In your opinion, what Disney movies really need restoring?

[Joe Carioca]

As I said, almost all titles have room for improvement. Still, some need it more than others. In my opinion, the following titles look very good (but, of course, they can always be improved, and a lot):
-Fantasia
-Saludos Amigos (the only problems are the live-action sequences, which were shot in 16mm)
-Melody Time
-Peter Pan (besides the problems with the colors, the print is very clean)
-Lady and the Tramp (the only problem of the DVD is the lack of anamorphic enhancement)
-101 Dalmatians
-The Sword In The Stone
-Robin Hood
-The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh
-The Great Mouse Detective
-The Rescuers Down Under (but it would benefit a lot from a digital transfer)
-Hercules (but it can be heavily improved with a digital transfer and anamorphic enhancement)

[deathie mouse]

José Carioca wrote:

"Dumbo: The packaging claimed it was “all restored”, but what we got was a grainy transfer with washed out colors. What makes this transfer even more of a deception is that just a month earlier Disney released the wonderfully restored version of “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs"

I haven't seen the Dumbo dvds, but I have 2 diferent Laserdiscs and remember one of them (the previous non-special edition one) looking so much better that the other. The circus parade sequence was mind blowing with it's Technicolor vibrancy and I was very dissapointed that they hadn't used that (probably transfered from a Technicolor print) master for the subsequent spec edition laser.

I've seen that happen to several Technicolor movies in which if you catch an old tv station playing a certain movie it looks vibrant and then the more recent video edition looks totally diferent which might mean the newer edition was transfered from a Eastmancolor film source instead of a (old) Technicolor IB print made specially for video transfer.

If i'm not mistaken, Snow White maybe looks so spectacular because they went back to the original Technicolor sequential Red-Green-Blue filtered black and white negatives and transfered that to the digital domain, saving several steps of generational losses? and further used up software algorithms to reduce the film emusion grain that even the negatives have. Many film buffs complained about that look at first saying that it wasn't authentic, but I'm sure that if Walt Disney had access (and the butget) to film in 70mm super fine grained b/w Technicolor Imax he would have done it.
(I think the previous Laserdisc was made from an interpositive (orange base) exposed from the separations)

As long as Disney Co. still has the b/w Technicolor negatives of Dumbo and the other classics (hopefully) we'll see one day a video edition that surpases even the color of the old Laserdisc and free of grain.

The Technicolor commpany ceased making Technicolor prints in the mid 70's (meaning that even b/w separations from Eastmancolor shot negatives ceased being done) and I don't know if and when Disney stopped shooting it's animated films with the sequential b/w camera, but that might explain why some of the 70's-80's movies dont look so good, maybe the negatives have faded (Eastmancolor stock from that time apparently wasn't as stable as today) and to get proper popping colors and contrast levels they need a true film restoration.

The b/w Technicolor separations, as long as they are in good physical shape, don't fade, so you can have the original color (and then some with todays "photoshoping" paint boxes in the digital domain. Disney in that sense fares better than many other companies with their classics cus they seem to have preserved these for the most part (I'm sure somebody from this forum may have more information about this).

When HD-DVD arrive, even for the faded films they will have to spring up for restorations cus otherwise those HD-DVDs wont look too HD


As for The Three Caballeros, my R2 Pal dvd looks stupendous, maybe it's from a different master than Joe's? I just randomly skipped the disc before writing this and didn't see print dirt or damage, but of course i didn't watch it all. Yes it has grain but it seems to be part of the picture (just enough to give it that film look). In the live action with animation scenes there are variations in color hues and some softness but it looks good enough that (to me) the clarity of the DVD seems to represent what was in front of the camera (I can almost imagine being in the room watching the cels on front of the rear projection screen and noticing the astigmatism of the system ) These things can be corrected with today's digital software so maybe if they ever do a DVD equivalent to the Laserdisc box set and the technician loves the movie, he'll sweat it out and make a good job. (I would ).



rodis wrote:

"Say, people, is it possible that a movie that wasn't made with CAPS (i.e., The Little Mermaid) will receive a digital transfer? If not, what kind of restoration will it get?"

Yes it is possible. There are two parts to Restoration. There's the film element part, (a physical restoration) and there's (today) the digital part (an electronic part)

The best course is to get the original source (the camera negative) and restore the physical damage (dirt, tears, stabilization of the film base, etc) and if it's to be meant to be projected, make corrected color prints, intermediates (orange base, like the negatives), or b/w separations, if it has faded colors.

Now that we are in the digital age, many of these steps can be done in the electronic domain. You take the original (or any) film element and scan it and correct it digitally.

The closer to the source (the original camera negative) the better the results cus each copying step in the movie process adds grain, unsharpness, tonal differences, shadow and highlight detail loss, and color dessaturation and change of hues.

When you see a conventional modern movie in the theater it has gone tru several steps:

Eastmancolor negative (orange base) -> interpositive (orange base) -> internegative (orange base) -> theatrical print.
(the orange base or "mask" is there to prevent the colors from changing too much in each step)

As I mentioned before, Technicolor Disney was a diferent (better) system
it went like this:

Sequential RGB b/w camera negative -> Technicolor IB (Imbibition) dye print

you see you save a lot of steps and there's no need for orange mask cus the color is pure and separated (and permanent) in the negative, and the dyes are pure and individualy adjusted in the print. (There is still some grain in those b/w negatives cus b/w emulsions 50+ years ago weren't as grain-free as today.)

Nowadays, the Technicolor system isn't used (except some isolated cases) So an intermediate (orange base) made from the separations might be used to make conventional modern prints from older Technicolor films.

As i said i don't know when and if Disney stopped using the sequential RGB b/w system (hopefully never!) for shoting the film original step, but now they have the CAPS too.

Video transfers can use any of these steps as the source, or even further generational dupes and that may be one reason some of the dvds are grainy and washed out. (Disney movie prints with subtitles I've seen, for example , having one extra generation, don't have colors as vibrant as the normal print)

This is all independent of the video transfering technology, which today is really good and digital, but there are still existing video masters being used for some films done in the analog era using 1" tape etc.. Also NTSC video has two flavors, composite (worse) and component (better), and sometimes DVD's (which are component) are made from composite masters.


Little Mermaid, being a future Platinum release will probably use the negative or at least an interpositive struck from it and be digitally cleaned up and transfered using Lowry or equivalent and the digital transfer will probably be the used for the HD master too as Lowry has started scanning at 2000 and 4000 pixels which is more or less enough to get all the detail in.
Btw the last scene (Ariel and Eric's wedding) was done in CAPS so i guess that maybe some part of it will be a direct digital to digital trnsfer so it would be interesting to see if it looks better than the rest of the film given the high res transfer.



Poppins#1 wrote

"The Black Cauldron. This is not a very popular choice. I happened to see the movie in a theater with 70 MM projection back in 1985 and it was simply astounding to look at. There was rich detail and vibrant colors. When the non-anamorphic DVD came out I was shocked at how bad the film looked. It was faded and grainy and the picture was plagued with a flickering problem. I know they could use the 70MM master to make a fabulous looking anamorphically enhanced DVD."

Video masters made from films shot on 70mm or other non-standart film gauges sadly are more commonly done from 35mm reduction prints or intermediates. But since HD-DVD is "coming soon" hopefuly 70mm transfering equipment be more commonly used for those films. 70mm film transfered to HD won't nesesarily look much sharper than 35mm (after all HDTV's 1000 lines are the limiting factor) but it'll probably be more grain free and have more clarity, specially when comparing older films. And the image will be better cus it won't be from reduction prints. Does anybody know if the recent 16:9 R2 Black Cauldron was made from a new transfer and 70mm? I wonder how it compares. If the aspect ratio is 2.20 there's a probability it's 70mm? If it's about 2.40 I guess it' still from 35mm.

I would love to see this restored as i missed it in 70mm (bad deathie, bad) even tho the 70mm theater was near my house and it wasnt a long trek for a kid.



Aaaand.. Lady and the Tramp. BOTH versions.


(I would give a complete list, but MMP did just about that!)


_________________
Give me Platinum or give me death


I know this is long, I'm just typed that way

[Joe Carioca]

Wow, thanks for clearing things up Deathie Mouse. Your posts have been very helpful!

As for "Caballeros", I have the region 1 version, which I believe has the same transfer used in other regions. The picture is far from bad, specially considering the age of the film, but there's a lot of room for improvement. There's one scene in which I remember having a lot of film artifacts - it was during the "Pablo the penguin" sequence, in the night scenes.
All I can hope is that they send this movie to Lowry Digital for a complete digital restoration and release it alongside all those meaty bonus features that were included on the LD.

[rodis]

Wow, thanks for all the explaination! I finally got it how all these things work. But now I just can't wait 2 more years for "The Little Mermaid"! It's not fair

BTW, will the digital transfer fully take care of the grainy parts? I have not seen any of the pre-CAPS features on DVD yet so I don't know what to expect...

[2099net]

Pochahontas did have a new transfer for the international releases. Grain is almost non-existant (but is there if you look close enough). Also, from the posts in the International forum here it looks like France at least got a new transfer of The Black Cauldron. Personally, desipite both being released at the same time, I think the UK got a much better transfer of Beauty and the Beast (but this is probably down to encoding more than the transfer. But it is worth noting the UK BatB includes the opening Silver Screen Partners credit which is missing from the US release). The UK Melody Time looks stunning to me, apart from the Pecos Bill segment (but this is uncut, so probably spliced in from an old PAL VHS transfer or something).

As for grain - grain is not a bad thing. Too much grain is bad, but I personally think no grain is almost as bad. While not Disney, I much prefer the UK restoration of Citizen Kane (done by the BFi) rather than the US Lowry one, which removes all grain and makes the film look like modern video. I agree that there should be no grain on the digital transfered movies, but those pre-CAPS look all the better for displaying minor amounts of grain. Remember we're talking restoration, and the original theatrical showings of these movies would have included grain to some extent.

[deathie mouse]

For rodis: (this is my first quote so i'm testing it with you )

BTW, will the digital transfer fully take care of the grainy parts?

I haven't seen the Little Mermaid DVD, but the CAV Laserdisc I own is not grainy if I recall correctly (can't check it right now cus my LD player is sick ). The colors also seemed fine. So the maybe the DVD used a substandart duplicate print (or maybe the guy at the telecine controls cranked up the sharpness at the incorrect frequency. It can happen ), etc . So if that's the case, using a better element, (like the originaal negative!) automatically will give much better results.

If that doesn't clean up the grain, there's always solutions like the Lowry grain removal software which if not overdone works excellently.

Btw, "digital transfer" or "digitally remastered" is a term that's used for everything like a magic potion that makes all better.

It just means that things were done, or copied, onto the digital domain, and after that (hopefully) it was just manipulation of numbers and if done correctly, no generational losses ocurr (copying the number 4 ten times still gives you the number 4) so it's a good thing for movies for example, since they could take the original negative (the real thing) and copy it and work in it and not degrade it, till it reaches your home on a digital medium (like DVD) and then it's converted back into an image and sent to your TV so you're kind of looking at the original. (And if you have a DVI-connected monitor/dvd player the conversion ocurrs at the monitor and it kinda goes directly to your eyes.) But as the saying goes, garbage in garbage out. So it has to be a good source, and someone that knows what to do with it to get best results. Thats why I said some DVD's use transfers that were made in the "analog" era. (For economic or availability reasons.) A negative may been in fine shape 15 yars ago, like when they made the laserdisc, then they take it out today and find its gone all magenta and they don't have the buddget to restore it either physically or electronically so they use the old video master instead for the time being or transfer it from a lower quality (but for some reason kept in better shape) duplicate print or negative.

I'm sure Little Mermaid will get a royal treatment for the Platinum since as yoda_four said, Lowry is doing 4000 pixels transfers nowadays and by the Platinum edition who knows how far this goes, so in a way when they make the 4000 line master they are making the HD master and maybe the Ultra-Def master for the years to come so if they are gonna do it once they should make the best job they can. (DVD's are roughly 500-700 pixel transfers as comparison)

(My only worry would be if they alter it! )



Joe, thanks for the kind words

The Saludos Amigos live sequences not only were shot in 16mm. They weren't shot in Technicolor. (Because the live Technicolor 35mm cameras were monstruous in size, they are actually three b/w 35mm cameras in one case)
I believe they were filmed in Kodachrome, which is not too bad, on the contrary, it's an excellent slide (direct positive) film that fades very slowly and has accurate color and image quality . We could call it the poorman's Technicolor: It's a 3 layer b/w film that has the color dyes added into it during processing (So it is very complex film to process, and I think it was discontinued by Kodak in this century).

The problem with it, as with other positive transparency media *including* theatrical release prints, is that those are meant to look good when projected on a dark room so they are designed with increased contrast, in fact more contrast than in real life (this is needed to make things apear dense and saturated in a dark room)
And (specially old) video transfer equipment can't handle the contrast range and the results are often very dark and contrasty (one reason that cheap DVDs from public domain companies are often so bad: they come from theater prints, or worse, 16mm projection prints) resulting in little detail in the shadows or the highlights, etc. on the video.

Modern video transfer equipment is much better at handling this, but anyway, studios try to use either specially made low contrast prints or those orange based intermediates which have the same low contrast as the negative (which in itself has much lower contrast than real life so it exposes easily into the print media ).

The Saludos Amigos live sequences must have been copied from the Kodachrome onto 35mm film, maybe into b/w Technicolor separations, at that time for making release prints, so on the Saludos Amigos 35mm negative they are dupes already. (High contrast originals also cause problems even when copied into film stock)

And this is only conjecture on my part, but maybe over the years they separatedly stored apart the animation sections negatives (shot in the sequential 35mm RGB b/w Technicolor process) from the 16mm live action sections and those on the video are not from the original 16mm Kodachromes, but only from the enlarged 35mm Technicolor b/w separations or a color dupe made from them.

They certainly don't look as good as the 8mm Kodachrome home movies my family made which look almost DVD quality to this day.

Let's hope the next video version (That special edition 3 Caballeros/Saludos Amigos Platinum-like edition we are always wishing upon ) has this sections looking Kodachromatically better indeed.


_________________
Give rodis a Platinum or give me death!


This is not long, I'm just typed this way

[rodis]

I seriously think the alterations are the best parts of the Platinum edition releases! C'mon, if there's a part that needs to be corrected, they should do it! I don't exactly know why they had to completely change the crocodiles in TLK but adding details can only help!

[deathie mouse]

rodis, but then, it's not the original! Mon Dieu! Sacrilege!

Kidding aside, I wouldn't mind alterations if they included the original versions too. But apart from artistic/historical reasons ("Art should not be modified" "History should not be rewitten" etc) there is also a personal reason component. Maybe someone saw it that way and grew to love it that way and now he/she/it can't get it back. So if they alter it and it looks cool that's great , we'll have Little Mermaid alternate version 2. But we should be able to always have version originale 1, ne? As it is right now we have Beauty and the Beast Imax version (it even says so at the beggining of my DVD: "Walt Disney presents the Large Format edition of Beauty and the Beast", and Imax is a very Laaaarge format btw) and Lion King Imax version; with or without added musical numbers which is good, but not The Lion King and Beauty and The Beast. Even the Work in Progress one, is not the same as the one I have in the Laserdisc.
I would love for the Beatles' Strawberry Fields Forever to be released in psicodelic 6 channel DVD-Audio, but not before we have the original which right now is totally out of print and not to be found anywhere. But thats off-topic

But of course opinions vary and you can't get everything you want in life.

I don't exactly know why they had to completely change the crocodiles in TLK but adding details can only help!

Cus they thought they looked crummy looking? Or they realized they looked bad blown up to Imax proportions? They could have added details to the original ones too (which some people might object to also!), but they decided to make them anew. Which is fine as you're watching the Large Format Edition. But where's the one I saw and projected* on the theaters? (I know i know, on the laserdisc)

But the laserdisc image is just only 360 analog composite pixels tall, while the R2 DVD could have been 576 digital component pixels tall. So right now i have to choose to track a discontinued inferior format ld, or resign myself to not seeing the way I remember it.

(Of course i'm happy there's at least one good looking version of one of the versions I don't deny that.)

But as 2099net said it's "restoration", otherwise the original is lost. maybe forever.

Maybe by the time Lil Mermaid is released Disney has new management and includes the original version if they do an altered one. Making it a truly Platinatum edition.

Anyway this is just my wish. Your milage might vary

In any case don't let my "preservationist" schpiel dampen your enthusiasm



*at 1.85

[rodis]

I fully agree on that! I also want the ORIGINAL version included! I want the version with the colors of the 1990 tape - they're so beautiful!!
Well, to my dismay, there isn't going to be any new sequences inserted into the film - since Aladdin, which comes out in just a few months, will have its new musical sequence as a featurette instead of added into the film itself, so that's probably what's gonna happen with Mermaid.

BTW, I wonder how will sales be going for the old classics (Bambi, Lady and the Tramp, etc.). So far, the three titles released under the platinum line, made spetacular numbers (Snow White - 7 million, Beauty - 6 million, The Lion King - 13 million) but these are signature films and they've been huge hits on video as well. I wonder how Bambi will fair... Well, the DVD of "Sleeping Beauty" sold 2 million so I guess it'll sell somewhere between 2 to 6 million.

[Joe Carioca]

Even the Work in Progress one, is not the same as the one I have in the Laserdisc.

I have already asked this before but nobody had the LD in hands to answer it. So, could you tell us what are the differences between the work-in-progress version on the DVD and the version on the LD?

[deathie mouse]

Joe, regretfully my laserdisc player is sick so I can't check the BatB WiP LD with the DVD right now, but the first obvious diference is that since the unfinished work in progress animation sections are grafted onto the finished animation sections on the IMAX colored version (you realize this as you can press the angle button continuosly thru the movie and flip between both) well the work in progress print you're watching is NOT the original, but a composite of unfished parts of the workprint version and the Imax version. And I think maybe there's some difference in the sections too probably for that same reason, cus they edited one version into the other. But don't hold me to that. The day i fix my LD (or get a new one) i'll tell you for sure.

The effect of watching the b/w sections followed by the blasted to the sky drenched in light color sections (i'm exagerating. A little) is very different from watching the black and white going to the more muted dark dramatic colors of the original version.

Also i seem to recall that the b/w sections on the LD were that: b/w, in the DVD they looked kinda tinted bluish.

btw i just checked the "3 Caballeros" Pingüino sequence on my PAl dvd and here is my professional report:

Since i was doing a techie evaluation and not watching the movie I looked mostly at the backgrounds (difficult to do when the film looks so good ) intead of the main action. Fun.
There's lot of tonal strobing and variations, specially notable in solid light backgruounds like blue sky and light grey ice. Those are about the best places the eye notices tonal variations: solid pastel colors. This could be due to uneven processing. Just like in many silent B/W films. I'm just fowarding this as a theory. I also see lots of grain strobing in splotches. Again, more visible in the solid pastel areas. This looks to me what i'd call antialiasing of noise due to mpeg compresion (kind of some macro blocks record the grain but others don't because it fell below their threshold.) Or it could be my system's 8 bit decoder Again this is a theory. Soo i'm really concentrating looking for dust and film artifacts specially in the night scenes. At first i think those white specs are dirt in the negative. But wait, i can see their shape. and a pattern in their movement Guess what? I think it's fibers and dust IN THE CELs themselves. So it was exposed when the film was shot. (Hey in some cases the dust moves alongside the background when the camera follows the character. Another reason that makes me think its in the exposure not the neggative, is that white specs are negative dirt alright (black specs are dirt on a positive) but, mmm dirt on a sequential technicolor negative would be in technicolor: light red, light blue and light green cus each dust mote would be in an individual color separation frame. The other place we can have white dirt ocurr would be in a normal Eastmancolor (all colors in one) internegative. I could be wrong (i can always be wrong ) but seems to me that's in the exposure. Also, some of the tonal variations look to me like cel reflections from not completely flatened transparent parts of the cels. Or maybe they were smudged inadvertently or handled too much and lostsome of their gloss/transparency? It can happen! Does the camera technician ALWAYS check no weird reflection shows up in every single cel exposure after he's pressed the shutter a thousand times with good results from the same position? Specially if you are o a budget or a dealine or there's a war going on? I talk too much . I also saw another film artifact, kind of a haloed smudging going up, trailing upwards above the penguins on their white backgrounds, that's definitively a processing artifact (film is developed like a conveyor belt in chemical tanks and this is something like excess silver being smudged by the chemicals across the moving film. (or something like that. would need to check a reference photography book for the exact description, you know..) Or.. (hey i always look for all possible answers) it could be something called ghost shutter, but that would happen only going through a projector during esposure or printing. so that musn't be it.. (Anyone reading this description must be thinking the short looks horrible. It
doesn't .You're watching the colors and the story and you barely notice this. I just did a forensic examination for Joe.) (one of my favorite posters btw)

I will foward a reason why he might have found this artifacts more objectionable on his disc, and also why these things are sometimes more more visible on video. Film is a high definition (resolution) medium but it's sharpness (edge contrast) is softer, more rounder. While video (specially the digital one) is low definition (less pixels) but more sharp (edges more contrasty) So edges and dots get kinda more visible, they stand out more (this is the phenomenon that makes you notice Supergirl's suspension cables carrying her through the air on video) On a higher resolution medium things get smoother and the additional details in other parts of the image blend in and kind of camouflage things. Finer smaller film grain does it's part too. I'm watching 3 caballeros in a finer resolution disc (the PAL one) than Joe's. Maybe those fine fibers and dust since they are less well resolved in the fewer pixels they kind of spread out (they "bloat" in the thicker TV lines) so they are more noticiable but at the same time more difficult to make out what they are. As i watched the disc i kept thinking it looks like an fine looking Technicolory 16 mm print/projection. Very good indeed. (I can't wait for HD-35mm looking-DVD's )

So, Joe is right 3 Caballeros will benefit from a digital clean up that digitally erases those (if i'm something correct) in camera exposure fibers/specs and to eliminate the strobing as they did on Sleeping Beauty in the R1 disc.

I want the version with the colors of the 1990 tape - they're so beautiful!

I think the Laserdic used that same transfer (tho i'm not sure) cus it was released around that time. Does your 1990 VHS look grainy in the same parts than the DVD? I would guess it doesn't.

_________________
Give José Carioca Platinum 3 Caballeros in Portugues or give me death


This is not long, I just typed it that way

[bean:therio]

As for grain - grain is not a bad thing. Too much grain is bad, but I personally think no grain is almost as bad. While not Disney, I much prefer the UK restoration of Citizen Kane (done by the BFi) rather than the US Lowry one, which removes all grain and makes the film look like modern video. I agree that there should be no grain on the digital transfered movies, but those pre-CAPS look all the better for displaying minor amounts of grain. Remember we're talking restoration, and the original theatrical showings of these movies would have included grain to some extent.

Good point! A bit of grain is really not that bad. When watching the PAL-transfer of the R2-version of Fantasia for the first time I noticed that Disney has been restoring their films very conservatively and I think that is a very good strategy. Just like 2099net mentions you must take into account that that is probably what it would have looked like in the theatre when the movies where shown for the first time. I have no problem with grain: It reminds me of the age of these films and it adds to the romance of watching them.

Ok so I don't have any real favorites when it comes to restauration. Maybe The Fox and the Hound and The Black Cauldron could use a bit of work but I don't expect Pixar-quality imagery from these movies.

[yoda_four]

I wonder if Bambi will be getting the same treatment as Snow White. Being that they're both truly golden classics, do you think Bambi will have new soundtrack, same quality restoration, and a ton of extras? I hope so... same goes with Cinderella.

[rodis]

I think the Laserdic used that same transfer (tho i'm not sure) cus it was released around that time. Does your 1990 VHS look grainy in the same parts than the DVD? I would guess it doesn't.

Actually, the funny part is that the 1990 transfer is the cleanest. But I wasn't judging the grainy picture based on the DVD, but based on the 1998 VHS. And many reviews on the DVD noted how the film wasn't taken care of properly with grainy spots occuring too often.

As for the VHS transfers: the 1990 one has softer colors when it's blue, green, pink, yellow, etc. and looks darker in the darker colors, naturally: black, brown, gray. So in the 1998 version, the greens and blues and pinks are suddenly bolder and the darker parts - though now revealing new deatils in the picture due to the brightening - make for a pretty grainy-looking picture... It's kind of annoying also, 'cause it takes from the original look of the film. I think it's most obvious in the opening scene. If you look in the 1990 transfer, the gray looks fabulous and clean and in the 1998 one, it was brightened almost to white lol so it suddenly looks less impressive. Damn it they'd better do it right this time around!

[deathie mouse]

rodis, the person in charge of the look of the video transfer is called the colorist. So you have a few months to find out what company is gonna do the transfer (probably Lowry but it could be somewere else) and track down its colorist and stalk him (or her) and make him an offer he can't refuse

or just send him lots of e-mails saying things like :make it more like the '90 transfer. Don't ever dare do it like the '98. Or else."

In he meantime, when watching the '98, test how it looks turning the black level (brighness control) down a little. Maybe that will make it look less washed out.

[Joe Carioca]

Deathie Mouse, thanks for the kind words and for the great (and big!) analysis on the quality of the picture of the DVDs.

As for the "Caballeros", I would have to go back and watch the DVD all over again, but I can remember very well all those little spots and print marks popping up at various parts of the picture. It is hard to remember the parts in which they were caused by print damage or in which the dirt was on the cels themselves, but it certainly is there. Besides, sometimes the picture lacks definition, specially during the live-action and animation mixes, in which there is rear projection involved (of course, this problem will never be solved because it has always been there, but a restoration would certainly improve the soft look - hear Disney, I said improve, not modify, hehe).

As for "Saludos Amigos", I think Disney did a pretty good remastering job. The live-action sequences are never going to look very good, but the animated segments look almost spotless. Of course, there's a bit of film grain, but that's not bad and gives the movie a more film-like look.

All we can hope is that Disney someday decides to release on DVD all the wonderful material that was available on the LD plus all-new transfers of both movies.

By the way, does anybody have a scan from the insert of the "SA/Caballeros" special laserdisc listing the bonus? I would LOVE to see that!!

[deathie mouse]

I have that Laserdisc but they are all in storage, and all my laserdisc inserts are toguether separatedely in another unumbered box so it may take a while to get that to you but i'll try.

[2099net]

Little Mermaid, being a future Platinum release will probably use the negative or at least an interpositive struck from it and be digitally cleaned up and transfered using Lowry or equivalent and the digital transfer will probably be the used for the HD master too as Lowry has started scanning at 2000 and 4000 pixels which is more or less enough to get all the detail in.

I seem to remember reading somewhere that it was planned for the Little Mermaid to be re-shot using CAPS for the IMAX release. I don't know if this was a serious suggestion, or even if the process had begun. But is it possilble the Little Mermaid could be totally reshot (and one would assume re-coloured, CAPS would only shoot the line art) for the DVD?

Pocahontas can be a straight Digital transfer from CAPS - no grain should be included what-so-ever.

[Disney Guru]

All of the Old Classic Disney LIve Action films need restoring.

[Wonderlicious]

Bedknobs and Broomsticks, Dumbo, Robin Hood and The Rescuers films all should come out on 2 Disc Special Edition DVD with a good Lowry transfer making them look lurvrely!