The Little Mermaid 4K UHD (1989) (30th Anniversary Edition)

[Hardback247]

Originally Posted by RalphoR

I remember Ariel's bellybutton being more round and darker back in '89. Oh, and the snarfblat was more chestnut brown.

Love the 4k disc.

Where the hell did Scuttle get the word "Snarfblat" from, anyway?

[BenjaminG]

I've been a huge Little Mermaid fan since I saw the film in theatres on original release when I was 4, and have seen it many times on all home video formats since.

I watched the 4K disc yesterday and it's both an upgrade and downgrade from the wonderful 2013 restoration. Here's my 20c worth, for those interested.

VIDEO

For me, the biggest observation is the 4K release has been hit by the DNR stick quite severely. It doesn't seem to result in the loss of any detail, but the wonderful (and surprising, for Disney) organic grain of the Diamond Edition release is now totally smoothed away. However, it does have the upside of making the animation lines a little more pronounced. On balance = I prefer the 2K release.

Colour is very good and whilst a bit dull in some sequences, is a clear improvement in others. There is ever so slightly more image available left and right on the 4K release. There's some minor controversy on the colours. The history of the film on home video is so wildly varying that there can only be preference. For what it's worth, I can indicate that the two original animation cels I own are very close to both transfers. But of course, that's just two scenes. On balance = no clear victor.

SOUND

The atmos mix is fine, but I honestly wouldn't be able to pick between this or the 7.1 Diamond Edition mix upscaled in an A/B comparison. As indicated by others, a few sound effects such as the explosion on Eric's ship do have audible distortion. It was probably at least a 40-50 year old sound recording from the studio. On balance = no clear victor.

Overall, I guess I'm leaning towards the 2013 Diamond release as my preferred version. They're both very good, and as far as Disney's animated classics go on home video, they fare better than most. Either way, it's clear we've reached the limits of the source. There's just nothing further to be mined from the animation. I just wish that the studio has resisted the DNR dial just a little more.

[Falaskan]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

No, Geoff- can't you see? The real problem is a slight color shift, to less precisely match our perfect and hermetically-sealed collective memory of a theatrical presentation that occurred in a theater 30 years ago. Remember that screening? We all came out to the lobby and that Disney rep was there, just going on about how the print was a 1:1 match with the OCN and the theater had been set up so impeccably. Now stand in a circle, he told us, and hold hands. Burn the images into your memory so that, decades hence, you'll be able to recall, with photographic precision, the exact shade you saw today in that reference frame that stood before your eyes for a twenty-fourth of a second.

I literally just spit out my food in laughter! Thank you sir, friend request sent!

[singhcr]

After reading these posts, I remember why I bother collecting 16mm Chip and Dale film prints. Disney has such a wonderful treasure trove of films and TV shows, but they can't be bothered to show them faithfully or even show them at all.

It reminds me of how Chip and Dale's Rescue Rangers got an "HD" release that is just an upscaled DVD with a shit ton of DNR and altered color timing. I know this because it's pixel to pixel accurate with the DVD and you won't get that had they scanned the 35mm negatives or IP. It is also evident when looking at the 720p and 480p streams and they are the same detail wise, even in the backgrounds. I spent a lot of time on the CDRR fan boards and told them that this wasn't HD but a warmed over DVD transfer sans compression artifacts and nobody cared. The title card and ending credits were replaced with generic CG crap and nobody cared there either.

[ncraft]

[IMG][/IMG]

[Show spoiler][IMG][/IMG]
[IMG][/IMG]
[IMG][/IMG]
[IMG][/IMG]
[IMG][/IMG]
[IMG][/IMG]
[IMG][/IMG]

[Storm_1980]

I Wasn't going to get The Steelbook since I got The Target Exclusive but after eeeing it at Best Buy it looked really Nice so Couldn't Resist Getting it!

[GenPion]

I finished watching it tonight. Compared it to the Blu-ray and the previous Diamond edition.

It’s true that there is more DNR on the 4K release than I would like so those of you griping about it are correct (sadly). However the old Diamond Edition has some too. Neither of the presentations are perfect.

This one has better color reproduction and the HDR is a definite highlight. But don’t go in expecting a reference grade presentation. Disney could have done better but this will have to do.

[WBMakeVMarsMovieNOW]

oh brother, what is with the Disney DNR obsession for stuff like this?

[Hardback247]

Originally Posted by WBMakeVMarsMovieNOW

oh brother, what is with the Disney DNR obsession for stuff like this?

The detail is still intact, just not as much of the grain.

[IXOYE1989]

Originally Posted by Brian81

I assume that those were caps from the standard BD versions. If so, this one pairing at least seems to to support my hurried rambling last night on this thread - that I recall the Diamond Edition BD having more grain than the new release.


If anyone has the corrected U.S. release Diamond Edition BD and DVD, I would be interested in both as I didn't get around to the replacement program. I feel like this would be an impossible task acquiring off eBay unless they marked the discs with a v2 or something (no one will pop in a disc to check - I've tried for other titles before).

Disney Movie Rewards has them available if you collect DMR points and would prefer this route over eBay:

The Little Mermaid DVD + Blu-ray

The Little Mermaid Diamond Edition Blu-ray + DVD

Would expect both of these to be the corrected discs.

[andreasy969]

So going by this early report I take it that moviesanywhere got another version with the grain intact? (I'm obviously being sarcastic)

[Agent Kay]

Originally Posted by Hardback247

The Blu-Ray.com review strongly disagrees.

So?

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by Brian81

That first Scuttle scene where Ariel brings the fork is so DNRed. I swear, if Disney is going to keep their BD approach, they might as well not release these on UHD. They're such a terrible home video department when it comes to treating their 'animated classics'. Well, maybe it is better to say that they do not care about faithful restorations, but rather care about making everything look acceptable to the general consumer who does not care. At least they do not do 16:9 croppings.

And yet, the original cell animations have no grain on them...

[Poya]

Why, oh why can’t these Disney bozos look at Watership Down’s blu and see how to restore their films?

[starkrogersthor91]

Originally Posted by Poya

Why, oh why can’t these Disney bozos look at Watership Down’s blu and see how to restore their films?

I’ve said this for years — Disney are more interested in presenting their films as if you were looking directly at the artwork (without grain), than looking at a “film”. Some may prefer the latter, but I honestly have no problem with this kind of presentation — helps you appreciate the artwork much more.
I’ve been lucky to see original Disney cel animations in hand, and what you see on these restorations is pretty accurate to original source, before being whacked onto film.

[mysticwaterfall]

Originally Posted by davlee1991

I’ve said this for years — Disney are more interested in presenting their films as if you were looking directly at the artwork (without grain), than looking at a “film”. Some may prefer the latter, but I honestly have no problem with this kind of presentation — helps you appreciate the artwork much more.
I’ve been lucky to see original Disney cel animations in hand, and what you see on these restorations is pretty accurate to original source, before being whacked otorilm.

That's what I've been trying to say, the grain isn't inherent in the source it's a byproduct of the conversion to film. It looks like it should, like a painting.

The problem people have (and I did at first, before I realized what they were doing) is the same problem people have on other 4Ks is that it doesnt look like it has before so people think it should be wrong when it was really wrong the whole previous time.

[s_har]

Originally Posted by davlee1991

I’ve said this for years — Disney are more interested in presenting their films as if you were looking directly at the artwork (without grain), than looking at a “film”. Some may prefer the latter, but I honestly have no problem with this kind of presentation — helps you appreciate the artwork much more.
I’ve been lucky to see original Disney cel animations in hand, and what you see on these restorations is pretty accurate to original source, before being whacked onto film.

Just out of curiosity; what are your thoughts on the colour controversy surrounding this release? Some people in this thread have been reacting to the apparent difference in colour between the 2013 Diamond Edition and this release. Particularly when it comes to the more greenish looking hue of Ariel's fin. What's your take on this?

[Brian81]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

And yet, the original cell animations have no grain on them...

They also wouldn't have soft smeary outlines like the UHD.... If they managed the grain but still had a sharp picture, it wouldn't be as bad. It is like someone drew the outlines in ink and got the paper wet and the ink bled. This is on quite a few Disney clean up jobs. The lines look flat out bad.

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by davlee1991

I’ve said this for years — Disney are more interested in presenting their films as if you were looking directly at the artwork (without grain), than looking at a “film”. Some may prefer the latter, but I honestly have no problem with this kind of presentation — helps you appreciate the artwork much more.
I’ve been lucky to see original Disney cel animations in hand, and what you see on these restorations is pretty accurate to original source, before being whacked onto film.

It's much harder to appreciate artwork when detail has been obliterated. Grain adds a bit of texture and depth to the cels, and most importantly was how it was shot and presented to audiences.

I have a cel and background from the '90s X-Men animated series. If I were to view a scan of the camera negative, I'd see more of the detail of that original image without DNR as I would with it.

When people gushed over the Studio Ghibli releases, did anyone complain that they couldn't see detail because of grain? That last statement is nonsensical. Nausciaa has a wonderful Blu-ray, and I'm amazed at how much work went into it. With a quality scan and a faithful, film-like transfer, I can see all of this.

Another good example is Akira on Blu-ray. There is a healthy amount of grain to it, and damn if you can't see every little detail in the backgrounds and characters.

I'm in the process of making an animation cel myself with a hand painted background. I'm going to shoot the composite image on 35mm film. If my resultant image is noise reduced, you'll lose detail in the image you would otherwise see. That is DNR in a nutshell because that's literally how film works. Even if there was absolutely no loss of detail, the resultant image doesn't look like film and as such is not faithful to the original image. It should be preserved for history, and to respect the work of the filmmakers.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by davlee1991

I’ve said this for years — Disney are more interested in presenting their films as if you were looking directly at the artwork (without grain), than looking at a “film”. Some may prefer the latter, but I honestly have no problem with this kind of presentation — helps you appreciate the artwork much more.
I’ve been lucky to see original Disney cel animations in hand, and what you see on these restorations is pretty accurate to original source, before being whacked onto film.

Dave, I'm not a zealot on these things, although I used to be. I choose my battles these days. But I just want to ask you to ponder something, and this isn't meant to put you back on your heels, or criticize you, or challenge you. Just something to think about.

Cel dust, production artifacts, registration errors - I have no problem with fixing that stuff. Walt would have done it if he could. Film grain, though...think about it this way. You're approaching the issue from your point of view that the masters are like looking at the original artwork. Got you. Understand you completely. Here's something I just want you to consider. If the end product is the original artwork, then I say to you the film negative is the original artwork. Cels and backgrounds are components prepared before photography. It's the photography that's the end game, not the cells, not the backgrounds, not Ward Kimball's lead holder. And film grain was a part of the final product -- part of the art -- for example...

You have considerable media archives (I watch your YouTube feed, as you know -- I've seen those shelves of yours, you wonderful Australian)...so I want you to do something. Get your hands on the original Laserdisc release of Bambi. Go watch the scene where Bambi's mother tests the meadow. Film grain everywhere, right? But what does that do? It makes the open expanse of the meadow come alive. The grain gives a sense of life, motion, density, an almost tactile reality to something that doesn't exist. A sense of air, life, and motion to a flat background. The Disney crew in the 30's and 40's were so meticulous, of course they were aware of grain, and they used it to their advantage. Yes, Bambi now has all the registration errors, cel dust, artifacts and noise (grain) removed, to bring it up to speed with modern animated films. What did we lose (atmosphere) and what did we gain?

So let's flash-forward to the 90's and the CAPS system. To add air, life, and motion to the digitally-scanned and assembled artwork, they had to create software to bring atmospherics in as an artistic choice. So, would you prefer to see Hunchback of Notre Dame with all those subtle things removed so you'd be staring at the original artwork, or prefer to see it as it was intended?

You get me? I see where you're coming from, just sharing my own point of view -- that the original artwork is the film, not the parts of the film created to make the film.