i.e. 'negative') aspect ratio of this movie was 1.37 to 1, which is very close to the full-screen i.e. tv-screen format of 1.33 to 1. This accounts for the extra information in the full-screen releases in VHS and DVD.

Subsequent theatrical presentations (the frame as shown in theatres) are said to have been in the 1.78 to 1 format, which is closer to the present BR format of 1.67 to 1. Does this mean that the cropping also took place in cinema viewings back in 1973? Or did cinema's show the movie in the full screen ratio? I remember seeing this movie with my parents and sisters in 1973 in Haarlem, The Netherlands, for my 9th birthday. But unsurprisingly, I can't for the life of me remember the aspect ratio back then :-)

[Lnds500]

Originally Posted by mcouzijn

Ah, thanks for explaining and for having the courtesy to admit a mistake. So I drop the 'distorted aspect ratio' complaint - but will, with many others, maintain the 'changed aspect ratio' complaint and my grudge about its consequential disappearance of part of the image.

According to IMDB, the original (i.e. 'negative') aspect ratio of this movie was 1.37 to 1, which is very close to the full-screen i.e. tv-screen format of 1.33 to 1. This accounts for the extra information in the full-screen releases in VHS and DVD.

Subsequent theatrical presentations (the frame as shown in theatres) are said to have been in the 1.78 to 1 format, which is closer to the present BR format of 1.67 to 1. Does this mean that the cropping also took place in cinema viewings back in 1973? Or did cinema's show the movie in the full screen ratio? I remember seeing this movie with my parents and sisters in 1973 in Haarlem, The Netherlands, for my 9th birthday. But unsurprisingly, I can't for the life of me remember the aspect ratio back then :-)

If you go back in this thread you'll find numerous posts discussing this very issue.

These films were created in 1,37:1 and then cropped or "matted" (depends who you ask) to 1,75:1 for theatrical exhibition.

Depending on country, cinema and date, the movies might have been projected in both (101 D was projected in 1,37:1 in the US at the time of release and in 1,75:1 for the re-release for example - so you can see marketing and audience plays part in this decision).

Ultimately, it's the holy grail of debates of every Disney movie collector - that, and Disney's notorious "restorations". You won't find a universal answer to which format is the best or the correct one. You just take one over the other.

[filmmusic]

Originally Posted by Lnds500

Ultimately, it's the holy grail of debates of every Disney movie collector - that, and Disney's notorious "restorations". You won't find a universal answer to which format is the best or the correct one. You just take one over the other.

and that's why, I'm always saying, since there are different opinions on the matter, Disney should include both aspect ratios so that everyone would be pleased!

(although I think that most people are the ones complaining when they see a 1.33:1 ratio, because "it doesn't fill their widescreen TV"! That's why all animations are presented only in their widescreen version (eg. see also American Tail, Secret of NIMH))

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by filmmusic

(although I think that most people are the ones complaining when they see a 1.33:1 ratio, because "it doesn't fill their widescreen TV"! That's why all animations are presented only in their widescreen version (eg. see also American Tail, Secret of NIMH))

That and the fact that those films were never shown theatrically in 1.33, anywhere.

[filmmusic]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

That and the fact that those films were never shown theatrically in 1.33, anywhere.

Oh, are you sure?

So are these seven films compromised on DVD? Are these DVDs the much-loathed Pan & Scan? Well, the answer seems to be no. Through the late 1970s, Disney Feature Animation was creating their animated films in the familiar 1.37:1 Academy ratio. By the 1960s, many theaters apparently did not have the capabilities to exhibit 1.37:1 films in their proper ratio, so these were likely matted down normally to a 1.75:1 ratio. Essentially, the animation frames were cropped on top and bottom for widescreen viewing. Now the animators who were creating these films in the Academy Ratio must have known this and safe-guarded the frame so that it would be suitable to view with a small portion on the top and bottom of the frame hidden, for theatrical display.

http://www.dvdizzy.com/oar.htm

From what I understand (and it had been discussed again), these films were shown in some cinemas in the Academy ratio, but they were made widescreen too for the cinemas that didn't have the equipment and had changed to widescreen. But there were some, that released these films in the Academy ratio!

So, BOTH ratios are original ratios since the films were released theatrically in BOTH ways!

Sword in the Stone was released only a few years after the introduction of widescreen, so not all theaters had been converted yet. So either ratio could be considered correct

https://forum.vudu.com/showthread.ph...-Thread/page13

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by filmmusic

Oh, are you sure?

I "cropped" your post and was addressing the Bluth films. Those were always exhibited at 1.85, no question.


As for the Disney ones, anywhere from 1.66-1.85 was the intended ratio for Jungle Book and afterwards (1967-on).

[filmmusic]

I just watched the old itunes HD copy of Sword in the Stone!
OMG! it looked exquisite!!
If only the Bluray was exactly like this! If only...

[Steve Stanchfield]

Originally Posted by filmmusic

May I ask something else if someone knows:
all the animation classics that are 4:3 have rounded edges on film?
So when we see the VHS/DVD/Bluray of a Disney film for example, we're seeing the image inside the frame so as to avoid the rounded edges? (losing some of the picture)

A note on the rounded edges: The film was shot without rounded edges, so if you're coming from the original negative it's full frame without a matt. Most studios released their films with a hard matt around the frame in correct academy aspect ratio (1:33). This hard matt around the frame is what you see on Gulliver. If we had the neg you'd see the little bit of picture on the rounded corners, and you would see the physical splice at the very top and bottom of the frames as well. Even the 'full frame' would be matted a bit. When animation was shot to work in academy aperture, a projected guide would be projected down onto the field. When the film is hard matted it matches that field, but the actual film neg has even more picture. So, when Disney restores a film, they leave the hard matt out since they're coming from the neg, but they still have to crop in a bit to match the academy picture size. What we're seeing on Gulliver is the full academy aperture that was meant to be seen... that said, I'd love to have had the negative with flat corners, but honestly the rounded corners of the original release don't bother me at all..