UHD Review International A Few Words About A few words about...™ - Picnic at Hanging Rock -- in 4k UHD (1 Viewer)

[B-ROLL]

Best to not knock 80 year-olds. They’re libel to become cranky. Merely suggesting to be careful. Especially when you don’t know the individual.

Also, Steven, George and I are approximately the same age. Just sayin’.

I only speak from personal experience being 62 myself ...

Hearing Loss: A Common Problem for Older Adults

Learn about the types of hearing loss in older adults, devices that can help, and tips for coping with hearing loss.

www.nia.nih.gov

 

[Robert Harris]

I only speak from personal experience being 62 myself ...

Hearing Loss: A Common Problem for Older Adults

Learn about the types of hearing loss in older adults, devices that can help, and tips for coping with hearing loss.

www.nia.nih.gov

You’re a kid!

 

[Michel_Hafner]

You’re a kid!

60 is the new 30.

 

[Robert Harris]

60 is the new 30.

Tell my joints

 

[Peter Neski]

This is a wonderful set!! It looks great, while the Criterion Blue Ray looked great too, this is an improvement because its 4k
and there's nothing wrong with it Those jumping out windows about grain, are plain crazy

 

[jayembee]

At any rate, I've got this UHD (the White Tie And Tails Edition) on order from Diabolik. Looking forward to it, especially having both cuts correctly presented. I have a Japanese laserdisc of the original theatrical edition, but it's presented in 1.33:1.

I ordered it directly from Second Sight, a few minutes after the listing went up, so it will be interesting to see who gets it first. I also ordered their TCM directly from the source, and it doesn't seem to have made it to this side of the pond yet.

I noticed that my USPS Informed Delivery has the shipment from Diabolik listed. Based on previous experience, I should have it in my hands by the end of the week.

 

[sbjork]

I noticed that my USPS Informed Delivery has the shipment from Diabolik listed. Based on previous experience, I should have it in my hands by the end of the week.

Looks like mine was just delivered today. TCM just arrived yesterday, so Hanging Rock definitely shipped far more quickly.

 

[cineMANIAC]

My copy is due tomorrow. It was shipped directly from SS via FedEx, which means it has to make a pit stop in Elvis' birthplace before backtracking to me in NY. I'm fairly confident I will enjoy this presentation but it's sad how many people seem to depend solely on screenshots and feedback from armchair reviewers when making purchasing decisions.

 

[Peter Neski]

There are still a few things only on their Pal DVD

 

[sbjork]

My copy is due tomorrow. It was shipped directly from SS via FedEx, which means it has to make a pit stop in Elvis' birthplace before backtracking to me in NY. I'm fairly confident I will enjoy this presentation but it's sad how many people seem to depend solely on screenshots and feedback from armchair reviewers when making purchasing decisions.

That's the funny part: Second Sight shipped TCM a few weeks ago via Royal Mail, and it just got here yesterday. They shipped Picnic last week via FedEx international, and I got it today. Royal Mail definitely still hasn't sorted their s**t out yet.

 

[titch]

That's the funny part: Second Sight shipped TCM a few weeks ago via Royal Mail, and it just got here yesterday. They shipped Picnic last week via FedEx international, and I got it today. Royal Mail definitely still hasn't sorted their s**t out yet.

Second Sight only offer Royal Mail for shipping to Europe. I'm still waiting for both titles.

 

[sbjork]

Second Sight only offer Royal Mail for shipping to Europe. I'm still waiting for both titles.

Handed over to the post office when it hit the States, but very much Royal Mail. And it sat in their facility for days before it finally showed any movement. Picnic went straight to FedEx international, and it zipped in and out of every station along the way.

 

[cineMANIAC]

That's the funny part: Second Sight shipped TCM a few weeks ago via Royal Mail, and it just got here yesterday. They shipped Picnic last week via FedEx international, and I got it today. Royal Mail definitely still hasn't sorted their s**t out yet.

How much time elapsed between shipping notification and receipt of FedEx package? I ask because mine was in the wind longer than I anticipated. It was also routed through France for some reason, where it sat for at least 3 days before dispatch. I just got an update from FedEx that it will arrive tomorrow instead of today. FedEx is usually lightning fast, especially international shipments so I'm not sure what happened here. Still, better than Royal Mail

 

[tenia]

it's sad how many people seem to depend solely on screenshots and feedback from armchair reviewers when making purchasing decisions.

I don't believe many people like to do what I did with Children of Paradise in 2012 : listening to people saying "you're crazy believing screenshots from those "armchair reviewers"" and paying 25€ only to find out the screenshots were perfectly representative of the discs (just like properly taken caps always are) and that the presentation was indeed FUBAR ("FUBAR" actually being an accurate description of what happened on this one).

As I wrote earlier, I have yet to see a DNRed-looking restoration that actually hasn't been DNRed, but I also have yet to see properly taken caps where the movie looks DNRed on them, but the disc is actually fine (which is logical because : "properly taken caps"). On Hanging Rock, remember that I actually watched the BDs (1), detected a digital tinkering (down to the regraining - which I think, at this moment, my review is the only one online to have noticed) confirmed by someone actively collaborating on the technical side of things with Second Sight (2), and who then confirmed with the label that the filterings have indeed be applied to such a noticeable level (3). Not too bad for an "armchair reviewer" (I still wonder what is the difference between an armchair reviewer and a non-armchair one; if anyone is able to clarify exactly what places you in the first or second category, please do).

Now, if you mean you believe you're likely to be fine with the level of tinkering displayed here : it's another matter. As somebody wrote on Blu-ray.com's board : "Plenty of people have praised DNR'd, sharpened and regrained Blu-rays/UHDs [...] so there's people who could still be floored by this UHD still even if they are aware of the DNR complaints." If that's your case : enjoy your purchase ! I scored the BD's PQ 7.5/10, so it's certainly not a disaster but it just clearly isn't as good as it should have been. I can totally understand people thinking "good enough for me". I just don't think "good enough" is how a 2022 4K restoration from a 35mm OCN should look, especially in the present case.

And then again, not being able to detect a digital filtering doesn't mean it's not there. It just means, well, that you're not able to detect it (and not being able to detect a distorsion that is there isn't making a feedback more useful but less). Which is fine as long as you're concerned, but becomes an issue for other people wanting to know beforehands what they might be putting £65 into (and possibly save this money if they don't think they'll be happy with it). I know I definitely wouldn't have put 25€ in Children of Paradise without those saying "you're crazy believing screenshots from those "armchair reviewers"", and I certainly don't want having again to pay just to confirm on my screen that yup, it really doesn't look that good and I could have saved those 25€.

THIS is what reviews / technical feedbacks (and properly taken caps) are for : provide an accurate and comprehensive feedback on the presentations, so that readers know what they'll have if they purchase it. Nothing more, but certainly nothing less.

What people then do with these these feedbacks depending on their individual satisfaction threshold is a completely different story.

 

[sbjork]

How much time elapsed between shipping notification and receipt of FedEx package? I ask because mine was in the wind longer than I anticipated. It was also routed through France for some reason, where it sat for at least 3 days before dispatch. I just got an update from FedEx that it will arrive tomorrow instead of today. FedEx is usually lightning fast, especially international shipments so I'm not sure what happened here. Still, better than Royal Mail

Got the first shipping notification for TCM on 4/3, and received it 4/24. Got the first notification for Picnic on 4/20, and received it on 4/25.

Now, there certainly could have been a variance in the time that it actually took Second Sight to get the items to each carrier, since the initial tracking information is sent out as soon as they notify the carrier, not when it is delivered or picked up. But based on Royal Mail's own tracking information, it sat at their initial facility for the better part of a week before they finally moseyed on to the next step.

 

[cineMANIAC]

I don't believe many people like to do what I did with Children of Paradise in 2012 : listening to people saying "you're crazy believing screenshots from those "armchair reviewers"" and paying 25€ only to find out the screenshots were perfectly representative of the discs (just like properly taken caps always are) and that the presentation was indeed FUBAR ("FUBAR" actually being an accurate description of what happened on this one).

As I wrote earlier, I have yet to see a DNRed-looking restoration that actually hasn't been DNRed, but I also have yet to see properly taken caps where the movie looks DNRed on them, but the disc is actually fine (which is logical because : "properly taken caps"). On Hanging Rock, remember that I actually watched the BDs (1), detected a digital tinkering (down to the regraining - which I think, at this moment, my review is the only one online to have noticed) confirmed by someone actively collaborating on the technical side of things with Second Sight (2), and who then confirmed with the label that the filterings have indeed be applied to such a noticeable level (3). Not too bad for an "armchair reviewer" (I still wonder what is the difference between an armchair reviewer and a non-armchair one; if anyone is able to clarify exactly what places you in the first or second category, please do).

Now, if you mean you believe you're likely to be fine with the level of tinkering displayed here : it's another matter. As somebody wrote on Blu-ray.com's board : "Plenty of people have praised DNR'd, sharpened and regrained Blu-rays/UHDs [...] so there's people who could still be floored by this UHD still even if they are aware of the DNR complaints." If that's your case : enjoy your purchase ! I scored the BD's PQ 7.5/10, so it's certainly not a disaster but it just clearly isn't as good as it should have been. I can totally understand people thinking "good enough for me". I just don't think "good enough" is how a 2022 4K restoration from a 35mm OCN should look, especially in the present case.

And then again, not being able to detect a digital filtering doesn't mean it's not there. It just means, well, that you're not able to detect it (and not being able to detect a distorsion that is there isn't making a feedback more useful but less). Which is fine as long as you're concerned, but becomes an issue for other people wanting to know beforehands what they might be putting £65 into (and possibly save this money if they don't think they'll be happy with it). I know I definitely wouldn't have put 25€ in Children of Paradise without those saying "you're crazy believing screenshots from those "armchair reviewers"", and I certainly don't want having again to pay just to confirm on my screen that yup, it really doesn't look that good and I could have saved those 25€.

THIS is what reviews / technical feedbacks (and properly taken caps) are for : provide an accurate and comprehensive feedback on the presentations, so that readers know what they'll have if they purchase it. Nothing more, but certainly nothing less.

What people then do with these these feedbacks depending on their individual satisfaction threshold is a completely different story.

I guess I consider myself lucky that I can't detect imperfections on film scans as plainly as other folks. I don't see that as a handicap, though (not that you called it that) - maybe I choose not to let things like poor encodes bother me much (again, this is something I'm not consciously aware of). I do know what DNR is and I am bothered by its overuse but thankfully many boutiques do know what they're doing so that's not a major issue. My philosophy is, if a Director comes in years later and tinkers with the film, what recourse do we as consumers have? Practically none. We are individuals, independent thinkers, so we can decide whether or not to make a purchase. I just don't understand the crusades people go on for things we have no control over. Weir is not going to go on message forums, become aghast with shame, order a recall and do a "consumer-demanded" makeover. And Second Sight isn't going to pass up an opportunity to work with a revered Director.

 

[tenia]

I guess I consider myself lucky that I can't detect imperfections on film scans as plainly as other folks.

In some ways, it can be argued that you are ! As a consumer, if you're fine with what you get, then it is fine. My issue is more with when people giving technical feedbacks have these limitations, because it means they're more likely not to give a comprehensive feedback, and that's a problem to people who might read them and think "OK then, I guess it's pretty good !" while actually, they just haven't been given a comprehensive feedback.

We are individuals, independent thinkers, so we can decide whether or not to make a purchase.

We can decide but based on what ? I might not want to buy a release using a new restoration that should be gorgeous but isn't because bad choices have been made at some point (no matter who did what). That's again what these feedbacks are for.

My philosophy is, if a Director comes in years later and tinkers with the film, what recourse do we as consumers have? Practically none. I just don't understand the crusades people go on for things we have no control over. Weir is not going to go on message forums, become aghast with shame, order a recall and do a "consumer-demanded" makeover. And Second Sight isn't going to pass up an opportunity to work with a revered Director.

There's no crusade, and there's nothing one can do except properly analysing the presentations and feedback the pros and cons so that potential buyers have a comprehensive idea of what they'll be buying.

And this informative possibility is actually already something. If it wasn't for years of some customers' / reviewers backlash against digital filtering, Second Sight wouldn't have been aware that the restoration being filtered might cause issues with some customers or some technically-minded reviewers (because they wouldn't think filtering is not good). That the industry has, overall, moved away from using these filters to this extent (exceptions like this one aside) is in itself a proof that it has a shifting power.

And while it is of course impossibly hard to tell a director "We think you shouldn't ask technicians to apply these for the restoration", this isn't "consumer-demanded" : this is film-demanded. This is, as RAH wrote a few posts ago, restoring instead of re-imagining, and there is plenty enough retrospect in this domain to not wonder why the new TCM release is getting praise but Hanging Rock is being scrutinized, or why the latest To Catch a Thief got a lot of (legitimate) complaints, and so on : because these are technically flawed, because of the choices made by those who restored it (or supervised the restoration).

So again, there's no crusade in saying "Be aware that while this new restoration offers a noticeable improvement in very fine details over the previous HD presentation, it also has been noticeably DNRed, and then got a noticeable pass of fake grain, and the result isn't as natural-looking as it should be", but only a factual observation. I would certainly prefer not to report the intrusive use of these filters (including because it'd make my review much more "retweeted by the label" compatible ! despite providing native HD caps, A/B comparisons with the Criterion disc and detailing for 1000 words the PQ, a simple C+P of the PR and a "sublime new restoration" probably would get more retweets, but that's how it is, and I perfectly understand how these works, so no harsh feelings there) (which is why I more often than not try to avoid reviewing BDs sourced from older masters - if I can only watch gorgeous restorations and write very positive reviews, everybody's happy), but it's there, so I'm merely reporting it.

If some think this result will satisfy them, then, perfect : be satisfied and enjoy this release ! But it doesn't change that the restoration has been relying filtered too much, and also doesn't change that we'll keep seeing this intrusive use of digital filterings (even if much less often than before) if nobody points this and how detrimental it can be (in the same way that nothing will move regarding what has been going on with a couple of laboratories' color-gradings for years now if nobody says anything about them).

Finally, there are reasons why some projects chose to "pass up an opportunity to work with a revered director" (or a DoP) (say, someone like Vittorio Storaro) instead of possibly ending up with a technically compromised restoration. And while I don't think these people have become "aghast with shame" because of this, I wouldn't be surprised that they simply learnt over time that such uses of these filters aren't good, simply as some kind of continuous improvement over how to best digitally restore a movie.

 

[JoshZ]

This is the curse of being a perfectionist, that what you consider "perfect" may not be what someone else considers perfect.

Just about every video release has some degree of filtering, because the scanning process can introduce additional noise that needs to be dealt with. The problem is when the filtering is excessive, to the point that it's noticeable to the viewer's eye.

You also need to consider that the filmmakers never intended you to see every particle of grain on the negative in crystal clarity. That's not the way these movies would have ever looked in 35mm projection. The dupe process for striking prints softened that grain. Filmmakers were fully aware of this and planned for it. The characteristics of the print stock were very much taken into account during the release.

A modern 4K UHD from a new scan can practically resolve every particle on the OCN down the molecular level. This is both a good and bad thing. Grain so sharp and so coarse that it feels like it's stabbing you in the eye is rarely what filmmakers wanted.

The question then becomes, how do you deal with that and attempt to replicate the slightly softer look of a 35mm release print without filtering too many details such that the processing is distracting?

Note that I have not seen the Hanging Rock UHD and have no opinion on it. As someone who takes plenty of screencaps for my own reviews, I can tell you that screencaps are definitely not always representative of what the disc looks like during playback - in both directions. There have been times where an image in motion looks better than a screencap implies. There have also been times where the image looks bad on my projection screen and I've had a lot of difficulty capturing the problem in a single screencap.

 

[Bryan^H]

So again, there's no crusade in saying "Be aware that while this new restoration offers a noticeable improvement in very fine details over the previous HD presentation, it also has been noticeably DNRed, and then got a noticeable pass of fake grain, and the result isn't as natural-looking as it should be", but only a factual observation. I would certainly prefer not to report the intrusive use of these filters (including because it'd make my review much more "retweeted by the label" compatible !), but it's there, so I'm merely reporting it.

.

On home video there are so many variables that are "red flags" to deter film enthusiasts from a purchase. Newly envisioned color timing, sound remixes that can stop a transfer in its tracks.

Everyone has their kryptonite when it comes to a release on home video all the way down to a horrible transfer lifeless, dull, and full of mistakes. It looks like DNR in the slightest can ruin your viewing, and more power to you. I loathe color timing that makes the film look unnatural ( brown, sepia push or even crushing black in film). Remember 'Bram Stokers Dracula'? Garbage.

Not every transfer on disc will please everyone. True story.

 

[tenia]

You're both talking about something else than me. I'm not talking about wanting something perfect. I'm talking about something not being obviously tampered with.

I don't know how a "perfect" restitution of Picnic at Hanging Rock would look like, but I know what one that isn't, like this one, would. Would a "perfect" restitution of Hanging Rock have a noticeable "DNRed then fake grained" look ? I'm quite certain it wouldn't. So here you go.

The same applies to the color gradings : I don't know what a perfectly color graded for, say, The Damned should look like, but I know the new color grading isn't it. I can't say what it's supposed to be, but I can say what it's not supposed to.

A modern 4K UHD from a new scan can practically resolve every particle on the OCN down the molecular level. This is both a good and bad thing. Grain so sharp and so coarse that it feels like it's stabbing you in the eye is rarely what filmmakers wanted. The question then becomes, how do you deal with that and attempt to replicate the slightly softer look of a 35mm release print without filtering too many details such that the processing is distracting?

That too is a different matter. As I wrote earlier, there are reasons why the new TCM isn't getting any flack and why Geoff D instantly contacted Second Sight when he saw the new Picnic at Hanging Rock resto, or why the latest Catch a Thief restoration got so much backlash (and so on). I believe we have plenty of retrospect on this to correlate those, but also conclude... proper 4K restos from the OCN are just good things, and are received (legitimately) as such.

If you want to replicate a softer look of a 35mm release without filtering or make the processing obvious : just use an intermediate element then. I know some prefers to do that in part because of this reasoning.
The previous HD master of Hanging Rock was produced from an IP, scanned on a Spirit DataCine, a combination that gives you a thicker harsher look (which one could see as "softer"), and it actually has a more natural-looking grain-field but should be much less finely detailed compared to the new restoration. But because of the filtering of the new restoration, it's pretty much neutered, so going your way, the question should be : why wanting to produce a softer look while actually looking to produce a more refined and detailed restoration, especially one that is going to be released on a more technically advanced format ?

I don't believe those are actually really compatible goals, but what I mean is that it's probably because it has never been the goal to produce a softer look. But in the end, you get this brand new restoration that only marginally improves upon the previous 10+ years old HD IP/DataCine master.

As someone who takes plenty of screencaps for my own reviews, I can tell you that screencaps are definitely not always representative of what the disc looks like during playback - in both directions.

I too have taken plenty of screencaps (my dedicated folder says more than 35 000 of them), but also have used properly taken caps plenty of time to try and assess whether a new release was worth my money, and as I (also) wrote earlier, I have yet to see cases where the disc feel different to me in motion than the screencaps I saw of it. Even on a case like the BFI Robbe-Grillet set, where David Mackenzie applied a spatial low-pass filter to hide the CRT noise baked-in the masters, one might feel like the picture is softer but it isn't : it's the US one that is overly and artificially agressive, and you can spot that straight on screencaps and not be mistaken.

There have also been times where the image looks bad on my projection screen and I've had a lot of difficulty capturing the problem in a single screencap.

This is an issue I can relate more, though in many cases, I found that capturing a series of consecutive frames was enough to give a sense of the issue (flickering, color pulsations, poor compression, you name it). And if I still can't, I try my best to describe it textually, even if it's casually with my own words. I found that my readers are most of time able with those to get the sense of what I felt.

It looks like DNR in the slightest can ruin your viewing, and more power to you.

Assessing a transfer means looking at EVERYTHING you mentioned. It's a whole and things like DNR are a part of it. I don't look at it thinking "DNR in the slightest might ruin my viewing" but "is there any DNR visible ? If so, there's already too much of it since I can spot of it, but then, how intrusive is it ?"
Is there some on Hanging Rock ? Yes, and it's been confirmed.
Is it intrusive ? Geoff D on Blu-ray.com detailed why it has a noticeable impact on the movie's picture.
Is it really that intrusive ? Well, it got to the point the picture required a pass of fake grain to give it back some texture, so I'd argue it was pretty intrusive since the lab who did the restoration had to resort to that.

And that's really all there is to it.

Again, if people are fine with this overall result, all the best to them, but that's not what my review is for : my review is for detailing what is on the disc. And there's DNR and there's fake grain, so I simply reported it.