DVDizzy Forum

I'm making these comparisons for many reasons. First and foremost, I'm curious as to the quality differences, and until I started doing these comparisons I thought many releases utilized the same masters - and I was wrong. Second, I find it interesting to see several "restored" releases th...

A print is a copy of the master copy of the original negative. They knew that, and they knew the quality isn't optimal as the original negative is, or the master, for that matter. So they would never use a print, unless the master or original negatives were gone (or some parts were missing) or beca...

But using a print for a laserdisc? (or a dvd for that matter) That's not done. Prints look terrible, most of the time. Honey, SOME sort of print is used regardless. They didn't use a release print for the 1995 Laserdisc, but, yeah, it appears they did for the 1982 and 1991 discs. It wasn't so unnat...

It seems like all of Disney's DVD digital restorations since late 2001 are lower in brightness, almost as if accounting for default factory settings on many tv's (which most people leave as is) - and those default settings are almost always quite wrong in regards to color, brightness, contrast and &...

Wow, I really need to get the 2006 Dumbo. I have the previous one though. Think I'll be fine with my older Robin Hood DVD, but I wonder, do you plan to do a comparison of Fox and the Hound as well? I need to decide about that one too (and still need to pick up the sequel). I've seen other compariso...

DUMBO has had at least 5 different transfers to video by my count on Laserdisc and DVD. Aside from probably the most recent DVD, I'm sure all of the other transfers were on VHS at various times too, though the many repackagings and such would make them more difficult to track. Nevertheless, the foll...

Looking at the Pinnochio screenshots makes me think of another film: Snow White. I think (at least I hope!!) that we can all agree that the film looked by far its best in the 2001 PE release. But take the previous restorations, the ones in 1987 and 1993 I think. It was a big mess! The colors were f...

Hmm, let's see here.... "In formats like VHS and Laserdisc"... I am not comparing the VHS releases since the resolution of the format is so low. Laserdisc is lower as well by about 80 lines, and it is an analog format, HOWEVER I think it is interesting to note that the 1993 Laserdisc WAS ...

Jordan wrote:

Marky_198 wrote:

Whoa, Mister, I DID NOT make that second image. That was someone else on here who took it upon themselves to alter it.

Jordan - Do you see any problem with flattening out the backgrounds on these releases by overbrightening them? Sure, we can see a lot more of the background art on PINOCCHIO and CINDERELLA now - but where did the mood lighting go? Color is a seperate issue - one I'm not going to try to argue for rig...

Does anyone else find it odd that PINOCCHIO has been released twice on video claiming to be "fully restored"? The same goes for THE JUNGLE BOOK, THE LITTLE MERMAID (what a marketing ploy - it was made in 1989, people), BAMBI, CINDERELLA, LADY AND THE TRAMP, SLEEPING BEAUTY, etc. PETER PAN ...

I'm not trying to debate the merits of one version over another, at least not with ROBIN HOOD. :-) I was just curious myself about the video transfer history of the Disney animated features, and this screen capture process is helping me see exactly what has changed over the years in the films. I thi...

Thanks for these pics. I noticed on the first pic that has these two logos for this collection, the laserdisc copies are from 1985 and 1991. I have the 1985 copy on VHS that has the 1984 Walt Disney Home Video "The Classics" logo rather than the 1991 version of the 1988 logo. On my origin...

Sorry, I'm ignorant on this film's aspect ration. Was it originally fullscreen, and the re-release is just a matted widescreen? or is one of the disney films that was made in both widescreen and fullscreen with sometimes differing layouts? It was shot soft-matte, which means it was shot to be matte...

The following images were grabbed from the various releases of ROBIN HOOD on Laserdisc and DVD (I didn't follow the numerous VHS reissues and repackagings - they were from the same masters anyway, so...) A = 1985 Laserdisc B = 1991 Laserdisc (same master as 1985 but a less noisy pressing with digita...

*accidental duplicate post*

I think that you guys don't get it. When you compare a crappy 4-5th generation print that was transferred to Laserdisc, DVD or VHS, the colors are altered due to the mastering methods of the time. If the same print used for the 1992 release was transferred to DVD right now, it would look different ...

Floor shadows are painted on, but that isn't what I was talking about.

The way the cels are lit and photographed can create darker areas of the frame - or shadows - on what is otherwise a solid patch of the same color. This is lost when they recreate these films and digitally recolor them.

I guarantee you that the 1999 disc is closer to what it looked like in theaters than the 2007 dvd. Ps. I have a book with screenshots of the theatrical releases of all the classics and they look wonderful. They match the 1997 dvd exactly and have nothing to do with the 2007 dvd. Same story for The ...