>>939792
>>939830
>why is this so fucking hard
Because they can't decide if they want to have the picture sterilized of any artifacts that would be introduced from photography (ex. the BD restorations of Snow White, Pinocchio, Dumbo, Alice in Wonderland, and probably Cinderella and Peter Pan) or to leave just a bit of noise in, because that's perfectly natural and how animation looked up until the retirement of celluloid in 1989 (which is how Ichabod and Mr. Toad and The Reluctant Dragon were restored on BD).
This is probably a challenge with the first decade or so of features, shorts, and TV programming involving Xeroxed animation. Before Ub Iwerks developed the xerography process, animation was hand-inked onto the cel and then painted onto the back. Xerography replaced the nice, young ladies in the inking department at Hyperion avenue with about eight or nine modified copy machines. Animators and clean-up artists were then more responsible for how the shot turned out. This is why Disney's animation looked all rough and scratchy around the edges, starting around 1960 with a one-off short named Goliath II (embedded), and then the following year in One Hundred and One Dalmatians.
The cels, though, were still hand-painted and backgrounds range from "also cheaply xeroxed for consistency by order of art director Ken Anderson" (ex. One Hundred and One Dalmatians, The Aristocats) to "still pretty nicely done" (Mary Poppins, Bedknobs and Broomsticks, The Jungle Book, The Rescuers).
tl:dr - Disney didn't think digital video through the way Warner Bros. did, and they're trying the same restoration on two different techniques of photography.