DVDizzy Forum

Someone requested I make "some" more screenshots, so here they are:

Volume 1 (for reference): (12) http://www.roderidder.be/Scara/Donald/DD3.htm

Volume 2, Disc 1: (14) http://www.roderidder.be/Scara/Donald/DD1.htm

Volume 2, Disc 2: (29) http://www.roderidder.be/Scara/Donald/DD2.htm

I haven't seen the new Treasures yet, but I guess I will in a few days.

I'm pretty sure I won't have much of a problem with their quality.

But I do appreciate the fact that some people are "nitpicky" about picture quality (PQ), not just the packaging - particularly now that someone in charge at Disney quite obviously (admittedly based on not so much so far) has found it opportune to lower the once very high quality standards of the Treasures.

A lot of people would be quite pleased with much lower PQ than what we get here. We shouldn't let that be sufficient reason to accept further drops in PQ. It's not necessarily a bad thing that some people demand a higher standard than what one does for oneself. The opposite, on the other hand, would be.

It's the fact they set such high standards in the past which makes it disappointing. Had they never released any restored prints on the previous DVD's to the public we'd all be enjoying the standard tv-prints on DVD and we'd be perfectly be happy with them, because they don't look all that awfull. But when you know they can do better, you can't help but wonder what they're gonna do next to increase revenue and decrease the quality ...

Disney set the standard high for these Treasures, so I really think we have a right to complain when they don't live up to their own standards.

That being said I'm gonna go watch some more Donald. (hell, I'd even watch the shorts on old 16 mm )

Hi new guy here. Long time Disney fan, first time poster.

I was pretty disappointed with the quality of the new wave of Disney Treasures. I picked up the Donald set on Tuesday and noticed the poor transfers right off the bat. I can't believe Maltin would even attach his name to these without checking the quality of the disc personally. Donald's Snow Fight looked downright awful.

The Rarities sets fares a bit better but it also appears to have a VHS transfers and all the shorts appear slightly blurry.

I would be very happy is Disney recalled the sets and replace them with fully restored and corrected video transfers.

I doubt that will happen.

Regarding the Legendary Heroes sets I may just skip it as it doesn't have all the episodes from the series.

I was pretty disappointed with the quality of the new wave of Disney Treasures. I picked up the Donald set on Tuesday and noticed the poor transfers right off the bat. I can't believe Maltin would even attach his name to these without checking the quality of the disc personally. Donald's Snow Fight looked downright awful.

I wouldn't go as far "awful", but the quality is certainly not up to the standards set by previous treasures. However, it's still probably the best they've ever looked on a home video release, and certainly not transferred from a VHS source, even if it was some kind of video.

That being said, I certainly would like it if Disney did offer a disc-replacement program, and properly restored the affected Donald shorts; and created new anamorphic transfers for the 3 widescreen Rarities shorts.

They wouldn't be likely to do so, though, unless at least half the people who bought the treasures openly complained. So if you think we can get 62,500 people to send e-mails to Disney and sign a petition, then maybe we can accomplish something. That's a lot of people, though, and even this message board only has about 2,500 members.

TM2-Megatron wrote:and certainly not transferred from a VHS source, even if it was some kind of video.

If it were a VHS transfer it'd be a LOT worse as VHS has a native resolution of about half the DVD resolution when digitalized. So that's quite impossible. That being said, industrial video has a resolution comparable to DVD and I'm pretty sure that's what these were transferred from.

Based on the screenshots (which is all I've seen so far), I'd say the quality reminds me of laserdiscs from 1985. That isn't that bad, but not that good either...

TM2-Megatron wrote:That being said, I certainly would like it if Disney did offer a disc-replacement program, and properly restored the affected Donald shorts; and created new anamorphic transfers for the 3 widescreen Rarities shorts.

They wouldn't be likely to do so, though, unless at least half the people who bought the treasures openly complained. So if you think we can get 62,500 people to send e-mails to Disney and sign a petition, then maybe we can accomplish something. That's a lot of people, though, and even this message board only has about 2,500 members.

Sadly enough you're quite right ... most of the people who buy these will either not care or not even notice it

Although, personally, I think it takes a blind man to NOT notice there is a definite difference in quality.

I really don't care so much about the diminishing packaging of the Treasures but I will agree these transfers are not very good and do not equal to past Treasures. I have watching the DD#2 and it equals the video quality of the C&D Classic Cartoons DVD. That is really too bad that Disney, who normally cares more for its product than any other major studio, would not spend a little more money for better transfers.

Unfortunately, with home video becoming so profitable, studios are looking to the home video division as an important profit center.

Aaron's review of <b>The Chronological Donald, Volume 2</b> can now be read here:
http://www.ultimatedisney.com/donaldvol2.html

Whoah, I was surprised by the difference in video quality when comparing those Donald pics. Well, in any case I'm happy that this Donald Duck vol.2 is out there with some of the rare episodes, and I'll definitely buy it (after all, Donald is one of my favourite Disney characters).

Thanks for the informative Treasure reviews. I've enjoyed reading them, and it's always nice to learn new things about these sets. I look forward to reading the next Treasure reviews too.

Is it just me or are we seeing an increase in poor quality shorts on the sets with this and the Rarities? I hope they won't make a habit of releasing them un(or poorly)restored. I've poured a significant amount of money into the Treasures line thus far and would be mighty disappointed (and angry) if I had to stop halfway or force myself to pay for inferior products just because the Disney execs think a half-arsed job is a good enough job. We all know they have the funds to do it right and I mean, this is their legacy, it'd be nice if they could show some respect and not just look at the numbers this one time (although it probably took quite an effort to even get this line started, and I'm grateful for that.)

Anyway, while this might sound a bit selfish, I'd rather they took the time and money to ensure all the animated shorts were pristine in quality than release more random volumes of the various live-action shows. At least if they're not going to complete them anyway (which they don't seem to plan on doing considering the Elfego Baca episodes, and we all know what the chances of seeing a complete collection of the Mickey Mouse Club are. )

Well I just received 2 of the current wave tins. I received Disney Rarities and Chron. Donald Vol. 2. In addition, I had ordered and just received MM in Color Vol. 2. All came from Amazon and 2 of the 3 had dents! Only Rarities made it to my house undented. The 2 dented ones are on the way back to Amazon as of tomorrow. That is it with me as far as ordering any tins from Amazon. they are great with everything else but forget it with the tins. I'll just have to try and locate these tins either from a secondary market seller at Amazon or at a brick and mortar store somewhere around here.

OF NOTE: I went to 2 brick and mortar stores the day after the tins were released and neither of the stores had either Chron. Donald or Rarities. they both had Spin & Marty and Elfego Baca. Strange. I wasn't planning to buy the other two releases (Spin & Marty/Elfego Baca), but after reading some of your fond memories here, I may consider doing so now. Like someone mentioned, if I change my mind and want to pick them up next year, they will be hard to track down.

I am not at all sure what you guys are talking about with the anamorphic presentation or lack of enhancement - I guess it is time for a visit to Luke's 101 on wide screen formats.

Scaramonga's postings of the differences between the same Donald Cartoon released previously on "On the front" and now on Vol II seems like a legit beef to me.... has anyone given any more thought as to how that cartoon and others, if already recently restored by Disney for the "On the Front" Tin, can all the sudden look fuzzy and in need of a new restoration? Seems pretty strange....

Pluto Region1 wrote:Scaramonga's postings of the differences between the same Donald Cartoon released previously on "On the front" and now on Vol II seems like a legit beef to me.... has anyone given any more thought as to how that cartoon and others, if already recently restored by Disney for the "On the Front" Tin, can all the sudden look fuzzy and in need of a new restoration? Seems pretty strange....

The shorts previously on the "Front Lines" tin looked as good here as they ever have. It's the fact they are included, I think, that makes the lack of restoration on all the other shorts that much more noticeable.

TM2-Megatron wrote: The shorts previously on the "Front Lines" tin looked as good here as they ever have. It's the fact they are included, I think, that makes the lack of restoration on all the other shorts that much more noticeable.

Oh, I'd gotten the impression he was saying the exact same cartoon that was in "on the front" looks worse on Donald's Vol. 2.... ok, so it is the other cartoons that look bad... so that would imply they did not spent the same amount of care/money restoring the others. But then the jury seems out here on whether or not there really is a quality issue?

I've never been a stickler for video quality. As a whole I think most DVD fans have gotten a little spoiled and want supreme quality and affordable cost and that isn't always possible.

On this particular one, I do tend to agree though. Had I not seen the previous treasures, I'm sure I wouldn't mind. However the great thing about Treasures was being able to look at these cartoons and say "wow, I can't believe this is XX years old". I didn't get that here, and frankly after Ducktales and Chip N' Dale, it just didn't sit right by me.

Luke wrote:Aaron's review of <b>The Chronological Donald, Volume 2</b> can now be read here:
http://www.ultimatedisney.com/donaldvol2.html

You guys are just too forgiving

Pluto Region1 wrote:Oh, I'd gotten the impression he was saying the exact same cartoon that was in "on the front" looks worse on Donald's Vol. 2....

Hehe ... obviously not ! They're direct copies so they're not better or worse but probably exactly the same

Edge wrote:I've never been a stickler for video quality. As a whole I think most DVD fans have gotten a little spoiled and want supreme quality and affordable cost and that isn't always possible.

There's no point in releasing DVD's when you don't use their full potential !
Besides, it's not just a matter of DVD-releases. The restorations they do for these shorts (and the rest of their catalog) are an investment in time. These digital transfers can be copied without quality loss and can be used in any kind of digital production in years to come.

The transfers they used for Donald volume 2 are not fit for, for example, HD-DVD and / or TV, the artifacting would be even more noticeable on it, not to mention every other kind of flaw. In the end they're just delaying the inevitable by doing this. Unless of course they don't mind these cartoons rotting away in their vaults, and I doubt that can be the case.

So you see, they shouldn't just be doing it for the select club of collectors out there, but for themselves and generations to come

Was that passionate or what ?

There's no point in releasing DVD's when you don't use their full potential !
Besides, it's not just a matter of DVD-releases. The restorations they do for these shorts (and the rest of their catalog) are an investment in time. These digital transfers can be copied without quality loss and can be used in any kind of digital production in years to come.

For the treasures I do agree, for various other releases not always.

With the classics I can understand the restoration and Ibelieve it is necessary. For shows that are popular but not necessarily quite on that level, it just isn't profitable. It'd also raise the price in a market that frankly is already over floaded as is.

Where I have problem is when more basic cartoons look good, though not necessarily great. Ideally everything would take full advantage of DVD's but in some cases that just isn't possible.

The transfers they used for Donald volume 2 are not fit for, for example, HD-DVD and / or TV, the artifacting would be even more noticeable on it, not to mention every other kind of flaw. In the end they're just delaying the inevitable by doing this. Unless of course they don't mind these cartoons rotting away in their vaults, and I doubt that can be the case.

So you see, they shouldn't just be doing it for the select club of collectors out there, but for themselves and generations to come

With these i happen to agree and it's been disappointing. Disney has always amazed me at how hit or miss they are. When they're on, they are amazing. When they're off, you can't help but feel cheated.

Be honest with you, after Ducktales, Chip N'Dale and then what's happened with the Treasures, I'm kind of turned off by their product right now. The treasures are their shining moments to make 60 year old cartoons look amazing and they dropped the ball on this one. Frankly I see this as a sign of things yet to come from a studio that continues to find new ways to cut corners.

Walt's gotta be turning over in his grave somewhere.

I think this goes to show you how few and far between, genuinly creative people are. I loved Disney and Jim Henson and when they died all the wannabe's and vultures showed their true colors.

Pluta, "anamorphically enhanced" (actually really just meaning "DVD coded for 16:9 display") what it does is utilize the pixel "real state" of the DVD frame more efficiently for wider than Academy (1.37) movies, like flat Widescreen ones (1.66-1.85) or Scope (2.00-2.75) than if the images were coded for 4:3 display, like NTSC video has been for most of its 50+ year history.

An NTSC DVD has 480 x 720 non square pixels (a ratio of 1.50 if seen square) in its "frame". So a NTSC TV squishes that frame into an 1.37 ratio for DVDs coded for 4:3 displays and stretches that frame into a 1.82 ratio for DVDs coded for 16:9 display.

So for example for a flat Widescreen movie with a 1.75 image like The Lion King if you fit it on a 16:9 coded DVD it'll measure aproximately 480 x 692 pixels whereas if you "letterboxed" it (shrank the 1.75 image to fit onto a 1.37 shape) on a 4:3 coded DVD it would just measure 376 x 720 pixels, so the 16:9 coded image in this case has an improvement of 23% more pixels, or sharpness/definition.

Same thing for the alludded Scope shorts. Lets assume for a moment they were in the usually "quoted" 2.35 width (which as Luke measured they aren't and from their vintage they should actually be 2.55 ). On a 16:9 coded NTSC DVD, a 2.35 image should be 372 x 720 pixels, but since these hypothetical 2.35 shorts are not 16:9 "enhanced", they must fit within the 1.37 shape of a 4:3 coded DVD, therefore ending up being only 279 x 720 pixels, 75% the size, or less sharp and defined, than they could have been in a 16:9 coded format.

Even tho i still havent watched my treasures yet , from the comments, reviews, and captures from everybody, it seems that in some of the shorts they may have reused existing vintage (analog?) video 4:3 masters created earlier; be them broadcast quality masters or Laserdisc/VHS duplicating masters (which being professional tape formats means their quality is not limited to the end product), Luke even mentioning some moiré which points to composite video as opposed to DVD's component; instead of retransfering all the film elements from scratch again to current video formats. Was this done to cut costs or because there wasn't time and existing elements to do them properly, only the Shadow knows. Maybe if it wasn't done this way, these treasures wouldn't exist?

I suppose if many of the treasure buyers notice/complain to the Mouse, it might realize that many of its customers DO notice these things, and make the extra effort for the next wave if possible. Here's hoping.

It could mean that maybe they are saving that for the Blu-ray days...
I hope that's not the case cus i think the Treasures are still a great series in "just 16mm quality DVD"

Okay, now I don't profess to be any type of techno-geek or know-it-all about these things, but I have spent most of my two days off work doing comparisons between "Chronological Donald Vol. 1 and 2" and I can't see what the big problem is. They are all bright and sharp, and considering their age presented in almost 'fault-free' presentations.

What is it that I am supposed to be looking for? Someone says that the pictures have a darker contrast, and that some have scratches and anomalies that are distracting.

Could it be the equipment that some of these detractors are using. I have an In-Focus DLP projector, a nearly 15' diagonal picture screen, a Sony Dolby Digital amplifier with 13 speakers placed in their proper space in the room. I have THX'ed my Home Theater and know that my sound and picture are at their peak performance. My DVD player is an Insignia (made by LG) DVD Recorder/Player that uses upconversion technology for Hi-Definition.

I spent no less than 16 hours over two days examining and re-examining all four discs. Using comparative still frames and all the things that I accuse some of the poster here of being 'nit-picky', and I still can find no noticeable difference between either of the sets.

So, after over 16 hours of driving my wife crazy with Donald Duck cartoons, watching and re-watching them, stopping and still-motion, slow motion and the like, I have come to the conclusion that maybe there are some of you out there who are using inferior equipment to watch these classic 'toons on, or maybe you got a bad DVD (betcha never thought of that). You can now be as "nit-picky" as you want, I have satified myself that there are NO NOTICEABLE problems with "Chronological Donald Volume 2" as compared to "Chronological Donald Volume 1".

If someone, in plain English, can explain to me what it is that they are seeing, I would be glad to give it another try, but I think that I have exhausted all sources of trying to make these look bad, and can't. I messed with contrast, and color settings, and all sorts of buttons, and when I was done, I still had what I think was the sharpest and brightest picture that you could ever expect from a Disney product.

I, for one, will not complain about these compilations. They are very well done, and I don't see what all the complaining is about.