came back twice and didn`t know what to..... - amazingly boring perhaps?

They had HD cameras in 1957?

That was back when you could spin the Teacups so fast you could make yourself sick.

I was disappointed when I first took my kids there and realized the Captain Hook's ship was gone.

Ivo Shandor: Pelvic Splanchnic Ganglion: They had HD cameras in 1957?

Yes. They used a photochemical substance called "film" to store high-resolution images. It was very wasteful because every frame was stored individually at full quality. It wasn't until many years later that technology advanced far enough to provide the screens full of blocky MPEG compression artifacts that we have come to know and love today.

[imgs.xkcd.com image 389x337]

And that's Ivo Shandor for the win!

+1 intertube for you and a roll of film to boot!

Based on the film, I can only assume black and hispanic children were invented sometime after 1957.

Two things always stand out to me when I watch footage from that era. People dressed casual but not sloppy and very few fatties.

Wow. Look at all the white people.

vudukungfu: Wow. Look at all the white people.

That was Real America before the stupid libs took over and tried to give brown folk "rights".

No fat people on electric scooters? No large mexican families? No announcements in spanish? I'm o.k. with this.

FAKE - I've been there and I know that there a bazillion more people there than seen in the film!! I say it's photoshooped!


GoodScout: Based on the film, I can only assume black and hispanic children were invented sometime after 1957.


Actually, there is a token black child on the carrousel at the :58 mark

vudukungfu: Wow. Look at all the white people.

Hey now, be fair - there WAS a black woman shown at around the 3:15 mark. . .of course, she was in costume (this footage was taken less than ten years after "Song of the South" came out). Ugh.

/Still interesting stuff, but if you're going to half-assedly show ONE non-caucasian person, please please please don't make it a woman dressed up as "Mammy." :(

Ivo Shandor: Pelvic Splanchnic Ganglion: They had HD cameras in 1957?

Yes. They used a photochemical substance called "film" to store high-resolution images. It was very wasteful because every frame was stored individually at full quality. It wasn't until many years later that technology advanced far enough to provide the screens full of blocky MPEG compression artifacts that we have come to know and love today.

[imgs.xkcd.com image 389x337]

Then it's not "HD". It's "film". If you can't understand the difference, then I can't help you.

OMG, this video is so racist because it doesn't have enough black people in it. I didn't see the gays represented either. OMG!

Pelvic Splanchnic Ganglion: Ivo Shandor: Pelvic Splanchnic Ganglion: They had HD cameras in 1957?

Yes. They used a photochemical substance called "film" to store high-resolution images. It was very wasteful because every frame was stored individually at full quality. It wasn't until many years later that technology advanced far enough to provide the screens full of blocky MPEG compression artifacts that we have come to know and love today.

[imgs.xkcd.com image 389x337]

Then it's not "HD". It's "film". If you can't understand the difference, then I can't help you.

jjwars1: OMG, this video is so racist because it doesn't have enough black people in it. I didn't see the gays represented either. OMG!


Humorless butthurt conservative spotted!

posthocergoetc: vudukungfu: Wow. Look at all the white people.

Hey now, be fair - there WAS a black woman shown at around the 3:15 mark. . .of course, she was in costume (this footage was taken less than ten years after "Song of the South" came out). Ugh.

/Still interesting stuff, but if you're going to half-assedly show ONE non-caucasian person, please please please don't make it a woman dressed up as "Mammy." :(

Aunt Jemima to be exact - she was there for "Aunt Jemima's Kitchen"

http://vintagedisneylandgoodies.blogspot.com/2008/03/aunt-jemima-menu . html

jjwars1: OMG, this video is so racist because it doesn't have enough black people in it. I didn't see the gays represented either. OMG!

The video was in fact full of gay people.

Well, probably you could even call it to their faces in 1957 without any of them being offended.

jjwars1: OMG, this video is so racist because it doesn't have enough black people in it. I didn't see the gays represented either. OMG!

It's a shame that amusement parks are mostly waiting in lines. That's all i remember from going to Disney as a teenager

Ok, I made a picture from 1957 politically correct.

posthocergoetc:
/Still interesting stuff, but if you're going to half-assedly show ONE non-caucasian person, please please please don't make it a woman dressed up as "Mammy." :(

You sure that wasn't Aunt Jeminah?

millercv: Aunt Jemima to be exact - she was there for "Aunt Jemima's Kitchen"

I know that because she was a friend of my family's.

The footage of that rocket ride makes me nostalgic for the days when the US had a space program.

Ivo Shandor: Pelvic Splanchnic Ganglion: They had HD cameras in 1957?

Yes. They used a photochemical substance called "film" to store high-resolution images. It was very wasteful because every frame was stored individually at full quality. It wasn't until many years later that technology advanced far enough to provide the screens full of blocky MPEG compression artifacts that we have come to know and love today.

[imgs.xkcd.com image 389x337]

millercv: posthocergoetc: vudukungfu: Wow. Look at all the white people.

Hey now, be fair - there WAS a black woman shown at around the 3:15 mark. . .of course, she was in costume (this footage was taken less than ten years after "Song of the South" came out). Ugh.

/Still interesting stuff, but if you're going to half-assedly show ONE non-caucasian person, please please please don't make it a woman dressed up as "Mammy." :(

Aunt Jemima to be exact - she was there for "Aunt Jemima's Kitchen"

http://vintagedisneylandgoodies.blogspot.com/2008/03/aunt-jemima-menu . html

There were also barefooted Black boys waiting at the end of the Congo Cruise. Oy.

millercv:
/Still interesting stuff, but if you're going to half-assedly show ONE non-caucasian person, please please please don't make it a woman dressed up as "Mammy." :(

Aunt Jemima to be exact - she was there for "Aunt Jemima's Kitchen"

http://vintagedisneylandgoodies.blogspot.com/2008/03/aunt-jemima-menu . html

Ah, I stand corrected. Thanks! Still a bit cringe-worthy. . .

That's awesome. And there's still a few things there that haven't changed a bit.

posthocergoetc:
Ah, I stand corrected. Thanks! Still a bit cringe-worthy. . .

Before Disney co-opted her character, there was a real Aunt jemimah who went from town to town, making pancake breakfasts.
It was a major event and people came out of the hills to see her.
She was quite an american celebrity.
Our family ran the longest continiously same-family owned general store in america and she came to visit and having a Hotel, we put her up in the presidential suite.
Some one asked what we would do if the president actually showed up, and the answer was, "we'll find him something else. he's not getting up tomorrorw to cook us pancakes. "

She came by train.
And the band came out to play.
Now this was back in the day, we're talking reconstruction period.
But by golly, people thought she was really something.

Of course, a few decades later, Disney decided to shait all over that.

R2112: Two things always stand out to me when I watch footage from that era. People dressed casual but not sloppy and very few fatties.

Oh, so true. I found relatives' pics of midcentury vacationing in Wash., DC. Decidedly lower middle class, but the line for the White House tour had no jeans, no sweats, etc., etc.......(and collared-shirt tails tucked in, dammit). My last time in DC I checked out the same line; likely no better/worse off financially, but the outfits pretty much looked like what someone would wear to go fishing or mow the lawn--or maybe change the oil in the car. It just seems disrespectful to tour the White house looking like that.

/feeling painfully, painfully old

vudukungfu: Before Disney Quaker Oats co-opted her character, there was a real Aunt jemimah who went from town to town, making pancake breakfasts. It was a major event and people came out of the hills to see her. Of course, a few decades later, Disney Quaker Oats decided to shait all over that.

FTFY

Disney had nothing to do with it -- the character was bought and marketed by Quaker Oats, which produced the pancake mix and licensed the restaurant at Disneyland.

Also -- I want my Monsanto House of the Future!

jjwars1

OMG, this video is so racist because it doesn't have enough black people in it. I didn't see the gays represented either. OMG!

They're there.
they just look like regular people,so they blend in.

they're not racist. Hey look its Aunt Jemima!

Pelvic Splanchnic Ganglion: Ivo Shandor: Pelvic Splanchnic Ganglion: They had HD cameras in 1957?

Yes. They used a photochemical substance called "film" to store high-resolution images. It was very wasteful because every frame was stored individually at full quality. It wasn't until many years later that technology advanced far enough to provide the screens full of blocky MPEG compression artifacts that we have come to know and love today.

[imgs.xkcd.com image 389x337]

Then it's not "HD". It's "film". If you can't understand the difference, then I can't help you.

You know what HD means? Hi Definition. The definition is high. The resolution is 1080p. Which means hi def. This footage was shot on film. The resolution on film was High. This footage is HD footage. It was shot on film. Is this clear?

Ivo Shandor: Pelvic Splanchnic Ganglion: They had HD cameras in 1957?

Yes. They used a photochemical substance called "film" to store high-resolution images. It was very wasteful because every frame was stored individually at full quality. It wasn't until many years later that technology advanced far enough to provide the screens full of blocky MPEG compression artifacts that we have come to know and love today.

[imgs.xkcd.com image 389x337]

Also, considering that these appear to be home movies, they were probably shot on either 16mm, or 8mm, And this looks.. to me at least, to be 8mm. Also consider the compression rate of Youtube, it's a pretty good transfer.
That is a lot of "data" contained on a wee little frame the size of a pinky nail. Consider it the ye olde comparison of Records, to CD's to MP3's the higher the sample rate of the "original analog" the better the digital conversion, but that is only going to be good as the original recording to begin with. I think Imax uses 70mm film and is the highest resolution film you can get, most feature films of days gone by were filmed on standard 35 mm. And the easiest answer if you want to make a rough comparison would be that 35mm is = to about 24 Megapixels.

There are some that would say that because film is Analogue, then the resolution would be infinite, this is obviously not the case in my opinion, though, Counterarguments are welcome.

Xzavier: [farm8.staticflickr.com image 500x288]
they're not racist. Hey look its Aunt Jemima!

By today's standards, the place was pretty racist. By the standards of that time, not so much. Developing a sense of historical context tends to stop one from cringing every time we see something that no longer fits in our cultural framework.

Cerebral Knievel: There are some that would say that because film is Analogue, then the resolution would be infinite, this is obviously not the case in my opinion, though, Counterarguments are welcome.

Only people who know dick about film. There is a finite limit to the "pixel density" of the film. 8mm is roughly double standard def, about 1280 x 960*. 16mm is double that. But pixel count (for lack of a better term) and image quality are not synonymous.

*Teh Googals gives me conflicting numbers from 900 lines to 1000 lines, with most people saying "double standard def".

Amazing HD footage of Disneyland in 1957. Wait ... the teacup ride has empty seats?

FTFY

This is so fake.

Where are the scooters?

Where are the 300 pound people?

Where are the 300 pound people on scooters?

GoodScout: Based on the film, I can only assume black and hispanic children were invented sometime after 1957.

aunt jemima at 3:17

As a kid the castle was a major disappointment. The pictures and your imagination have you exploring and tooling around in this huge castle... then you get there and realize it's nothing more than a fancy doorway.

Ed Grubermann: Cerebral Knievel: There are some that would say that because film is Analogue, then the resolution would be infinite, this is obviously not the case in my opinion, though, Counterarguments are welcome.

Only people who know dick about film. There is a finite limit to the "pixel density" of the film. 8mm is roughly double standard def, about 1280 x 960*. 16mm is double that. But pixel count (for lack of a better term) and image quality are not synonymous.

*Teh Googals gives me conflicting numbers from 900 lines to 1000 lines, with most people saying "double standard def".

Thanks for pointing that out. I really should've put a "as I understand it" amendment to my comment, that's why I welcomed counter arguments to my point. I guess my general point is that while film is in and of itself "hi-def" not all types of film and film formats are in and of them selves "hi-def" as it were. I have a fair understanding of film and I'm not trying to claim otherwise, believe it or not. I just wouldn't consider Hi-def encoding of a 8mm film stock to be "hi-def" in the modern nomenclature. It looks great for what it is and it's certainly miles beyond the old school film to VHS conversions with signal amplification. But, that goes with out saying of course. The other variables being film type, as in manufacture, and chemical content. method of processing, how the film was stored, how many times the film was projected, exposed to natural light and projector light, and of course the mechanical forces of the projector Itself. Those all must be taken into consideration. But an 8mm film is always going to look like a 8mm film no matter how many bells and whistles you throw at it in the digital realm