Search results for query: *

Especially for films made in this era, pre-home video, pre-cable, the expectation was that your audience would see it once, and most people don’t notice that kind of thing in a single viewing.

From what I’ve read here and in other places, and I believe the Kino Insider spoke to this (he used to work at Olive apparently). The original unmatted camera negative, which would be 1.37:1, is gone. The element the studio has is hard matted to 1.85:1. Both the Olive and the Kino 2.00:1...

And the answer remains the same as what I said before:

The disc market is fragmented and there isn’t one single overriding reason that disc purchasers are using to determine their purchases. Some people are buying solely for playback quality. Others are interested in the physical object and prioritize things like package design that make an item...

Because they believe it will sell, and they are in the business of selling discs.

Yes. Where it becomes a bit of a gray area is when there’s a new 4K disc of a film where the prior Blu-ray was from a poorer quality master. Advances in both scanning technology and compression technology mean that most 4K discs today will by default look better than Blu-rays from nearly 20...

There’s nothing wrong with it, it’s simply a matter that the original camera negative no longer exists, and what elements do still exist don’t inherently have 4K worth of visual information within them - which is true of many, many films. A photochemical restoration wouldn’t change that. There...