This movie was made released 38 years after the original novel was published, whereas the first Wizard of Oz movie was made only 14 years after it was published. After watching this video I've got to say their definition of "restored" is pretty loose.
MrBuddy I think that your grasp of film restoration is pretty loose too! if the image from the original film has disappeared since it's in such bad condition, how can the restorers guess what it is? film restoration is about getting the film into the best condition possible and as close to the original as possible within the realms of possibility offered by technology.
I rarely make more than one comment on a video but my previous comment was wrong. By the way, thanks for the surprising information cognitivedissonance, you're absolutely right.
I see what the problem is with my opinion on the restoration. Using software you can do motion compensated dust removal. In other words all those little white specks can be removed. The way it works is to look at the current frame, previous frame and next frame then remove everything that appears in only one of the frames. But the Alice in Wonderland video is filled with specks that last for more than three frames. I've never seen that happen so much in one video. I can't figure out of how a linear series of images would have specks in the exact same spot for several consecutive images unless there was a lot of dust flying around inside the camera when it was filmed. I noticed there are blended fields but I assume that's an attempt even out the frame rate and bring it up from whatever the camera man was hand cranking at the time (16? 19? 22?) to an even 30 but I don't think it would effect the dust problem.
You could get a room full of people with Photoshop to tediously, hand fix every frame but cost so much money and take so long it wouldn't be worth the effort.
Now that you mention it SteamPoweredKleenex, that White Rabbit does look like Frank the Bunny doesn't he?