Jason Todd
2017-12-03T03:14:02Z
For those of you who own Universal's officially licensed Woody Woodpecker DVD sets, what sources were the cartoons restored from? Do the original camera negatives for the Walter Lantz cartoons exist? If so, did Universal restore from the negatives?
PopKorn Kat
2017-12-03T03:23:36Z
  1. I can't say for sure if they were restored from the original camera negatives (I assume they were). They're definitely not restored from those hacked-up TV prints.
  2. I'm assuming so? See above. Honestly, there's no way to answer questions like this on a public forum.
  3. Depends on what you consider “restoration.” DNR has been applied to several cartoons. Several (like some of the Oswalds) suffered badly. They don’t look nearly as clean as the cartoons on Warner’s Looney Tunes Golden Collections.

Jason Todd
2017-12-03T03:53:21Z
Personally, DVNR doesn't really bother me that much. As long as the color correction is good, there isn't too much dirt on every single frame, and the original titles are restored (when possible), that's just fine to me as far as restoration is concerned.
PopKorn Kat
2017-12-03T04:12:33Z
Originally Posted by: Jason Todd 

Personally, DVNR doesn't really bother me that much. As long as the color correction is good, there isn't too much dirt on every single frame, and the original titles are restored (when possible), that's just fine to me as far as restoration is concerned.



Even when it erases the lines from the characters? That's the worst it gets.
Mesterius
2017-12-03T17:09:24Z
Originally Posted by: Jason Todd 

Personally, DVNR doesn't really bother me that much. As long as the color correction is good, there isn't too much dirt on every single frame, and the original titles are restored (when possible), that's just fine to me as far as restoration is concerned.



I completely disagree with you. DVNR is one of the worst ways you can possibly treat an animated cartoon. ESPECIALLY fast-paced cartoons like those coming out of classic Hollywood -- because the DVNR software consistenty mistakes fast animated action for dust and dirt, and proceeds to erase the artwork. It's awful.

I can't believe you have seen many examples of DVNR-ed cartoons – or of the consequences of DVNR – if you think that's okay to do. I mean, LOOK at this :

UserPostedImage

UserPostedImage

And even worse... how about this wonderfully extreme take ? Look how nicely the DVNR program treated that:

UserPostedImage

UserPostedImage

UserPostedImage

Jason Todd
2017-12-03T18:27:41Z
Well... I do have to agree that the DVNR process present in the above screenshots looks pretty gnarly. I stand corrected. 😕
WaltWiz1901
2017-12-03T18:45:14Z
Originally Posted by: Mesterius 

Originally Posted by: Jason Todd 

Personally, DVNR doesn't really bother me that much. As long as the color correction is good, there isn't too much dirt on every single frame, and the original titles are restored (when possible), that's just fine to me as far as restoration is concerned.



I completely disagree with you. DVNR is one of the worst ways you can possibly treat an animated cartoon. ESPECIALLY fast-paced cartoons like those coming out of classic Hollywood -- because the DVNR software consistenty mistakes fast animated action for dust and dirt, and proceeds to erase the artwork. It's awful.

I can't believe you have seen many examples of DVNR-ed cartoons – or of the consequences of DVNR – if you think that's okay to do. I mean, LOOK at this :

UserPostedImage

UserPostedImage

And even worse... how about this wonderfully extreme take ? Look how nicely the DVNR program treated that:

UserPostedImage

UserPostedImage

UserPostedImage


Holy cow, those screenshots look ugly. If I were restoring a cartoon, I definitely wouldn't resort to using an automated misfire to erase not just major artifacts, but pieces of animation!
SuperMuppet64
2017-12-03T19:17:22Z
probably the worst case of dvnr i ever saw was on turner's print of the three little pups
just the slightest move caused a part of the picture to destroy itself
UserPostedImage
UserPostedImage
anyway, on subject, im not entirely sure if the woody woodpeckers were restored from the original negs, ive only seen a few cartoons on the set. but by the looks of it, the early woody cartoons before barber of seville look as if they were restored from the negatives, but the rest as if it was restored from somewhere else...the color doesnt look as rich, and the colors on the earlier columbia house sets for said shorts look more saturated. who knows, maybe they were from negs and universal just wasnt giving it their all
WaltWiz1901
2017-12-03T23:46:25Z
Originally Posted by: SuperMuppet64 

probably the worst case of dvnr i ever saw was on turner's print of the three little pups
just the slightest move caused a part of the picture to destroy itself
UserPostedImage
UserPostedImage
anyway, on subject, im not entirely sure if the woody woodpeckers were restored from the original negs, ive only seen a few cartoons on the set. but by the looks of it, the early woody cartoons before barber of seville look as if they were restored from the negatives, but the rest as if it was restored from somewhere else...the color doesnt look as rich, and the colors on the earlier columbia house sets for said shorts look more saturated. who knows, maybe they were from negs and universal just wasnt giving it their all


That's not good.

And this is from the same studio that prevented using DVNR on the vast majority of their "Looney Tunes" at the exact same time the set those screenshots are from was released!
SuperMuppet64
2017-12-04T00:03:41Z
Originally Posted by: WaltWiz1901 

And this is from the same studio that prevented using DVNR on the vast majority of their "Looney Tunes" at the exact same time the set those screenshots are from was released!



uhh turner's prints are from around the 90s iirc. outside of dixieland droopy and the cinemascope droopys nothing else seems to have been (then) newly remastered. maybe deputy droopy too but i dont remember
WaltWiz1901
2017-12-04T00:28:43Z
Originally Posted by: SuperMuppet64 

Originally Posted by: WaltWiz1901 

And this is from the same studio that prevented using DVNR on the vast majority of their "Looney Tunes" at the exact same time the set those screenshots are from was released!



uhh turner's prints are from around the 90s iirc. outside of dixieland droopy and the cinemascope droopys nothing else seems to have been (then) newly remastered. maybe deputy droopy too but i dont remember


I sort of knew Turner restored the shorts in the 1990's, but Warner's Droopy DVD was released in 2007, which is what I was referring to.
LuckyToon
2017-12-04T00:39:39Z
The only Woody cartoon that's not presented in its original theatrical presentation on the DVD releases is "Banquet Busters" (1948). Since Universal remastered the cartoon from a 50's reissue print.

At least you can buy the original theatrical version on one of the Woody Woodpecker VHS releases "Woody Woodpecker: The Collector's Edition: Vol. 1".

I can prove it, since I did created a comparison  on the 2 versions on my Facebook account.
Mesterius
2017-12-04T01:16:18Z
Originally Posted by: WaltWiz1901 

Originally Posted by: SuperMuppet64 

Originally Posted by: WaltWiz1901 

And this is from the same studio that prevented using DVNR on the vast majority of their "Looney Tunes" at the exact same time the set those screenshots are from was released!



uhh turner's prints are from around the 90s iirc. outside of dixieland droopy and the cinemascope droopys nothing else seems to have been (then) newly remastered. maybe deputy droopy too but i dont remember


I sort of knew Turner restored the shorts in the 1990's, but Warner's Droopy DVD was released in 2007, which is what I was referring to.



SuperMuppet64's point (at least the way I read his comment) is that the majority of the cartoons on the Droopy DVD set were NOT newly restored – Warner just used the 90s Turner prints.

Clearly, Warner had doubts that a set featuring the lesser-known character Droopy would bring in the same cash as the Looney Tunes Golden Collections. So they spent far less money on restoration and quality control.
WaltWiz1901
2017-12-04T01:27:34Z
Originally Posted by: Mesterius 

Originally Posted by: WaltWiz1901 

Originally Posted by: SuperMuppet64 

Originally Posted by: WaltWiz1901 

And this is from the same studio that prevented using DVNR on the vast majority of their "Looney Tunes" at the exact same time the set those screenshots are from was released!



uhh turner's prints are from around the 90s iirc. outside of dixieland droopy and the cinemascope droopys nothing else seems to have been (then) newly remastered. maybe deputy droopy too but i dont remember


I sort of knew Turner restored the shorts in the 1990's, but Warner's Droopy DVD was released in 2007, which is what I was referring to.



SuperMuppet64's point (at least the way I read his comment) is that the majority of the cartoons on the Droopy DVD set were NOT newly restored – Warner just used the 90s Turner prints.

Clearly, Warner had doubts that a set featuring the lesser-known character Droopy would bring in the same cash as the Looney Tunes Golden Collections. So they spent far less money on restoration and quality control.


Oh, I see now. Still, why on Earth did Turner think it was fine to destroy their restorations with DVNR?
Mesterius
2017-12-04T01:47:58Z
Originally Posted by: WaltWiz1901 

Originally Posted by: Mesterius 

Originally Posted by: WaltWiz1901 

Originally Posted by: SuperMuppet64 

Originally Posted by: WaltWiz1901 

And this is from the same studio that prevented using DVNR on the vast majority of their "Looney Tunes" at the exact same time the set those screenshots are from was released!



uhh turner's prints are from around the 90s iirc. outside of dixieland droopy and the cinemascope droopys nothing else seems to have been (then) newly remastered. maybe deputy droopy too but i dont remember


I sort of knew Turner restored the shorts in the 1990's, but Warner's Droopy DVD was released in 2007, which is what I was referring to.



SuperMuppet64's point (at least the way I read his comment) is that the majority of the cartoons on the Droopy DVD set were NOT newly restored – Warner just used the 90s Turner prints.

Clearly, Warner had doubts that a set featuring the lesser-known character Droopy would bring in the same cash as the Looney Tunes Golden Collections. So they spent far less money on restoration and quality control.


Oh, I see now. Still, why on Earth did Turner think it was fine to destroy their restorations with DVNR?



As far as I know (correct me if I'm wrong), the four DVNR-ed cartoons on the Droopy set were not old Turner prints like most of the rest... they were new prints prepared by Warner for the set, just "restored" in the worst way possible. So your question should be, why did Warner think it was fine to destroy their restorations with DVNR? Anyway...

It wasn't a question of thinking it was "fine", it was a question of "how can we save some money while making this film look cleaner?" And as far as using DVNR towards that goal -- a lot of people have no idea how much damage it can do to animation (as evidenced from the fresh reactions in this thread;). Had Warner spent the same money on the Droopy set as they did on the LT Golden Collections (as I mentioned above), the set would very likely have gone through better quality control and fine-tuning, and the DVNR damage on those four cartoons would have been caught.
WaltWiz1901
2017-12-04T03:05:59Z
Originally Posted by: Mesterius 

Originally Posted by: WaltWiz1901 

Originally Posted by: Mesterius 

Originally Posted by: WaltWiz1901 

Originally Posted by: SuperMuppet64 

Originally Posted by: WaltWiz1901 

And this is from the same studio that prevented using DVNR on the vast majority of their "Looney Tunes" at the exact same time the set those screenshots are from was released!



uhh turner's prints are from around the 90s iirc. outside of dixieland droopy and the cinemascope droopys nothing else seems to have been (then) newly remastered. maybe deputy droopy too but i dont remember


I sort of knew Turner restored the shorts in the 1990's, but Warner's Droopy DVD was released in 2007, which is what I was referring to.



SuperMuppet64's point (at least the way I read his comment) is that the majority of the cartoons on the Droopy DVD set were NOT newly restored – Warner just used the 90s Turner prints.

Clearly, Warner had doubts that a set featuring the lesser-known character Droopy would bring in the same cash as the Looney Tunes Golden Collections. So they spent far less money on restoration and quality control.


Oh, I see now. Still, why on Earth did Turner think it was fine to destroy their restorations with DVNR?



As far as I know (correct me if I'm wrong), the four DVNR-ed cartoons on the Droopy set were not old Turner prints like most of the rest... they were new prints prepared by Warner for the set, just "restored" in the worst way possible. So your question should be, why did Warner think it was fine to destroy their restorations with DVNR? Anyway...

It wasn't a question of thinking it was "fine", it was a question of "how can we save some money while making this film look cleaner?" And as far as using DVNR towards that goal -- a lot of people have no idea how much damage it can do to animation (as evidenced from the fresh reactions in this thread;). Had Warner spent the same money on the Droopy set as they did on the LT Golden Collections (as I mentioned above), the set would very likely have gone through better quality control and fine-tuning, and the DVNR damage on those four cartoons would have been caught.


Well, I certainly didn't know Warner was responsible for the DVNR'ing of those shorts. Thanks for the correction.

I don't get why people blindly turn to DVNR to restore animation. It not only kills off detail that was clearly part of the original crew's work, but at various points, it even ruins parts of the characters, too. If I had enough money and decided to do a restoration, I would, for one thing, look to reliable sources (like original animation cels for sale online, for example), remember the way the colors and details look on whatever source I'm using, and use it for reference when the part the source is of comes about.
SuperMuppet64
2017-12-04T07:41:01Z
Originally Posted by: Mesterius 

As far as I know (correct me if I'm wrong), the four DVNR-ed cartoons on the Droopy set were not old Turner prints like most of the rest... they were new prints prepared by Warner for the set, just "restored" in the worst way possible.


strange...perhaps the turner prints were used as a source for the cartoons they had "cleaned up." certainly doesnt look like a film print they scanned for one of the better restorations. judging by the image it resembles that of a tape master like the other turner prints.
Mesterius
2017-12-04T08:04:19Z
Originally Posted by: SuperMuppet64 

Originally Posted by: Mesterius 

As far as I know (correct me if I'm wrong), the four DVNR-ed cartoons on the Droopy set were not old Turner prints like most of the rest... they were new prints prepared by Warner for the set, just "restored" in the worst way possible.


strange...perhaps the turner prints were used as a source for the cartoons they had "cleaned up." certainly doesnt look like a film print they scanned for one of the better restorations. judging by the image it resembles that of a tape master like the other turner prints.



Hmmm... if you take a screenshot from one of those DVNR-ed films, does it have narrow black pillars on the left and right sides? If so, that may be a sign that it's an old NTSC TV print rather than a digitally scanned film print.

I always assumed that the DVNR-ed films were new prints, since the other Academy Ratio shorts looked older as far as I recall. But then again, I have seen several Avery films with DVNR which clearly were old Turner prints... so I'm really not sure. And right now I don't have the DVD set handy to check myself.
dbear
2017-12-04T10:09:06Z
Originally Posted by: Mesterius 

Originally Posted by: SuperMuppet64 

Originally Posted by: Mesterius 

As far as I know (correct me if I'm wrong), the four DVNR-ed cartoons on the Droopy set were not old Turner prints like most of the rest... they were new prints prepared by Warner for the set, just "restored" in the worst way possible.


strange...perhaps the turner prints were used as a source for the cartoons they had "cleaned up." certainly doesnt look like a film print they scanned for one of the better restorations. judging by the image it resembles that of a tape master like the other turner prints.



Hmmm... if you take a screenshot from one of those DVNR-ed films, does it have narrow black pillars on the left and right sides? If so, that may be a sign that it's an old NTSC TV print rather than a digitally scanned film print.

I always assumed that the DVNR-ed films were new prints, since the other Academy Ratio shorts looked older as far as I recall. But then again, I have seen several Avery films with DVNR which clearly were old Turner prints... so I'm really not sure. And right now I don't have the DVD set handy to check myself.



My impression from watching the Droopy set a few months ago was that all the Academy ratio shorts except Dixieland Droopy were not "newly remastered", just the old "Turner TV broadcast prints".
LuckyToon
2017-12-04T20:50:55Z
I can already imagine a re-release of the complete Droopy DVD set with all of the cartoons remastered this time. But lets cross our fingers for Porky 101's sales, and keep buying the DVD if we want this to happen.