Who Framed Roger Rabbit 4K UHD (1988)

[Scottishguy]

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

VistaVision is 35mm filmed with an image size about 19x35mm as opposed to the normal widescreen 35mm sound print image which is 11x21mm, so you get a better starting image quality for the SFX work, same principle as using 70mm for Star Trek: TMP, CE3K, Blade Runner, etc SFXs, but with more common 35mm gauge stock instead of 65mm gauge stock.

Which is why many productions right into the 2000s used Vista Vision as standard for SFX work.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by ZANTHERA

Yeah I suppose that could be it for that last one that doesn't seem to be different with the wording, the others are definitely censors.

Could you explain what I asked in the first half of my long reply please? about how VistaVision made it so there was little degradation.

Whenever you do an optical you're losing several generations of quality, reducing detail and increasing grain. To mitigate these effects VFX houses shot on larger formats of film like VistaVision and 65mm, it's the basic principle of oversampling: you start with more detail and finer grain so when they get printed down into the final 4-perf dupe neg they've maintained a level of quality that, if not quite equal to the 1st generation footage, isn't far behind it. (Though in some cases the 65mm VFX actually looks BETTER than the main unit footage, Ghostbusters is one of the few movies in history where the opticals improve picture quality!)

[Memnoch]

Originally Posted by crackedknee

The digital version has been available for [a couple of] months now (4K) ... will go on sale for $4.99 tomorrow...

4k discs used to be released at the same time/before their 4k digital counterparts. It seems like not every movie needed a physical 4k release, so we started seeing a fair amount of movies getting 4k digital releases, but no physical disc.

How are we supposed to keep up with which 4k version is the best?

I think Heat is in the queue to encounter this issue. Home Alone 2 may as well. Thing 4k just flipped digital, but probably the same as the upcoming disc. Didn't Shawshank also just flip?

If I buy a digital 4k because someone refused to put out a 4k physical release, now I have to worry about another 4k version coming out later? WTF?

[ZANTHERA]

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

VistaVision is 35mm filmed with an image size about 19x35mm as opposed to the normal widescreen 35mm sound print image which is 11x21mm, so you get a better starting image quality for the SFX work, same principle as using 70mm for Star Trek: TMP, CE3K, Blade Runner, etc SFXs, but with more common 35mm gauge stock instead of 65mm gauge stock.

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Whenever you do an optical you're losing several generations of quality, reducing detail and increasing grain. To mitigate these effects VFX houses shot on larger formats of film like VistaVision and 65mm, it's the basic principle of oversampling: you start with more detail and finer grain so when they get printed down into the final 4-perf dupe neg they've maintained a level of quality that, if not quite equal to the 1st generation footage, isn't far behind it. (Though in some cases the 65mm VFX actually looks BETTER than the main unit footage, Ghostbusters is one of the few movies in history where the opticals improve picture quality!)

Thanks both of you, great explanation and helps put my mind at ease about the quality of it. Here's hoping the DNR isn't too noticeable or better still not done at all like it seems to be with the non toon scenes.

[BNex99]

Originally Posted by TheHutt

The Betty Boop bit is in fact in that French HDTV version.
I have it.

I do remember hearing about that; that is interesting. Do you know when that actually aired? I guess it could have been an old HD telecine that no one checked.

Originally Posted by ZANTHERA

Yeah I suppose that could be it for that last one that doesn't seem to be different with the wording, the others are definitely censors.

Probably so, but those have always been part of the finished film. I wouldn't put them in the same category as the post-release changes.

[ZANTHERA]

Originally Posted by BNex99

Probably so, but those have always been part of the finished film. I wouldn't put them in the same category as the post-release changes.

Yeah I know they're definitely part of the finished film, I did say in my post listing them that they were the first censorings done since every release has had those changed whereas the visual censoring came much later.

As for the French HDTV broadcast I believe it was broadcast in 2012 as the date on the encode is the 2nd of September 2012. I immediately thought 2012 when I tried to remember but then realised I could see if the metadata was still intact and it is so I was remembering correctly. It could have been earlier than that though and the raw broadcast recording was only reencoded later on.

For those curious the HDTV version is from a somewhat dirty print and doesn't really have much grain to it. The colours are mostly alright but the shadows/dark clothes do get a slight magenta tint to them at times, it at least doesn't suffer from the greenish tint the original Blu-ray had. It's also fairly soft compared to the original Blu-ray so it might have been transferred with equipment not that high quality. The version on Disney+ at 720p as you'd see it on a PC actually even looks sharper than it too, but then of course that's the beauty of an originally 4K master being downscaled.

[TenYearLurker]

Originally Posted by ZANTHERA

Yeah I know they're definitely part of the finished film, I did say in my post listing them that they were the first censorings done since every release has had those changed whereas the visual censoring came much later.

I think one of the biggest issues with your posts is your misuse and abuse of the words "censor" and "censoring". Not every cut and edit in film editing is censorship, and your incorrect overuse of the word makes it lose all meaning.

As you mentioned yourself, no released version EVER contained those lines. That's not censorship. As minimal as the post-release changes were, they actually qualify.

They may have thought they were shooting for a PG-13, and then the studio said they were aiming for a PG midway though filming. Maybe the best takes for some of those shots included the actors going offscript and adding stronger language than was ever in the script.

There are many, many PG movies with lip readings like that, and PG-13 movies shot with an R rating originally in mind with similar misaligned line readings. It happens with television shows semi-frequently too.

Censorship always involves cuts or removal of material considered offensive for one reason or another, but not every cut or edit is censorship. Your lip readings are not nearly as interesting, controversial, or "juicy" as you're making them out to be in your multiple posts on the subject.

Based on your posts, you and I would probably agree that words matter, so I implore you to use words correctly and not inflate what amounts to nothing more than some throwaway trivia. There are tons of instances of actual censorship occurring in art and media; what you've pointed out does not qualify.

[ZANTHERA]

Originally Posted by TenYearLurker

I think one of the biggest issues with your posts is your misuse and abuse of the words "censor" and "censoring". Not every cut and edit in film editing is censorship, and your incorrect overuse of the word makes it lose all meaning.

As you mentioned yourself, no released version EVER contained those lines. That's not censorship. As minimal as the post-release changes were, they actually qualify.

They may have thought they were shooting for a PG-13, and then the studio said they were aiming for a PG midway though filming. Maybe the best takes for some of those shots included the actors going offscript and adding stronger language than was ever in the script.

There are many, many PG movies with lip readings like that, and PG-13 movies shot with an R rating originally in mind with similar misaligned line readings. It happens with television shows semi-frequently too.

Censorship always involves cuts or removal of material considered offensive for one reason or another, but not every cut or edit is censorship. Your lip readings are not nearly as interesting, controversial, or "juicy" as you're making them out to be in your multiple posts on the subject.

Based on your posts, you and I would probably agree that words matter, so I implore you to use words correctly and not inflate what amounts to nothing more than some throwaway trivia. There are tons of instances of actual censorship occurring in art and media; what you've pointed out does not qualify.

Blimey that's a real stretch, all I meant was they basically censored themselves before the film came out, that's it, you don't need to go on a rant at me over the words usage.

In my example censoring is a completely suitable term to use as it is literally censoring of strong language. I never said anything that is cut is censoring even if it's not something offensive, you are the first one to say that.

This film has two forms of censoring, strong language and animation jokes put in that people might find offensive or too much for this type of film.

Also it was two posts about lip reading and in the second one I even said I don't think there was any offensive language to censor, rather just a retake due to a bad audio recording.

I'm simply sharing a few interesting things I've found when watching the film, I'm sorry that I don't conform to the way you use words.

In short, thank you for your insight, no one asked.

[Adam4Rizzel]

Originally Posted by nick4Knight

So what you're saying is your bias reveals why you'd want to push a narrative that HDR10 is inferior in all instances? Cool. Gotcha.

Most of us use DTM of HDR10 content and it's some of the best discs on the format. I would say out of the top 20 grades on 4K UHD there is 15 that are 'standard' HDR base. It's what your TV does to it that also factors.

Here’s a question: Why would studios pay licensing fees to Dolby if HDR10 offered the same amenities? Why would there be a development of HDR10+ if HDR10 was superior? Dynamic metadata contains more metadata overall than static metadata.

Go get a roll of 24 or 36 exposure film and put it on the scanner. You can dial in one set of exposure settings, one set of color settings, and one set of contrast settings for the whole roll and scan every frame with the same settings or you can go in and individually fine tune each frame with its own settings. That’s the difference between HDR10 and Dolby Vision.

My bias is towards releases, on disc, with Dolby and HDR10+ presentations, when such film has been graded for that format. I wish they would include DV on this disc. The DV grade, on this disc, would be the definitive version.

[nick4Knight]

Originally Posted by Adam4Rizzel

Here’s a question: Why would studios pay licensing fees to Dolby if HDR10 offered the same amenities? Why would there be a development of HDR10+ if HDR10 was superior? Dynamic metadata contains more metadata overall than static metadata.

Go get a roll of 24 or 36 exposure film and put it on the scanner. You can dial in one set of exposure settings, one set of color settings, and one set of contrast settings for the whole roll and scan every frame with the same settings or you can go in and individually fine tune each frame with its own settings. That’s the difference between HDR10 and Dolby Vision.

My bias is towards releases, on disc, with Dolby and HDR10+ presentations, when such film has been graded for that format. I wish they would include DV on this disc. The DV grade, on this disc, would be the definitive version.

We don't know how much Roger Rabbit has been "graded for that format", though. Far as I'm aware almost all D+ titles have a DV stream, no? Doesn't mean shit. Not all DV is made the same. No studio owes it to Dolby or its customers to go in there and create scene for scene much less frame by frame metadata. You can have a DV stream created from an automatic process. Something I'd say Disney is doing.

So you can throw the jargon at us all day long. I know it and I'm at the point where instread of blindly idolize the technology existing on a disc vs not I take the real world confluence of factors that make HDR10 discs compete with DV titles too often to ignore. Why is that? Why does Annihilation not look twice as good as Prometheus? The list of comparisons could go on, and on, and on. Since 66% of the titles out are HDR10 and the format is doing just fine with such inferior products (that somehow are still in the top 10/20 disc lists of most people).

Again the display is a key factor to your HDR10 experience and how 'definitive' any DV alternative could be in ideal use conditions.

[ZANTHERA]

How do we know it's not Dolby Vision? It's only just been announced and the details so far are very vague and just use info from the last Blu-ray.

I don't see anything saying it's only HDR10 and there's not been a proper announcement for the release as far as I can see so far. There's also no picture of the back of the case with the specifications.

[Farerb]

Originally Posted by ZANTHERA

How do we know it's not Dolby Vision? It's only just been announced and the details so far are very vague and just use info from the last Blu-ray.

I don't see anything saying it's only HDR10 and there's not been a proper announcement for the release as far as I can see so far. There's also no picture of the back of the case with the specifications.

Disney doesn't do Dolby Vision.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Adam4Rizzel

Here’s a question: Why would studios pay licensing fees to Dolby if HDR10 offered the same amenities? Why would there be a development of HDR10+ if HDR10 was superior? Dynamic metadata contains more metadata overall than static metadata.

Go get a roll of 24 or 36 exposure film and put it on the scanner. You can dial in one set of exposure settings, one set of color settings, and one set of contrast settings for the whole roll and scan every frame with the same settings or you can go in and individually fine tune each frame with its own settings. That’s the difference between HDR10 and Dolby Vision.

My bias is towards releases, on disc, with Dolby and HDR10+ presentations, when such film has been graded for that format. I wish they would include DV on this disc. The DV grade, on this disc, would be the definitive version.

Dolby Vision is not a grading system, it's a metadata system. The HDR content itself has been graded from shot to shot, scene to scene, just like any other piece of content which would be digitally graded. Once the grade is finalled it's fed into an automated system which analyses the image and creates the metadata, both static and dynamic. With DV they can manually adjust the metadata (unlike 10+) when looking at whatever trim pass e.g. 100-nit 709 SDR to ensure that the mapped version looks as it should, but this is NOT adjusting the grading of the finalled HDR master at source, merely how it's being interpreted by the metadata when set to a certain trim pass.

When it comes to how target displays interpret absolute luminance HDR content then yes, dynamic metadata is far more flexible than static but its importance is waning as more and more displays feature their own dynamic analysis of the image itself, not just relying on the static metadata numbers to apply an ill-suited tone map. If anything dynamic metadata is more important the further down the line you go in terms of the quality of the display's processing, as older premium sets and supermarket specials aren't always great at tone mapping so they need that guiding hand of dynamic metadata.

Dolby does have other advantages that still endear it to me no matter what display it's being viewed on, like FEL rebuilds of poorly compressed base layers, but even this system is not used by all when it comes to UHD disc and it is not used by streaming DV at all, where you're basically watching a 10-bit stream upsampled to 12-bit with dynamic metadata embedded.

[ZANTHERA]

Originally Posted by farerb

Disney doesn't do Dolby Vision.

Oh right that's odd, have they ever said why? There's Dolby Vision on Disney+ though isn't there?

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by ZANTHERA

Oh right that's odd, have they ever said why? There's Dolby Vision on Disney+ though isn't there?

yes, and that's where Disney will relegate it to, exclusively in streaming form.

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by ZANTHERA

Oh right that's odd, have they ever said why? There's Dolby Vision on Disney+ though isn't there?

Dolby Vision via streaming is a somewhat different animal than on disc.

[DJ Mike]

Does Dolby Vision have a per-title licensing cost Disney simply don't feel like paying?

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by DJ Mike

Does Dolby Vision have a per-title licensing cost Disney simply don't feel like paying?

I don't know if it's a monthly stipend or a per title fee to Dolby Labs for the DV license, but there appears to be one for cinema, one for disc, and one for streaming.



They seem to be willing to pay for the cinema and streaming licenses, but not for disc.

[ZANTHERA]

Originally Posted by FilmFreakosaurus

Dolby Vision via streaming is a somewhat different animal than on disc.

Yeah I don't doubt that at all. Even with the best quality they can stream it still can't come close to a disc. I watched Soul on Disney+ and the dark scenes had horrendous colour banding, streaming just isn't really suited for that sort of thing.

I watched Who Frame Roger Rabbit on there too and I've got to say the colours looked really great despite my TV only having HDR10 so I'm not too concerned about it looking that much different. It's still a shame that Dolby Vision doesn't get used though as that's likely what people expect these days.

[1924]

Originally Posted by The Edge

"Trail Mix-Up" is presented in 4K on YouTube
Roger Rabbit - "Trail Mix-Up" short - YouTube

I'm not too crazy about the artwork on either package, especially the steelbook. Would it have killed Disney's Home Video department to use the theatrical poster artwork???
http://www.impawards.com/1988/poster...abbit_xxlg.jpg

I feel like we are missing a special feature or two from the Vista Series DVD. Am I wrong?

And, one more thing: HDR10 instead of Dolby Vision??? The Disney+ stream has DV.

the original poster art is honestly kind of bland with way too much white