UHD Review A Few Words About A few words about...™ - The Night of the Hunter -- in 4k UHD (1 Viewer)

[moviefanatic1979]

I don’t love grain. I love movies.
I hate the scrubbing of grain to the point where people look waxy.

I watched TNOTH twice in a cinema in Oslo ca. 2003.
I don’t remember the film format, but it was not in 2.35:1 and it looked fantastic.
I can’t remember how it sounded, but I had no complaints.
I remember a young woman in the audience (after the second showing) saying she didn’t see the greatness of the movie.
I say it’s a loss for her.

Watching the Criterion Blu-ray yesterday I must say that it looked perfect.
It looked like film and the AR is just right.
It was the 4th or 5th time watching it and I still cried during the closing scene.

It‘s one of the most gorgeous US movies ever made.
An american original unlike no other movie in the world.
One of Robert Mitchums best performances.

It’s a movie which exemplifies what I love about movies:
-Not realistic (partly like a fairy tale)
-Top notch cinematography
-Superb dialogue
-The duality in christianity used for evil means vs christianity for the good.
-Wonderful sound design + music.

The performance of the little girl could‘ve been better, but it doesn’t bother me.

I like shoddy movies too. Laughable pictures with barely capable performances.

Movies is a rich art form and we‘re blessed to have the HD home video revolution of the last 25 or so years.

 

[Robert Harris]

Isolated score track? I hope they're being honest about it because there is no music-only track that I nor anyone I know are aware of. And believe me, we'd be aware of it.

It may be an M & E.

 

[lark144]

I‘m thinking more of 80s movies. Aside from Ghostbusters, I remember Blue Thunder, Platoon, Predator and Aliens as all being very grainy in 70mm, but not in standard 35.

Yes, Aliens in 70mm blow-up was much grainer than in 35mm. Also Days of Heaven. Those two played at the theater I managed, so I saw them over a period of months, and later ran the 35mm prints when the 70mm was no longer useable, so I was able to compare. I also recall the 70mm blow-up of Doctor Zhivago being grainer and slightly softer than the 35mm, because I first saw it in 70mm, thought it looked great, and then later saw it in 35mm at neighborhood theaters and was surprised how much more beautiful and sharp and fine-grained it was. But that was so long ago, I'm not sure whether my memory is accurate. And of course, the 70mm blow-up of Gone With the Wind was a disaster.

 

[Gerani53]

For what it's worth, Steven Spielberg hates grain, since it reminds you the experience you're watching isn't real, just an imitation of reality, and it takes you right out of the picture. Yes, one needs grain for detail... but common sense tells us that the less grain you actually see, the more realistic and psychologically involving the filmed experience is. Wanting to see grain just for the love of heavy grain was probably a knee-jerk reaction to some old video transfers that were indeed de-grained to the point of looking "waxy." Fair enough. But typically, people seem to jump from one extreme to the other, ignoring the fact that the actual truth lies somewhere in between. Yes, grain is indeed good... but the best kind of grain provides a clearer picture image without calling attention to itself. And additional grain created by "we're pushing things to the max" 4K is completely bogus, as it does not accurately reflect the movie's true visual look, and should be called out by responsible critics.

 

[bobclampett]

I think it’s sharpened. Film never looked like this.

Aspect ratio has no affect.

And no, a good projectionist, especially with binoculars, has no problem focusing. Been there. Done that.

If only a portion (1.85 to 1) of the 35mm image area is projected on a wider and larger screen, then I would think this enlarged image would increase the perception of grain in much the same way as seating distance has an effect. When theaters converted to widescreen in the 1950’s they typically installed wider screens to the limits of the proscenium and in some cases destroyed the original proscenium opening to project a larger widescreen image. I’m sure the projectionists of the Fox were pros and his quote was only made to highlight the size of the theatre, 4651 seats, and if a patron in the theatre was in the back rows of the balcony, that screen looked mighty small. If one hits the zoom button on the TV or Projector while watching a 1.37 to 1 aspect ratio movie, blowing it up to fit a 16 x 9 screen, grain or any defects will become more apparent. In a convoluted way I’m restating what you‘ve already pointed out numerous times, that seating distance affects one’s perception of grain.

 

[tatifan]

Thanks (regarding my comment about the isolated musical, score). That makes sense, and I understood that’s what they were offering, I just worded it incorrectly.

 

[Kyle_D]

For what it's worth, Steven Spielberg hates grain, since it reminds you the experience you're watching isn't real, just an imitation of reality, and it takes you right out of the picture.

Um...Spielberg does not hate grain. See, e.g., Minority Report.

 

[mskaye]

For what it's worth, Steven Spielberg hates grain, since it reminds you the experience you're watching isn't real, just an imitation of reality, and it takes you right out of the picture. Yes, one needs grain for detail... but common sense tells us that the less grain you actually see, the more realistic and psychologically involving the filmed experience is. Wanting to see grain just for the love of heavy grain was probably a knee-jerk reaction to some old video transfers that were indeed de-grained to the point of looking "waxy." Fair enough. But typically, people seem to jump from one extreme to the other, ignoring the fact that the actual truth lies somewhere in between. Yes, grain is indeed good... but the best kind of grain provides a clearer picture image without calling attention to itself. And additional grain created by "we're pushing things to the max" 4K is completely bogus, as it does not accurately reflect the movie's true visual look, and should be called out by responsible critics.

Can you link to the source where Spielberg says that ?

 

[Keith Cobby]

I've always been surprised that not more films were shot in large format, particularly those that were expected to do well (eg Indiana Jones, Star Wars etc) and had large budgets. I doubt anyone could have anticipated 4k home video and the amount of of scrutiny images would now have, but there is disappointment with many 4k discs and the application of DNR.

 

[Robert Harris]

Yes, Aliens in 70mm blow-up was much grainer than in 35mm. Also Days of Heaven. Those two played at the theater I managed, so I saw them over a period of months, and later ran the 35mm prints when the 70mm was no longer useable, so I was able to compare. I also recall the 70mm blow-up of Doctor Zhivago being grainer and slightly softer than the 35mm, because I first saw it in 70mm, thought it looked great, and then later saw it in 35mm at neighborhood theaters and was surprised how much more beautiful and sharp and fine-grained it was. But that was so long ago, I'm not sure whether my memory is accurate. And of course, the 70mm blow-up of Gone With the Wind was a disaster.

If only a portion (1.85 to 1) of the 35mm image area is projected on a wider and larger screen, then I would think this enlarged image would increase the perception of grain in much the same way as seating distance has an effect. When theaters converted to widescreen in the 1950’s they typically installed wider screens to the limits of the proscenium and in some cases destroyed the original proscenium opening to project a larger widescreen image. I’m sure the projectionists of the Fox were pros and his quote was only made to highlight the size of the theatre, 4651 seats, and if a patron in the theatre was in the back rows of the balcony, that screen looked mighty small. If one hits the zoom button on the TV or Projector while watching a 1.37 to 1 aspect ratio movie, blowing it up to fit a 16 x 9 screen, grain or any defects will become more apparent. In a convoluted way I’m restating what you‘ve already pointed out numerous times, that seating distance affects one’s perception of grain.

Please keep in mind that in a theater, you're viewing a print, which has lost probably a third of it's resolution.

In this situation, you're viewing a negative at 4k, with no shutter, no bob & weave, no misalignment, or optical anomalies, and thanks to the member who contacted me, a superbly crafted scan.

Huge difference.

 

[Robert Harris]

I've always been surprised that not more films were shot in large format, particularly those that were expected to do well (eg Indiana Jones, Star Wars etc) and had large budgets. I doubt anyone could have anticipated 4k home video and the amount of of scrutiny images would now have, but there is disappointment with many 4k discs and the application of DNR.

Size, weight and overall maneuverability of the cameras, extra lights, make-up, production design, raw stock, reduction dials and misc lab expenses.

 

[titch]

For what it's worth, Steven Spielberg hates grain, since it reminds you the experience you're watching isn't real, just an imitation of reality, and it takes you right out of the picture.

This is complete rubbish. For those of us, who been purchasing blu-rays long enough to remember how awful Universal's initial blu-rays were, Stephen Spielberg was the first director to insist that his films were not subjected to any digital noise reduction, which was rampant on catalog releases.

And Spielberg most certainly does not hate film grain - quote taken from the link below: "Then we shot some of the scenes on 800 ASA film stock, which creates a kind of graininess that makes it feel more like old film noir".

‘Minority Report’: Steven Spielberg’s Proof that You Don’t Need to Sacrifice Substance to Produce Spectacle • Cinephilia & Beyond

Photographed by Sean M. Casey, David James © Twentieth Century Fox, DreamWorks By Sven Mikulec The beginning of Minority Report, Steven Spielberg’s thrilling sci-fi noir from 2002, is closely connected to another science fiction classic: Total Recall. The film was optioned all the way back in...

cinephiliabeyond.org

 

[jim_falconer]

As far as contemporary home video I have seen releases that clearly have too much grain where they shouldn't and none where they should.

Original pressing of Rio Bravo raises its hand for the first example, and The Longest Day raises its hand for the second example. Luckily they’ve corrected Rio Bravo.

 

[JoshZ]

Size, weight and overall maneuverability of the cameras, extra lights, make-up, production design, raw stock, reduction dials and misc lab expenses.

Not to mention that the 70mm prints were larger and heavier than 35mm prints, and thus incurred extra cost to ship them to theaters.

The theaters themselves of course would then need to install 70mm projectors, and how many of them were willing to shell out for that?

 

[Gerani53]

Can you link to the source where Spielberg says that ?

I believe it was in connection to DUEL; it might be in one of the "making of" extras. I think they were discussing the film's expansion from TV film to theatrically-released movie, which required additional scenes and other adjusting. The optical re-working of shots means you lose a generation, and pick up grain. That's when I recall Spielberg mentioning how much he hated grain.

 

[Gerani53]

I'm sorry... the reference comes from the book STEVEN SPIELBERG AND DUEL: THE MAKING OF A FILM CAREER. On Page 186, while discussing his accidental appearance in DUEL, which he left in rather than optically cropping it out, the director explained: "If I was a really dedicated filmmaker, I would have blown those shots up, once the film was going to Europe in 1.85:1. But there's something I hate more than seeing myself in a movie, it's seeing grain on screen. I just let it go... and not many people have picked up on that."

 

[lark144]

Please keep in mind that in a theater, you're viewing a print, which has lost probably a third of it's resolution.

In this situation, you're viewing a negative at 4k, with no shutter, no bob & weave, no misalignment, or optical anomalies, and thanks to the member who contacted me, a superbly crafted scan.

Huge difference.

Mr. Harris, I wasn't referencing 4K at all, for which there's no comparison, but simply talking about grain in terms of 35mm projection as opposed to 70mm blow up in projection, in response to a specific post about 70mm blow-ups ca. 1985 on ALIENS AND GHOSTBUSTERS. Not on topic at all, I'm afraid.

However, I thank you for your response, and I am curious. Since this thread has diverged a bit, what film of that "superbly crafted scan" are you referring to?

 

[Robert Harris]

Mr. Harris, I wasn't referencing 4K at all, for which there's no comparison, but simply talking about grain in terms of 35mm projection as opposed to 70mm blow up in projection, in response to a specific post about 70mm blow-ups ca. 1985 on ALIENS AND GHOSTBUSTERS. Not on topic at all, I'm afraid.

However, I thank you for your response, and I am curious. Since this thread has diverged a bit, what film of that "superbly crafted scan" are you referring to?

Night of the Hunter shows every grain, and I’m not happy about it. Scan is superb, but what next.

I should also point out that there is no “one size fits all” 70mm blow-up. There are major differences.

 

[Kyle_D]

I'm sorry... the reference comes from the book STEVEN SPIELBERG AND DUEL: THE MAKING OF A FILM CAREER. On Page 186, while discussing his accidental appearance in DUEL, which he left in rather than optically cropping it out, the director explained: "If I was a really dedicated filmmaker, I would have blown those shots up, once the film was going to Europe in 1.85:1. But there's something I hate more than seeing myself in a movie, it's seeing grain on screen. I just let it go... and not many people have picked up on that."

Thanks for the quote. I think it needs to be read in context - he was talking about grain that would have been introduced from a dupe and optical blow-up. Spielberg hated that type of grain because it stuck out compared to the rest of the film. It's the reason why, prior to digital compositing, he would shoot effects plates in 70mm. By the time the optical compositing was done, the grain pattern of the finished effects shot would more closely resemble the rest of the 35mm footage.

 

[mskaye]

I've always been surprised that not more films were shot in large format, particularly those that were expected to do well (eg Indiana Jones, Star Wars etc) and had large budgets. I doubt anyone could have anticipated 4k home video and the amount of of scrutiny images would now have, but there is disappointment with many 4k discs and the application of DNR.

Impractical for the majority of films. If it was used all the time it wouldn't be as special. And $$$$$$$$.