Slashdot Mirror


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." "

81 of 296 comments (clear)

  1. and now... by professorhojo · · Score: 5, Informative


    here's a non-registration-required before-and-after example.

    1. Re:and now... by Kjuib · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It does not look like the orignals had any scratches or dust (from the examples). Of course it is going to be harmful (don't fix what ain't broke). Anyone have any example of poor/dusty film that this might help with?

      --
      - Your stupidity got you into this mess, why can't it get you out? -Will Rogers
    2. Re:and now... by ShaniaTwain · · Score: 4, Funny

      So now Tom shoots first in the cantina scene and jerry is carrying a walky-talky instead of a giant mallet?

    3. Re:and now... by AKAImBatman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      From your article:

      At first thought, it seems silly to put new cartoons through DVNR because they shouldn't be dirty, or so you'd think. Danny Antonucci, creator of Ed, Edd n Eddy, says that when negatives come back from Korea, they are so dirty that it's a necessity to run them through DVNR.

      Yikes. From the sounds of it, you'd think they're processing the film in grass huts!

    4. Re:and now... by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 3, Funny

      "But in cartoons, the process gets sketchier. "

      Couldn't have said it better myself!

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    5. Re:and now... by bigbigbison · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Here's another article about DVNR Screwups with more examples of the problems poor restoration can cause.

      --
      http://www.popularculturegaming.com -- my blog about the culture of videogame players
    6. Re:and now... by Fishstick · · Score: 2, Informative

      A) Star Wars "special edition" in which the scene in which Han Solo shoots the bounty hunter in the Cantina is altered so that Han does not shoot Greedo first.

      B) ET re-release where government agent pursuing Elliot has a shotgun replaced with a walkie talkie.

      --

      There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
      Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.

    7. Re:and now... by arazor · · Score: 3, Interesting

      To be fair the re-release of ET on DVD included a seperate DVD that did show the agents with guns. I would not have purchased the DVD otherwise.

  2. regardless by Neuropol · · Score: 4, Funny

    you're still going to be turned on by Buggs Bunny dressed in drag.

  3. So in other words... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They're doing a half-assed job of the restoration. Not that I care about these particular cartoons, but some people do.

    Restoration... apparently that word does not mean what I think it means.

    - MreX

  4. Not just cartoons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    But the process can also remove some of the lines that make up the animation -- for example, erasing lines in Woody Woodpecker's fast-moving beak.

    This problem isn't limited to cartoons - I hear that they're running into to similar problems during the restoration of early Ron Jeremy videos.

  5. Or... by D-Cypell · · Score: 5, Funny

    "for example, blurring Tom's face in a Tom and Jerry cartoon, or erasing lines in Woody Woodpecker's fast-moving beak."

    Or making one character seem to fire their blaster first when you were sure that the other fired first last time your watched it.

    1. Re:Or... by svallarian · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Or, completely removing scenes from cartoons.

      (Ever seen the bugs bunny cartoon where the fish jumps out of the water, pulls a gun on himself and kills himself?)

      --
      I patented screwing your mom. But it got revoked for "prior art."
    2. Re:Or... by shreevatsa · · Score: 2, Informative

      You haven't actually said it, but I've heard many people say "Han shot first". That makes no sense, "Greedo shot first" does.
      I mean, when you say "Greedo shot first", you can then go on and say "...And then Han shot back and killed him/it". But you just can't say "Han shot first"... and what, Greedo shot next?
      So my advice to you, my dear friends, is to quit saying "Han shot first". You should instead be saying "Only Han shot" or "Greedo never shot", or pointing people to the Top 10 Other Things that Han Shot that Didn't Shoot at Him First page.

    3. Re:Or... by shreevatsa · · Score: 2, Funny

      Hey, that was good. Perfect, in fact.
      And to the poster above me: LOL! I just saw Monty Python and the Holy Grail today, and the movie rocks!
      Anyway, here's an Alternate Scene about Han and Greedo, and it's... different.

  6. Poor quality control by dave-tx · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.

    --

    >> "What would the robut do? Frame someone!"

    1. Re:Poor quality control by whovian · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I was thinking along similar lines, but I have to wonder how much of this restoration effort is basically rushed to the market just to have a revenue stream, to wit:

      But as DVDs become more popular, studios have done the math and found that classic cartoons are relatively cheap to restore and sell well. "DVD is the medium for collectors. They gobble this stuff up," says Robert Mayo,

      And glitches can be largely avoided if digital noise reduction is done by a skilled technician. "Sometimes it's being used with no ill effects," says Jeff Stabenau, who oversaw the Rocky & Bullwinkle restoration at an outside DVD production company. "If it is used carefully, it can enhance the animation."

      --
      To-do List: Receive telemarketing call during a tornado warning. Check.
    2. Re:Poor quality control by badasscat · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

      I agree, but Disney's talking about manually correcting every single frame and for a 2 hour film you're talking more than 175,000 individual images. That is a huge number of man-hours, and frankly, there's really no need for it.

      There's nothing inherently bad about DNR systems. They're a tool, and like any tool they can be used for good or evil. The problems come in when you start asking them to do things that they're not very good at doing - like removing hairs or specks of dust. These objects are not "noise" - which is what "noise reduction" is supposed to get rid of - these are things that do need to be manually removed by somebody that knows that a drawn line and a hair are not the same thing. A computer is not going to make the distinction reliably.

      I think ideally what you want to do is light digital noise reduction to reduce noise, and then further manual correction of individual frames that need it (or really, the other way around). There's no reason to manually go through 175,000 frames, though - there should really only be maybe 1,000 or so that would need manual attention on any given film. That's a cost-effective way of ensuring high quality without breaking either the budget or the schedule.

      Unfortunately, a lot of studios apparently don't even go that far; they just rely on the computers to do everything. There are still QC monitors at the end of the process, but when all is said and done do you think their complaints that "the picture looks a little fuzzy" are going to be met with anything other than "there's no noise, there's no hairs, ship it out!"?

  7. blaming the tools by lazuli42 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Why are they complaining about the tools when it's apparent that it's the workmanship that's at fault?

    For an excellent counter example, check out the beautiful work that Animeigo did restoring the original Macross series when they released it on DVD a few years ago. The cleaned up print makes the series look like it was ten years newer.

    --

    "There's companies that are just so cool that you just can't even deal with it," - Bill Gates, about Google

    1. Re:blaming the tools by AKAImBatman · · Score: 5, Informative

      In this case, it is the tool. Or more precisely, misusing the tool. The DVNS tech is designed for live action movies and thus does a poor job on drawn cartoons. The "correct" method for restoring cartoon film is to take apart each cell and restore the cell individually. This process is similar to colorizing a black and white movie, and produces results that can look better than the original film!

      According to the article given by the first poster, they even have digital tools to speed up this process as well. Thus the only real excuse is "we don't want to spend the time or money". *shrug*

    2. Re:blaming the tools by ThosLives · · Score: 2, Informative
      While quality control processes are partly to blame, there is an inherent limitation in digitising analog works. Think about it this way: what's the resolution of a chemical film frame? It's surely higher than most digitial representations. Also, the amount of "storage" required for a single frame of analog is kind of meaningless. You have to go things like information theory to determine the information content in analog work. Another interesting thing to note is that the shape of a pixel in chemical film is definitely not the same as in a digital representation: in fact, I'm pretty sure that pixels in chemical film are not uniformly sized or arranged, and this helps avoid "pixelisation" of those images.

      This is also evident in digitisation of music: it's the old sample rate issue. CD sampling at 44 kHz means a maximum resolvable frequency of 22 kHz, which some audiophiles notice. The same thing happens with images.

      Now, we do have some tools that have high enough resolutions to prevent noticable pixelation of lines at angles, so the fact that these weren't used is important. However, there are differences between digital and analog that need to be acknowledged.

      --
      "There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
    3. Re:blaming the tools by Atzanteol · · Score: 3, Insightful

      According to the article given by the first poster, they even have digital tools to speed up this process as well. Thus the only real excuse is "we don't want to spend the time or money". *shrug*

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

      --
      "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

      - Charles Darwin
    4. Re:blaming the tools by AKAImBatman · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

      No kidding. Tom & Jerry is WAY more important!

    5. Re:blaming the tools by friolator · · Score: 3, Interesting
      for release on televisions, 1080 line HD is considered by the industry to be high enough quality. at this point, anything bigger than that [2k or 4k, for instance] i used only for material going back out to film, or for insanely high-budget work. it's rapidly moving towards 2k and 4k, but for now, they're still primarily used for digital intermediates, where the target medium is film.

      Actually, in older film stock its not, and thats why we have the whole noise reduction process... to eliminate the "grain" caused by the crystals in the film being noticably large.

      The point of NR is not to eliminate grain at all - in fact, grain is part of the image, and ideally is not removed or damaged when doing noise reduction. NR was designed for the removal of *noise* in a video image. as in, random noise on analog tapes. used properly [and lightly], a DVNR unit is an invaluable tool in DVD production. unfortunately, it's usually not used properly. ...and it has the unfortunate side effect of decimating the grain structure of the original film.

      My company offers digital restoration services for feature films. We recently completed the restoration of the animated film "Rock & Rule," which is due out on DVD in a couple weeks. this was a restoration done by hand on an MTI CORRECT system, which allows you to manually correct each frame. It does automate some processes, and some of the cleanup is done by pulling data from surrounding frames, which has the effect of erasing defects while leaving the grain structure intact [at least, perceptually - you are actually changing the grain a little].

      But again, done right this means someone has to be sitting at the machine looking at every frame. It took our restoration artist a full month - about 180 hours - to go through all 112,000 frames of that film, and that was somewhat of a budget job, were we were simply removing defects [deep scratches, dirt, chemical stains, splice marks] on a release print, not defects that existed in the original cells and were permanently printed into all release prints.

      We use a DigitalVision DVNR for some analog material that goes to DVD because there's more random noise in analog, and the DVNR is dangerous if not used correctly. It's a box that's designed for broadcast applications, a set-it-and-forget-it kind of deal. but we've found that it's most useful when used sparingly, and only on select scenes rather than the whole movie. I mean, just take a look at most digital cable or satellite broadcasts to see heavy noise reduction artifacting.

      the tools are not perfect, and it's going to be a long time before they are. So lots of manual work is involved in this kind of restoration, at least for the forseeable future...

      -perry

    6. Re:blaming the tools by Atzanteol · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm happy just so long as they don't touch "The Rabbit of Seville."

      :-)

      --
      "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

      - Charles Darwin
  8. Log by TeknoHog · · Score: 5, Funny
    Mr. Mackenzie, who grew up on the Ren & Stimpy cartoons of the 1990s. He keeps a log

    Of course.

    --
    Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    1. Re:Log by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 4, Informative
      Sorry, that is hard to read. Here's a formatted version of the Log song:

      What rolls down stairs
      Alone or in pairs...
      Rolls over your neighbor's dog?
      What's great for a snack
      And fits on your back?
      It's Log! Log! Log!
      It's Lo-og, it's Lo-og
      It's big, it's heavy
      It's wood!
      It's Lo-og, Lo-og
      It's better than bad
      It's good!!!

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    2. Re:Log by Dachannien · · Score: 2, Funny

      Did someone just mention powdered toast?

      Cling tenaciously to my buttocks!

  9. 1984 and chaning history? by alman · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Am I the only one who starts to get paranoid about the changing of history?
    Star Wars IV-VI, Disney cartoons, now these.
    Where does it end?

    Where did I leave my tinfoil hat?

    1. Re:1984 and chaning history? by nickptar · · Score: 2, Funny

      The scratches encode secret messages from the rebellion against the aliens who control our governments. DON'T YOU PEOPLE KNOW THESE THINGS?!!!!1112

    2. Re:1984 and chaning history? by gordo3000 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The problem has nothing to do with changing cartoons, you're just as ignorant as the parent poster you deride.

      It's quality control that everyone is getting up in arms about. These companies are releasing these videos to give a more permanent collectors edition but in the rush to do it quickly and cheaply, they are using techniques that somtimes noticably changes the cartoons.

      This is much more akin to intel rushing production of a processor and having a defect in all processors, making them less effective but still usable to some people.

      some people would consider this even more important. As these cartoons represent a very large part of American cultural history, some feel these cartoons should be preserved as close to the original as possible.

    3. Re:1984 and chaning history? by STrinity · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You act like this is a new phenomenon. It's not. There are works of Medieval literature where the bad guys were changed from Vikings to Saracens, because Viking raiders are, like, soooooo Eleventh Century, and some Middle Age Akiva Goldsman decided to, like, totally cash in on the whole Crusade fad.

      --
      Les Miserables Volume 1 now up with my reading of
  10. Manual retouching ? by AT-SkyWalker · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm not sure if this is practical, but how hard is it to actually manually add the missing information after the restoration is done ? Just put back the "Missing Vine" and your done :-D

    1. Re:Manual retouching ? by cjh79 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's not practical. First of all, it would be easier and more effective to just remove the unwanted artifacts manually in the first place. Secondly, if you are going to go around re-drawing things in the cartoon, well then, gee, you might as well just re-draw the whole cartoon... I'm sure the original artists would not be pleased with that. It would be like someone trying to restore The Last Supper by repainting over the problem areas.

      This problem is analogous to digital sound restoration. You can use digital hiss and pop reduction techniques, but in the end you lose some of the stuff you are trying to save. It's impossible to put it back. I'd rather listen to a hissy old recording than one that's been "restored" and sounds hollow.

    2. Re:Manual retouching ? by lazuli42 · · Score: 2, Funny
      It would be like someone trying to restore The Last Supper by repainting over the problem areas.


      If Michelangelo had provided key frames to his Korean tweeners I'm sure it wouldn't be quite to blasphemous to paint over the problem areas.

      --

      "There's companies that are just so cool that you just can't even deal with it," - Bill Gates, about Google

  11. Don't rush it! by stuffduff · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    "Can there be a Klein bottle that is an efficient and effective beer pitcher?"
  12. Re:Smoothing effects by Nytewynd · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Not only the things they said, but the violence. Tom and Jerry were extremely violent. Most of the Bugs Bunny cartoons included someone being blown up or shot.

    Somehow we all managed to watch them and not turn out to be homicidal maniacs. Today, if a cuddly teddy bear trips and lands on his butt that might get banned for promoting the dangerous act of falling on ones rump.

    --
    /. ++
  13. NOT before and after by cmcguffin · · Score: 2, Informative

    The linked-to images are not before and after examples.

    They are examples of artifacts that appear and then disappear in the post-restoration material.

    The artifacts do look bad, but there are no "before" images to judge how much good, if any, the restoration is doing.

  14. There's a simpler way of restoring old animations. by bartyboy · · Score: 4, Interesting
  15. I'm more concerned about censorship by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
    1. Re:I'm more concerned about censorship by WormholeFiend · · Score: 3, Funny

      I agree.

      On a related note, we should start a petition to keep the topless woman frame in The Rescuers.

    2. Re:I'm more concerned about censorship by fermion · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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'.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    3. Re:I'm more concerned about censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:I'm more concerned about censorship by davidmcw · · Score: 2, Interesting

      One of the biggest examples of this I can remember is the Disney cartoon 'Song of the South'. I only saw it while very young, but still remember the songs and characters. Was it really that offensive or just a victim of over zealous censorship.

      --
      Just because your paranoid doesn't really mean they aren't out to get you
    5. Re:I'm more concerned about censorship by almostmanda · · Score: 2, Informative

      You're right to be concerned, but it's unlikely that these cartoons are ever going to be flushed from our memories--there's a huge group of people out there who collect these racist/sexist/ultraviolent cartoons that are unlikely to be shown on Saturday mornings anymore. Do a search on eMule for "banned cartoons" and you'll see what I'm talking about. A lot of them are war-themed, dirty, or make cigarettes look really really cool. Occasionally, some companies will license these cartoons and sell them in collections on the internet or on late-night TV. I know it may seem like they're being lost if you're not really looking for them, but they're never going to be forgotten, especially if people are interested in them and willing to pay for them.

    6. Re:I'm more concerned about censorship by xjerky · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I realize they mean well, but that only causes movements like Neo-Nazism to drive more underground and probably more violent.

      At least in the US the KKK is free to roam, and are able to be publicly ridiculed and challenged as a result.

      --
      A sentence you'll never see on an Internet discussion board: "You know what? You're right."
  16. Same Thing Happens In Audio Too by devphaeton · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Different process, but similar concepts. Lots of old music recordings get "destroyed" by digital remastering.

    In a case like this (with both the cartoons and the music), i would personally put up with hiss, scratches, dirt and pops until they've got the remastering tools perfected.

    My $0.02 + 5.5% tax

    --


    do() || do_not(); // try();
  17. Is this even necessary? by kickabear · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    This space for rent.
    1. Re:Is this even necessary? by sharkb8 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I gotta agree with you there kickabear. This is the same argument that people make for not touching up old music. The old analog recordings gave older music a tone, warth, and quality that a lot of nodern digital recordings don't have. A lot of musicians still love the old tube amplifiers for the same reason. True music afficianados listen to Jimi Hendrix in non-remastered form.

    2. Re:Is this even necessary? by Dogtanian · · Score: 2

      True music afficianados listen to Jimi Hendrix in non-remastered form.

      I won't listen to his music in anything but the original Klingon.

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
  18. Cashing in on past classics. by GillBates0 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.

    --
    An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
    1. Re:Cashing in on past classics. by Secrity · · Score: 4, Insightful

      " 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.

  19. Should read 'classic cartoons marred by by Senor_Programmer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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...

  20. Editing? How about censoring? by Gocho · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Some characters have dissapeared completely anyways.

  21. Re:Smoothing effects by Nytewynd · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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. :)

    --
    /. ++
  22. No worry by icecow · · Score: 4, Funny

    Don't worry too much, they still have the original. When the tech comes along they'll do it right and be happy to sell them again. After a little more time they will repackage the first version again as 'classic cut version, the original footing'

    --
    Stop invalid scientific research. Ask your local scientists to feed their lab rats with a phytoestrogen-free chow.
  23. Website with lots of examples of the issue by CuriousKangaroo · · Score: 4, Informative

    Here is David Mackenzie's website (mentioned in the WSJ article, but not linked), which shows a lot of examples:

    http://lyris-lite.net/dnr.html
  24. "Oh, Rochester.." by Anonymous+Meoward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Good point. One WB cartoon I haven't seen in decades is arguably the funniest. Can't find it anywhere:

    In one (very recursive) scene, we find ourselves inside a movie theater, with a carefully illustrated scene of Bogart and Bacall playing on the screen. The "movie", of course, is the weird take of Jones, Freleng, et al. on live action: for example, Bogie casually tosses a flame-thrower to Bacall, instead of a Zippo, when she asks for a light.

    At one point, something explodes in Bogie's face (hey, WB cartoon, gotta have at least one explosion). With his soot-covered face, "Bogie" suddenly does an impersonation of Rochester, Jack Benny's long-suffering man-servant.

    Now, we can argue back and forth about the racism involved, but the sad fact is that it was a very funny short that fell well within even the most progressive norms of its day. (I honestly don't think any kids today would even get the Rochester joke -- if yours can, dear reader, you have some darn erudite children, I must say.)

    Now, if this cartoon was produced today, it would be deemed offensive, and rightfully so. But shouldn't we be allowed to see these older shorts.. while not removing them from the context of their times?

    --
    --- The American Way of Life is not a birthright. Hell, it's not even sustainable.
    1. Re:"Oh, Rochester.." by 3waygeek · · Score: 2, Informative

      Said cartoon is named "Bacall to Arms"; it's on the DVD of "To Have and Have Not". Saw it just a couple of weeks ago.

  25. 50 years from now by xufos · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It makes me think, are current digital media that we used today need to be "restored" in next 50 years? Who knows what kind of storage technology we use then...

    1. Re:50 years from now by Mikito · · Score: 2, Informative

      I don't know about visual media, but claims of remastering are already occurring with digital audio recordings. I've seen a number of classical music titles which were originally recorded as fully DDD in the early '80s, but which are now being rereleased with the claim of being remastered for better sound quality.

      How can you get 24 bit sound resolution out of 16 bit source material?

      --
      Anakin Simpson: If you're not with me, then you're my enemy--ooh, donuts!
    2. Re:50 years from now by bsd4me · · Score: 3, Informative

      The mastering step of audio production involves the final EQ, compression/limiting, and output to the final media. When something is remastered, the mix tape is reprocessed. If you have the multitrack tape or stems, then you can remix to a higher bitdepth, saving some rounding/dithering degredation, master from this, and then dither to 16-bit as a final step. If done right, the end result is often better than the original, especially since dithering algorithms and other processing has improved greatly in the last few years.

      --

      (S(SKK)(SKK))(S(SKK)(SKK))

  26. Censoring cartoons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    They removed the "mammy" voice from the black maid in at least one Tom & Jerry and replaced it with a generic white woman's. Only her legs (black) are shown when she is talking to them. Granted it is mildly racist by today's standards but I'd rather see the original and understand the norms of the time than to be treated like a mindless child who needs to be shielded.

    1. Re:Censoring cartoons by segfault7375 · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

    2. Re:Censoring cartoons by Dun+Malg · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    3. Re:Censoring cartoons by Dun+Malg · · Score: 2, Insightful
      They removed the "mammy" voice from the black maid in at least one Tom & Jerry and replaced it with a generic white woman's. Only her legs (black) are shown when she is talking to them. Granted it is mildly racist by today's standards but I'd rather see the original and understand the norms of the time than to be treated like a mindless child who needs to be shielded.

      Indeed. It's not so ridiculously over-the-top racist like "Coal Black and the Sebben Dwarves". Now there's a cartoon we'll never see on TV! One good thing about P2P networks is that it provides a controversy-proof outlet for "ojectionable" material like "Coal Black", "Song of the South", or the wartime propaganda cartoons.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    4. Re:Censoring cartoons by Dr.+Evil · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oddly, the mammy character is probably the most sane character in those cartoons. I'm not sure why they voiced her over. Children might wonder why a cat and a mouse would be living in a household with a black lady?

      But then again, when I was little, I didn't think that Bert and Ernie had to explain their living arrangement.

  27. Widescreen vs. Fullscreen cartoons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Something that often gets forgotten with regards to older cartoons is that most of them were released theatrically first, and were shot in a widescreen format.

    Converting those to the scrunched 4:3 aspect of TV, most of them simply lopped off the edges and zoomed in on a certain part of the actual cartoon.

    If you watch old Tom and Jerry or Droopy cartoons on Cartoon Network, many times it is hard to even tell what is going on, because much of the character action takes place just off screen. Other times, people's faces and heads are awkwardly chopped off at the sides.

    It may be the case that the theatrical reels have been lost forever, but to me that is far more disappointing than some of the digital hazing that inevitably comes with shoddy, speed-oriented transfers.

  28. Re:It's not FINE. by RockClimbingFool · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I guess it is just one more reason why infinite copyright is a really bad idea. Cartoons like those should be entering the public domain by now.

  29. Restoration of cartoons & old movies in genera by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful
    It's too easy to consider the concept of poor movie restoration a modern phenomenon. I have the 2-Disc Collector's Edition of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs which includes the outstanding "An Art in its Making" book. The resoration process here consists of recoloring frames from a technology which is basically pigment-based, i.e. the fatigue over time can be plotted and reversed. After that, it's a question of scractch removal from the best prints available. So I've got a DVD of a print that is as least as good as the original print.


    I also have a DVD of Metropolis (1926), restored as best as modern technology will allow. But that's a lost cause, in this instance, since all the movie destruction was accomplished by its 1927 release in the US, and all the present resoration can do is add 15 minutes to the US release, which means there are still 45 minutes missing somewhere, presumed never to be seen. The modern soundtrack uses the original orchestration.

    It's too easy to say that modern resorations get it wrong. The problem is, modern CHEAP restorations don't do as good a job as modern EXPENSIVE restorations, and at that point we have to consider whether the restoration costs will ever be recovered. I don't know if the restoration of Snow White made a profit, but perhaps from Disney's perspective it was more important to have a high-quality modern digital conversion. Although Metropolis is a movie that should be preserved for eternity (750 minor roles plus 30,000 crowd scenes for what ultimately proved to be a gigantic leap beyond Birth of a Nation, a mere decade before; contrast with our modern ability to discuss minor plot and tech improvements over 3 decades between the various Star Wars episodes), it's unlikely that anyone attempting a definitive preservation will ever actually recover the costs involved.


    At the dawn of cinematography, they used the best technology that was available year-by-year. In the late 1960's, much of the film industry moved away from that concept to filming on what is basically consumer-grade Ektachrome, with the Technicolor equipment having been sold off to China. So we have two or more decades of movies that will simply vanish unless we start protecting them now. The problem is, we need to protect the junk as well as the good stuff, in case future generations modify our values. Mre recently, the situation has improved because stock is more likely to be on digital media.


    But when we think we're failing to preserve old movies, we shouldn't necessarily blame ourselves. In recent decades, the original movie makers made that decision for us.

  30. I for one.. by DarthVain · · Score: 2, Insightful

    fail to see why you need to digital restore Rocket Robin Hood and the like...

  31. Absolutely true - and not for images only! by haggar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?".

    --
    Sigged!
  32. Four shalt thou not count... by blueZ3 · · Score: 3, Funny

    neither shalt thou count two, unless thou preceedest directly to three. Five is right out.

    --
    Interested in a Flash-based MAME front end? Visit mame.danzbb.com
  33. I wonder what would happen to "Magical Maestro"? by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 3, Interesting

    In that 1952 Tex Avery classic, a character reaches into the edge of the frame to pluck a "hair" from the image. It would be sad to see this gag lost to digital restoration.

    --
    I am not a crackpot.
  34. Mammy Two-Shoes by shotgunefx · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I love how it was so un-PC to have a black stereotype like Mammy but the fix was to make her a an Irish stereotype.

    --

    -William Shatner can be neither created nor destroyed.
  35. Re:I wonder what would happen to "Magical Maestro" by Emperor+Foo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Well, they handle that by censoring away the whole cartoon or at least the two parts that are "culturaly sensitive" now. Those being the parts where the dog is squished and blackface and where he and the rabbits are some kind of south seas natives and chanting.

  36. Warner Bros must be Republican by Urusai · · Score: 2, Funny

    Reporter: "What is your administration doing about the deficit?"

    Republican: "A marriage consists of one man and one woman, it's in the Bible. It's 'one nation under God', not Allah or the angel Moroni. We must stop these activist judges from contaminating and impurifying our precious bodily fluids, and replace them with good old fashioned reactionary judges."

    Reporter: "Uh...what are we doing to stabilize the situation in Iraq?"

    Republican: "We must never forget the lessons of 9/11. We have Osama bin Laden pinned down in the vicinity of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Once we figure out how to tell one raghead from another we'll be able to inspect everyone in the region and imprison anyone who isn't Osama. Then, the only guy left ducking into caverns will have to run from our bunker busting bombs and attack choppers. Bring it on!!!"

  37. DNR could remove more than the picture... by asoukup · · Score: 2, Informative

    This process could actually destroy a gag in a cartoon....

    Magical Maestro - 1952 - Tex Avery
    "One of the most famous Tex Avery gags is his use of a (possibly Rotoscoped) hair in Magical Maestro (MGM, 1952) that acts like a hair caught in the gate of a projector, until Spike plucks it out."

    If DNR removes the hair, the entire gag is lost...

  38. Fantasia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    This is what happened to _Fantasia_. Around 1985 or 1986 in the dawn of the CD era, Disney decided to digitally re-record the entire soundtrack following the original score exactly with a new orchestra. The VHS tape you saw no doubt contains the new recordings. A lot of people felt that the re-recordings were inferior to the original soundtrack, which was conducted by the great Leopold Stokowski. Disney decided to restore the original soundtrack for the DVD. In fact, the digital re-recordings have been out of print for some years and to my knowledge the only soundtrack CD available is now the original recordings conducted by Stokowski. Since you don't like the DVD music, I'm sorry, but it is what the original film had and what you liked was the re-recordings. I don't criticize you for a question of taste, but I want you to realize that the vast majority of fans of this film prefer the original recordings in all its faulty, mono sound. So you see, the VHS tape you saw is arugably the worst of both worlds - inferior video (even you admit this) and a re-recorded soundtrack in place of the original one.

  39. Censorship, and questionable touch-ups by Jivecat · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Last night TCM ran the WB cartoon "Hollywood Steps Out," one of those pastiches filled with caricatures of what seems like every famous actor and Warner Bros contract player of the era. (Of course, I only recognise a fraction of them.) But the point is that the "That's All Folks" frame had small print at the bottom with a copyright date for the "edited version." So yes, something was taken out, probably some very funny (or not-so-funny) blackface gag. I have no idea what's missing, but even if the gag wasn't all that great I resent having someone else decide that I can't see it just because - god forbid - I might actually laugh at it, even knowing how inappropriate it is.

    When I was in college, the local cable company's public access station stayed on the air every weekend by running, in a continuous loop, 6-hour tapes of "Cartoon Control Room with Sloucho Barx," basically an unmoving camera shot of a guy in an ill-fitting Groucho mask sitting at the switcher and cueing up tape after tape from his extensive cartoon collection.

    One week, Sloucho ran an entire show with the theme of censored, racist, or otherwise inappropriate cartoons. There were some doozies - all of it WB and MGM stuff - but in its defence everything he aired was first shown on the big screen during Saturday matinees in the '30s, '40s, and '50s. Moreover, between every cartoon he offered disclaimers and deprecations, stating the show was meant to illustrate the mindset of the past, neither he nor the cable company supported these views, if you're letting your kids watch this you'd better be talking to them about what they're seeing, I can't believe what an awful joke that was, etc. etc.

    Of course the complaints poured in anyway, and needless to say it was Sloucho's last show.

    Back to the main topic... aside from Sloucho's fondness for the early-30s WB cartoon "Freddy the Freshman," which he played on every one of his shows, he also clued me in on another obscure one, Chuck Jones' 1940 "The Dover Boys." In it, Jones experimented with a sort of visual shorthand, with fast swooshing movements punctuated by stylised poses. The characters move across the screen as colourful blurs, saving the animators from having to draw a complete figure with every frame. Nowadays it's a common thing - such as the Road Runner's spinning legs - but this was the cartoon where it all began.

    "The Dover Boys" is included on WB's Looney Tunes Vol. 2, and I fear what they might have done to action frames that could be construed as being nothing but noise.

    --
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled."--Feynman
  40. Who cares? by Grand+Facade · · Score: 2, Funny

    I only need one brain cell to watch cartoons and it's obscured with a canabis haze or I'm half asleep on saturday am anyway....

    --
    Rick B.