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

[PrueFever]

I recived my 4K + Blu-ray copy this morning. And I'm pleased with the transfer. I'd say it's a mix between the Platinum Edition and the Diamond Edition color-wise. The yellow scenes always reminds me of the extreme yellow that dorminated the Platinum Edition. But thankfully this ain't that bad here.

One of the new bonus features had me cringe big-time. #Treasuresuntold (1080p, 5:40): Coop and Cami Ask the World actors Olivia Sanabia and Ruby Rose Turner reveal some little known facts about the movie. The way these two actors are behaving, while releaving these facts, are just..! URGH! SO over the top! It was just awful! I'm not going to see that one again, that's for sure!

Otherwise, I think this edition is great. My favorite of the new bonus features is the Alan Menken and the Leading Ladies one. That one was great!

Shame Disney didn't add the Image Galleries in HD on the Disc, like they did with the Diamond Edition Blu-ray of both Bambi and The Lion King.

[Geoff D]

All this talk of the cels not having grain as justification for the DNR is quite bizarre to me, I mean it's true in the most unyieldingly logical sense but real life doesn't have grain either - so are these same people saying that they would prefer every movie ever shot on film to have the grain removed so that it looks 'truer to source' as well?

If the DNR was spot-on and these animated shows ended up looking as perfectly crisp and clean and artefact-free as something like the CAPS-made Lion King (which as some people have hinted is probably Disney's ultimate intent) then I could grudgingly go along with that, but the smudged outlines in this new TLM remaster are proof that whatever Disney are doing still isn't able to properly separate the line art from the grain around it.

So, if they really want to turn these into ultra-crisp CAPS-style versions then they should digitally recomposite them from scratch using those grain-free original cels, which I wouldn't have a problem with - it's them trying to replicate that look by removing the grain inherent to the original capture medium that is the problem here, and always has been.

[jh901]

Originally Posted by WBMakeVMarsMovieNOW

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

Disney must be concerned with complaints from the ill informed. Surely they sell much greater volume to the masses than a typical live action release from Sony or Paramount, etc.

For whatever reason, I'm not as bothered by shortcomings with animated film transfers as I am with live action. That said, it's a shame that the "pro review" on this site isn't critical. It would also be cool if we could track down a contact at Disney who would hear out concerns.

[Falaskan]

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.

Perfect explanation. Thank you.

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

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.

I guess I’d rather see the original artwork as intended as clearly as possible, not get stuck with a grain overload from the 30s and 40s as was apparently pigeonholed into an “artistic” choice.

[Matt89]

So I watched this last night and have to agree with the criticism. They really scrubbed the grain out of this, and I found it especially noticeable during the scene where Ariel and Flounder meet Scuttle for the first time. That establishing shot I remembered having more grain on the Diamond Edition (I don’t have it anymore to directly compare). It still looks sharp, and the bubbles really pop off the screen, the colors are vibrant and the HDR grade really makes a difference here. But the grain. Ouch.

I remembered this being the most filmic of the Diamond Edition releases, but I don’t feel that way with the 4K. I still think it looks very good, but it doesn’t look as filmic as I expected it to.

And yes unfortunately Disney has now resorted to having bilingual-only packaging for their Canadian releases, which makes the covers and spine ugly and crowded when it says “THE LITTLE MERMAID / LA PETITE SIRÈNE”. So with that being said, anyone stateside who’s willing to shell out their slipcover, shoot me a PM. My OCD is getting the best of me on this one.

~Matt

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by Falaskan

I guess I’d rather see the original artwork as intended as clearly as possible, not get stuck with a grain overload from the 30s and 40s as was apparently pigeonholed into an “artistic” choice.

You think that crew of young punks in the 30's and 40's weren't down to the last bolt and nut on their films, which in many cases were WTF off-the-charts visual f/x extravaganzas of their time? You DID see the original artwork. It's the finished films.

[chad_1138]

Looks like my DMC copy arrived today. First time I've gotten a pre-order after release date.

[imsounoriginal]

Haven't seen this UHD yet and normally I'd be staunchly anti-DNR, but with what HDR can do to aggravate grain in certain cases, maybe some DNR is warranted on these animated titles?

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by Brian81

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.

Doesn't change what I said though.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

You think that crew of young punks in the 30's and 40's weren't down to the last bolt and nut on their films, which in many cases were WTF off-the-charts visual f/x extravaganzas of their time? You DID see the original artwork. It's the finished films.

It's not even a "grain overload" anyway, this stuff was laid down on fine-grained stock. It had to be, given how many of these classics were photographed with the Technicolour successive exposure system (basically it was the same as a three-strip negative but on a single reel of film, and I know you know that Ernest, I was telling them). I *think* TLM was a single-strand colour negative but even so, it was going to be a slow stock and not some ultra-fast grain-a-thon live action stock.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by imsounoriginal

Haven't seen this UHD yet and normally I'd be staunchly anti-DNR, but with what HDR can do to aggravate grain in certain cases, maybe some DNR is warranted on these animated titles?

sure I guess, but given that Disney have been DNR'ing the shit out of their stuff for like 25 years then I won't give them as much credit as 'HDR panic' being the thing that's making them do it now, complete with the same artefacts like smudged line art. The reasoning may have changed, it may not, but the execution is still flawed as f*ck.

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

It's not even a "grain overload" anyway, this stuff was laid down on fine-grained stock. It had to be, given how many of these classics were photographed with the Technicolour successive exposure system (basically it was the same as a three-strip negative but on a single reel of film, and I know you know that Ernest, I was telling them). I *think* TLM was a single-strand colour negative but even so, it was going to be a slow stock and not some ultra-fast grain-a-thon live action stock.

Considering 3-strip Technicolor was no longer used as a capture method by the end of the 1950s and Technicolor prints were phased out by the late 1970s, I'd be surprised if TLM wasn't a single strand Eastmancolor negative.

Looking at my Kodak book on animation production and the history of animation that was made in the 1970s, the film stocks they suggested for photography were pretty slow- ASA 100 at the high end. When you have complete control over lighting and a static image to expose, why not use a fine-grained slow stock to capture as much detail as possible?

[Geoff D]

That's a bingo. "Grain overload" is hyperbolic nonsense.

[Agent Kay]

Originally Posted by mysticwaterfall

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.

Shame their noise reduction looks like someone did it blindfold then set it on fire then

[Agent Kay]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

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

Did they go back and scan each cell then?
One by one?
Nah, then this argument seems like crap then.
It's a product of its time and it was made on 35mm film that's how it should look.
There was no grain in the air when they shot the godfather either, but since it was captured on film it looks like it has grain.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by singhcr

Considering 3-strip Technicolor was no longer used as a capture method by the end of the 1950s and Technicolor prints were phased out by the late 1970s, I'd be surprised if TLM wasn't a single strand Eastmancolor negative.

I believe TLM was, yes, but Disney were using their single-strip 'successive exposure' system (three B&W exposures on one strip of film, much easier to handle than actual three-strip separations) in-house well past the '50s AFAIK, and they still use it to archive stuff now, as per the discussion of studios still creating archival separation masters on film in the Alien thread: https://www.disneydigitalstudio.com/...or-the-future/

[edit] (In other words you don't need IB Tech prints to be able to make use of separation masters)

[anthonyls]

All of this talk is a bit of nonsense. The UHD image looks great. If you aren't happy, then don't buy it.

[jh901]

Originally Posted by anthonyls

All of this talk is a bit of nonsense. The UHD image looks great. If you aren't happy, then don't buy it.

Lord forbid any of us become more informed. Do you really need to stop by UHD threads to rationalize your purchase?

[Agent Kay]

Originally Posted by anthonyls

All of this talk is a bit of nonsense. The UHD image looks great. If you aren't happy, then don't buy it.

Don't buy it to find out if you like it but if you buy it you have to like it

[Ernest Rister]

When photography was completed, cells were thrown away, or washed -- even thrown on the ground and guys would skate around the floor on them. It's the end product -- the film -- that's the original artwork.