SRoweCanoe wrote:
> Western was real good about keeping stats of their comics.
Granted, but where are all those stats now? I don't imagine that Western
(or whatever they are called today) is still interested in keeping a huge
archive of old Disney comics they don't even have a publishing license for.
Or to put it into other words: to whom would Gemstone turn if they wanted
to reprint, e.g., an ancient Tony Strobl or Paul Murry story? To Disney?
Or rather to Egmont in Denmark?
Gerd
--
<--cut here-->
______________________________________________________________
Verschicken Sie romantische, coole und witzige Bilder per SMS!
Jetzt bei WEB.DE FreeMail: http://f.web.de/?mc=021193
Author
Topic: 200504
(149 messages)
Gerd Syllwasschy
Disney comics archive
Message 76 -
2005-04-15 at 14:01:57
Bob Pfeffer
Little Lulu artwork
Message 77 -
2005-04-15 at 16:58:31
>This current inexepensive edition was my first contact with John
>Stanley's "Little Lulu". And, what can I say, I immediately fell in
>love. Anybody who likes Barks' Ten Pagers in WDS&S or Charles Schultz'
>"Peanuts" should check out Little Lulu.
>
>You say they were reinked? Not knowing the original I did not notice any
>loss in quality. Do you know on what basis the 6 Sets printet by Another
>Rainbow in the same design as the original b/w Barks Library were done?
>Did AR have access to stats?
>
>Cord
>
>
>
The AR sets had tracked art for the first two sets, so up to issue #21.
So the the
artists they used were pretty good and you can only tell it is tracked
art if you look
closely. Some were pretty bad and it is really easy to tell,
particularly when you look
at the lettering.
I am glad DH is putting out these collections, and I hope they sell a
ton, but I find
I much prefer to read the original comics with the real artwork and it
color, it really
adds to the comics, imo
Bob
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>dcml at stp.ling.uu.se - Disney Comics Mailing List
>http://stp.ling.uu.se/mailman/listinfo/dcml
>
>
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Pfeffer Assistant Systems Administrator
Airgas Kendeco Tool Crib Phone (320)-253-1020 ext 202
--------------------------------------------------------------------
>Stanley's "Little Lulu". And, what can I say, I immediately fell in
>love. Anybody who likes Barks' Ten Pagers in WDS&S or Charles Schultz'
>"Peanuts" should check out Little Lulu.
>
>You say they were reinked? Not knowing the original I did not notice any
>loss in quality. Do you know on what basis the 6 Sets printet by Another
>Rainbow in the same design as the original b/w Barks Library were done?
>Did AR have access to stats?
>
>Cord
>
>
>
The AR sets had tracked art for the first two sets, so up to issue #21.
So the the
artists they used were pretty good and you can only tell it is tracked
art if you look
closely. Some were pretty bad and it is really easy to tell,
particularly when you look
at the lettering.
I am glad DH is putting out these collections, and I hope they sell a
ton, but I find
I much prefer to read the original comics with the real artwork and it
color, it really
adds to the comics, imo
Bob
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>dcml at stp.ling.uu.se - Disney Comics Mailing List
>http://stp.ling.uu.se/mailman/listinfo/dcml
>
>
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Pfeffer Assistant Systems Administrator
Airgas Kendeco Tool Crib Phone (320)-253-1020 ext 202
--------------------------------------------------------------------
David Gerstein
DCML Digest, Vol 26, Issue 18
Message 78 -
2005-04-15 at 17:54:18
CORD:
> sr wrote:
>
>> Western while good, didnt keep stats for everything - LITTLE
>> LULU fans have been upset by the recent reprint book that
>> has reinked stories.
>
> You say they were reinked? Not knowing the original I did not
> notice any loss in quality. Do you know on what basis the 6 Sets
> printed by Another Rainbow in the same design as the original b/w
> Barks Library were done? Did AR have access to stats?
AR had access to stats for most Lulu stories, but NOT all (Western
had lost material to a handful of issues). So a number of stories, in whole
or in part, ended up having to be traced to create new versions for the LLL.
Today, graphic designers working with computers can recreate more
authentic versions of stories like these, by scanning in the original comics
pages and electronically removing the color. A laborious effort, but it
works.
That said, Dark Horse seems to be getting their material by simply
xeroxing the LLL versions.
> sr wrote:
>
>> Western while good, didnt keep stats for everything - LITTLE
>> LULU fans have been upset by the recent reprint book that
>> has reinked stories.
>
> You say they were reinked? Not knowing the original I did not
> notice any loss in quality. Do you know on what basis the 6 Sets
> printed by Another Rainbow in the same design as the original b/w
> Barks Library were done? Did AR have access to stats?
AR had access to stats for most Lulu stories, but NOT all (Western
had lost material to a handful of issues). So a number of stories, in whole
or in part, ended up having to be traced to create new versions for the LLL.
Today, graphic designers working with computers can recreate more
authentic versions of stories like these, by scanning in the original comics
pages and electronically removing the color. A laborious effort, but it
works.
That said, Dark Horse seems to be getting their material by simply
xeroxing the LLL versions.
Gerd Syllwasschy
DCML Digest, Vol 26, Issue 19
Message 79 -
2005-04-16 at 14:37:55
Sorry for quoting the entire digest in my last e-mail. Fortunately it
wasn't such a long one. :-)
Gerd
wasn't such a long one. :-)
Gerd
David Gerstein
Disney comics archive
Message 80 -
2005-04-16 at 16:00:54
Hey Gerd,
> Granted, but where are all those stats now? I don't imagine that
> Western
> (or whatever they are called today) is still interested in keeping a
> huge
> archive of old Disney comics they don't even have a publishing license
> for.
>
> Or to put it into other words: to whom would Gemstone turn if they
> wanted
> to reprint, e.g., an ancient Tony Strobl or Paul Murry story? To
> Disney?
> Or rather to Egmont in Denmark?
When Western lost its Disney license, they continued selling Disney
comics stats to active licensees. They did this through the late 1990s.
As I write this, nobody seems to be sure what happened to their stat
archive after that.
Today, most of our Western stats come from either Egmont or from
Disney's Burbank office. A very few others come from the French, Dutch,
or Italian publishers, or from private collections. Nobody has every
story, but between the bunch of them, we can get about three quarters
of what we might want.
Sometimes we can only get stats where the word balloons are blank.
Then we either restore and drop in the lettering from an old published
comic (example: some stories in Gemstone's CHRISTMAS PARADE 2), or
reletter the story from scratch (example: "The Ruby Eye of Homar
Guy-Am" in MICKEY MOUSE 274).
Occasionally it seems we have no source for stats at all, lettered or
not. Then we may electronically recreate stats from scratch, using as a
source the pages of a published comic. Rick Keene, an expert at this,
has done this several times for us.
Twice a lengthy stat search has seemed to end unsuccessfully and then
afterwards, when it was too late, the original material ironically
turned up after all. For example, with "The Ruby Eye of Homar Guy-Am,"
lettered stats were finally discovered, but only as we were going to
press with our relettered version.
Oh, well. We can use the lettered stats NEXT time we reprint the
story. Groan.
David
> Granted, but where are all those stats now? I don't imagine that
> Western
> (or whatever they are called today) is still interested in keeping a
> huge
> archive of old Disney comics they don't even have a publishing license
> for.
>
> Or to put it into other words: to whom would Gemstone turn if they
> wanted
> to reprint, e.g., an ancient Tony Strobl or Paul Murry story? To
> Disney?
> Or rather to Egmont in Denmark?
When Western lost its Disney license, they continued selling Disney
comics stats to active licensees. They did this through the late 1990s.
As I write this, nobody seems to be sure what happened to their stat
archive after that.
Today, most of our Western stats come from either Egmont or from
Disney's Burbank office. A very few others come from the French, Dutch,
or Italian publishers, or from private collections. Nobody has every
story, but between the bunch of them, we can get about three quarters
of what we might want.
Sometimes we can only get stats where the word balloons are blank.
Then we either restore and drop in the lettering from an old published
comic (example: some stories in Gemstone's CHRISTMAS PARADE 2), or
reletter the story from scratch (example: "The Ruby Eye of Homar
Guy-Am" in MICKEY MOUSE 274).
Occasionally it seems we have no source for stats at all, lettered or
not. Then we may electronically recreate stats from scratch, using as a
source the pages of a published comic. Rick Keene, an expert at this,
has done this several times for us.
Twice a lengthy stat search has seemed to end unsuccessfully and then
afterwards, when it was too late, the original material ironically
turned up after all. For example, with "The Ruby Eye of Homar Guy-Am,"
lettered stats were finally discovered, but only as we were going to
press with our relettered version.
Oh, well. We can use the lettered stats NEXT time we reprint the
story. Groan.
David
Frank Petzold
What exactly are "stats"?
Message 81 -
2005-04-17 at 15:50:42
Hi all,
I have been following the discussion on the whereabouts
of original Disney comic material with much interest. On
this occasion, the term "stats" was often used. Could
someone tell me what exactly "stats" are? Until now I
thought that this is just another (historic) term for
photocopies, but this does not seem to fit here ...
TIA
Frank
I have been following the discussion on the whereabouts
of original Disney comic material with much interest. On
this occasion, the term "stats" was often used. Could
someone tell me what exactly "stats" are? Until now I
thought that this is just another (historic) term for
photocopies, but this does not seem to fit here ...
TIA
Frank
Kriton Kyrimis
What exactly are "stats"?
Message 82 -
2005-04-17 at 20:53:27
> Could
> someone tell me what exactly "stats" are? Until now I
> thought that this is just another (historic) term for
> photocopies, but this does not seem to fit here ...
I second the motion!
As far as I can tell, "stat" is short for "photostat", for which wikipedia
redirects to the article on photocopying. My guess is that "photostat" is a
fancy way of saying "photocopy", possibly because of the electrostatic process
used in making photocopies.
Kriton.
-----
"There's never a temporal paradox around when you need one."
-----
> someone tell me what exactly "stats" are? Until now I
> thought that this is just another (historic) term for
> photocopies, but this does not seem to fit here ...
I second the motion!
As far as I can tell, "stat" is short for "photostat", for which wikipedia
redirects to the article on photocopying. My guess is that "photostat" is a
fancy way of saying "photocopy", possibly because of the electrostatic process
used in making photocopies.
Kriton.
-----
"There's never a temporal paradox around when you need one."
-----
Kimba1962
DCML Digest, Vol 26, Issue 19 (Little Lulu)
Message 83 -
2005-04-17 at 22:10:27
David Gerstein wrote:
<<AR had access to stats for most Lulu stories, but NOT all (Western
had lost material to a handful of issues). So a number of stories, in whole
or in part, ended up having to be traced to create new versions for the LLL.
Today, graphic designers working with computers can recreate more
authentic versions of stories like these, by scanning in the original comics
pages and electronically removing the color. A laborious effort, but it
works. That said, Dark Horse seems to be getting their material by simply
xeroxing the LLL versions.>>
I might point out that DH bollixed the second volume a little by reversing pages on several occasions. A little annoying, considering that such a small amount of labor appears to be involved in copying and arranging the LLL pages. Here is one case where one is so pleased at the content that one doesn't truly mind the packaging (much).
Chris Barat
<<AR had access to stats for most Lulu stories, but NOT all (Western
had lost material to a handful of issues). So a number of stories, in whole
or in part, ended up having to be traced to create new versions for the LLL.
Today, graphic designers working with computers can recreate more
authentic versions of stories like these, by scanning in the original comics
pages and electronically removing the color. A laborious effort, but it
works. That said, Dark Horse seems to be getting their material by simply
xeroxing the LLL versions.>>
I might point out that DH bollixed the second volume a little by reversing pages on several occasions. A little annoying, considering that such a small amount of labor appears to be involved in copying and arranging the LLL pages. Here is one case where one is so pleased at the content that one doesn't truly mind the packaging (much).
Chris Barat
L. Schulte
DCML Digest, Vol 26, Issue 21 "Stats"
Message 84 -
2005-04-18 at 14:28:25
To those wondering about the English word "stats": it is short for
"statistics". (Your guess that it meant "photocopies" is not bad!)
"statistics". (Your guess that it meant "photocopies" is not bad!)
Travis Seitler
DCML Digest, Vol 26, Issue 21 "Stats"
Message 85 -
2005-04-18 at 18:43:10
Actually, what is meant *is* copies made with a Photostat machine.
From encyclopedia.com:
----------------------------------
photostat: reproduction of any printed or simple black-and-white
material, such as drawings or manuscripts, made by the Photostat, a
photographic camera. While slower and more expensive than xerography ,
the process is still used where a high degree of resolution is
desired, as in publishing.
Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition, Copyright (c) 2005.
--Travis Seitler
On 4/18/05, L. Schulte <lschulte at sfstoledo.org> wrote:
> To those wondering about the English word "stats": it is short for
> "statistics". (Your guess that it meant "photocopies" is not bad!)
From encyclopedia.com:
----------------------------------
photostat: reproduction of any printed or simple black-and-white
material, such as drawings or manuscripts, made by the Photostat, a
photographic camera. While slower and more expensive than xerography ,
the process is still used where a high degree of resolution is
desired, as in publishing.
Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition, Copyright (c) 2005.
--Travis Seitler
On 4/18/05, L. Schulte <lschulte at sfstoledo.org> wrote:
> To those wondering about the English word "stats": it is short for
> "statistics". (Your guess that it meant "photocopies" is not bad!)
UNDBKB
Stats
Message 86 -
2005-04-18 at 20:15:35
> Could
> >someone tell me what exactly "stats" are?
Typically the term "Stats" is short for Statistics.
It is commonly used as Baseball slang for all the scores and infomation
accumulated..
My feeling its use here is a short form of saying "Information"
Barry.
> >someone tell me what exactly "stats" are?
Typically the term "Stats" is short for Statistics.
It is commonly used as Baseball slang for all the scores and infomation
accumulated..
My feeling its use here is a short form of saying "Information"
Barry.
Zeldastriforce
Photostats
Message 87 -
2005-04-18 at 20:41:47
L. Schulte wrote:
To those wondering about the English word "stats": it is short for
"statistics". (Your guess that it meant "photocopies" is not bad!)
----------------------------
Maybe I'm wrong here, but yes, 'stats' is short for statistics, but I doubt that was the context he was referring to.
I always thought that photostats were basically photographs either in negative or plate form that could then be used to tell the printer and/or computer how to print the comic pages. That's my theory anyway. ;) I now await the post that will tell me how way far off from the facts I really am.
Derek Smith
To those wondering about the English word "stats": it is short for
"statistics". (Your guess that it meant "photocopies" is not bad!)
----------------------------
Maybe I'm wrong here, but yes, 'stats' is short for statistics, but I doubt that was the context he was referring to.
I always thought that photostats were basically photographs either in negative or plate form that could then be used to tell the printer and/or computer how to print the comic pages. That's my theory anyway. ;) I now await the post that will tell me how way far off from the facts I really am.
Derek Smith
Gary Leach
DCML Digest, Vol 26, Issue 21
Message 88 -
2005-04-18 at 21:19:11
Frank,
> I have been following the discussion on the whereabouts
> of original Disney comic material with much interest. On
> this occasion, the term "stats" was often used. Could
> someone tell me what exactly "stats" are? Until now I
> thought that this is just another (historic) term for
> photocopies, but this does not seem to fit here ...
The terms "stat" and "photostat" have acquired certain loose
definitions over the course of time, but a true photostat "stat" is (or
more to the point these days, was) a positive image produced on
photosensitive paper utilizing a process camera or contact frame. Just
like film negatives, photostats had to be chemically processed and
dried after shooting. And just like film negatives, photostats continue
to develop even after being chemically "stopped", so that over time
they fade even if stored in lightless conditions. Western never worried
about this because their archives were maintained for the purposes of
reprinting, not preserving for posterity.
Gary
> I have been following the discussion on the whereabouts
> of original Disney comic material with much interest. On
> this occasion, the term "stats" was often used. Could
> someone tell me what exactly "stats" are? Until now I
> thought that this is just another (historic) term for
> photocopies, but this does not seem to fit here ...
The terms "stat" and "photostat" have acquired certain loose
definitions over the course of time, but a true photostat "stat" is (or
more to the point these days, was) a positive image produced on
photosensitive paper utilizing a process camera or contact frame. Just
like film negatives, photostats had to be chemically processed and
dried after shooting. And just like film negatives, photostats continue
to develop even after being chemically "stopped", so that over time
they fade even if stored in lightless conditions. Western never worried
about this because their archives were maintained for the purposes of
reprinting, not preserving for posterity.
Gary
Deanmary
Great article with some Disney comics news!
Message 89 -
2005-04-18 at 22:34:22
I just read this neat article about Gemstone's upcoming Life and
Times of Scrooge McDuck TPB: http://www.comicon.com/pulse/.
What surprised me even more were some other items Gemstone has
planned to publish this year! It looks like some really great stuff!
Well, there goes some more of my money! :)
Dean Rekich
Times of Scrooge McDuck TPB: http://www.comicon.com/pulse/.
What surprised me even more were some other items Gemstone has
planned to publish this year! It looks like some really great stuff!
Well, there goes some more of my money! :)
Dean Rekich
Cord Wiljes
Stats
Message 90 -
2005-04-19 at 03:30:52
I assume "stats" is short for "stationary": The camera which is used to
shoot stats is mounted to a *stationary* plate.
The exposure time of the photographic material is probably rather long
(several minutes?) so the camera has to be stationary to get sharp
pictures.
We cannot, I believe, thank Western Comics enough for maintaining such a
good archive of stats. Otherwise we would not have the excellent Barks
reprints we have today.
Cord
shoot stats is mounted to a *stationary* plate.
The exposure time of the photographic material is probably rather long
(several minutes?) so the camera has to be stationary to get sharp
pictures.
We cannot, I believe, thank Western Comics enough for maintaining such a
good archive of stats. Otherwise we would not have the excellent Barks
reprints we have today.
Cord