A Few Words About Poll: What parameters do you seek for 4k UHD releases? (1 Viewer)

[Robert Harris]

Where do you stand on how closely 4k discs should, or should not appear film-like? Or do you care?

 

[Britton]

Any chance the results of this poll will be passed on to Paramount (hey, a man can dream)?

 

[Robert Crawford]

What is your definition of "bi-granlar"?

 

[Robert Harris]

What is your definition of "bi-granlar"?

Typo. Should read “bi-granular.”

Just fine with, without, or with moderate grain.

 

[Keith Cobby]

Personally, I don't like very noticeable grain as it can be very distracting on a panel (I view on a 65 inch Panny OLED). Grain is much less noticeable when projecting.

I know very little technically, but I associate grain with lower quality/cheaper film stock or process. Large negative formats have less grain and are a much pleasanter viewing experience.

 

[RichMurphy]

A tough poll - difficult to distinguish the nuances between #4 and #12. I certainly wouldn't want any grain to be added to something that wasn't produced photochemically to begin with. Similarly, if only a multi-generation print is available, I would prefer grain to be removed IF the removal didn't turn the actors into wax museum figurines.

I couldn't vote for #2, because I find leaving in reel change indicators annoying, even the cool VistaVision ones.

 

[Alan Tully]

"I want my 4k discs to all look like the original releases of Patton and The Longest Day" - Ooo, that's the one.

I'll say what I always say: I just want it to look good, like I remember it looking in the cinema (I realize I'm looking back through a golden fog of nostalgia). I don't want a sea of grain, or the reverse & the image looking plastic, I don't want crushed blacks, or Fox blue/cyan or speckling (Warner manage to clean up the picture, so the other studios should do too). I don't remember seeing grain at the cinema, I think you should be able to see grain at home if you really look for it (get them eyeballs right up near the screen), but it's not something you should normally be aware of. I'm thinking that if there's a ton of grain that needs managing, then the film element being used is not really suitable for 4K.

 

[Robert Harris]

A tough poll - difficult to distinguish the nuances between #4 and #12. I certainly wouldn't want any grain to be added to something that wasn't produced photochemically to begin with. Similarly, if only a multi-generation print is available, I would prefer grain to be removed IF the removal didn't turn the actors into wax museum figurines.

I couldn't vote for #2, because I find leaving in reel change indicators annoying, even the cool VistaVision ones.

changeover cues were scribed into the orig negs until most all theaters went to platters.

They’re always removed in clean-up, so they’re not part of the equation.

 

[B-ROLL]

What is your definition of "bi-granlar"?

I'm pretty sure you can't say it in Florida ...

 

[plektret]

I want zero grain management no matter what. I want film grain on UHD discs to be completely untouched, even if sections are taken from dupes or affected by optical printer etc. Film grain is gorgeous!! Same for tape hiss, no filtering please.

 

[Patrick McCart]

Here's several tiers to how I accept UHD:

"A" tier would be a disc that's more or less a DCP for the home that presents a film as if a fresh print off a virgin camera negative that's been cleaned up to various degrees. I'm going to not count slight to moderate "revisionism" as mandated by the filmmakers as that's a separate concern. This is what I'd prefer, but not strict. Good examples, to me, would be Sony's Dr. Strangelove, Arrow's Argentos gialli,

"B" tier would be films that have had some tinkering done at the behest of the filmmakers and/or reliable consultants. Instead of the "fresh virgin print" approach, I think of it being more as if someone took a time travel device to bring Victor Fleming from 1939 to 2019 to supervise a digital intermediate for The Wizard of Oz. No vast revisionism, just treating the film as if it were a new production with the full range of tools available.

There are no "C" or "D" tiers.

"F" tier is the failure to replicate the original look within reasonable parameters (A tier) or to create a "new" representation with full expected quality (B tier) and instead something that ultimately seems pointless for upgrading from Blu-ray to UHD. Terminator 2 is probably the best example of this, as well as Disney's Pirates of the Caribbean.

 

[Chewbabka]

Personally, I don't like very noticeable grain as it can be very distracting on a panel (I view on a 65 inch Panny OLED). Grain is much less noticeable when projecting.

I know very little technically, but I associate grain with lower quality/cheaper film stock or process. Large negative formats have less grain and are a much pleasanter viewing experience.

But then the question is, do you take issue with the transfer or with the original production? Given that a film in question is grainy, do you think it should be tinkered with or left alone for home video release?

 

[Chewbabka]

What, no votes for amoeba???

 

[MarkantonyII]

For me it’s always option 2.

My only caveat is if X years later a technology appears that fixes an issue to the point where the fix is less obvious than the fault and it is being applied with the approval of someone knowledgeable, pref DoP or Director.

E.g the tech that changed the grain on Aliens Blu Ray, Director approved, and fixed a production issue that was previously unsolveable.

There are plenty of other technology examples that have been used prematurely or should never have left the lab.

M

 

[jim_falconer]

Kind of a silly poll, but as I’ve said in another thread…I don’t think I’ve ever seen RAH so upset about a release as the current Valance release.

My vote is I just want to enjoy the BD I’m watching, with both video and audio being as clear as my eyes/ears can enjoy. Too much grain is annoying, as well as too much DNR applied. I have lots of discs I’m happy with, and a handful I’m disappointed with. Im glad I have many more I’m happy with

 

[stevenHa]

This brings up an interesting question for me - I always read about members wishing a certain blu ray release could be redone because of some issue(s) and I am wondering what blu rays Robert Harris wishes could be made over/updated ?

 

[English Patient]

Very interesting poll, and the results aren't surprising to me given the HTF audience. I would be interested how other, more average and casual film buyers would respond. I'd wager most have the attitude that film grain is like dirt on a windshield that needs to be wiped away - and anything that results in a bright, high-contrast, razor-sharp image is an improvement. Which probably explains some of the trends in remasters over the last decade or so.

 

[Keith Cobby]

But then the question is, do you take issue with the transfer or with the original production? Given that a film in question is grainy, do you think it should be tinkered with or left alone for home video release?

I am happy for grain reduction, some films are almost unwatchable on disc.

 

[willyTass]

Seems AK voted option 8

 

[YANG]

my current choices made on FHD/UHD BD buying are based on aspect ratio origins of the movies which determines the “Ks” of resolution my eyes see on a standard sized screen.
Aspect Ratio 2.2 and slimmer picture height movies in UHD.
Aspect Ratio 2.1 and lower values that produce slimmer black bars in 2k blurays.

I'll likely an odd one in this community with such OCD...