Classic Cartoons Marred by Digital Restoration

Carl Bialik from the WSJ writes "When classic animated films undergo digital restoration, key features can get lost in translation. The Wall Street Journal reports that the process meant to smooth over scratches and dirt specks on old film "can also remove some of the lines that make up the animation -- for example, blurring Tom's face in a Tom and Jerry cartoon, or erasing lines in Woody Woodpecker's fast-moving beak." "

Comments

Poor quality control

[dave-tx]

FTFA:

Walt Disney Co. has largely avoided criticism of its cartoon restorations. For most of its projects, Disney doesn't use digital noise reduction, relying instead on artists to inspect each frame of film and remove defects either manually or with proprietary software. "If you just take a film and throw it through a noise-reduction system, you're never going to get the same standard of quality," says Jeff Miller, president for world-wide post-production and operations.

Although I'm not surprised, I'm disappointed that this isn't part of the standard process. To me, just running the film through DNR is lazy and indicative of a company just trying to make a quick buck. If you want to use a DNR machine, you gotta get a real person to check the work. Period.

Clearly, those responsible have no excuse for it. Again, FTFA:

Craig Hoffman, a spokesman for Time Warner Inc.'s Warner Bros., which released the Looney Tunes DVDs last fall, declines to comment on the complaints about the restored cartoons. "There's a wide audience: children, collectors, people who grew up loving them," he adds.

What exactly does a wide audience, or people who grew up loving [Looney Tunes] have to do with your quality control? Is passing a shoddy product off to some members of that wide audience acceptable? I can understand that young kids may not know the difference, but if you're targeting a wide audience, you gotta account for more than young kids.

Don't rush it!

[stuffduff]

Sure we can digitally process it, but in the next decade the digital reprocessing will evolve, probably along the lines of the neural network, so that it can make better distinctions between fine lines and scratches. If they have to make some money on the technology, let them enhance products like Media Cleaner and improve digital video for a while. Remember Ted Turner's colorized classics? It was a big thing that never really went anywhere, because in the end it just didn't look right. Don't rush it, not with the classics. Human beings spent hours on every frame of those films. It was a labor of love. Digitally detracting from that level of commitment just because they can is a poor excuse abusing and disrespecting the art.

I'm more concerned about censorship

[Junior J. Junior III]

A number of the old cartoons are kept in a closet of dirty secrets because they had racist themes in them. They're no longer being broadcast, which I suppose is fine as no one should have to put up with watching them, but the flipside of this is that they're being flushed down the memory hole, enabling us to sanitize our memory and pretend that we've always been a right and just society. I'd much rather lose a line or two in a digital restoration than to have these hideous examples lost to history.

Re:I'm more concerned about censorship

[fermion]

I would tend to agree. Many kids don't quite realize what prejudice was, and can't realy identify current disrespect because it is so toned down. Many have been lead to believe that prejudice does not currently exist in any meaningful way, and the past episodes have been overblown.

Examples are becoming sanitized. Certainly the Tom & Jerry with Tom in blackface should be shown as an example of not so far off cultural norms. I think that the whole heckle and jeckly thing was somewhat disturbing. Certainly there are many shows that are proof of the cultural norms that many now wish to deny. Like in Family Guy European Road Trip, when the German tourguide censored the entirety of WWII out of his talk, claiming Germany was 'invited'.

Re:I'm more concerned about censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

It isn't censorship per se. However, there was no legal method for the viewers (the public) to make and/or keep copies. The public who pay the price of enforcement of copyright laws. The public who say "OK, for the benefit of the creation of more entertainment, we will not copy your stuff".

However, there was the idea that the public would get the works in the future.

That, my friend really IS theft. The work exists no longer.

And we, the public have paid for it to be locked away.

Is this even necessary?

[kickabear]

We all watched the cartoons, with their dirt and specks and the occasional hair. I never felt there was anything wrong with that stuff. It was just part of the animation and broadcast processes. It doesn't detract from the cartoons. Going back and "fixing" these minor defects would be like filling in the cracks in the paint on the Mona Lisa. It was art before it was perfect. Now, I'm not so sure.

Cashing in on past classics.

[GillBates0]

I remember when a few years ago, when all the cartoons on Cartoon Network were still the Classics ("That's all folks").

That has changed over the past 5-6 years. At first I thought it was just me outgrowing the charm of cartoons (I'm 27). But then I realized it wasn't me or my tastes that were changing. It was the quality of the new productions that was sadly deteriorating.

This applies to most of the cartoons produced by the major animation houses in Hollywood - WB, Disney, etc. The new Tom and Jerry cartoons are a joke compared to their witty and charming predecessors. It seems that most of the focus now is on better animation and special effects through computer animation, and less focus on the *wit* and everyday humor that made them so popular in the first place.

Take any old Tom and Jerry cartoon (directed by Fred Quimby) - you'll see it based on a cat and mouse chase in the familiar settings of a house or backyard. Fastforward to their newer counterparts (incidentally directed by Chuck Jones) and you'll see a sophisticated setting like a Spaceship or France, with better graphics, but almost *no* wit or simple but *clever* plots that were common in the episodes of old.

The same holds for the Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck, Mickey Mouse and other classics. The trend seems to be towards slicker animation, with little or *no* emphasis to creative wit/humor. The newer cartoons are all rehashes or remakes of the successful plots with smaller "Tiny Toon" versions of the characters.

I prefer completely new (and independently produced, I think) cartoons like Johnny Bravo, Courage the Cowardly Dog, etc better to these incredibly non-creative rehased versions of the classics, that the studios seem to want to cash in on.

/rant.

Re:Cashing in on past classics.

[Secrity]

" I remember when a few years ago, when all the cartoons on Cartoon Network were still the Classics ("That's all folks").

That has changed over the past 5-6 years. At first I thought it was just me outgrowing the charm of cartoons (I'm 27). But then I realized it wasn't me or my tastes that were changing. It was the quality of the new productions that was sadly deteriorating."

I think that there are two main reasons for this: The classic "cartoons" were made for a mixed audience, either to be shown with feature motion pictures or to be shown on prime time television. The quality of the classic cartoons was intended to be good and the stories were intended to appeal to adults. The original Flintstones episodes included cigarette advertising with the characters smoking Winstons (they stopped smoking when Pebbles was born).

Cartoons have since then degenerated to be child entertainment. The fact that cartoons are now considered to be children's entertainment, along with skin flint budgets and tight schedules makes for crappy cartoons.

Should read 'classic cartoons marred by

[Senor_Programmer]

half assed restoration'. But no, gotta blame the Digits. Where's the personal responsibility. The Digits had nothing to do with this. I think what happened is they took a stab at restoring Popeye in the Land of the Goons and are now being, for all intents and purposes, blackballed. It was thought that all copies had been destroyed. Cultural sensitivity trumps culture, you know. Can't portray cargo cult and head hunters in a negative light.

If anyone has a pointer to a copy of 'Popeye in the Land of the Goons', I have been looking for years...

Re:Smoothing effects

[Nytewynd]

I wonder what you would say about Itchy and Scratchy!

I would say that they are a parody of how violent Tom and Jerry were. :)

Re:blaming the tools

[AKAImBatman]

Well, "Tom & Jerry" ain't exactly "Gone With the Wind" is it?

No kidding. Tom & Jerry is WAY more important!

Absolutely true - and not for images only!

[haggar]

I am sure most of you have seen Disney's Fantasia. Well, I have seen it, back in the days of my childhood, at a private projection (therefore, from an old reel). Even though it was very long ago, I have a very vivid memory of that event, because I have always loved classical music, and I thought that Fantasia had some of the best, most inspired and heartfelt, interpretations.

Then, about 4 years ago we purchased Fantasia on DVD, and as wewatched, I had the strange feeling that "this is just not right". I could not put my finger on it, but the music sounded devoid of excitement.

Then I remembered an old friend from primary school who had Fantasia on a very old VHS tape, and watched it. The picture had imperfections, the color was not as stable as on the DVD, but nothing that would bother me. And the music - well, it was completely different.

I came to the conclusion that, during the digital remastering, they must have done some DSP magic to remove noise and stuff, and actually killed it. Yeah, it's kinda the same music, it just feels wooden, to me totally useless. Why are the MPAA companies doing this? Obviously, because they don't care. I imagine that the larger majority of the public would not notice the difference, except that "hey, there's less noise, it must be better, right?".

Re:Censoring cartoons

[Dun Malg]

They aren't shielding you, they are shielding themselves from idiotic (yet costly) lawsuits.

Actually, they're shielding themselves from idiotic public outry. A vocal minority getting their dander up and organizing a stupid boycott is more dangerous than a lawsuit. A lawsuit needs to have a claim of damages, and any suit wherein damages are claimed as a result of simply viewing a cartoon will likely be summarily dismissed at little cost. A baseless rumor that a TV station is "racist" because they showed a historically accurate cartoon is the bigger threat. You can't get a judge to order public sentiment to turn and go the other way.