A Few Words About A few words about...™ It's a Wonderful Life (Corrected)-- in 4k UHD Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[Gary16]

Have you compared with the earlier Blu-ray?

The 4K version was available several months ago as a download to my Kaleidescape system. I could never get it to look as I thought it should. It was definitely sharper than the bluray but many scenes looked too dark compared to the bluray and I found myself preferring the bluray overall. I had hoped the 4K disc would have been corrected but apparently it hasn’t so I guess I won’t be purchasing it. Thanks Mr. Harris for letting me know I’m not the only one disappointed.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Wow!

 

[Robert Harris]

The point should be made, that while I generally suggest against using previous video product as reference, the Blu-ray is far more accurate to gray scale than the new 4k.

My reference are ORIGINAL prints, both 16, as well as 35mm, which offer the entire gray scale.

If not some sort of finalization error, this problem could simply come down to forcing HDR upon a film not designed for it.

There is a perception, that HDR is part and parcel to 4k.

The two are totally separate.

 

[DavidJ]

Well, that’s a bummer. Especially since it seems so common now to click on the latest RAH “A Few Words About...” to find a glowing report. But then again this is Paramount...

 

[ghostwind]

I'm curious if the new Blu-ray from the same 4K master, but in BT.709 / SDR, has the same issue (which would mean it's an issue with the master, not HDR), or if REC.2020 / HDR strikes its ugly head again. I'm torn on every 4K UHD release between the higher resolution offered vs. wrong/un-"calibrateable" colors and un-necessary at times HDR "bling" compared to an equivalent Blu-ray from same master. With each release it's becoming a research project as to which version to buy.

Someone stated earlier to change the brightness, but you should never do this on an HDR display. The only thing you should ever touch to calibrate is the white balance. All else, you are at the mercy of what your display can do, and how it does it. Not a single display can properly show REC.2020 colorspace (or be calibrated for it) or the proper nits in the master. These 4K UHD discs should look better in years to come, as technology catches up.

 

[OliverK]

The point should be made, that while I generally suggest against using previous video product as reference, the Blu-ray is far more accurate to gray scale than the new 4k.

My reference are ORIGINAL prints, both 16, as well as 35mm, which offer the entire gray scale.

If not some sort of finalization error, this problem could simply come down to forcing HDR upon a film not designed for it.

There is a perception, that HDR is part and parcel to 4k.

The two are totally separate.

Nobody forbids to use only the lower 100 nits of the HDR range in mastering. That would mean we could get the added resolution and the bigger color space without questionable grading decisions.

It is a shame as textures and detail seem to show a lot of improvement and as you say most people won't be able to adjust the picture to show the level of shadow detail that was present in previous versions.

 

[RickardL]

So, is there an accompanying 2K blu-ray with this set? How does that look re black level/gray scale?

 

[Robert Harris]

So, is there an accompanying 2K blu-ray with this set? How does that look re black level/gray scale?

And there's the alternate rub...

 

[ghostwind]

Nobody forbids to use only the lower 100 nits of the HDR range in mastering. That would mean we could get the added resolution and the bigger color space without questionable grading decisions.

It is a shame as textures and detail seem to show a lot of improvement and as you say most people won't be able to adjust the picture to show the level of shadow detail that was present in previous versions.

In an ideal world, we would have 4K SDR discs, until technology catches up to properly display the REC.2020 colorspace and the nits in the 4K UHD discs. Right now, every display is different and shows things differently - colors are different as they cannot be calibrated, EOTF curves are different, and max nits and rolloffs are different. That said, it makes sense to get 4k UHD now as they will just look better and better as tech catches up.

To your point however, marketing 4K without HDR was not something that was deemed lucrative. Especially on average sized displays. So HDR is not restrained, but rather pushed. At times it's fine - Apocalypse Now, The Shining, 2001, and others, but most often it gets in the way. Especially on older films, where restraint is needed. Wizard of OZ is an exception of things done right as well.

 

[ghostwind]

So, is there an accompanying 2K blu-ray with this set? How does that look re black level/gray scale?

Yes, but it's a separate purchase. Because the they included the colorized version with the 4K, the new Blu-ray is a separate 2 disc set.

 

[Robert Harris]

In an ideal world, we would have 4K SDR discs, until technology catches up to properly display the REC.2020 colorspace and the nits in the 4K UHD discs. Right now, every display is different and shows things differently - colors are different as they cannot be calibrated, EOTF curves are different, and max nits and rolloffs are different. That said, it makes sense to get 4k UHD now as they will just look better and better as tech catches up.

To your point however, marketing 4K without HDR was not something that was deemed lucrative. Especially on average sized displays. So HDR is not restrained, but rather pushed. At times it's fine - Apocalypse Now, The Shining, 2001, and others, but most often it gets in the way. Especially on older films, where restraint is needed. Wizard of OZ is an exception of things done right as well.

I have no problem with the concept of HDR being a part of every 4k product, as long as it's handled properly. There's nothing wrong with considering HDR as akin to waving a bit of vermouth over a martini.

 

[Robert Harris]

I wanted to see what others were saying about this release, so I found the site below, and learned everything that I'd never known about nitrate stock, and the "silver" screen.

If one ever ponders where facts come from, go here, and learn all about it.

https://www.heraldextra.com/enterta...cle_06b71051-6593-5549-9756-f220de1f5c14.html

 

[Robert Crawford]

I still say that most people are going to be happy with this 4K release. Furthermore, I do wonder how many people that posted in this thread except a few people would've noticed the issue pointed out by RAH?

 

[ghostwind]

I have no problem with the concept of HDR being a part of every 4k product, as long as it's handled properly. There's nothing wrong with considering HDR as akin to waving a bit of vermouth over a martini.

I agree, and this is the ideal to strive for. There are some scenes in the 4K UHD of "Schindler's List" where the whites are so bright (shirt colors, chrome on car, etc.), that it looks tacky unfortunately - it stands out too much and draws attention. And I'm on an OLED, which can do way lower nits than an LCD! I can't imagine how it would look on a display capable of even more nits! And all the into screens, the FBI warnings, the menus, are so damn bright, that when viewing them in a dark room, it's nuts! It's as if HDR was meant for daytime, bright room viewing.

 

[Robert Harris]

I still say that most people are going to be happy with this 4K release. Furthermore, I do wonder how many people that posted in this thread except a few people would've noticed the issue pointed out by RAH?

Robert,

I generally agree with you. But what might be the problem with presenting a foolproof product, that is actually correct, and plays back without a thought?

I’m returning to what I said years ago, which is to simply put out a product that functions. It should not matter that the viewer has no idea what a 1946 black & white film should look like.

Any dolt can look at HD eye candy, and exclaim “Pretty!”

But pretty can also be correct.

Earlier today I was considering going into my player/panel settings, and turning off Dolby Vision, to see if that made a difference. But then decided that the average viewer won’t be going there. Something either plays back properly, or it doesn’t. Hopefully, we’re not returning to days of yore, when HDR was the Wild West.

 

[David Norman]

Still waiting for confirmation, but the UK 4K release sounds like it may be bundled with the new B&W 2D copy. It still up in the air
if this is true and true (B&W and New Disc) and then of course the analysis of hte 2D results.
If the 2D is drastically better than the old item, I may just buy the US 2D and make my own NEW BUNDLE.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Robert,

I generally agree with you. But what might be the problem with presenting a foolproof product, that is actually correct, and plays back without a thought?

I’m returning to what I said years ago, which is to simply put out a product that functions. It should not matter that the viewer has no idea what a 1946 black & white film should look like.

Any dolt can look at HD eye candy, and exclaim “Pretty!”

But pretty can also be correct.

Earlier today I was considering going into my player/panel settings, and turning off Dolby Vision, to see if that made a difference. But then decided that the average viewer won’t be going there. Something either plays back properly, or it doesn’t. Hopefully, we’re not returning to days of yore, when HDR was the Wild West.

I generally agree with you, and I understand and appreciate your misgivings about this 4k presentation. That being said, most of us are dolts and that's a simple fact. You're right to talk about what's wrong with "It's a Wonderful Life", but, people including myself are still going to enjoy this 4K presentation even with its warts. Yes, pretty can also be correct and that's the way it should be, but, not always the case.

 

[Robert Harris]

I generally agree with you, and I understand and appreciate your misgivings about this 4k presentation. That being said, most of us are dolts and that's a simple fact. You're right to talk about what's wrong with "It's a Wonderful Life", but, people including myself are still going to enjoy this 4K presentation even with its warts. Yes, pretty can also be correct and that's the way it should be, but, not always the case.

Most HTF readers fall well outside the “dolt” category. Yes, one can still enjoy something that’s wrong, but the alternative is to enjoy something, as it should appear.

Was it early HD that was promoted as “the look and sound of perfect?”

 

[Robert Crawford]

Most HTF readers fall well outside the “dolt” category. Yes, one can still enjoy something that’s wrong, but the alternative is to enjoy something, as it should appear.

Was it early HD that was promoted as “the look and sound of perfect?”

Well, I consider myself a dolt because I watched this movie in 4K/Dolby Vision a couple of times and I never noticed the issue you made known in this thread. Perhaps, I was looking at the video presentation from a different prism in which I'm not looking for imperfections, but, whether it looks good to me on my display. The issue you noted then stand out to me.

 

[Robert Harris]

Well, I consider myself a dolt because I watched this movie in 4K/Dolby Vision a couple of times and I never noticed the issue you made known in this thread. Perhaps, I was looking at the video presentation from a different prism in which I'm not looking for imperfections, but, whether it looks good on my display. The issue you noted then stand out to me.

There’s always the possibility that your player and display are playing more nicely together than mine.

I initially examined the disc on a projector, which while it can now better handle HDR, is still low on nits. Second shot was a Sony OLED. Similar results.