A few words about…™ – 12 Angry Men — in 4k UHD

Robert Harris said:

I guess the point might be made that an original negative should certainly be the first element of choice when producing a video master, one isn't necessarily supposed to see what's on that negative. And that's the case here.

Click to expand...

Mr. Harris, are you referring to the grain? I recall when the Criterion Blu of 12 Angry Men was released, you noted the graininess, and commented that it shouldn't look that way, that release prints were smoother; I think "velvety" may be the term you used.

lark144 said:

Mr. Harris, are you referring to the grain? I recall when the Criterion Blu of 12 Angry Men was released, you noted the graininess, and commented that it shouldn't look that way, that release prints were smoother; I think "velvety" may be the term you used.

Click to expand...

Grain on the majority of these UA b/w productions appears sharpened.

Like the 4k of Paths Of Glory , or Killer's Kiss ?

And yet, we know people will be lining up to buy it, even if there's zero benefit if one has the Blu-ray. Scratches head.

haineshisway said:

And yet, we know people will be lining up to buy it, even if there's zero benefit if one has the Blu-ray. Scratches head.

Click to expand...

Not everyone agrees with RAH that you should only upgrade for the new extras.

I guess there are some films that will gain absolutely nothing from a 4K scan.

DarkVader said:

I guess there are some films that will gain absolutely nothing from a 4K scan.

Click to expand...

True, but it's also in the eyes of the beholder. Perception is as strong as reality.

DarkVader said:

I guess there are some films that will gain absolutely nothing from a 4K scan.

Click to expand...

There are diminishing returns but at a seating distance of around 1 to 1.5 screen widths away I find grain to be more nicely resolved when we are coming from a 4K scan.
That is a bit of a generalization because not all movies are created equal but that usually goes for 35mm and larger formats.

If you are looking for "real" increases in detail don't bother unless you are not comparing a BD and UHD version from the same source.

Edit: This is about 12 Angry Men and most other black and white era movies, not all UHD releases.

OliverK said:

There are diminishing returns but at a seating distance of around 1 to 1.5 screen widths away I find grain to be more nicely resolved when we are coming from a 4K scan.
That is a bit of a generalization because not all movies are created equal but that usually goes for 35mm and larger formats.

If you are looking for "real" increases in detail don't bother unless you are not comparing a BD and UHD version from the same source.

Click to expand...

And in most of these cases , practically all of them , even Lawrence of Arabia, there was no improvement in detail. Blu ray was more than enough for 35mm film.

willyTass said:

And in most of these cases , practically all of them , even Lawrence of Arabia, there was no improvement in detail. Blu ray was more than enough for 35mm film.

Click to expand...

?

willyTass said:

And in most of these cases , practically all of them , even Lawrence of Arabia, there was no improvement in detail. Blu ray was more than enough for 35mm film.

Click to expand...

I get brain glitches myself, esp. if I type something before I've had my coffee lol! Anyway, as you probably now remember Lawrence of Arabia was a 70mm production, and certainly benefits from 4K.

And based on what I've seen many 35mm movies benefit from 4K UHD—if the original camera negative still exists, and is properly remastered and cleaned up.

For Casablanca the OCN is long gone, and so I hesitated to get the 4K. But since it's one of my favorites I finally picked it up, and last night I felt I could see a small but definite improvement in watching the UHD Casablanca over the blu-ray from ten years ago that I've watched several times. The new remaster put me just a little bit more "in the movie" in terms of picture and sound. Warner is meticulous, and does the best work in the business. Buying their discs is enjoyable for me, and also makes me feel like I'm putting in a little bit toward the remastering and restoration of other movies in their vast library.

Anyway, all that having been said, I'm still on the fence for the title in this thread.

I couldn’t see much of an improvement in Lawrence in 4k compared to the same Blu derived from the same scan- detail wise. I know it was from a large negative. All the 35mm films fidelity in motion produced in 4k UHD looked the same detail wise compared to the Blu ray . Some houses deliberately dumb the Blu ray down to make the 4k look better. I’ll be sticking to my Blu ray for 12 angry men

willyTass said:

I couldn’t see much of an improvement in Lawrence in 4k compared to the same Blu derived from the same scan- detail wise. I know it was from a large negative. All the 35mm films fidelity in motion produced in 4k UHD looked the same detail wise compared to the Blu ray . Some houses deliberately dumb the Blu ray down to make the 4k look better. I’ll be sticking to my Blu ray for 12 angry men

Click to expand...

Screen size?

60 inch

willyTass said:

60 inch

Click to expand...

Right on the cusp of seeing a major difference.

willyTass said:

60 inch

Click to expand...

Robert Harris said:

Right on the cusp of seeing a major difference.

Click to expand...

I saw a major difference on my LG OLED 65" back when I compared the two formats. I'm looking forward to watching that 4K/UHD again when I get my new LG OLED G3 77" or 83" later this year.

OliverK said:

There are diminishing returns but at a seating distance of around 1 to 1.5 screen widths away I find grain to be more nicely resolved when we are coming from a 4K scan.

Click to expand...

This is a double-edged sword, of course, as I seriously doubt any of the original filmmakers wanted viewers to see every particle of grain in razor sharp clarity. Movies certainly didn't look that way on theatrical release prints at the time. The grain was softened on each generation removed from the negative.

Many 4K releases feel like I can see the camera negative down to the molecular level. When that comes with an increase in real picture detail, I'm all for it. But in cases where there's no appreciable difference in image detail other than coarser grain, I'm not sure that's really an improvement.

JoshZ said:

This is a double-edged sword, of course, as I seriously doubt any of the original filmmakers wanted viewers to see every particle of grain in razor sharp clarity. Movies certainly didn't look that way on theatrical release prints at the time. The grain was softened on each generation removed from the negative.

Many 4K releases feel like I can see the camera negative down to the molecular level. When that comes with an increase in real picture detail, I'm all for it. But in cases where there's no appreciable difference in image detail other than coarser grain, I'm not sure that's really an improvement.

Click to expand...

I usually find the grain to be more coarse, unnatural and blocky on 2K releases. It probably wasn't intended to be seen in such clarity but I am all for keeping it so people can deal with it as they see fit.

We see what we want to see, it's that simple. When I hear talk about there might be a slight improvement in grain management at 1.5 whatever seating distance I just wonder what this has all come to. Unless there's been some horrible DNR or whatever, I don't sit and look at the grain or the grain management at ANY distance. I do this radical thing called watching the movie