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

[Bryan^H]

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 a wrong one would. This is a wrong one.

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

I never expect perfection on a disc but when it happens (very rarely) It is really something. I hope the DNR doesn't lessen my enjoyment of this wonderful film. And the only thing I can tell you is thank your lucky stars for the Criterion BD which is very nice. Very filmic.

 

[tenia]

Comparing to the older Criterion disc makes me feel like it's actually not that bad, despite all its limitations. I however don't like its grading a lot, in particular the daylight exterior shots, that just look like your typical older HD master with an overly-neutralised white balance. I can't say if it's more or less faithful to the original intentions than the new color grading, but I'm quite certain it has its share of digital manipulations of its time too.

(I also had the older Second Sight disc, which I thought I had already given away but had actually kept for its extras absent from the Criterion release - and have now given away after keeping a version of the extras on my HDD)

 

[JoshZ]

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.

If you hadn't been told some of the grain was fake, how would you have determined that?

 

[tenia]

If you hadn't been told some of the grain was fake, how would you have determined that?

I published my review on April 17th, Geoff D confirmed my findings about the DNR after my review was relayed on Blu-ray.com's board (within the next 12 hours), but it only was 5 days later that he precised things about the layer of fake grain.

So I wasn't told the grain was fake. The grain field wasn't natural-looking so I figured out it most likely simply was because it was artificial (as it turned out to be). There's no magic here, just A-->B deduction. When Geoff writes it's "the most visibly “processed” transfer I’ve encountered in a while", that's because it has a visual effect on how the restoration looks, and if it has, then it can be noticed.

That's why I disagree with takes like "with digital, it's hard to guess what's what" : it's actually not at all (I'd argue it's actually the opposite, and that pattern analysis works perfectly), and such a case offers a demonstration of it. Otherwise, I wouldn't have been able to figure out what happened on Hanging Rock's restoration.

 

[Robert Harris]

I published my review on April 17th, Geoff D confirmed my findings about the DNR after my review was relayed on Blu-ray.com's board (within the next 12 hours), but it only was 5 days later that he precised things about the layer of fake grain.

So I wasn't told the grain was fake. The grain field wasn't natural-looking so I figured out it most likely simply was because it was artificial (as it turned out to be). There's no magic here, just A-->B deduction. When Geoff writes it's "the most visibly “processed” transfer I’ve encountered in a while", that's because it has a visual effect on how the restoration looks, and if it has, then it can be noticed.

That's why I disagree with takes like "with digital, it's hard to guess what's what" : it's actually not at all (I'd argue it's actually the opposite, and that pattern analysis works perfectly), and such a case offers a demonstration of it.

We will agree to disagree. I presume you've seen My Fair Lady. Can you tell me where the image processing is seen?

 

[tenia]

I have, on BD and quite some time ago, but this isn't a 4K restoration from a 4K scan of a 35mm OCN, but (if I recall correctly) a 4K restoration from a 8K scan of a 65mm OCN (mostly). This alone places this restoration in a different workflow, and as such, of course it doesn't look like, say, Texas Chainsaw Massacre or Dawn of the Dead (to remain within Second Sight releases).

I have quite a very positive memory of its technical merits (though I seem to recall an interior shot feeling oh so slightly artificially sharpened, but that might be my memory tricking me), but it's not a very detailed one anymore.

However, if your point is "it has been slightly filtered and you didn't detect it" : it might simply has been to such a light level that I won't be able to detect it. Which means it's fine, because it's been kept to such a low level that it's not intrusive, and thus not an issue. Which cycles back to what I wrote at the beginning : if it doesn't look filtered, then it's fine, but if it does, then it most certainly has been filtered too much.

But if your point was instead "you can't have this systemic approach", My Fair Lady doesn't look like a 4K restoration from a 4K scan of a 35mm OCN, which is logical since it isn't, so applying here this systemic approach still works.

 

[Robert Harris]

I have, on BD and quite some time ago, but this isn't a 4K restoration from a 4K scan of a 35mm OCN, but (if I recall correctly) a 4K restoration from a 8K scan of a 65mm OCN (mostly). This alone places this restoration in a different workflow, and as such, of course it doesn't look like, say, Texas Chainsaw Massacre or Dawn of the Dead (to remain within Second Sight releases).

I have quite a very positive memory of its technical merits (though I seem to recall an interior shot feeling oh so slightly artificially sharpened, but that might be my memory tricking me), but it's not a very detailed one anymore.

However, if your point is "it has been slightly filtered and you didn't detect it" : it might simply has been to such a light level that I won't be able to detect it. Which means it's fine, because it's been kept to such a low level that it's not intrusive, and thus not an issue. Which cycles back to what I wrote at the beginning : if it doesn't look filtered, then it's fine, but if it does, then it most certainly has been filtered too much.

But if your point was instead "you can't have this systemic approach", My Fair Lady doesn't look like a 4K restoration from a 4K scan of a 35mm OCN, which is logical since it isn't, so applying here this systemic approach still works.

Precisely. I invite you to peruse the 4k and tell us what your eyes tell you.

 

[tenia]

Precisely what ? You quoted my whole post ! Is it :
* trying to find on My Fair Lady shots that have been (even slightly) filtered ?
* that your point was that it has been slightly filtered and I didn't detect it ?
* or that it was that a systemic approach can't work on My Fair Lady ?

I'm not 4k equipped so won't be able anyway to look at the UHD version of it. However, I seem to recall the BD version uses the same digital restoration anyway, so I should be able to find what's what anyway (except, again - and again and again - if it's been done carefully enough).

 

[Mark-P]

Honestly, I don‘t think someone who has only seen the Second Sight 2K Blu-ray, can make judgments about the 4K UHD Blu-ray, but that’s just me.

 

[tenia]

Which is perfect since I never made judgments on the UHD, but on the restoration itself (based on what I saw on the BDs).

However, since the processing detectable even in 1080p is indeed baked-in in the restoration, don't hesitate to come back to me if the UHDs offer something different.

I mean : if the most upstream presentation (the restoration itself) has been confirmed to be processed and the most downstream one (the BDs) actually looks processed in a way allowing to figure out it's baked-in the restoration, it's again just A-->B deductions as to what the format in between those two (the UHD discs) is likely to offer. In any case, Geoff seemingly saw the UHDs and they are what prompted him to go back to Second Sight to enquiry about the processed look, so there's no need for any guess.

 

[Jonno F]

Did anyone else have issues with the step-printed slo-mo sequences (e.g. the pan across the picnic party at the close of the film)? They were uncomfortably juddery on my projector - don't recall them being so hard to watch before.

 

[Robert Harris]

Which is perfect since I never made judgments on the UHD, but on the restoration itself (based on what I saw on the BDs).

However, since the processing detectable even in 1080p is indeed baked-in in the restoration, don't hesitate to come back to me if the UHDs offer something different.

I mean : if the most upstream presentation (the restoration itself) has been confirmed to be processed and the most downstream one (the BDs) actually looks processed in a way allowing to figure out it's baked-in the restoration, it's again just A-->B deductions as to what the format in between those two (the UHD discs) is likely to offer.

There are occasions via which those perusing the fully digital representations of cinema sometimes get caught up in the minutia. In trying to gaze behind the digital curtain, instead of assessing the final resultant image in a normal manner - ie from a certain distance.

To do so, can sometimes lead others astray, in causing them to step away from viewing a disc or adding it to a library.

This discussion has been primarily about what the masses reference as DNR, which actually encompasses a myriad of digital functions.

The opposite is sharpening. When the original grain structure of an image is heightened far beyond what would have been seen on screen.

Perfect examples are several of the b/w UA productions previously released by Criterion on 2k Blu-ray.

View too close to the screen and these begin to appear as swarms of mosquitos, representing something that never existed, and only exists now due to scanning a camera element, changing polarity, and sharpening.

Get far enough away from these oddities, and all can be well.

Point being, there’s a sweet spot to be found in attempting to convert film to digital. Every image is processed, but it’s the way that processing is achieved (regardless where in the digital pipeline) that controls that final result - which in a general sense should be the replication of a film print as seen from a nominal seating distance.

The “how” of that image getting to that point should be irrelevant.

Having compared the Criterion 2k to the new 4k of this particular title under discussion, offered two slightly different views of the same subject - each with its own specific attributes, and each fully enjoyable on its own.

From a position of which I would put on screen to acquaint someone to the film for the first time - I’d go with the 4k, fully understanding that in the world of post, certain functions were taken to achieve the desired imagery by the filmmakers.

We are not seeing film, only a miraculously created representation of it, derived from a tiny spinning disc read by a laser, and post-processed by all of the hard and software that lives between pits on a disc and pixels on a screen.

I can hear Mr. Crawford saying (and I’m in agreement with him) “looks fine to me on my OLED!”

 

[tenia]

Point being, there’s a sweet spot to be found in attempting to convert film to digital. Every image is processed, but it’s the way that processing is achieved (regardless where in the digital pipeline) that controls that final result - which in a general sense should be the replication of a film print as seen from a nominal seating distance.

The “how” of that image getting to that point should be irrelevant.

I understand and agree with that : to some extent, a digital restoration isn't "the film", but a mere digital conversion of it.

But all these considerations don't change the fact that there are restorations better than others, because all other things equal, some restorations have been made through better technical choices than others.

Sadly, even in 2023, digital tools can still be used in a too intensive way, and that's what generates discussions like this one and why the "how" these restorations have been obtained unfortunately still is relevant. In an ideal world, it wouldn't be anymore, we wouldn't have this conversion, because nobody would have digitally filtered Hanging Rock. But we're not in an ideal world.

One can wrap the situation anyway one wants, it won't change that simple fact : not all restorations are as good as each other because of choices made at the restoration level.

Within the past few weeks, I saw Kamikaze Hearts, The Sword and the Sorcerer, Married to the Mob, Freud, F for Fake, Full Circle, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The Shiver of the Vampires, Arrebato, Casino de Paris, Trois jours à vivre, Slaughterhouse-Five, Two Orphan Vampires and Queen of Diamonds (that last one is absolutely stunning) : none of those exhibits signs of intrusive filterings, and as such, all of those look like more careful restorations than Hanging Rock's.

Did any of these tried to replicate "a film print as seen from a nominal seating distance" ? I have no idea, though I don't really think so, but in any case, they're not the outliers : Hanging Rock is, and not in a good way. It isn't more complicated than that : a whole bunch of restorations not looking filtered on one side, one that is looking very filtered on the other. (Full Circle being an interesting example to compare to Hanging Rock).


As for the Criterion BDs of B&W UA movies, I'm not sure which movies you're talking about exactly so it's hard to try and visualise what you mean, but several of those movies were released on BD through restorations that simply have poorly aged (partly because these scans done on Spirit DataCine really aren't ageing well, even 4K ones like Anatomy of a Murder, but also indeed because there was a higher reliance on stronger levels of digital tinkering than nowadays) and the new 4K masters are simply more recent and better restorations.

If that's not what you're talking about but are talking about the same restorations having been released on both formats, then, I'm all the more curious to know which movies you're talking about !

 

[ghostwind]

Sounds like a Godfather 50th anniversary application here, but it's being defended. More neutral white balance, grain removal, grain replacement, etc. I didn't like the Godfather reimagination, and I don't like what I'm seeing here. Both directors "signed off", but that doesn't mean much anymore.

 

[Robert Harris]

I understand and agree with that : to some extent, a digital restoration isn't "the film", but a mere digital conversion of it.

But all these considerations don't change the fact that there are restorations better than others, because all other things equal, some restorations have been made through better technical choices than others.

Sadly, even in 2023, digital tools can still be used in a too intensive way, and that's what generates discussions like this one and why the "how" these restorations have been obtained unfortunately still is relevant. In an ideal world, it wouldn't be anymore, we wouldn't have this conversion, because nobody would have digitally filtered Hanging Rock. But we're not in an ideal world.

One can wrap the situation anyway one wants, it won't change that simple fact : not all restorations are as good as each other because of choices made at the restoration level.

Within the past few weeks, I saw Kamikaze Hearts, The Sword and the Sorcerer, Married to the Mob, Freud, F for Fake, Full Circle, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The Shiver of the Vampires, Arrebato, Casino de Paris, Trois jours à vivre, Slaughterhouse-Five, Two Orphan Vampires and Queen of Diamonds (that last one is absolutely stunning) : none of those exhibits signs of intrusive filterings, and as such, all of those look like more careful restorations than Hanging Rock's.

Did any of these tried to replicate "a film print as seen from a nominal seating distance" ? I have no idea, though I don't really think so, but in any case, they're not the outliers : Hanging Rock is, and not in a good way. It isn't more complicated than that : a whole bunch of restorations not looking filtered on one side, one that is looking very filtered on the other. (Full Circle being an interesting example to compare to Hanging Rock).


As for the Criterion BDs of B&W UA movies, I'm not sure which movies you're talking about exactly so it's hard to try and visualise what you mean, but several of those movies were released on BD through restorations that simply have poorly aged (partly because these scans done on Spirit DataCine really aren't ageing well, even 4K ones like Anatomy of a Murder, but also indeed because there was a higher reliance on stronger levels of digital tinkering than nowadays) and the new 4K masters are simply more recent and better restorations.

If that's not what you're talking about but are talking about the same restorations having been released on both formats, then, I'm all the more curious to know which movies you're talking about !

I’m referencing Some Like it Hot, 12 Angry Men et al. Same base scans as Criterion, with the Criterion final 2k result being more film-like.

 

[tenia]

I’m referencing Some Like it Hot, 12 Angry Men et al. Same base scans as Criterion, with the Criterion final 2k result being more film-like.

Interesting, thanks for the precision.
There also are detailed feedbacks on 12 Angry Men's UHD stating it has heavily filtered audio, so if the PQ is less filmic than a 12 years old BD, that's quite a disappointing combo.

 

[titch]

I’m referencing Some Like it Hot, 12 Angry Men et al. Same base scans as Criterion, with the Criterion final 2k result being more film-like.

Ah yes, but I take it, you mean more "film-like" as being more like the original theatrical experience? (Which I never had the pleasure to experience). But in my former days, as a photographer for a local newspaper, I always ensured that grain was sharp, when I developed the films and exposed the negative to the photographic paper. And this also to applied to high speed stock, or if I underexposed the negative. If it was on the original negative, I personally prefer to see grain from the negative projected on to a screen, than have the grain removed, either by not focussing sharply, or by digital means.

 

[Robert Harris]

Ah yes, but I take it, you mean more "film-like" as being more like the original theatrical experience? (Which I never had the pleasure to experience). But in my former days, as a photographer for a local newspaper, I always ensured that grain was sharp, when I developed the films and exposed the negative to the photographic paper. And this also to applied to high speed stock, or if I underexposed the negative. If it was on the original negative, I personally prefer to see grain from the negative projected on to a screen, than have the grain removed, either by not focussing sharply, or by digital means.

If one were to get into a discussion of paper prints vs cinema prints, they’re different animals any number of reasons.

Photographic paper does not affect negative grain.

Motion picture print stock, while is does have a grain structure, is extremely fine and tends to soften the negative grain.

Run that print through a projector, with bob & weave, an optical setup and potential alignment issues, and you lose a great deal of resolution.

Sooo…

Scan a b/w negative at 4k, sharpen the data and run said data on a flat panel, and what do you get?

A sharpened representation of the negative as never meant to be seen.

 

[cineMANIAC]

My copy is in-hand and I spot-checked the disc last night. In a word: breathtaking. I braced for cringe based on reports here and other forums and what I got instead was a picture so beautiful my jaw dropped to the floor. One scene in particular really blew my mind: the two young blokes (sorry, gentlemen) sitting under a shed bathed in a late afternoon sun, chatting. The shadows in this scene were so lifelike it was like looking through a window. If this is a DNR disaster, I want more of it!

I look forward to revisiting the film again in the near future. Thank goodness I'm not easily swayed by message board outrage.

 

[Bryan^H]

Thank goodness I'm not easily swayed by message board outrage.

Exactly why I don't visit that other site, which is ruled with an iron fist by king Geoff, and his frenzied disciples.