A few words about…™ The Post — in 4k UHD Blu-ray

Highly Recommended 4 Stars

The Post, a film about the freedom of the press, is an old-fashioned production, as told by a master filmmaker.

It’s an intelligent, absorbing tale, with nary a car chase in sight.

Mr. Spielberg’s work on shot on film (S35/3), by Janusz Kaminski, and finished as a 4k DI, which should give you some indication, even before you view this on screen, that it’s going to be something special.

And it is.

Just pick this one up – in 4k (an HD Blu-ray comes along for the ride), and revel in the sort of filmmaking that your favorite filmmakers from the last fifty years made look simple,

Image – 5

Audio – 5 (DTS-HD MA 7.1)

Pass / Fail – Pass

Highly Recommended

RAH

Published by

Kevin Collins

administrator

25 Comments

  1. Robert Crawford

    This film was among my favorite films in the last year along with Wind River and The Greatest Showman.

    Agreed. I very much enjoyed it and was keyed in to all the little things Meryl was doing with her hands and props the entire film. Even though I knew how the story ended, I was 100% invested in a way I'm not normally during a movie. The final decision-making process actually had me dreading the outcome and what it would mean for everyone involved. The last time I was that emotionally wrapped up in a first viewing film was likely Saving Mr. Banks…coincidentally also with Tom Hanks.

    I'm not sure I need to own The Post, though. Possibly in the future when it's a super slow week and I'm hankering for the smell of a new disc…

  2. Jason_V

    The last time I was that emotionally wrapped up in a first viewing film was likely Saving Mr. Banks…coincidentally also with Tom Hanks.

    I'm confused. I thought it was titled as "Saving Private Banks".
    Oh, BTW, don't give away the ending for those who haven't yet seen this film; as not everyone has read "The Pentagon Report". Case in point, I really got upset as a kid when someone blurted out the ending to "King of Kings". That was truly a spoiler.:roll:

  3. PMF

    I'm confused. I thought it was titled as "Saving Private Banks".
    Oh, BTW, don't give away the ending for those who haven't yet seen this film; as not everyone has read "The Pentagon Report". Case in point, I really got upset as a kid when someone blurted out the ending to "King of Kings". That was truly a spoiler.:roll:

    I think you're joking on all of this, but in case you're not…I was referring to the Disney movie about the making of Mary Poppins called Savings Mr. Banks.

    Second, the events depicted in the film happened, in real life, almost 50 years ago. I would hope everyone knows how it ends, even in passing, at this point.

  4. Jason_V

    I think you're joking on all of this, but in case you're not…I was referring to the Disney movie about the making of Mary Poppins called Savings Mr. Banks.

    Second, the events depicted in the film happened, in real life, almost 50 years ago. I would hope everyone knows how it ends, even in passing, at this point.

    Pure joking, all around; thus the rolled eyes at the end of my 5-minute set.:)

  5. Mr. Harris,
    It seems there is an uptick in film based content. Fro example, Westworld season 1, Dunkirk etc. I assume the raw material is all sourced from Kodak. Do you know if there is more than one negative film stock for original camera stock, likewise, is there a variety of film stock for archival and release prints.

    I read a lot about the end of film, but since all of the archival work is saved to film there would seem to be a constant need for film. I am unaware of any company aside from Kodak that manufactures film stork. One more question:
    when a film is restored is it archived as both a negative and a positive? Sorry for my lack of accurate nomenclature, and the numerous questions.

  6. Dave Blair

    Mr. Harris,
    It seems there is an uptick in film based content. Fro example, Westworld season 1, Dunkirk etc. I assume the raw material is all sourced from Kodak. Do you know if there is more than one negative film stock for original camera stock, likewise, is there a variety of film stock for archival and release prints.

    I read a lot about the end of film, but since all of the archival work is saved to film there would seem to be a constant need for film. I am unaware of any company aside from Kodak that manufactures film stork. One more question:
    when a film is restored is it archived as both a negative and a positive? Sorry for my lack of accurate nomenclature, and the numerous questions.

    Film is our friend. Wherever possible, which has been all titles, I record back to film. Usually negative, unless IP stock solves a particular need.

    Suggest you visit the Kodak site, where you’ll find copious amounts of info on all of their (many) camera stocks, along with lab elements and print stock.

  7. Dave Blair

    Do you know if there is more than one negative film stock for original camera stock, likewise, is there a variety of film stock for archival and release prints.

    I read a lot about the end of film, but since all of the archival work is saved to film there would seem to be a constant need for film.

    The problem is that for companies like Kodak, the big profits weren't in negative or archive – they were in print stock and there's relatively few film prints being made today. Kodak will only keep producing an emulsion if they can produce enough of it to produce it consistently.

    For camera film, Kodak still makes:
    Vision 3 color negative in 500T, 200T, 250D and 50D. (5219/7219, 5213/7213, 5207/7207, 5203, 7203)
    Double-X B&W negative rated 200T/250D (5222/7222)
    Tri-X B&W reversal rated 160T/200D (7266)
    (D=Daylight, T=Tungsten, 52=35 or 65mm; 72=16 or Super 8mm)

    For Intermediate films:
    Color Internegative (2273/3273)
    Vison 3 Color Digital Intermediate (2254/5254)
    Kodak Vision (5242/2242/3242)
    Kodak Fine Grain Dup Positive (2366)
    Eastman Fine Grain Dup Panchromatic Negative (2234)

    Print film:
    Kodak (color) Vision (2383/3383)
    Kodak B&W Print film (2302/3302)

    Sound film:
    Panchromatic Sound Recording film (2374)
    Eastman EXR Sound Recording film (2378E, 3378E)

    Title film:
    Eastman High Contrast Positive Film II (5263)

    Archive Film:
    Vision 3 Digital Separation film (2237)
    Panchromatic Separation film (2238)

    Everything else has been discontinued. Not everything is available on all sizes (super 8, 16, 35, 65mm) and not everything is available in both Estar and Acetate. Some formats have to be special ordered and have large minimum quantities and a long waiting period.
    —-
    In still camera films, Kodak Alaris (now a different company from Kodak) only makes 12 emulsions:
    Black and White: Tmax 100, 400; Tri-X 320 (sheet film), 400; T-Max 3200.
    Amateur color negative: Gold 200, Ultra-Max 400
    Pro color negative: Ektar 100, Porta 160, 400, 800
    And they were supposed to re-release Extachrome E 100 by the end of last year, but it hasn't happened yet.
    And before anyone asks, Kodachrome is NEVER coming back.

  8. zoetmb

    The problem is that for companies like Kodak, the big profits weren't in negative or archive – they were in print stock and there's relatively few film prints being made today. Kodak will only keep producing an emulsion if they can produce enough of it to produce it consistently.

    For camera film, Kodak still makes:
    Vision 3 color negative in 500T, 200T, 250D and 50D. (5219/7219, 5213/7213, 5207/7207, 5203, 7203)
    Double-X B&W negative rated 200T/250D (5222/7222)
    Tri-X B&W reversal rated 160T/200D (7266)
    (D=Daylight, T=Tungsten, 52=35 or 65mm; 72=16 or Super 8mm)

    For Intermediate films:
    Color Internegative (2273/3273)
    Vison 3 Color Digital Intermediate (2254/5254)
    Kodak Vision (5242/2242/3242)
    Kodak Fine Grain Dup Positive (2366)
    Eastman Fine Grain Dup Panchromatic Negative (2234)

    Print film:
    Kodak (color) Vision (2383/3383)
    Kodak B&W Print film (2302/3302)

    Sound film:
    Panchromatic Sound Recording film (2374)
    Eastman EXR Sound Recording film (2378E, 3378E)

    Title film:
    Eastman High Contrast Positive Film II (5263)

    Archive Film:
    Vision 3 Digital Separation film (2237)
    Panchromatic Separation film (2238)

    Everything else has been discontinued. Not everything is available on all sizes (super 8, 16, 35, 65mm) and not everything is available in both Estar and Acetate. Some formats have to be special ordered and have large minimum quantities and a long waiting period.
    —-
    In still camera films, Kodak Alaris (now a different company from Kodak) only makes 12 emulsions:
    Black and White: Tmax 100, 400; Tri-X 320 (sheet film), 400; T-Max 3200.
    Amateur color negative: Gold 200, Ultra-Max 400
    Pro color negative: Ektar 100, Porta 160, 400, 800
    And they were supposed to re-release Extachrome E 100 by the end of last year, but it hasn't happened yet.
    And before anyone asks, Kodachrome is NEVER coming back.

    We’re happy to have what we do, and need Kodak to keep at it!

  9. PMF

    Lucky I didn't break the seal on my BD copy, last night. This review came just in the nick of time. 4K it is.

    But why did you need a review to get the 4K?

    Why not just buy that to start, I mean don’t you/we already know that the 4K is going to be high quality compared to the blu?

  10. Neil S. Bulk


    Why not 35/4?

    That’s the info I had available. One would save 25% on raw stock and processing.

    A couple of decades ago, I recall a proposed new high quality 1.85, that would have used the entire frame (as opposed to matted), and project an anamorphic 1.85 image.

  11. PMF

    Lucky I didn't break the seal on my BD copy, last night. This review came just in the nick of time. 4K it is.

    TonyD

    But why did you need a review to get the 4K?

    Why not just buy that to start, I mean don’t you/we already know that the 4K is going to be high quality compared to the blu?

    Not all titles are yet produced in 4K. This also is reflected at my local Best Buy where they display a mix. They had 4K's of "The Greatest Showman", "Three Billboards", "The Shape of Water", "Blade Runner 2049", The Christopher Nolan 4K pack; but only BD's of "The Post". And of the films released from the past couple years not all are yet to be found in 4K; be it at a Best Buy, On-Line or anywhere at all. Although encouraged by the output of 4K with this year's titles, I figured that "The Post" didn't make that cut. Glad to know I was in error. As it is, "The Phantom Thread" was released on BD and is fully on display; so those shopping may not realize that a 4K was to follow weeks later. I do feel that it's a great mistake for distributors to release any title in BD weeks prior to the release of any slated 4K/BD packs; as this could somewhat dampen the needed momentums for this new format and create consumer resentments. Both options should be released on the same exact day. Had I broken the seal, I would absolutely not have double-dipped for a 4K; as I have many others titles of interest and, like most, must stay within a budget. All aside, though, this was an excellent year for the current theatrical releases finding their way to 4K; but it has yet to be fully across the boards on all contemporary titles. In other words, the 4K availability of "The Post" slipped by my own radar. Such things do happen. In conclusion, I agree with you wholeheartedly on the makings of one purchase. Buy the 4K/BD pack, whenever and wherever possible.

  12. Neil S. Bulk

    Does this have something to do with 35mm not being the primary release format? They can still shoot on film but not as much.

    I think it's a combination of it being cheaper and there being no generation loss. Even the few 35mm prints made would be sourced from the DI.

  13. If Daniel Day-Lewis felt the need to retire, then that is altogether his own business.
    But what a crying shame it was that he did so before working with Meryl Streep.
    Even better, had it been a project under the direction of Steven Spielberg.
    Not since the possibilities of Marlon Brando, David Lean and "Nostromo" have such things been left to ones imagination.

  14. Jason_V

    Second, the events depicted in the film happened, in real life, almost 50 years ago. I would hope everyone knows how it ends, even in passing, at this point.

    Yes- the press eventually gets infiltrated with political operatives posing as journalists and tries to swing elections- America revolts, eats up fake news and we wind up with you know who!

  15. Robert Harris

    That’s the info I had available. One would save 25% on raw stock and processing.

    A couple of decades ago, I recall a proposed new high quality 1.85, that would have used the entire frame (as opposed to matted), and project an anamorphic 1.85 image.

    IMDB estimates the budget at $50 million. Probably an almost equal number for marketing. Is film stock cost really a factor? I bet the catering budget was possibly more than the 25% of the film/processing budget.

    What was the size of the projected frame in your proposal? If the gate was .825 x .6, it would have needed a 1.345x anamorphic lens to result in 1.85. Even if you used the larger 0.868 x 0.631", it still would have needed a 1.345x. Seems like an odd size.

  16. Shooting S35 at 4-perf with an image height less than 1.66:1 would be wasteful, and 3-perf S35 shooting has been standard operating procedure for some time now [the Kill Bills, for example, were shot 3-perf]. As for cost to the bottom line, I can't comment on the cost of raw stock and processing, but economies of scale being what they are, I can't imagine that with the considerably reduced number of film labs operating these days that processing is cheap, as it's a niche market.

    If .868 is perf to perf, that would be problematic, as you would still need somewhere to put digital timecode or an analogue track for backup.

  17. Stephen_J_H

    Shooting S35 at 4-perf with an image height less than 1.66:1 would be wasteful, and 3-perf S35 shooting has been standard operating procedure for some time now [the Kill Bills, for example, were shot 3-perf]. As for cost to the bottom line, I can't comment on the cost of raw stock and processing, but economies of scale being what they are, I can't imagine that with the considerably reduced number of film labs operating these days that processing is cheap, as it's a niche market.

    If .868 is perf to perf, that would be problematic, as you would still need somewhere to put digital timecode or an analogue track for backup.

    One also has a 25% longer film load, ie more takes per 1000 ft camera load.

Leave a Reply