Cartoons and DNR (1 Viewer)

[Patrick McCart]

Even with the problems on the few cartoons, it's still worth it for the 53 cartoons without mastering errors, as well as the superb extras. What's Opera, Doc? has two commentaries, two isolated audio tracks, and its own making-of featurette! Have You Got Any Castles, despite having DVNR and interlaced video, has a minute of footage that hasn't been seen since its original 1938 release. The original title sequences for Book Revue, Baby Bottleneck, and I Love to Singa are also seen for the first time since their original releases.

Consider the problems to be a significant wart on the face, but an otherwise wartless face.




I have no problem with the grain on the older cartoons... in fact, it's wonderful to see grain since old masters were usually filtered to death, as well as being overly soft. I wouldn't really want a cartoon to look as clean and flat as the Photoshop example I made, but I did want to point out the level of cleanup that can be made without using DVNR. In fact, to my eyes, the DVNR'ed cartoons STILL look grainy (except for Gorilla My Dreams), so it makes me wonder why it was added in the first place.


At this point, I wish Warner would simply put out a replacement disc with the 7 messed up cartoons sans DVNR (when applicable) and in full progressive video (when applicable). It would be a lot better than having to recall discs.

 

[ChrisPearson]

Oh, I could tell why you posted that photoshopped example, Patrick – it was a good point well made. I agree with the rest of what you say, too – both LTGC volumes so far released are, for the most part, excellent, as I said above. I'd just like them to lay off using DNR on future LTGCs and re-release the handful of affected cartoons – if only as easter eggs on future LTGCs or bonus shorts on future feature releases.

 

[Stephen PI]

ScottR:
In the case of the Bradys, everytime there is a pan, the background goes blurry (check out the paneling in the family room....all of the vertical lines disappear!). Everytime there is something shiny, the shiny object blinks/flickers.

Scott, what you are describing here is two separate tool applications of DVNR.

Quote:
Everytime there is something shiny, the shiny object blinks/flickers.

This is the dirt/scratch removal, and to me the most offensive of the two.
DVNR has ruined more film transfers than you guys could begin to imagine. It is the 'aids' of home video. It can be applied in the original transfer or at the sub-master stage. DVNR is still alive and well and there is even a Hi-Def version available. I have also heard that it has been seen in theatrical features at the theater. That certainly would bring to an end my cinema-going days!

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Topics like this are great to raise and discuss now...get the awareness out there among the DVD-enthusiast community so the studios "clue in" to issues like this. Otherwise, your forthcoming High-def software will have all the problems of your current DVDs...only in greater resolution...

Edge Enhancement, DVNR, excessive filtering...all of these electronic artifacts are 100% unnecessary during mastering (don't let the technicians tell you otherwise...many fine DVDs out there compressed from challenging source material without any of these problems) yet appear on the vast majority of DVDs in some capacity...from major and minor studios alike...

Those who don't care or think it's making too much fuss should sit quietly and thank those who *DO* care for taking up a cause that will benefit everyone when HD comes to town. Folks at HTF used to rail against the "anamorhphic snobs" for complaining when studios would forego 16x9 enhancement on new DVD titles. Back in 1999 anyone who dared suggest that a 4x3 NTSC interlaced display wasn't everything video was meant to be were practically torn to shreds. Now those same "my 4x3 480I TV is good enough" members have large-screen 16x9 displays and know how bad those old DVDs look and pass them over on their shelf when looking for something to watch with guests...the same DVDs they said looked "just great" on their old NTSC gear.

The same evolution will happen again, and we'd all prefer not to have to buy our HD titles two and three times over the next 10 years just to get a copy that's finally free from electronic artifacts...

 

[LaurenceGarvey]

Four of the 60 cartoons have a flaw whereby if you freeze-frame it in just the right spot a portion of the line on one part of the underside of one character's foot kind of disappears. OH MY GOD. How DARE Warners push this crap on us? Has anybody contacted the U.S. Attorney General to complain? I myself am organizing a giant bonfire in the town square so all of us can drag out our worthless LOONEY TUNES DVDs and burn them as a lesson to these shyster companies that we, the people, will not stand for such shoddy merchandise.

Let us all join hands now and sing "We are the World" or "I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing" or "Brown-eyed Girl".

 

[Jay Pennington]

Not necessarily, as the report you linked to was a bit of a false alarm (although the diligence and alarm was appropriate). Jerry Beck reported that the those particular transfers were not the ones being used for the set.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

LaurenceGarvey,

the freeze-frames are there to illustrate an example. The artifacts from poor digital processing are visible during playback as well.

Not saying we should boycott anything or make more of an issue than is warranted, but neither should we react to the other extreme as though there was no issue to be raised.

 

[LaurenceGarvey]

Mr. Boulet, I appreciate that. All I can tell you (sarcasm aside) is that we have movie parties every weekend, and the Looney Tunes and French Betty Boop cartoons are a huge part of that, we're watching on a 52 in. widescreen TV, and the crowd (which is up to 10 or 12 adults and kids now) keeps growing. (My pizza budget is shot for the month already!) Anyway, everybody loves watching these things, and thinks they've never looked better.

This whole "cartoon controversy" is nit-picking of massive proportions.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Most folks sitting around a 52" HDTV watching the Phantom Menace aren't bothered by the EE in the transfer either. And there's nothing wrong with that... but it doesn't mean it's not there and it doesn't mean it's a problem for wide-angle viewers or videophile enthusiasts to look more closely.

The sky isn't falling and it's not the end of the world...but it's never bad to urge the studios to do the best job that they can. The product can look good enough to please your party guests and the videophile scrutinizing frame-by-frame for a film-class thesis all at the same time...so why not have a win-win?

Remember...the lessons learned now with DVD...where it may seem like "nit picking" to some, will have generous payoffs for your future HD format...where it will really matter.

-dave

 

[Ed St. Clair]

It's so sad that every 'DVD's can look better' thread I've been on, always has posts with 'it's good enough for me'. Like, just because they don't have a problem with it, nobody else should either.
Why is that???
You would think on the best home theater web site in the world, HTF, home theater fans would only want the best. Quess, that's why we have inferior transfers.
Too badd, were not all for improving our 'hobby' :-(

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Preach it Brother.

If they were archived, I could point you to the ***HUNDREDS*** of threads from the early days of DVD claiming that "4x3 letterboxed transfers are GOOD ENOUGH FOR ME...you folks complaining about lack of anamorphic encoding are just nit-picking!"

Most of those folks have quietly changed their tune since upgrading to a 16x9-capable display and seeing just what those animorphiadics (that was what they called us) were talking about.

Those of you not bothered by DVNR artifacts...take heed...it's just like anamorphic encoding. Just because your current system or viewing habits don't make them a problem for you...don't assume that the folks who do find it objectionable are radicals who just have to complain. Enjoy your software as you like! And be happy that other folks are out there fighting for better mastering...because one day when you *do* care, you'll have them to thank for the improvement in quality you'll be able to enjoy.

 

[LaurenceGarvey]

"It's so sad that every 'DVD's can look better' thread I've been on, always has posts with 'it's good enough for me'."

Well, first of all, I hope you ain't talking about me, because I never said that. What I said was, these cartoons look terrific, but there's no pleasing some people, and there's no sense trying.

Anybody out there who may be having second thoughts about buying these cartoons because there is "something wrong" with them, please ignore these folks and make a great purchase you will enjoy many times for many years.

 

[ScottR]

This is an issue that shouldn't be ignored. Some people have said the problem is my dvd player, and that they can't see the artifacts. I think if more people knew what to look for, it would be a problem impossible to ignore.

 

[Ernest Rister]

What I said was, these cartoons look terrific, but there's no pleasing some people, and there's no sense trying.

No, what you said was:

"I think the whole thing is a lot of B.S."

 

[LaurenceGarvey]

Well, now I've said both.

 

[MarcoBiscotti]

Just pop in disc 3 of the second LTGC and tell me the image doesnt look screwy... I'm far from a videophile but I think I was one of the first to notice this and bring attention to it on the Cartoon Research forums. I wasn't sure if I got a bogus disc or if there was a problem with my hardware. Some of the best cartoons were totally ruined because of this shoddy mastering and it's very upsetting. We need to set standards as consumers and bring attention to these issues to avoid sacrificing the quality of our product on future releases.

 

[Patrick McCart]

What's wrong with the 3rd disc?

I just went through all the cartoons and none of them have DVNR, nor interlacing problems. The only problems I spotted were Duck Soup to Nuts and Baby Bottleneck being a little grainy, as well as Porky in Wackyland being a little dirty (specks... but it may be what was photographed-in).

By the way, here's a comparison between the LD and DVD versions of Baby Bottleneck:

[url=http://img72.echo.cx/img72/4197/bottleneckld8xd.jpg] [/url] [url=http://img72.echo.cx/img72/3484/bottleneckdvd5lj.jpg] [/url]

 

[MarcoBiscotti]

I'm sorry... I meant 'disc 4'.

I haven't revisited my set in a few months but you could read what I posted over at the GAC forums in regards to the mastering issues after first picking up the set upon release (I think you might have posted in that thread as well): http://forums.goldenagecartoons.com/...7&page=1&pp=10

 

[Chris S]

The Wall Street Journal has a short write up about the DNR issue.

WSJ article

 

[Patrick McCart]

It's also worth mentioning how title sequences can be fouled up.

For example, It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World has DVNR applied all over the film. During the wonderful title sequence by Saul Bass, DVNR wrecks a lot of the animation. For example, when the hand shakes the flag with Spencer Tracy's name, it blurs between frames... actually making the name become partially erased! (Besides the obvious editorial problems with the current DVD, it also features many interlacing problems)

As a comparison, look at the end credits of Around the World in 80 Days (also by Saul Bass). While the credits suffer from some splice problems, there is no DVNR wrecking the image. In fact, you're finally able to read the "special thanks" portion after Robert Newton's credit shows up.