DVDizzy Forum

DVDjunkie

I spent no less than 16 hours over two days examining and re-examining all four discs. So, after over 16 hours of driving my wife crazy with Donald Duck cartoons.

I like Donald as much as the next guy but I can't watch him for more than one hour. I mean all DD cartoons follow the same trend. I could take Mickey Mouse or Looney Tunes for 16 hours but Donald gets on my nerves for an extended period.

Edge wrote:Be honest with you, after Ducktales, Chip N'Dale

You know, I actually didn't expect them to look that good given their "cheaper", "made-for-tv" nature". I'm fairly confident all those Disney TV-shows back then were edited / filmed on (industrial) video.

Not only does video suffer from old age quite rapidly, it's also very low-res compared to film. Only about the same resolution as a DVD (the video), there's very little they can do about the video quality in these cases as the video doesn't contain enough detail to restore without really changing what's on screen.

Have a look at MacGyver and Star Trek TNG for other examples of things that were edited on video AND transferred from video for the DVD release ... MacGyver being one of the worst cases, TNg being one of the best cases.

Softness, problems with colours and contrast, it's all typical for video

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.

Well, the important thing is that you're happy with em, isn't it ? All the better for you if you are ... you're lucky.

I don't know if this is the right place to the thing I'm going to say(I'm sorry if it is not the one), but:
the name of the man who created Duckburg and Uncle Scroodge is Carl BarKs.
Mister Banks is the father of Jane and Michael in Mary Poppins, played by Mr. David Tomlinson.
Bye Bye.

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.

It isn't a matter of "inferior" equipment. I've got several televisions in my house ranging from a Simpsons TV that's older than I am, to a pretty good non-HD (I'll buy HD equipment when it makes sense to do so) CRT that's less than a year old. Even on the ancient TV, the properly restored shorts from previous Treasures and Donald V2's "From the Vault" section look wonderful. When compared to the remaining shorts from the new Donald set, though, it's impossible not to notice the difference.

All you need to do is compare the "From the Vault" shorts on Donald V2 with any of the others, and you can notice the difference. I've never much cared for home-quality projectors (they never seem to look as nice to me as a very high-quality CRT or LCD television, but you should be able to notice the difference on it. There's dirt, artifacts, and the contrast seems to be off compared to the shorts on older Treasures.

And if you still can't tell the difference, what are you doing will all that equipment, lol? You may not profess to be a know-it-all on these matters (nor do I, though I can see the blatant difference in quality), but not a techno qeek? With all that stuff? I tend to over-spend in the area of computers rather than A/V at the moment, and I'd have to say I'm a bit of a techno geek.

Has anyone actually considered the praticalities of restoring the shorts? Perhaps they've actually released the shorts faster than they can restore them now?

Warner are managing to restore approx 60 Looney Tunes shorts a year, but they were restoring the shorts a few years before they were released on DVD. Warner may have problems keeping up to one Golden Collection per year.

Because, believe me, when they're only making 125,000 copies (and shoddy marketing in non-domestic regions limiting their sales), its not paying for the restoration work. Disney is obviously restoring these for their own future useage.

Disney probably had a commitment prior to the first Treasures release to restore the Mickey Cartoons and the Goofy cartoons and maybe even started on Donald and Pluto. But haven't quite managed to keep up with the demands.

Remember - allegedly - the reason that On the Frontlines was held back from one wave was because restoration hadn't been completed at the time. And don't say they should have held Donald or the Rarities back this wave. There's enough complaints here about the slow release of the animated material as it is, or weaker waves than previous ones. It simply wouldn't be an option.

Remember - allegedly - the reason that On the Frontlines was held back from one wave was because restoration hadn't been completed at the time. And don't say they should have held Donald or the Rarities back this wave. There's enough complaints here about the slow release of the animated material as it is, or weaker waves than previous ones. It simply wouldn't be an option.

I have no problem saying "they should've held back Donald and the Rarities", if indeed time was the factor behind these inferior transfers (which I doubt, anyway, given the husbandry we've seen from Disney over the years).

The evidence that these transfers are the result of cost-cutting is overwhelming. The quality of the Treasures line has been diminishing from the start. Wave 1 and 2 were basically as good as it got. Wave 3 saw the tin's individual number no longer stamped on the outside, but issued with a certificate of authenticity instead (granted, I actually liked this change, but still, it was an issue of cost for Disney, not quality). Wave 4 saw the formerly high-quality printed back of the tin reduced to a cheap, paper version held on with some glue that easily came off, not to mention white alpha cases (which probably did cost Disney less).

And now, after cheapening every aspect of the packaging possible short of issuing the Treasures in those cardboard slipcases, Disney's finally started letting the video quality of the transfers slide in their desperate attempts to make a few more bucks off the backs of their most loyal customer base. I really wish we could get enough people complaining to Disney to A) make them issue replacement discs after proper transfers have been made; and B) make it up to us in Wave 6 by releasing absolutely fascinating material with the best transfers known to man, plus alot of bonus features.

Well, you have caused me to go back and re-watch these again this morning, and I can't tell the difference. As for dirt, and other anomalies, I didn't see it. And I watched them this time on a Sony Trinitron 35" tube-type television. I don't see what all the griping is about. They look fine to me.

Or maybe I am just easy to please.

I think that you people who complain are just that.......complainers who just want to be able to post something that sounds intelligent. I really think you are reaching on these collections. Even the "Rarities" look really good, although I wish they had used an Anamorphic process on "Toot, Whistle, Plunk and Boom!".

TM2-Megatron wrote:The evidence that these transfers are the result of cost-cutting is overwhelming. The quality of the Treasures line has been diminishing from the start. Wave 1 and 2 were basically as good as it got. Wave 3 saw the tin's individual number no longer stamped on the outside, but issued with a certificate of authenticity instead (granted, I actually liked this change, but still, it was an issue of cost for Disney, not quality). Wave 4 saw the formerly high-quality printed back of the tin reduced to a cheap, paper version held on with some glue that easily came off, not to mention white alpha cases (which probably did cost Disney less).

And now, after cheapening every aspect of the packaging possible short of issuing the Treasures in those cardboard slipcases, Disney's finally started letting the video quality of the transfers slide in their desperate attempts to make a few more bucks off the backs of their most loyal customer base. I really wish we could get enough people complaining to Disney to A) make them issue replacement discs after proper transfers have been made; and B) make it up to us in Wave 6 by releasing absolutely fascinating material with the best transfers known to man, plus alot of bonus features.

I don't think that's necessarily true. The lack of number stamping on the tins is obviously so the print run can be altered after the tins are produced. As is probably the back of the tin casing. Make things generic and it's easier to amend at the metaphorical "last minute". True, its an issue of cost, but nobody can expect Disney to junk over 125,000 tins and start again just because the print-run goes up (as it did for Wave 3).

As for the cases, the amount of ongoing series released over multiple years which have 100% consistant packaging is minute. I don't see that as being a problem myself.

Thirdly, they're not making "a few more bucks" off a loyal fanbase or they would increase the print-run, a much simpler way of making a bigger profit. I don't think Disney are exploiting loyal fans at all. If they were, they would stop with the Treasures completely, and continue to make undoubtably more profitable Classic Cartoon compliations instead. Disney does not owe it's fans anything. They could release a new Donald compilations full of Classic Cartoon quality re-cycled transfers each year, set the print-run to 250,000 and rub their hands in glee over the 4 years, more than doubling their profit each year. That's how you make a quick buck off fans, not by reducing the print run and waiting 2 years for the second volume.

The fact is, Warner Brothers who arguably have a much more intensive restoration programme both in-house and out-house, are having trouble restoring their Loony Tunes cartoons. That is a fact. It's often been stated that they would like to work faster, but its not possible. Why should Disney be any different?

Even on this forum, reaction to the Treasures have been muted in the past couple of years as most of the best stuff has been released in the eyes of the majority. People are already complaining about poorer waves, as generally speaking, the live action stuff is passed over by most people. How many people here, Disney fans, are passing on Spin and Marty or Disney Heroes? How many people would pass on all 3/4 if the wave consisted of those two plus more Mickey Mouse Club or Disneyland episodes?

It really is a case of "Damned if they do and damned if they don't". Hold stuff over, and people love to point fingers and concoct wild conspiracy theories (involving Eisner, or nowadays most likely Iger). That happened when "On the Front Line" was held back for legitimate issues:

There has also been a great deal of controversy, especially on the internet, regarding a delay in the release of On the Front Lines. Can you speak to what was the cause for the postponements?

The initial release on this was going to be in December of 2002. I am responsible for delaying it. No one else. There was a lot of rumor about the studio canceling it, but I went in to the folks at [Buena Vista] Home Entertainment and asked them to delay it a year because we needed more time to ready all the materials in the proper way. And they agreed, and gave us the extra year.

(From http://www.dvdfile.com/news/special_rep ... ave/2.html)

I'm also sure at the time, an official statement was made that the delay was to improve the material (which sadly I cannot locate) and yet, people still blamed it on the Roy Disney/Save Disney fiasco - and when the set did come out Roy was still on the damn disc! But people who know nothing just love to point and critisise what they "love" the most.

Ultimately, it's impractical to expect 4-5 hours of fully restored footage for the price/print run combination. It's obvious that the DVD release is simply a way of taking advantage of an on-going restoration project rather than the reason for the restoration in the first place, as it is with the Loony Tunes releases too.

Disney does not owe it's fans anything

I never said they do. But if they're going to release these things, I wish they'd do them to the standards of the previous waves in terms of a/v quality.

Hold stuff over, and people love to point fingers and concoct wild conspiracy theories (involving Eisner, or nowadays most likely Iger). That happened when "On the Front Line" was held back for legitimate issues:

As I said, I'm very patient. I hold off buying movies I want for years, until a respectable 2-or-more-disc release with good features is released. Such was the case with the recently released Airplane!, or Spaceballs a while ago, and countless others. Obviously, I can't not buy the Treasures I want, plus there isn't any reason not to. The quality isn't THAT bad, it's simply not anywhere near as good as previous releases (which, for me, is inexcusable, and I have no problems criticizing Disney for getting lazy), and the bonus content is decent.

I think that all of you so-called "professionals" should write to Disney and quit complainin on these sites. This forum was really a fun place until you start picking apart a product that I don't see has any problems. Perfection is left to only one person and he died on a cross for us...........ALL OF US.

dvdjunkie wrote:I think that all of you so-called "professionals" should write to Disney and quit complainin on these sites. This forum was really a fun place until you start picking apart a product that I don't see has any problems. Perfection is left to only one person and he died on a cross for us...........ALL OF US.

This kind of logic may be sufficient for you, but it just doesn't cut it for anyone with a critical bone in their body. It seems to me that you're complaining about people complaining as much as (if not more than) anyone complaining about the latest wave's video quality. Screencaps posted here (and/or a viewing of the DVDs) make it abundantly clear that the shorts previously remastered for the Front Lines Treasures look better and cleaner than (at least some of) those making their DVD debut on <i>Donald, Volume 2</i>. If you can't notice that, that's fine and we're all happy for you. If you can notice it, but are just pretending you can't because you think people complain too much or have inferior equipment, that's fine too. We're still happy for you.

But I think most people will have trouble sympathizing with you when you're so steadfast in your belief that we shouldn't complain even though it's apparent that the latest Treasures do not stand up to the high standards set by previously-released tins. By and large, people aren't saying "The Treasures suck. This is a travesty." We're saying "Vintage Disney cartoons presented together rock. We've supported this line from the beginning. It's more than a little disappointing that the newer-released shorts don't look as good as past remastering jobs. Let's voice our concerns to the powers that be to know that we don't want quality to continue to slip." Many people may not notice the difference in quality and I wouldn't slam someone for not, but I'm frankly astonished that someone who professes to have high-end equipment would both not notice it and get mad at anyone who does or insult their equipment. It's fine if you don't believe in complaining ever - and from your posts and roll-eye signature, that's clearly not the case. But I don't see why you must take such great offense to people demanding that the studio not drop their standards on a line that is of great importance to many Disney fans.

You've voiced your opinion and now it seems like your hostility to anyone lodging a complaint is the only thing that's keeping this from being a fun place.

No sail looks like it was taken from a 16mm print.... perhaps that's all they could locate? Could somebody (whoever had success with before) email Leonard and get the answer?

Scaramanga wrote: 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 ?

You are so right! If this is the case, (that they just released the stuff without really restoring), you are absolulely right on all points quoted above! The films will rot! What are they doing?! And after they bragged on the Disney website about working with "the Getty" learning the state of the art restoration techniques and restoring a whole bunch of "archived" animation that they found in ice cream containers... why would they do this? I mean, wouldn't the first step in the Treasures series be making good quality restorations of what was to be put on them?! Yeah, and what about HDTV... it will look like crap!

Where is deathie mouse when we need an educated opinion on this stuff?

Pluto Region1 wrote:Where is deathie mouse when we need an educated opinion on this stuff?

A quick search will yield all kinds of techie essays from the mysterious masked film guru (:P), but deathie did make a post directed to you just on the <a href="http://www.ultimatedisney.com/forum/vie ... ">previous page</a> in this thread! He addressed the video question a bit, too...

deathie mouse wrote: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?

Hope that helped a bit!

Paka wrote: A quick search will yield all kinds of techie essays from the mysterious masked film guru (:P), but deathie did make a post directed to you just on the <a href="http://www.ultimatedisney.com/forum/vie ... ">previous page</a> in this thread! He addressed the video question a bit, too...

Thanks Paka - I am "forum challenged" and not even sure how to search for someone's posts or use the PM feature, but in time I'll figure all this stuff out.

Now maybe I should go read what deathie wrote

deathie mouse wrote: .....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?

Thanks Deathie! Mike (the television tech husband) is trying to translate the anamorphic lesson here for me.... essentially I am understanding it is sort of like when you resize a j-peg for use on a website and if you stretch it too much you loose sharpness (I need to copy and save your post for further study). But what you are supposing could have happened here, (and my husband is concurring with you as well as translating for me) that they didn't use the originals... this is really an intriguing issue and we need to not let this issue go! We need to investigate just what they did, what is going on here.... could it be a cost-cutting measure, did they run out of time, or worse, did they loose the masters?

Someone needs to get to the bottom of this... who has sources or contacts and might be able to crack this case?

Hi,

just wondering if anybody else is having trouble with the Rarities disc?

The first disc loads on one player, and not at all on the other. When it DOES load, it gets as far as the post-Maltin menus. If I select "Play All" nothing happens. If I selected via the Chronological or Alphabetical Menus, some of the shorts plays, others just hang like the Play All option. Is it just me, or are there wider problems?

Either way, I think I'm screwed. (This comes at the end of a very bad day).

Naturally, I can't contact BVHE because I live outside the US and they are willing to take out money through retailers, but not support us afterwards.

I think it might be a player problem.

Sorry I cant help you further.

blaing wrote:I think it might be a player problem.

Sorry I cant help you further.

I thought so at first too, but there is a problem with BOTH players. So I guess it is the disc. I hope so, and I hope I am able to get a suitable replacement.

I'll weigh in and concur that the video quality is a bit substandard this time around. A lot of the colour Rarities look very soft, and there's more film dirt than usual. Compared to some of the films on other releases - say, The Band Concert which looks like it was drawn yesterday - these ones are showing their age.

I pulled up an off-air VHS of No Sail and it looks pretty disasterous there too. In fact, I think the inherent softness of VHS smooths out some of the ghastliness which is exacerbated on DVD with the MPEG encoding.

Even Alice's Egg Plant seems to be darker and dirtier than other copies I've seen, but I'd have to double check that before I get definitively worked up about it.

I've never cared about all the mucking about with the tins and the bands and what-have-you, maintaining that the content is all important. Now that the content is suffering, I'm annoyed. I would have happily waited if delaying the release date could have brought us properly restored versions of these films.

Perhaps deathiemouse can explain this one to me:
As we know, film is 24 frames per second and NTSC video is 30 fps. So normally if you transfer film to NTSC tape, some of the video frames are composites of two film frames. On DVD, however, if transferred correctly, only the 24 actual film frames are stored on the DVD, and the other 6 frames are interpolated on the fly by the DVD player. So my question is, how are films scanned for DVD mastering? Is there a special 24fps tape format?

(If this is too technical for some folks, I apologise.)

The reason I mention all this is because I'm assuming that if the Wave 5 DVDs were using old TV transfers, they'd have the double imaging on certain frames, which they don't. So I'm guessing they're fresh transfers of crappy prints. Alternately, I could be talking through my hat...



BTW, no playback probs on Aussie equipment here Loomis. Must be a dud disc. Hope you can sort it out easily.