THE JUNGLE BOOK- Comparison pics

[drsd2kill]

<CENTER>Below are images grabbed directly from the previous video releases of THE JUNGLE BOOK on Laserdisc and DVD.

1992 Laserdisc
<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f112/ ... OK1992.jpg" border="0" alt="Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket"></a>

1997 Laserdisc
<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f112/ ... OK1997.jpg" border="0" alt="Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket"></a>

1999 DVD
<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f112/ ... OK1999.jpg" border="0" alt="Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket"></a>

2007 DVD
<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f112/ ... OK2007.jpg" border="0" alt="Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket"></a></img></img></img></img>

The 1997 Laserdisc and 1999 DVD releases of THE JUNGLE BOOK used the same film transfer, and the sample above shows they look VERY similar save for the DVD being slightly sharper without the analog video anomalies of the Laserdisc. However, I used the 1997 Laserdisc for the comparison pics below, but keep in mind the 1999 DVD was a bit sharper.

1992 Laserdisc
<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f112/ ... 0001-2.jpg" border="0" alt="Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket"></a>
1997 Laserdisc
<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f112/ ... 0001-1.jpg" border="0" alt="Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket"></a>
2007 DVD
<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f112/ ... K00001.jpg" border="0" alt="Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket"></a><BR>
1992 Laserdisc
<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f112/ ... 0007-2.jpg" border="0" alt="Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket"></a>
1997 Laserdisc
<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f112/ ... 0007-1.jpg" border="0" alt="Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket"></a>
2007 DVD
<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f112/ ... K00007.jpg" border="0" alt="Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket"></a><BR>
1992 Laserdisc
<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f112/ ... 0003-2.jpg" border="0" alt="Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket"></a>
1997 Laserdisc
<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f112/ ... 0003-1.jpg" border="0" alt="Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket"></a>
2007 DVD
<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f112/ ... K00003.jpg" border="0" alt="Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket"></a><BR>
1992 Laserdisc
<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f112/ ... 0010-2.jpg" border="0" alt="Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket"></a>
1997 Laserdisc
<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f112/ ... 0010-1.jpg" border="0" alt="Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket"></a>
2007 DVD
<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f112/ ... K00010.jpg" border="0" alt="Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket"></a><BR>
1992 Laserdisc
<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f112/ ... 0006-2.jpg" border="0" alt="Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket"></a>
1997 Laserdisc
<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f112/ ... 0006-1.jpg" border="0" alt="Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket"></a>
2007 DVD
<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f112/ ... K00006.jpg" border="0" alt="Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket"></a><BR>

The 1.75:1 anamorphic widescreen framing sure looks right to me... I like that it fills my HDTV display and that all the lines of resolution are used on pertinent image information rather than have a 1.33:1 unmatted transfer I'd have to crop to fill the screen to be correctly framed but at a loss of resolution.

It looks like Disney got the color mostly right here as well, though the reds still come off as rather muted, though I think the 1992 transfer was overly contrasted.</CENTER>

[Disneykid]

Thanks for the caps! I've noticed a disturbing pattern in the Disney restorations of the late 90s. They all look too desaturated and contrasty. I noticed it in other screencap comparisons for films like Bambi and Peter Pan, and now again with The Jungle Book. The Platinum restorations on all three bring back the bright and warm color palettes, even if Peter Pan's has caused some heated controversy.

[drsd2kill]

Thanks for the caps! I've noticed a disturbing pattern in the Disney restorations of the late 90s. They all look too desaturated and contrasty. I noticed it in other screencap comparisons for films like Bambi and Peter Pan, and now again with The Jungle Book. The Platinum restorations on all three bring back the bright and warm color palettes, even if Peter Pan's has caused some heated controversy.

I disagree about the mid-late 90's restorations - they were so low contrast and pale as to be almost completely invalid. Just look at the pics.

The first video release of THE JUNGLE BOOK was in 1991 on VHS and 1992 on Laserdisc. It was quite grainy and dark, but the new DVD seems to have contrast and coloring closer to it than the 1997 Laserdisc and 1999 DVD.

[Disneykid]

I disagree about the mid-late 90's restorations - they were so low contrast and pale as to be almost completely invalid. Just look at the pics.

Yeah, sorry, that's what I meant by contrasty, which obviously isn't the right term for what I was thinking. It seemed like Disney was under the mindset of, "Well, if we tone down the colors and hues, it'll look more natural and more like a modern film!" Blegh. Peter Pan in particular was bad with its gray skin tones all over the place. It aggravates me when people slam the Platinum restorations and use these dull late 90s transfers as a basis of comparison. I have to admit that as overly saturated as the 1992 transfer is, it brings back memories as that's the version of the film I grew up with (same with other early 90s Disney transfers).

[drsd2kill]

[quote="Disneykid"][quote="drsd2kill"]I disagree about the mid-late 90's restorations - they were so low contrast and pale as to be almost completely invalid. Just look at the pics.[/quote]

Yeah, sorry, that's what I meant by contrasty, which obviously isn't the right term for what I was thinking. It seemed like Disney was under the mindset of, "Well, if we tone down the colors and hues, it'll look more natural and more like a modern film!" Blegh. Peter Pan in particular was bad with its gray skin tones all over the place. It aggravates me when people slam the Platinum restorations and use these dull late 90s transfers as a basis of comparison.[/quote]

That's why I'm including the previous video releases as well as a reference.

I just wish people would be happy about THE JUNGLE BOOK being in its proper theatrical aspect ratio for the first time. Yes, info is matted at the top and bottom as it was framed to be, but there is some added info on the sides - as well as it preserves the PROPER framing.

From what I've seen and compared, I think THE JUNGLE BOOK is one of their better DVD restorations, with CINDERELLA and PETER PAN being their two worst.

[Matt]

Thank God I have the LI as well.

[SpringHeelJack]

I really like the color job with this one. Not too dark, not glaringly bright, a good balance overall.

[disneystarsfan]

hey drsd2kill, i know this is off-topic but are you planing to post comparison pics of 101 Dalmatians when its released this coming spring 2008?

[potterrules93]

oh my gosh! the color looks amazing! i knew the color on my DVD looked good but compared to the others, its amazing!
~Ryn~

[drsd2kill]

oh my gosh! the color looks amazing! i knew the color on my DVD looked good but compared to the others, its amazing!
~Ryn~

Well, the 1992 Laserdisc is the most colorful of all - the most saturated - but it is probably over contrasted as well to account for that.

Still, for some reason, we can't get a good solid, bright red with these Disnney reissues - I don't understand why. Just like how we couldn't get white or subtle shades of gray with CINDERELLA.

[That1GuyPictures]

;drsd2kill;
I am TOTALLY in agreement with you.


The framing might be awkward at times, but
-It utilizes the higher resolution by being 16x9
-It adds more information to the sides than has ever been presented before.
-The restoration is breathtaking.
-It preserves the way it was projected at the time of it's release.

My ONLY hangup about this DVD is that it doesn't ALSO include the full-frame version of the film...that way both versions are preserved.

[Marky_198]

"as overly saturated as the 1992 transfer is"

So is the 2007 dvd.


I absolutely love the 1997 laserdisc version.

But the 1999 dvd is the best.
Too bad you don't have more screenshots of that.

I would love to see the 1999 dvd screenshots compared to the 2007 dvd.

[drsd2kill]

"as overly saturated as the 1992 transfer is"

So is the 2007 dvd.


I absolutely love the 1997 laserdisc version.

But the 1999 dvd is the best.
Too bad you don't have more screenshots of that.

I would love to see the 1999 dvd screenshots compared to the 2007 dvd.

As in the first set of screenshots I posted, I DID include one from the 1999 DVD showing how it is the exact same transfer as the 1997 Laserdisc. The only difference is the DVD is slightly sharper owing to it being a higher resolution format.

Tell you what - I'm going to make more screenshots, this time using the 1999 DVD instead of the 1997 Laserdisc - No point in bothering to do both since they are from the same transfer.

As with all the other Disney remasters in the mid to late 90's, THE JUNGLE BOOK's previous video release was woefully undersaturated and "off".

[Marky_198]

"as overly saturated as the 1992 transfer is"

So is the 2007 dvd.


I absolutely love the 1997 laserdisc version.

But the 1999 dvd is the best.
Too bad you don't have more screenshots of that.

I would love to see the 1999 dvd screenshots compared to the 2007 dvd.

As in the first set of screenshots I posted, I DID include one from the 1999 DVD showing how it is the exact same transfer as the 1997 Laserdisc. The only difference is the DVD is slightly sharper owing to it being a higher resolution format.

Tell you what - I'm going to make more screenshots, this time using the 1999 DVD instead of the 1997 Laserdisc - No point in bothering to do both since they are from the same transfer.

As with all the other Disney remasters in the mid to late 90's, THE JUNGLE BOOK's previous video release was woefully undersaturated and "off".

You are right, it's the same, only the dvd is sharper.

I would love to see some more screenshots of that dvd compared to the 2007 dvd. Thanks for making the screenshots!

[That1GuyPictures]

The 2007 DVD is not Over-Saturated.
The 1999 Release was GROSSLY under-saturated, as were restorations of the time for Mary Poppins and Peter Pan.

Making a comparison to previous releases on DVD or laserdisc, doesn't tell you which one is correct. It just shows Differences.

However, I guarantee you that the 1999 disc IS NOT what the print
looked like in theaters.

Look at the artwork in the Background portfolio on the Disc.
The artwork on display in the final print of the film is VERY similar.
DTS images looks at the original negative, and the original paint cells and backgrounds and always comes to a happy medium. I think this is their best effort yet.

[Marky_198]

"I guarantee you that the 1999 disc IS NOT what the print
looked like in theaters"

I guarantee you that the 1999 disc is closer to what it looked like in theaters than the 2007 dvd.

In the past Disney classics were very defined, realistic and detailed.

Look at the screenshot of the 1997 Laserdisc: Balou floating on his back in the water with Mowgli on top of him. Look at Mowgli's shadow on Balou's belly.
Notice the fantastic different shades of light grey, that changes in a very subtle way to lighter towards the right. This are the details that make a masterpiece.
Now take a look at the 2007 dvd screenshot. I don't even have words to describe it. One, big grey, simple thing, as if it's coloured in with the programme "paint".
Unfortunately the same thing happened to Cinderella's skin, face, clothes in every scene of the movie, as well as Beauty &the Beast, Little Mermaid, etc.

I'm also annoyed by Balou's snout on the 2007 dvd screenshot. The whole white part looks like it's plastic or rubber or something.
It's almost as if the snout is behind glass or something.
I've noticed this look in more restorations, especially in the Little Mermaid.
Another movie where this suddenly happens is the sword in the stone. The scene after Arthur pulled the sword out of the stone, and he shows it to the others. Very strange look. Almost plastic like.

Another thing is, the first screenshot, where Mowgli sits against a rock on his own in the forest. The 1997 laserdisc/1999 dvd look very natural. I actually believe he's outside in the open air sitting there.
On the 2007 dvd it looks very unnatural. The yellow light on the ground looks like it has to come from very strong lamps or whatever. It looks like anything but light from outside. The atmosphere of the scene is ruined.

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 Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast and Cinderella.

[drsd2kill]

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 Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast and Cinderella.

And that book was printed from what? Frame enlargements from a print of what generation, and from what element? When was it printed? Alterations can happen at any point in the supply chain.

I last saw THE JUNGLE BOOK in 1990, I think. Wasn't that the last theatrical release in the US? It was very colorful, more like the 1992 Laserdisc release and not the soft pastel look in the 1997 LD/1999 DVD.

I'm going to be making some more comparisons from various Laserdisc and DVD releases of these Disney films to show the differences in the transfers over the years. I have a superior Laserdisc player now, a more accurate way of grabbing frames from it (compare how closely the 1997 LD and 1999 DVD captures look - the same master and, save for the slight edge in sharpness in favor of the DVD for obvious reasons, identical color/contrast/density), and have tracked down all of the previous releases on Laserdisc and DVD.

I DO agree with the criticism of the flattening of the image on these Lowry/Disney "restorations", recoloring large patches of color and removing any of the subtle shadings afforded by the lighting of the original cels. THE JUNGLE BOOK is more acceptable to me because it has more of that flat lighting, but other films (CINDERELLA) really look wretched in their DVD incarnations. Lowry and Disney say these new DVDs are like "looking at the original cel", but the fact remains that this means removing not only dirt and grime and both natural and unnatural film grain as well as the original lighting decisions made during principal photography.

[steven132]

Great work on the screenshots. About the shading on Baloo I dont see what you are talking about in the first laserdisc. It would be very difficult and time consuming to hand paint in the shading on the characters like on Baloo's stomach. I dont think they really did that, if a character was in shadow then they painted the same colors muted or darker. And if there was a strong light source then the high light would be lighter. With the CAT compter program they can easily create shadows that blended, but to paint it on a cel and blend is difficult.

[akhenaten]

.... but to paint it on a cel and blend is difficult.

well they did that with fantasia way back in the 40s

[drsd2kill]

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.