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

[that1guystudios]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

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)

They used successive exposure all the way up through to Mermaid - then moved onto CAPS with Rescuers Down Under forward.

[KubrickKurasawa]

The audio is very nicely cleaned up in this one, and there is a lot of nice echoing underwater going on for the cast/voice acting (villains and heroes/and singy parts) which comes through better than before. This audio is crystal clear and the WCG and added sharpness helps to revive this oldie.

[that1guystudios]

Originally Posted by kristoffer

How in the hell can this get a score of 5(!) when it looks DNRed to shit!?

http://doblu.com/2019/02/28/the-litt...4k-uhd-review/

This film is not DNR'd the way you describe.

The definition of DNR'd to [expletive used above] can be found here:

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/scree...743&position=1

[Hardback247]

Originally Posted by that1guystudios

This film is not DNR'd the way you describe.

The definition of DNR'd to [expletive] can be found here:

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/scree...743&position=1

At least in The Little Mermaid's case, the detail is still there amidst the reduction of grain.

[that1guystudios]

Here is a little background on the simultaneous 2013 4K restoration + 3D-conversion process for Mermaid:
(Hopefully will answer some questions as to why certain shots in the 4K version appear to have DNR-like cleanup performed.)

The original film was scanned in 4K from the original successive exposure negative and re-combined in the digital realm.

Artists digitally rotoscoped the Character animation and cut it away from the original backgrounds for each individual shot. The original backgrounds were then separately cleaned/rotoscoped using different techniques such as freeze/hold, multi-frame compositing and Digital noise reduction depending on the shot's properties to present a solid, non-wavering background without additional added noise or grain and to retain as much picture information contained behind the character animation as possible to aid the 3D conversion artists on the backend.

This clean up work on both the character animation and background art was performed in 4K and the layers were flattened/recombined for use as the basis of this 2D 4K presentation/restoration. The character animation (cel animation) which is typically always in motion had significantly less noise reduction applied and therefore retains more grain while in motion then the often static backgrounds. (You may notice that moving backgrounds with rippling water effects typically have less noise reduction then the static ones.)

Opticals such as titles and crossfades were re-composited and/or recreated digitally. (This explains how some errors and changes occured on the Diamond edition.)

These separated animation/background elements were then sent to the 3D artists as separate elements to aid in the 3D conversion process.

There used to be a very informative article posted online by Disney on the 3D creation/restoration of this film but It appears it has been taken down.

I was able to locate the article online for Beauty and the Beast's 3D conversion which is also a very interesting read, but the process was totally different due to the CAPS files being available.

https://disney-animation.s3.amazonaw...Conversion.pdf

I hope this information was helpful. If you have additional questions on changes made to some of the Disney films, their aspect ratios and sound mixes, check out this megathread/sticky.

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=91650

[bradnoyes]

I'm hesitant to push too hard since I'm so unfamiliar with the history of Little Mermaid releases, but if you're a fan I would take some of the criticism here with a grain of salt. I don't even care much for the movie but I really enjoyed this disc thanks to the excellent use of HDR and (especially) the wonderful audio. There is still a fine layer of grain throughout so this isn't quite a complete DNR nuke job.

[andreasy969]

https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?d1=12869&d2=12868&c=5040


I'd like to add that I don't hate it. But I do understand the people that do.

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by andreasy969

https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?d1=12869&d2=12868&c=5040

I'd like to add that I don't hate it. But I do understand the people that do.

Caps looks great, but the disc in motion looks great, too. Much better than the Diamond Edition in every way (no one's mentioned it has the correct framing now since people are too hung up on DNR - even though the Diamond Edition also had DNR, but the detail is much crisper in the new version).

[Agent Kay]

Originally Posted by that1guystudios

This film is not DNR'd the way you describe.

The definition of DNR'd to [expletive used above] can be found here:

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/scree...743&position=1

It looks terrible in motion it smears like a motherflounder, The Sword in the Stone is a whole other level tho.

[andreasy969]

Originally Posted by Agent Kay

It looks terrible in motion it smears like a motherflounder, The Sword in the Stone is a whole other level tho.

Do you even actually own the disc?

[Agent Kay]

Originally Posted by andreasy969

Do you even actually own the disc?

Not after I wached it no, I flipped that crap to a friend at a loss

[andreasy969]

Originally Posted by Agent Kay

Not after I wached it no, I flipped that crap to a friend at a loss

Where did you get it from that fast?

[Agent Kay]

Originally Posted by andreasy969

Where did you get it from that fast?

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/THE-LITTL...AAAOSw5r1cTgWE

Ordered late Jan-ish

[andreasy969]

Originally Posted by Agent Kay

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/THE-LITTL...AAAOSw5r1cTgWE

Ordered late Jan-ish

OK, I'll believe you then (I obviously didn't before though as you could probably tell).

[Agent Kay]

Originally Posted by andreasy969

OK, I'll believe you then (I obviously didn't before though as you could probably tell).

Yep, I got that feeling.

[andreasy969]

Originally Posted by Agent Kay

Yep, I got that feeling.

At least we're both being honest.

[Agent Kay]

Originally Posted by that1guystudios

Just one shot. Rainbow shot at the end of the film.
As seen below:

Thats the bit

[Hardback247]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

Caps looks great, but the disc in motion looks great, too. Much better than the Diamond Edition in every way (no one's mentioned it has the correct framing now since people are too hung up on DNR - even though the Diamond Edition also had DNR, but the detail is much crisper in the new version).

How do you know the framing is correct now?

[Lope de Aguirre]

Hmm judging by that comparison I prefer the Diamond Edition Blu-ray.

I will keep informing myself of the pros and cons of this new UHD release...

[that1guystudios]

Originally Posted by Hardback247

How do you know the framing is correct now?

I'm not saying the new version is "More correct" - but a couple of things to note: several comparison shots show focus objects being closer to center. There is slightly more headroom, quite a bit more image on the right is being revealed without major losses on the left or bottom of the frame - so in all we are seeing slightly more of the image than before on the previous disc. The film was animated with a negative at 1.66:1 and protected for 1.85:1 presentation theatrically. 1.78:1 presentations have always been a compromise between the two ratios.