Blu-ray Review Tom & Jerry The Golden Collection Volume 1 Blu-ray Review (1 Viewer)

[Chuck Pennington]

I have to agree with Thad on this one. Sample THE MILKY WAIF and then try out some of the shorts immediately before and after it. Not only is he color dull and odd, but the level of detail is seriously wanting, even appearing to be slightly out of focus. I much prefer the standard definition version (the uncut one, that is) made from a different element.
I'm very happy with most of the shorts, but a few really stick out like a sore thumb, especially when there have been other releases that have better color and, dare I say it, more apparent detail.
I'll see if I can post some comparison pics from that specific short on my next day off.

 

[Kevin Martinez]

Allow me to vouch for Dave's credibility as well. He's a top-notch historian and one of the best friends an animation collector could hope to have.

 

[dana martin]

what i have learned in all these years is that this site is a wealth of information, and there are many respected behind the scenes people here, i value there knowledge and input, some have seen of have better info than the layman approach, that said instead of that challenge to ones reputation i offer the following,


http://www.facebook.com/WBClassicAnimation?sk=wall


the site is live, and well its sort of the chat aspect, so questions could be placed on both sites

 

[bigshot]

I stll haven't had a chance to check disk 1... I got distracted by Island of Dr Moreau and Phantom of the Opera... But how many cartoons are we talking about? If it's a quarter or a third, like was said previously, more than half of the cartoons on the first disk must be bad. I checked and the whole second disk is good. The only problems there are a couple of prints that are a bit softer than the others, but they're still miles ahead of DVD in sharpness.
If we're talking about five or six substandard prints, that's par for the course for Warner cartoon sets. I can't think of a set they put out that was perfect. The Popeye set came close, but it had one print with unnaturally goosed color and several with DVNR blurring of lines. The Warner Bros cartoon collections had all kinds of problems sprinkled through the run of the series.
Maybe someone could list the titles with the problems so we all have a sense of the scale of the problem.

 

[ThadK]

>Sigh< They have been listed, both on my site and in my Amazon review, and even in this thread. Of the ten offending shorts, "Puss n' Toots", "Sufferin' Cats", "Lonesome Mouse", and "Mouse Trouble" aren't that bad, but in the case of the latter three, they could still look better. "The Bowling Alley-Cat", "Zoot Cat", "Million Dollar Cat", "Puttin' on the Dog", "Quiet Please", and "Milky Waif" look seriously wrong.
Kriztoffer, I guess when you read that your musings based on expending time and energy doing actual research is "hardly credible", you only see red. Your statement on the BG comparison, on how the Blu-Ray is preferable even if it "certainly looks faded and too dark, and some BG art detail is being lost", means I'm just screaming at a brick wall by even participating here.

 

[Mike Frezon]

Originally Posted by ThadK /t/315732/tom-jerry-the-golden-collection-volume-1-blu-ray-review/60#post_3868137
>Sigh<
Kriztoffer, I guess when you read that your musings based on expending time and energy doing actual research is "hardly credible", you only see red. Your statement on the BG comparison, on how the Blu-Ray is preferable even if it "certainly looks faded and too dark, and some BG art detail is being lost", means I'm just screaming at a brick wall by even participating here.

One member disagrees with you and you are "screaming at a brick wall by even participating here?"

How dramatic.

 

[Mark Anthony]

>I guess when you read that your musings based on expending time and energy doing actual research is "hardly credible", you only see red. Your statement on the BG comparison, on how the Blu-Ray is preferable even if it "certainly looks faded and too dark, and some BG art detail is being lost", means I'm just screaming at a brick wall by even participating here.

I have already said, in follow up to my original comment, that the link to your review was made without reference to who you were and your site didn't indicate it either. Therefore, as mentioned, I didn't see why your review should be labelled "credible" and the others not, be it in implication or otherwise - especially as you all said very similar things for the most part.
Bejesus!
I guess I'm "just screaming at a brick wall" too..
M

 

[ThadK]

Whatever.

 

[Radioman970]

Watched the first 2 over the weekend and was overjoyed in how they looked. Was going to catch a few more but the cat/mouse game HERE is more fun!1

...this is why I come here, awesome discussions like this that I couldn't possible participate in but wish I could. I've tried video restoration before to try, and it's extremely fun. And working with such a beloved classic like T&J can make you even more passionate when debating in a discussion like this.
Carryon..

 

[Kevin Martinez]

Yeah, HTF has never been a real ally to animation fans, and probably never will be.

 

While the 10 shorts people on the net are talking about being bad are less than perfect, I can live with the set even if there is no recall.

 

[bigshot]

I bounced through the first disk today. There was just one cartoon that looked bad, it was called Putting on the Dog. It had blown out backgrounds and boosted contrast. The rest varied a little here and there but were significantly better than the DVD. I think the handwringing over this is overstated. Disney's Alice or Sleeping Beauty are much worse.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Due to the debate over the quality of this BRD, I recently bought this BRD and will be viewing it very soon. Furthermore, HTF has always supported animation and even hosted some chat(s) regarding animation. However, certain animation fans have a tendency to go overboard with their criticism on some releases and those that don't agree with their POV.





Crawdaddy

 

[bigshot]

I think that the equipment you view the disk on makes a difference too. I've never had much of a sense of how gamma works, but I know enough about it to know that how something looks on a computer does not always relate to how it looks on a TV. Also, the size and resolution make a difference too. I can't see any real improvement in bluray over DVD on my CRT TV, but on my ten foot projection system, it's quite clear.

 

[Kevin Martinez]

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/image/id/737005/width/600/height/227

Sorry to hurt feelings, but anyone who thinks that the one on the right is closer to how it's "supposed" to look is.... well, many things. "Correct" isn't one of them though.

After seeing how the BD basically eliminates all the yellow, among other things, I can't possibly fathom how anyone could think the picture on the right is correct.

 

[bigshot]

It doesn't look like that on my Epson projector. Might be a frame grab calibration problem.

 

[DoctorHver]

First off let me apology for bumping this thread. Well, I will say there is an nunnery drama in this thread. Which you would expect to find on sports forum and last time I checked this forum is live-action (some times animation) film discussion not some bloody sport events. The original review on here was informative, but just to point out its not review of how per individual short appear on this blu-ray. Now there have been several accusation regarding whether certain individual has any actual expertise on these film or not. If you cite source you don't label it credible source you name it properly other wise you in for ill-fated dissuasion. If it was an academy paper you would get an F grade. One way to ruin your reputation if your Qualified professional expert is to go with "holier than thou" attitude when you discus your field of expertise with others. But if your only knowledge person you ruins all potential of informative discussion if you go with that attitude into the discussion and possible respect you could gain of others for what you know. IF someone runs blog or website it should include personal information for what you do other wise it s easy to misinterpret website to be bogus, harmful content, virus or scam. With that said, now lets see what is the real problem here its reported that the quality of 10 shorts of 37 on the set are bad or less than perfect. I will say that I agree with the person that the only cartoon that rely sticks out for being bad is "Putting on the dog" The worst thing is of course the color of Tom is furr. Its sticks out as sour thumb. Whatever one might think of the background color, or color of Jerry is skin/furr. Maybe we should rename the set Tom, Jerry and Backgrounds that if your too concerned about the backgrounds. But fair enough there might be sewed view on these 10 cartoons how bad or good they are individually since the most disused cartoon is "Putting on the Dog" in this thread. Although David highlighted the difference between the previous release and the this one with the other cartoons. Better would be a side by side comparison video on youtube. But still Warner managed with those inferior elments to win them a "Super Bowl". Now for the contract, sharpness, color and the tone of the cartoons. They are better in terms of contract, and sharpness. The color and the tone is so-so. But the thing is that to me every film or movie I have seen on blu-ray looks darker than there DvD counterpart or VHS partner for that matter. Then you can actually do something about it you can tune up your color brightness on your TV, thus probably soften the injury that goes when you consider how bad Tom's furr color and the feel of the background colors. But proper correction would be use better elments than they obviously used. But will probably get tire some to tune the colors of your TV everytime you want watch these cartoons. But taken it into considerartion that there is now more than year since this set came out, I do think now its obvious fair as Warner is concerned that this problem did not require a replacment disc program. As for the research David mentioned regarding the original elements, of these cartoons. If the research was done on his own accord as I suspect then no one should be surprised that none of the original titles made it into this set, or any possible lost footage, if it was done on Warner behalf however some serious question needs to be asked why none of these made it into the set. That in my view would be more worth a replacement Blu-ray disc program than color, sharpness, contracts, tone issue that has been mostly disussed in this thread. Finally I did like to know what Robert Crawford thinks of this set.

 

[DoctorHver]

Sorry for bumping this thread. But I had originally writen larger post but it did for some reason not post. I don't see any thing wrong with the original HTF review but plese be were it was not review on how per individual short appear on the set. Refer properly to source you name, other wise your in for ill-fated discussion. In the academy world that should earn you an F on your papers. Don't go about with holier than thou attitude if your profesional expert it can ruin your reputation. If your knowledagle person about the topic it will not gain respect of others. If you run website include some personal information what you stand for otherwise its easy to misinterprent your site as something bogus. Well, given there more than year since it came out i think Warner is never going to offer replacement program regarding the issue. But one thing need to be said blu-rays always seems to have darker color tones compared to DVDs. So chop and change around with your color settings and brightness on your TV might improve the sittuation on how the cartoons looks on your TV. I did that that and "Putting on the dog" did not look as bad for the eye as in the standard settings. But most intresting is though what David said about the original elements research he mentioned in regard titles and lost footage, but if it was on his own accord then no surprise that none of those made it into the set, but if it was done on warner is behalf some question needs to be asked why did they not made it into the set? Press for replacement program because of that.

 

[DoctorHver]

https://static.hometheaterforum.com/imgrepo/.

If you look closely the spotlight collection retains more artwork to the left side of the frame while the blu-ray retains more art on the right site. Hench the illusion of blu-ray losing BG. For color, tone, sharpness, brightness, it might look more natural on the blu-ray but that doesn't mean it what the cartoon looked in the theaters in 1940's. We might never know but I think the truth lies somewhere in between

 

[Vaudevillian]

Actually, I did tell you, in the very external review that was mocked for lack of credibility. But I'll paste what I wrote here (I mean, that review is a lotta words, who has time to read all of it?): "Unfortunately, this is not a perfect release. Unlike with other Tom & Jerry offerings, it’s not due to censorship. The huge plus in this release’s favor is the chronological and uncut presentation. Standards slipped however on the following ten cartoons, all mastered from lesser CRI elements (more on this later), so they fall very short of meeting the standards set by the other outstanding restorations contained therein. The quality ranges anywhere from serviceable to downright garbage quality. The tell-all sign is their retaining of the 1960s MGM lion logo (with no mention of Technicolor – because there was no intention of these versions ever replicating it). Puss n’ Toots The Bowling Alley Cat Sufferin’ Cats The Lonesome Mouse The Zoot Cat The Million Dollar Cat Puttin’ on the Dog Mouse Trouble Quiet, Please! The Milky Waif I am not aware of all the inner-workings of this release. [Addendum: Because I wasn't there, I don't know why or how decisions were made as to what to use for each cartoon.] But, for the record, there is not a single set of CRI negatives for the MGM cartoons as has been perpetuated all over the Internet. Often, they have as many as two or three in existence. Some look amazing, as close to Technicolor as you can hope for, while some look absolutely putrid because they were made on the cheap (hence the later Metrocolor title cards). Puttin’ on the Dog in particular seems to be taken from faded Eastman elements. Seeing these versions mastered for Blu-Ray is akin to if WHV decided to remaster the old Turner material of the 1940s Warner shorts in high-def. I know for a fact there are various CRI elements because MGM/UA Labs used them for the 16mm prints they distributed to TV stations and sold to collectors. Quality could vary wildly on the same title depending on how high on chemicals the lab technician was that day. Almost always, they looked absolutely fantastic. My print, struck in 1983, of Mouse Trouble looks wonderful, nothing like the embarrassing version seen on this latest release. Same goes for Lonesome Mouse and Quiet, Please!. On the other hand, some later 16s have passed through my hands that looked like hell because they were taken from what I’d like to call “Metrocolor” CRIs. One of them was Million Dollar Cat. Perhaps it’s harsh to call the move of settling for the worser CRIs for some of the titles idiocy, but to invest thousands of dollars in brand new High-Definition transfers from source material that looks awful to begin with is pretty asinine. A lot can change in the thirty years since those pristine 16s were struck, but I have my doubts that the masters here were from the only CRI elements they had access to. Even the earlier Spotlight Collections looked better than the offending versions here. This is simply a continuation of WHV’s long pattern of ineptitude with the MGM cartoon library."

Your print?! If you have a copy that looks so much better than why is it in your hands? It should be in their hands. That goes for all private collectors here. If what you have looks better than what the studios have then you should offer them yours. Otherwise there is no room to complain how theirs looks. Especially when one is sitting on prints. (This is why I feel no one, aside from the studios, should own prints. That way, when we get releases, we get it from the best sources possible and not whatever the studios have while private collectors keep theirs hidden.
BTW, Tom and Jerry looks fantastic. They look the best we have ever seen them on home video.