Interview Disney’s Restoration of Dumbo and Efforts to Preserve Their Film Library (1 Viewer)

[vnisanian2001]

The one Disney Animated Feature I'm concerned about the most when they'll release it on blu-ray is Oliver & Company. In all the release prints since 1996; the colors looked a little faded (not too faded though), from their original look in 1988. I've seen bits and pieces of the original 1988 print, from the original trailer, making of features,animation cels, and even the 6th edition of Disney's Sing-Along Songs titled Fun With Music, and the colors originally looked a bit more saturated (especially considering that this was the first film to have a studio specifically for CGI, which was still very primitive back then). I'd like to see a blu-ray release of this one day with the original colors restored. If they can restore the original colors for The Great Mouse Detective, I see no reason they can't do the same for Oliver & Company. I don't see them releasing this on blu-ray anytime soon, but rather about 7 or 8 years from now, given that Disney doesn't pay much attention to this film. One of the biggest mysteries about this film, is just what aspect ratio was it originally projected in back in 1988. None of the original presskits/pressbooks from 1988 mention it, and I have no idea why Disney would fail to mention the proper aspect ratio projection, as they usually do so.

 

[Douglas_H]

 

I'm from Scotland, and since we actually gave the world sarcasm, i can appreciate your post and chuckle at it.

Aye Fox. My Grandparents came from the north side of Hadrian's Wall. My first name reflects that heritage.

 

[bigshot]

On the new documentary about Dumbo, Eric Goldberg and John Canemaker discuss the crows, and their comments made me look at the characters in a new light. I had never associated any racial stereotypes with these characters until someone called them racist in an article I read years ago

The crows in Dumbo aren't generic black stereotypes. They're caricatures of specific black performers. Take a look at the group that performs on the steamboat in Stormy Weather. I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that the Disney animators were referencing that group.

 

[Vern Dias]

One of the biggest mysteries about this film, is just what aspect ratio was it originally projected in back in 1988. None of the original presskits/pressbooks from 1988 mention it, and I have no idea why Disney would fail to mention the proper aspect ratio projection, as they usually do so.

That's probably because the studios have no real control over the exact flat projected AR. If it was 1988, then the flat standard projection AR in the US would have been 1.85:1.
In reality, it could have been projected at anywhere from 1.75:1 to 2.0:1 depending on the theater.
I know of several theaters back then that used a 2.00:1 screen and projected all flat at 2.0:1 and cropped all scope to 2.00:1 to fit the screen.
I have seen prints of Disney animation titles that were hard matted to 1.75:1 and other titles that were wide open at 1.20:1.
The final flat projected AR is solely determined by the aperture plate in the projector.


Vern Dias

 

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by Vern Dias


That's probably because the studios have no real control over the exact flat projected AR. If it was 1988, then the flat standard projection AR in the US would have been 1.85:1.
In reality, it could have been projected at anywhere from 1.75:1 to 2.0:1 depending on the theater.
I know of several theaters back then that used a 2.00:1 screen and projected all flat at 2.0:1 and cropped all scope to 2.00:1 to fit the screen.
I have seen prints of Disney animation titles that were hard matted to 1.75:1 and other titles that were wide open at 1.20:1.
The final flat projected AR is solely determined by the aperture plate in the projector.


Vern Dias

i would presume that it would have been 1.37 inside of a 1.85 frame.


RAH

 

[FoxyMulder]

Originally Posted by MatthewA



Matt Hough is already the Disney reviewer, and he does a very good job of it, so the point is moot for now. But I would not pull punches if I felt they did a bad job. I've been a Disney fan since I was a small child and I have never held my tongue when they did something I felt was wrong; I reviewed their MOD of an obscure 1981 live-action film called Amy and soundly criticized them for using an outdated transfer in a questionable aspect ratio, which seems to be a common occurrence on a lot of their DVDs of less well-known material.


Where Disney is concerned, the studio has access to the materials, and contacts with those who know the right way to present these films from the wrong way, and I don't. Even if I could access a 35mm IB Tech print of the film and a way to view it, there's no guarantee that it would have the right colors.


I do agree that Disney does seem to get a pass from a lot of people on things that other studios wouldn't get a pass on. Still, while I don't think it's fair of Disney to say that all negative criticism is out of ignorance or false memory, the fact that they actually came out to talk about this at all is better than nothing.


If they are willing to defend these crucial supporting characters against their critics, their reservations about Song of the South seem more and more petty and fear-based.

Song Of The South gets shown on television over here from time to time, Disney should release it in the UK.


As for Matt's reviews, he misses things all the time, i asked about the film grain in the new 3D/2D release of The Nightmare Before Christmas, it took other people to confirm it was present, the 2D edition is the same grain reduced version that was last released but that the 3D edition does indeed have film grain and people feel there is more fine detail left intact on the 3D edition, as the owner of a large screen projection system i cannot rely on Matt's reviews at all.


As for Disney, i just want some film texture on their releases, on a projection system i find a little bit of film grain aids the visual presentation and makes things look better, i'm not asking for a snowy grainstorm, just a little bit to give the animation the look of film, so far, release after release is devoid of the look of film, it all looks clean and smooth, no doubt people buy into this, on a forum such as this i expect more questions to be asked but i continually see less asked or in my opinion the wrong questions asked, Disney gets a pass all the time, if this was live action they would be getting a fail, i feel the forum needs to cater for those of us who disagree with not keeping some film grain in the release.

 

[Cactus]

Song Of The South gets shown on television over here from time to time, Disney should release it in the UK.

 

As for Matt's reviews, he misses things all the time, i asked about the film grain in the new 3D/2D release of The Nightmare Before Christmas, it took other people to confirm it was present, the 2D edition is the same grain reduced version that was last released but that the 3D edition does indeed have film grain and people feel there is more fine detail left intact on the 3D edition, as the owner of a large screen projection system i cannot rely on Matt's reviews at all.

 

As for Disney, i just want some film texture on their releases, on a projection system i find a little bit of film grain aids the visual presentation and makes things look better, i'm not asking for a snowy grainstorm, just a little bit to give the animation the look of film, so far, release after release is devoid of the look of film, it all looks clean and smooth, no doubt people buy into this, on a forum such as this i expect more questions to be asked but i continually see less asked or in my opinion the wrong questions asked, Disney gets a pass all the time, if this was live action they would be getting a fail, i feel the forum needs to cater for those of us who disagree with not keeping some film grain in the release.

I agree with FoxyMulder on this. When I was watching the Snow White BD I sometimes got the feeling that this could have been a new production. I never got the sense that I was watching a classic from the 1930's. It somewhat ruined the experience for me.

 

[MatthewA]

Originally Posted by bigshot



The crows in Dumbo aren't generic black stereotypes. They're caricatures of specific black performers. Take a look at the group that performs on the steamboat in Stormy Weather. I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that the Disney animators were referencing that group.

And you would be right. They even show live-action reference footage of two black dancers.


My personal feelings on DNR are that it can be a useful tool, if used sparingly. However, most of the time it has been used so heavy-handedly that most of the time it's not worth the effort.


If they're working from the successive exposure negatives, how much grain is there in the first place?

 

[Scott Calvert]

I agree with FoxyMulder on this. When I was watching the Snow White BD I sometimes got the feeling that this could have been a new production. I never got the sense that I was watching a classic from the 1930's. It somewhat ruined the experience for me.

Snow White looks like a cheap video production on DVD and BD, IMO. All clean lines, garish colors. Like something you would expect to see from a new cartoon on Nickelodeon, not a Disney classic from 1931. They look the class out of it and turned it into kitsch.

 

[Ethan Riley]

The crows in Dumbo aren't generic black stereotypes. They're caricatures of specific black performers. Take a look at the group that performs on the steamboat in Stormy Weather. I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that the Disney animators were referencing that group.

I can see how it might be considered offensive or racist. They are caricatures. But do you think that black people will be embarrassed, in 50 years time, by gangsta rap videos and reruns of "In Living Color?" Makes ya wonder--

 

[ahollis]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris




i would presume that it would have been 1.37 inside of a 1.85 frame.


RAH

I recall a letter from Irving Ludwig, the Disney distribution king for many years, in all the film cans stating your presumption as correct all the way back to the early 70's for the films produced in 1.37 but re-released after the wider aspect ratio was adopted. By the time 1988 rolled around you could not find a person working in a projection booth for the theatre circuits that knew what OAR was. And now with digital features it has actually gotten worse, since they are not reading the full title information and adding scope trailers to widescreen films. Oh My.

 

[bigshot]

My personal feelings on DNR are that it can be a useful tool, if used sparingly. However, most of the time it has been used so heavy-handedly that most of the time it's not worth the effort.

Disney doesn't use DNR much on their features. They *repaint* the characters digitally and replace backgrounds with digital freezes based on multiple frames. The process of recreation that they use (I can't bring myself to call it restoration) eliminates the grain completely as a by product. They *can't* preserve grain doing it this way. It's all or nothing. You'll notice DNR is applied in scenes with complex optical effects, like the multiplane shots in Bambi. Those scenes can't be broken apart into layers to clean up because there aren't hard lines around the areas of color and the backgrounds aren't flat art. Unfortunately, in order to get these shots to match with the other grainless shots, they have to really crank up the grain smoothing, obliterating textures in the background paintings. Everything looks like airbrush in the multiplane shots on the blurays. The watercolor brushstrokes have been blurred over. I have yet to see a review of these blurays that mentions this. It's probably because reviewers don't understand the difference between the process Disney uses and the process everyone else uses, and they just aren't familiar with the way the film should look. To answer your question about three strip negatives... When combined, three strip Technicolor has significantly more grain than more modern color processes. However, on a Disney bluray, you aren't looking at a film any more. The digital processing has replaced the original image entirely. (With the exception of the optical shots I mention above.)

 

[bigshot]

I can see how it might be considered offensive or racist. They are caricatures.

Caricature is an artistic technique that exaggerates a likeness to come up with an image that is a more vivid and lifelike a representation than a realistic likeness. Caricature is a way to highlight the truth about someone. Stereotypes are a visual shorthand used to reduce an individual to a set of conventions common to a group. It's a method to sacrifice truth for quick communication of a class someone belongs to. Caricature and stereotype are polar opposites. Caricature, if it is well observed and honest cannot by definition be racist. Stereotyping when used to classify people by race can be racist, although it isn't automatically so.

 

[Douglas_H]

Caricature is an artistic technique that exaggerates a likeness to come up with an image that is a more vivid and lifelike a representation than a realistic likeness. Caricature is a way to highlight the truth about someone. Stereotypes are a visual shorthand used to reduce an individual to a set of conventions common to a group. It's a method to sacrifice truth for quick communication of a class someone belongs to. Caricature and stereotype are polar opposites. Caricature, if it is well observed and honest cannot by definition be racist. Stereotyping when used to classify people by race can be racist, although it isn't automatically so.

Nicely put.

 

[vnisanian2001]

Earlier in this thread, it was mentioned that for Disney's pre-1950s' films, before they destroyed all of the original nitrate audio reels, they transferred them to 35-millimeter mags. Does that include all of the surviving Deems Taylor audio tracks that were heard in the 1990 re-release of Fantasia ?

 

[Adam_S]

Disney doesn't use DNR much on their features. They *repaint* the characters digitally and replace backgrounds with digital freezes based on multiple frames. The process of recreation that they use (I can't bring myself to call it restoration) eliminates the grain completely as a by product. They *can't* preserve grain doing it this way. It's all or nothing. I have yet to see a review of these blurays that mentions this. It's probably because reviewers don't understand the difference between the process Disney uses and the process everyone else uses, and they just aren't familiar with the way the film should look.

I can't possibly imagine why reviewers would decline to report that there is a MASSIVE years long conspiracy at Disney involving the employment of hundreds of animators working for years to repaint every cel by computer of all the classic titles. Disney's a publicly traded company, show me where all the employees/artists that are doing this work are on their balance sheets?

 

[Mark-P]

I can't possibly imagine why reviewers would decline to report that there is a MASSIVE years long conspiracy at Disney involving the employment of hundreds of animators working for years to repaint every cel by computer of all the classic titles. Disney's a publicly traded company, show me where all the employees/artists that are doing this work are on their balance sheets?

I think what Stephen is referring to is from the restoration documentary on the Sleeping Beauty Blu-ray where they demonstrate how the characters are digitally removed from the backgrounds and each element is cleaned up separately and then re-composited. I don't agree with Stephen that the cells are being digitally "repainted" but rather just cleaned up by eliminating all the anomalies (some of which include film grain). And Adam_S, the reason your counterargument doesn't make sense is because digitally repainting wouldn't take a lot of man-power, just computing-power, which is cheap.

 

[MatthewA]

Originally Posted by Mark-P



I think what Stephen is referring to is from the restoration documentary on the Sleeping Beauty Blu-ray where they demonstrate how the characters are digitally removed from the backgrounds and each element is cleaned up separately and then re-composited. I don't agree with Stephen that the cells are being digitally "repainted" but rather just cleaned up by eliminating all the anomalies (some of which include film grain).

And Adam_S, the reason your counterargument doesn't make sense is because digitally repainting wouldn't take a lot of man-power, just computing-power, which is cheap.

I know that's what they were doing in the 1990s, but now I thought they were going back to the SE negatives and degraining them while removing some other technical anomalies (and, apparently, mistakenly [I hope] removing some things that were supposed to be there).

 

[vnisanian2001]

What does SE mean? And no one has answered my question earlier in this thread.

 

[FoxyMulder]

Originally Posted by MatthewA




I know that's what they were doing in the 1990s, but now I thought they were going back to the SE negatives and degraining them while removing some other technical anomalies (and, apparently, mistakenly [I hope] removing some things that were supposed to be there).

Whats stopping them from doing what other studio's like Warner do for their classics, go back to the original negatives and make new film scans and if they are Technicolor then use Warners Ultra Resolution Process and align the three strips and then make your master, keep the film grain intact, keep all the detail intact and have a nice sharp high definition animated feature that looks like a movie. Of course they can clean the dust away, clean up any real issues and if they need to do a full restoration then do it but i really dislike this Disney approach to their classic films, they are turning them into smooth and clean looking cartoons that no longer resemble film, if i wanted cartoons i could just watch tv.


Why do experts like Mr Harris give them a pass and why does nearly every review i read give them a pass, is it because its animation and its not considered the same as a live action film, i'd be interested in knowing, the silence on this matter is not good, maybe i am wrong and misunderstand everything, maybe Disney are doing a great job, but why do i doubt it, why do i feel something is amiss in all this. I'd like someone to ask Disney a few tough questions on all this and get their response.


So what is happening here, are they repainting them and degraining the opticals or are they simply degraining full stop, is there little grain in these original negatives or is there a lot of grain, c'mon there must be more information available and a decisive answer on all this. This site has a lot of experts, i wish they would all chime in and tell us more.