is jungle book 16x9 ratio that bad?

[drfsupercenter]

The Platinum Edition wasn't exactly HD either...

So what if I'm using a home computer, making a DVD that looks as good as the studios isn't as hard as it sounds... Once the video track's taken care of, authoring menus and adding subtitles, etc. is easy.

Basically you just denoise it a bit, and match the colors to the Platinum Edition... That will make the Limited Issue look exactly like a fullscreen Platinum Edition, I kid you not. (The Jungle Book's Platinum Edition colors are fine, from what I've heard...)

As far as movies like Cinderella go, I have a 1995 laserdisc that's recorded to DVD, and looks about as good quality-wise as the Platinum Edition, just without the over-bright colors. A bit of denoising and it should look great.

To quote a friend:
"hell, people are convinced they can top Lucasfilm with laserdisc rips; and Lucasfilm and Disney share a problem (Lowry Digital)"

And the point here isn't to produce a "stunning quality HD master", that's exactly what's wrong with today's society. These films are OLD, and are not supposed to look like they were made using a computer! They are HAND DRAWN animation, meaning that of course there will be problems with the master! That's precisely what Lowry's problem is - they make classic old films look TOO new, I think this has been covered countless times on UD regarding Cinderella.

As far as "who will benefit from it" - This isn't a project to put Disney out of business or anything, I'm just trying to have a complete collection of Disney animated classics (from Snow White to The Lion King) in their original theatrical version, and the originally drawn aspect ratio (meaning no tilt-and-scan!) Movies like Aladdin are fine except for Arabian Nights and the "good kitty" line, both of which are easily fixed. Even though the problems in the official releases are small and trivial, add them all up and it makes Disney look like they have no idea what they're doing (Is there even the tiniest bit of consistency in ANY of Disney's DVDs? The Gold Classics Collection series have nothing in common except the name (some are anamorphic and some aren't, some have special features and some don't...), the Platinum Editions all have 2 discs but many have problems of their own (from the fake "OTV" of The Lion King to Aladdin's audio edit, to The Jungle Book's shoddy cropping))

I guess "remastering" is the wrong word. I guess I should have said "Making/restoring original versions in the best possible quality"

[Jules]

Dude, 16:9 televisions (and even a few experimental 16:9 laserdiscs) were around the same time that DVD first appeared!

Hehe! Even my 1.33:1 CRT TV acknowledges the term as it allows you to switch between 4:3 and 16:9 formats. With the latter, it squashes the picture.

And Jules, you get a for saying everything I wanted to without having to resort to words that shouldn't be used in polite company.

Yay! I'm feeling high!

The Platinum Edition wasn't exactly HD either...

That's not the point. I hope you don't think Lowry restored the film at standard resolution because you see it on DVD that way. From Lowry's restoration Disney can create a high-definition master.

Basically you just denoise it a bit, and match the colors to the Platinum Edition... That will make the Limited Issue look exactly like a fullscreen Platinum Edition.

*faints*

Yeah, I'm sure a bit of picture denoising and soundtrack declicking will magically produce a state-of-the-art gorgeous looking transfer which will look perfect on a 60 inch display.

First of all you're sourcing your movie from a DVD and not a film print. This practice alone will already be detrimental to the final quality of your home-produced DVD. Think of it as the same process as when you make a photocopy off another photocopy instead of an original copy.

Secondly, the denoising will not only remove artefacts. Sure, that's what it's meant for - but we all know that these automatic computer tools have side effects. I expect that to reduce grain and possibly make some speckles and dirt less visible, the denoiser will subsequently make the picture softer (you're not thinking of using DVNR are you?). Let's not forget that you also must somehow re-encode your finished film into an MPEG-2 video file. How will you control frame rate, compression artefacts and the soundtrack sampling rate? Of course, I'm sure there are means of doing so, but don't you think that the equipment used by a professional DVD authoring company will produce better results?

Hence, I find the statement that your final DVD will be as good as Lowry's restoration and DVD encoding, laughable.

These films are OLD, and are not supposed to look like they were made using a computer!

Neither are the supposed to have twenty layers of grime photographed into the film. I agree that an overly-clean restoration a la Cinderella betrays the vintage of the film, but Lowry manage to remove a lot of dust and artefacts that got photographed, and which were certainly not the intended to be seen. I consider perfect restorations to be the stuff you see on most Walt Disney Treasures. Take Front Lines or Mickey Colour Vol 2 for example. All the cartoons are incredibly clean and crisp ... yet they still look like products of the 40s mainly because of the slight film grain still present.

Does anyone know whether the Walt Disney Treasures shorts receive a digital restoration, like Lowry? Or are the prints simply physically cleaned, and the restorers stop at that stage? It's just that the presented shorts still look very organic.

[drfsupercenter]

Well, the point isn't to make Lowry 2.0.

The point is to make an acceptable quality DVD version of the Disney classics that's both OTV and OAR.

To quote a friend again, "Lowry didn't restore the movies, they destroyed them!"

I realize they weren't meant to be seen with all sorts of noise and grain, but they also weren't meant to be seen with shining bright colors that look like they were made in 2000 and not 20+ years prior!

And IMHO, the VHSes (and laserdiscs) of the Disney classics looked great. The point is not to look HD. Lowry may MAKE them HD, but that's not the point. Any movie will look "Good" on a HDTV, it just won't have the stunning brilliance of new movies. Note the word "new" in that sentence.
But the VHS releases are good because the colors are great, there's not a ton of noise (at least on the Masterpiece Collection series), meaning they were cleaned up, they just weren't overkill.

And yes, I agree at the Walt Disney Treasures, those look good while still looking pristine. I don't think Lowry does them, I think they're just cleaned... but don't quote me on that.

[Jules]

The point is not to look HD. Lowry may MAKE them HD, but that's not the point.

You're missing the point. This has nothing to do with HD. A beaten up, shoddy, craptacular, grainy, spotty, riddled-with-vinegar-syndrome home movie shot on 8mm film in 1950 can be presented on Blu-Ray in 1080p resolution. But of course it will still be beaten up, shoddy, craptacular, grainy, spotty, riddled-with-vinegar-syndrome and shot on inferior 8mm film.

There's more to say but in Malta it's currently 3.30 am and I have to go to sleep.

Good night!

[Escapay]

So what if I'm using a home computer, making a DVD that looks as good as the studios isn't as hard as it sounds... Once the video track's taken care of, authoring menus and adding subtitles, etc. is easy.

Basically you just denoise it a bit, and match the colors to the Platinum Edition... That will make the Limited Issue look exactly like a fullscreen Platinum Edition, I kid you not.

Are you seriously that delusional/overconfident that you think a 16 year old's amateur effort on a home computer will be just as good (or maybe in your opinion, better) than something that took professionals months to complete? My god, Disney should consult you for all their DVDs! Maybe then we'll get quality releases that were done with extensive research and consultations of their vast archive materials to see just how the original transfer and negatives were done all those years ago.

Nah, all you need to do is denoise it a bit and try to match the colors to another DVD.

The point is not to look HD. Lowry may MAKE them HD, but that's not the point.

You're missing the point. This has nothing to do with HD. A beaten up, shoddy, craptacular, grainy, spotty, riddled-with-vinegar-syndrome home movie shot on 8mm film in 1950 can be presented on Blu-Ray in 1080p resolution.

Very true. Just read reviewers' comments about films such as Casablanca or Close Encounters of the Third Kind on high definition. They point out that the new high-definition transfer is an amazing sight to see, but acknowledge that there is still the expected imperfections of film grain and the like. And that these imperfections are part of the film and should remain so.

The problem with high definition is that the general public believe that high definition = crystal clear clarity that looks like it was shot two hours ago. When something like Casablanca or Close Encounters of the Third Kind arrives on high-definition and they see a little flicker of grain or maybe just a bit of blurriness that wasn't as apparent before, an ignoramus Joe Sixpack will think, "Hey, they messed up Casablanca! It looks old!"

There's more to say but in Malta it's currently 3.30 am and I have to go to sleep.

Good night!

Night night, Jules. Don't let the Maltese bed bugs bite!

Albert

[Mollyzkoubou]

And the general public won't mind the screwed-up releases Disney's been putting out as of late. 'Fact they'll eat 'em up.

As for mastering a DVD? I've seen fan-made DVDs that were as well authored as professional ones (Adywan's version of "Star Wars" comes to mind). It's not impossible.

I'm the one providing drf with the laserdisc rips, for the record.

[drfsupercenter]

Maybe then we'll get quality releases that were done with extensive research and consultations of their vast archive materials to see just how the original transfer and negatives were done all those years ago.

Obviously Lowry didn't do that with Cinderella...

As far as things being "HD" or not... I found that a lot has to do with resizing... a DVD is a DVD, and if you put it in something like an XBOX 360 or a PS3 (as much as I hate Sony...), it will look pretty good. Compared to plugging a normal DVD player in with RCA, that is. Heck, I tried a copy of some movies (and these are COPIES, used a 50% compression in DVD Shrink) and they looked as good as the Blu-Ray displays at Blockbuster (all of this being done on my friend's Samsung HDTV since I don't have HD anything)

So I don't quite see what you're saying about HD masters, if the point is to leave in some of the grain so it looks old, why will fixing up the correct aspect ratio versions be bad again? Put them in an XBOX and they'll look as HD as you want them to...

Sorry if I came across as "I'm better than Disney", That wasn't my intentions... I was merely pointing out that many of the official "Platinum Edition" releases aren't even up to par... there's very few that don't have something or other wrong with them, I would exaggerate but then you'd all mock me even further for wanting OTV/OAR so I won't.

[Mollyzkoubou]

Oddly enough... Lowry *did*, and their version STILL came out looking off.

[AlwaysOAR]

ETA:

Looks like AlwaysOAR gave a better explanation. Kudos, AlwaysOAR!



Regarding The Jungle Book: Platinum Edition, the film is 1.75:1, and when presented on a widescreen TV, will only have very minor black bars on the sides.

Why thank you. In regards to the Jungle Book, I'm curious as to where you got your information that it was to be matted in that ratio. I have searched the web regarding the aspect ratios of the DACs of this time frame, and get conflicting info.

From 101 Dalmatians through TMAofWinnie-the-Pooh, it's murky as to whether or not they were to be matted, and if so what was the intended ratio. I want to purchase the JB PE, but not to find out later that it's in the wrong ratio, or that it wasn't supposed to be matted. Conversely, I haven't purchased 101 Dalmatians in case later I find out it was supposed to be matted....

I want the intended/original ratios for these films, but I just don't know what they are supposed to be. If you or anyone else knows of an authoratative source/website concerning this subject it would be greatly appreciated

[steve]

I want to purchase the JB PE, but not to find out later that it's in the wrong ratio, or that it wasn't supposed to be matted. Conversely, I haven't purchased 101 Dalmatians in case later I find out it was supposed to be matted....

I could understand that if these films were standard titles that may get a surprise re-release in a few months, but these are Platinum titles! Soon they'll go away for another seven years and when they are re-released again, they may still be in the same aspect ratio! Why deprive yourself of some brilliant films on the chance that they might be presented the way you want them OVER SEVEN YEARS AWAY?

[Jules]

Night night, Jules. Don't let the Maltese bed bugs bite!

Well, I'm awake now and it seems they didn't. My legs and arms are still there, at least.

As far as things being "HD" or not...

Why are we still quibbling on HD? We're supposed to be discussing film restoration and not the number of tiny dots that make up the picture of home video releases.

Heck, I tried a copy of some movies (and these are COPIES, used a 50% compression in DVD Shrink) and they looked as good as the Blu-Ray displays at Blockbuster.

With that statement you have just broken every fundamental rule of physics.

OK I'm just being overly dramatic.

With that statement you have just broken every fundamental rule of er ... DVDs.

There is no way whatsoever that regular DVD compressed by 50% will look as good as Blu-Ray. Not even regular DVD looks as good as Blu-Ray! Or have I misread your sentence somehow?

[drfsupercenter]

I could understand that if these films were standard titles that may get a surprise re-release in a few months, but these are Platinum titles! Soon they'll go away for another seven years and when they are re-released again, they may still be in the same aspect ratio! Why deprive yourself of some brilliant films on the chance that they might be presented the way you want them OVER SEVEN YEARS AWAY?

This is precisely the point of the project I'm working on - To get OTV/OAR films that never go out of stock

It's not actually "my" project, there are a few of us working on it... I just don't want to say too much in case this forum has rules against advertising or talking about bootlegs

There is no way whatsoever that regular DVD compressed by 50% will look as good as Blu-Ray. Not even regular DVD looks as good as Blu-Ray! Or have I misread your sentence somehow?

I said it looked as good as the demos they have in stores. Apparently those demos aren't even hooked up right and make Blu-Ray look like upsampled DVD (which, ironically, is what I did)

I don't own anything HD (my TV is only a 25" CRT!), and my friend with an HDTV only has an XBOX 360, no Blu-Ray player. Therefore all we could do was use normal DVDs. However, they looked excellent - as good as many HD broadcasts did. (This may be an error in his cable hookup, though...)

[disneyfella]

ETA:

Looks like AlwaysOAR gave a better explanation. Kudos, AlwaysOAR!



Regarding The Jungle Book: Platinum Edition, the film is 1.75:1, and when presented on a widescreen TV, will only have very minor black bars on the sides.

Why thank you. In regards to the Jungle Book, I'm curious as to where you got your information that it was to be matted in that ratio. I have searched the web regarding the aspect ratios of the DACs of this time frame, and get conflicting info.

From 101 Dalmatians through TMAofWinnie-the-Pooh, it's murky as to whether or not they were to be matted, and if so what was the intended ratio. I want to purchase the JB PE, but not to find out later that it's in the wrong ratio, or that it wasn't supposed to be matted. Conversely, I haven't purchased 101 Dalmatians in case later I find out it was supposed to be matted....

I want the intended/original ratios for these films, but I just don't know what they are supposed to be. If you or anyone else knows of an authoratative source/website concerning this subject it would be greatly appreciated

This is the biggest problem. One website will claim that such and such is the official aspect ratio, and another website will claim that no....this is the official aspect ratio. Even a well reputable website, however, does not need credentials before posting "facts" online.

In all honesty, these films have seen both fullscreen releases and widescreen releases. Home video was the biggest source of fullscreen releases (because at the time there were no widescreen TVs), but some of the theatrical presentations were fullscreen.

Your best bet to get definitive information is to buy an old press booklet about the original release of the film because that information about matting and the framing of the picture SHOULD be in those booklets somewhere. If anyone here has them, it might be best just to post scans of those pages....just so that there is NO discrepency

Lastly, you could always email Dave Smith (the Disney archivist) and ask him where they are coming up with all of these multiple aspect ratios of the Disney films.....sometimes they are open matte transfers/pan & scan/matted/16x9 anamorphically enhanced......which is the intended version? Seriously....the archives DO have documentation on how these films were originally supposed to be viewed.

Until then, there are several versions out there and you get to choose which one you prefer.....even if it wasn't the intended version.

[AlwaysOAR]

I want to purchase the JB PE, but not to find out later that it's in the wrong ratio, or that it wasn't supposed to be matted. Conversely, I haven't purchased 101 Dalmatians in case later I find out it was supposed to be matted....

I could understand that if these films were standard titles that may get a surprise re-release in a few months, but these are Platinum titles! Soon they'll go away for another seven years and when they are re-released again, they may still be in the same aspect ratio! Why deprive yourself of some brilliant films on the chance that they might be presented the way you want them OVER SEVEN YEARS AWAY?

I'm not depriving myself of anything. If I want to see a certain title I can always rent it or borrow from someone I know. With all the DVDs we have in our collections, how often do you actually watch a certain title anyway, once every few months if that.

As far as my collection goes, as a collector I want the original release of a film without edits, in the correct ratio, etc. If I have to wait five to seven years, or never add a title to my collection, so be it.

I know some people could care less about these things, but for those of us who, it's not alot to ask for the film studios to get these things right.

[AlwaysOAR]

Your best bet to get definitive information is to buy an old press booklet about the original release of the film because that information about matting and the framing of the picture SHOULD be in those booklets somewhere. If anyone here has them, it might be best just to post scans of those pages....just so that there is NO discrepency

Lastly, you could always email Dave Smith (the Disney archivist) and ask him where they are coming up with all of these multiple aspect ratios of the Disney films.....sometimes they are open matte transfers/pan & scan/matted/16x9 anamorphically enhanced......which is the intended version? Seriously....the archives DO have documentation on how these films were originally supposed to be viewed.

Thanks disneyfella. Yeah, if anyone does have an old press booklet on the JB or any of the classics that would be great if it could be scanned on here.

[steve]

I could understand that if these films were standard titles that may get a surprise re-release in a few months, but these are Platinum titles! Soon they'll go away for another seven years and when they are re-released again, they may still be in the same aspect ratio! Why deprive yourself of some brilliant films on the chance that they might be presented the way you want them OVER SEVEN YEARS AWAY?

I'm not depriving myself of anything. If I want to see a certain title I can always rent it or borrow from someone I know. With all the DVDs we have in our collections, how often do you actually watch a certain title anyway, once every few months if that.

As far as my collection goes, as a collector I want the original release of a film without edits, in the correct ratio, etc. If I have to wait five to seven years, or never add a title to my collection, so be it.

I know some people could care less about these things, but for those of us who, it's not alot to ask for the film studios to get these things right.

That's cool. Let's hope they get the Blu-Ray right...

[drfsupercenter]

I'm actually worried about Disney's classic movies on Blu-Ray... how many Blu-Ray movies do you know of that are 4:3? I don't think any are, but I don't have Blu-Ray either.

Since HDTVs are in widescreen, people are gonna want Blu-Ray in widescreen, even more so than normal DVD. So if it was widescreen on DVD there's almost no chance they'll change it to fullscreen for Blu-Ray.

(and what other movies will be cropped? If they're really releasing movies like Pinocchio on Blu-Ray, what's the likelihood that they'll T&S it?)

[DarthPrime]

I'm actually worried about Disney's classic movies on Blu-Ray... how many Blu-Ray movies do you know of that are 4:3? I don't think any are, but I don't have Blu-Ray either.

Since HDTVs are in widescreen, people are gonna want Blu-Ray in widescreen, even more so than normal DVD. So if it was widescreen on DVD there's almost no chance they'll change it to fullscreen for Blu-Ray.

(and what other movies will be cropped? If they're really releasing movies like Pinocchio on Blu-Ray, what's the likelihood that they'll T&S it?)

Right now I don't think they will crop any Blu-rays. I am worried if Blu-ray does become more mainstream and replace DVDs that we will eventually see fullscreen Blu-rays that fit 16:9 sets.

However people still stretch, and zoom with HDTVs. Most of it is to get rid of black bars produced by 4:3 stuff, or anything wider than 1.85:1.

Not sure there may be some 4:3 Blu-rays. I know there were some 4:3 HD DVDs.

[yukitora]

Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs is Full Screen and no way will they mess-up that masterpiece.

Just because it's blu-ray doesn't mean it HAS to be widescreen. Disney already fixed up their "mistake" with TJB by releasing 101 in fullscreen, despite people's voicing.

[drfsupercenter]

Well, you're right about stretching fullscreen to fit widescreen sets. And it really irritates me.

Every time I go to a friend's house, I "fix" their TVs since the non-HD stations are stretched to fill the screen... as much as they hate pillarboxes I have to convince them it's the correct format.

And heck, video game consoles do it all the time - I took my Wii over to a friend's house, changed the mode to Widescreen, but yet, the Classic Console games (the old ones you can buy and play on the Wii), they were all stretched. Not sure about GameCube games but the only thing that wasn't was actual Wii games.

I don't think they'd stretch movies on Blu-Ray, but you never know if they'd tilt-and-scan them. They did that to Aladdin 3, I mean, wtf is the point of cropping direct-to-video movies... if you can just release in the format you animated in, why not do it?

Sleeping Beauty should be fine since it was 2.35:1, but will it have a Disney Enhanced Home Theater Mix? Personally I hate those, for movies that were only in mono is one thing... but if it was made in surround why mess with it?! Aladdin is absolutely awful with DEHT, I only watch it with normal 5.1. (and my de-edited mix, for that matter)

Would the films be pillarboxed and "widescreen" on Blu-Ray? I don't know much about Blu-Ray standards like I do DVD, so I'm not sure if it has to be widescreen or what...