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

[haineshisway]

You know, it doesn't matter what my set up is. What matters is that I watch movies and the ones with great transfers look great and the ones that don't don't. So, for example, if I watch a black-and-white transfer that has proper fine grain, I see it. Easily. Don't have to look for it, it's there. For me, the tell-tale signs are always the opticals, which should be grainier than the other footage - ESPECIALLY optical blow-ups of shots. Those should always have more grain and not pretty-looking grain either. This does not. I'm glad you see what you see. And I know what I am not seeing. It doesn't look bad, the contrast is nice, it's reasonably sharp, and it looks nothing like either my 16mm print or the phenomenal Library of Congress 35mm nitrate I ran.

I don't have 4K so I can't get into what that looks like.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Wow, I never expected this 4K or even the Blu-ray release to be so divisive in regard to quality-related issues. I guess it just goes to show you that diverse opinions are always possible even with black and white movies. I don't question those that see issues or defects with their discs, however, I don't question those like myself that are very happy with this recent disc release.

 

[Robert Harris]

You know, it doesn't matter what my set up is. What matters is that I watch movies and the ones with great transfers look great and the ones that don't don't. So, for example, if I watch a black-and-white transfer that has proper fine grain, I see it. Easily. Don't have to look for it, it's there. For me, the tell-tale signs are always the opticals, which should be grainier than the other footage - ESPECIALLY optical blow-ups of shots. Those should always have more grain and not pretty-looking grain either. This does not. I'm glad you see what you see. And I know what I am not seeing. It doesn't look bad, the contrast is nice, it's reasonably sharp, and it looks nothing like either my 16mm print or the phenomenal Library of Congress 35mm nitrate I ran.

I don't have 4K so I can't get into what that looks like.

Field enlargements, cut-in printer functions, and replacement dupes are generally massaged these days to make them appear more transparent to the attributes of the main footage.

 

[Alan Tully]

I have to agree with hainshisway: great transfers look great on any set up (Lawrence Of Arabia, Spartacus, Cat Ballou & happily a great many others, including, I'm sure, The Bad & The Beautiful). Not this transfer (I haven't seen it), but on other troubled transfers discussed here over the years, people are told to get their monitors professionally calibrated, & then you just know there's something a bit off.

 

[haineshisway]

Field enlargements, cut-in printer functions, and replacement dupes are generally massaged these days to make them appear more transparent to the attributes of the main footage.

I understand that. I think you said the Blu is on its way to you, so I'll look forward to hearing your thoughts. Maybe I'm just crazy - always a possibility.

 

[RickardL]

Post deleted.

 

[ghostwind]

I have to agree with hainshisway: great transfers look great on any set up (Lawrence Of Arabia, Spartacus, Cat Ballou & happily a great many others, including, I'm sure, The Bad & The Beautiful). Not this transfer (I haven't seen it), but on other troubled transfers discussed here over the years, people are told to get their monitors professionally calibrated, & then you just know there's something a bit off.

I was asking the setup, because for 4K HDR is absolutely matters. And it also matters when splitting hairs IMHO over a 1080p Blu-ray's fine grain or lack of "true" grain strength compared to a 16mm print or a 35mm nitrate. Is one looking on a 10ft screen via a projector? A 55" OLED? It matters, even with the great transfers when nitpicking, as I don't think this is a troubled transfer, but people looking at it with different expectations based on prior experiences with this film. If this was a truly problematic transfer, like others (see 2009 version), I believe everyone would be complaining/unhappy for the most part. That's not the case. Anyway, I could be wrong as I've said in how much grain there should be. But that's missing the point IMHO. A 4K UHD or a Blu-ray will never look like a print. It can get close, but it won't. This one gets very close IMHO.

 

[Robert Harris]

I understand that. I think you said the Blu is on its way to you, so I'll look forward to hearing your thoughts. Maybe I'm just crazy - always a possibility.

I know that You know. I was making note for others.

 

[Robert Harris]

I was asking the setup, because for 4K HDR is absolutely matters. And it also matters when splitting hairs IMHO over a 1080p Blu-ray's fine grain or lack of "true" grain strength compared to a 16mm print or a 35mm nitrate. Is one looking on a 10ft screen via a projector? A 55" OLED? It matters, even with the great transfers when nitpicking, as I don't think this is a troubled transfer, but people looking at it with different expectations based on prior experiences with this film. If this was a truly problematic transfer, like others (see 2009 version), I believe everyone would be complaining/unhappy for the most part. That's not the case. Anyway, I could be wrong as I've said in how much grain there should be. But that's missing the point IMHO. A 4K UHD or a Blu-ray will never look like a print. It can get close, but it won't. This one gets very close IMHO.

Ive not yet seen the Blu, but the grain structure on the 4k, at least as played back via Oppo to Sony OLED, appears more coarse than the nominal film from the era on normally exposed and processed Kodak stock.

Again, i have more questions than answers here.

 

[ghostwind]

Ive not yet seen the Blu, but the grain structure on the 4k, at least as played back via Oppo to Sony OLED, appears more coarse than the nominal film from the era on normally exposed and processed Kodak stock.

Again, i have more questions than answers here.

That can be due to he HDR as we discussed a few posts/pages back, but yeah, hard to say with certainty. When you get the Blu-ray, I'm curious to your thoughts, as that should provide some answers as it pertains to the master.

 

[Robert Harris]

That can be due to he HDR as we discussed a few posts/pages back, but yeah, hard to say with certainty. When you get the Blu-ray, I'm curious to your thoughts, as that should provide some answers as it pertains to the master.

One can create a beautiful master, and then take it in multiple directions.

 

[cda1143]

Many thanks to Robert and friends for this enlightening discussion. It might be interesting to compare iTunes 4K HDR vs. 4K SDR. An easy setting change on the ATV.

 

[lark144]

I understand that. I think you said the Blu is on its way to you, so I'll look forward to hearing your thoughts. Maybe I'm just crazy - always a possibility.

Bruce, I don't think you're crazy, as I feel the same way. I got the Blu on Saturday, and so far I've only had time to sample it, but it looks nothing like the 35mm print I saw (which may have been nitrate) at Columbia University's School of International Affairs. Frank Capra was there and it was apparently his own personal print. I've never liked this film all that much, but seeing Mr. Capra's print was a total revelation, and made me realize this was his best film. Everything was in it, the humor, the sloppy sentimentality, but most of all his visual sense, which transformed everything.

Before I continue, I should say that if I hadn't seen that print, I probably would have found this Blu "beautiful". The contrast is good, the black are decent, and as in Mr. Harris' take on the first Blu-Ray iteration of PATTON, it's "as clean as a baby's bottom."

But it doesn't look like film. It's not just that there isn't any grain. Everything looks electronic and processed. Now, please don't misunderstand me. This isn't smeary or flat. As I noted, above, the contrast is fine. But no, it doesn't have the glow of Capra's print, which I found almost transcendent, and took it out of the realm of everyday life, while somehow keeping that sense of being in the moment alive. And the blacks, while decent, aren't rich and almost alive, as in the scene on the bridge.

Every aspect of every image seemed to breathe along with the characters in Mr. Capra's print. I can't explain this on a technical level, but everything in the Blu, while balanced in terms of the whites and blacks, seemed embossed in amber, not real somehow. And what Mr. Harris calls the printer functions, like the one in the beginning where the houses in the town are superimposed over the stars, or the scene after that where the image, from the angel's point of view, turns from grey to sharp focus, looks really weird. It's not just that there's not a speck of grain to be seen; but it seems as if the life and filmic quality has been drained out of it as well. It looks frozen and a shadow of its former self.

Anyway, that's my take on it. I haven't seen it all the way through yet, but I did watch the first 25 minutes, and then sampled the scenes I remembered being especially striking upon seeing Mr. Capra's print, and they're not at all the same. Now this is the Blu-Ray I'm looking at, the one that was released a few weeks ago, not the 4k, which I do not have the equipment for. And again, I'm not criticizing anyone for liking this who hasn't seen it in 35mm. But I have, and this Blu doesn't at all resemble what I saw.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

The plot thickens I guess... and I seem back to square one on what to get now...

_Man_

 

[Paul Rossen]

No matter how deep this plot 'thickens' one has a choice to make.. Purchase the disc or not ... Having never seen the film except on a TV broadcast I'm inclined to purchase the 4k UHD UK version with the B&W blu ray. To me Blu ray is only an approximation of what I've seen or recall from years ago. Sometimes I'm very pleased, other times disappointed. Nothing one can do...

 

[bujaki]

Bruce, I don't think you're crazy, as I feel the same way. I got the Blu on Saturday, and so far I've only had time to sample it, but it looks nothing like the 35mm print I saw (which may have been nitrate) at Columbia University's School of International Affairs. Frank Capra was there and it was apparently his own personal print. I've never liked this film all that much, but seeing Mr. Capra's print was a total revelation, and made me realize this was his best film. Everything was in it, the humor, the sloppy sentimentality, but most of all his visual sense, which transformed everything.

Before I continue, I should say that if I hadn't seen that print, I probably would have found this Blu "beautiful". The contrast is good, the black are decent, and as in Mr. Harris' take on the first Blu-Ray iteration of PATTON, it's "as clean as a baby's bottom."

But it doesn't look like film. It's not just that there isn't any grain. Everything looks electronic and processed. Now, please don't misunderstand me. This isn't smeary or flat. As I noted, above, the contrast is fine. But no, it doesn't have the glow of Capra's print, which I found almost transcendent, and took it out of the realm of everyday life, while somehow keeping that sense of being in the moment alive. And the blacks, while decent, aren't rich and almost alive, as in the scene on the bridge.

Every aspect of every image seemed to breathe along with the characters in Mr. Capra's print. I can't explain this on a technical level, but everything in the Blu, while balanced in terms of the whites and blacks, seemed embossed in amber, not real somehow. And what Mr. Harris calls the printer functions, like the one in the beginning where the houses in the town are superimposed over the stars, or the scene after that where the image, from the angel's point of view, turns from grey to sharp focus, looks really weird. It's not just that there's not a speck of grain to be seen; but it seems as if the life and filmic quality has been drained out of it as well. It looks frozen and a shadow of its former self.

Anyway, that's my take on it. I haven't seen it all the way through yet, but I did watch the first 25 minutes, and then sampled the scenes I remembered being especially striking upon seeing Mr. Capra's print, and they're not at all the same. Now this is the Blu-Ray I'm looking at, the one that was released a few weeks ago, not the 4k, which I do not have the equipment for. And again, I'm not criticizing anyone for liking this who hasn't seen it in 35mm. But I have, and this Blu doesn't at all resemble what I saw.

Alas, my only experience of a 35mm print of IAWL was the cut re-issue print distributed by RKO in the '50s and shown at the Carnegie Hall Cinema in the '70s. Although cut, it was glorious to behold, and made it all the more regrettable that it was not the complete version.

 

[lark144]

Again, I'm not saying the Blu-Ray looks awful. Not at all. It looks quite nice and I think almost everyone will be happy with it. I'm glad I bought it as it's the best representation, both visually and narratively, of Frank Capra's masterpiece, that we're likely to get. In general, it looks beautiful, but beautiful in a kind of electronic way; not organic, which is what I was hoping for. When I say it looks processed to me, I'm not talking about any irregularities such as smearing or edge enhancement. Nothing like that is noticeable. It appears to be organic, but by comparison to the print that I saw, which was probably the most beautiful black and white images that I've ever seen, the Blu-Ray falls short. The whites in the family scenes don't glow the way that print did. While the depth of field in the Blu-Ray is fine, it doesn't appear three-dimensional, creating a magical world that seems one could walk right into, as Mr. Capra's print did. In the scene on the bridge, the blacks don't come alive and seem to caress Jimmy Stewart the way they did in that print. Also, I couldn't find any grain at all in the Blu-Ray, which added to the sensation of it not being filmic. While the Blu-ray is perfectly serviceable. It's just not a work of art in itself, the way Mr. Capra's print of the film was, which is something I will never forget. The reason I'm making these comparisons is that many reviews and also the promotional materials from Paramount led me to believe I would be seeing something similar to an original nitrate print, which is simply not the case. I didn't buy the first Blu-Ray so I can't compare the two.

 

[Robert Harris]

Again, I'm not saying the Blu-Ray looks awful. Not at all. It looks quite nice and I think almost everyone will be happy with it. I'm glad I bought it as it's the best representation, both visually and narratively, of Frank Capra's masterpiece, that we're likely to get. In general, it looks beautiful, but beautiful in a kind of electronic way; not organic, which is what I was hoping for. When I say it looks processed to me, I'm not talking about any irregularities such as smearing or edge enhancement. Nothing like that is noticeable. It appears to be organic, but by comparison to the print that I saw, which was probably the most beautiful black and white images that I've ever seen, the Blu-Ray falls short. The whites in the family scenes don't glow the way that print did. While the depth of field in the Blu-Ray is fine, it doesn't appear three-dimensional, creating a magical world that seems one could walk right into, as Mr. Capra's print did. In the scene on the bridge, the blacks don't come alive and seem to caress Jimmy Stewart the way they did in that print. Also, I couldn't find any grain at all in the Blu-Ray, which added to the sensation of it not being filmic. While the Blu-ray is perfectly serviceable. It's just not a work of art in itself, the way Mr. Capra's print of the film was, which is something I will never forget. The reason I'm making these comparisons is that many reviews and also the promotional materials from Paramount led me to believe I would be seeing something similar to an original nitrate print, which is simply not the case. I didn't buy the first Blu-Ray so I can't compare the two.

I suggest you compare it to any number of different Warner Archive blu-rays of the same era, derived from OCNs.

This, as a presumably newer transfer, should look every bit as good, or better.

It ain’t brain surgery.

 

[lark144]

I suggest you compare it to any number of different Warner Archive blu-rays of the same era, derived from OCNs.

This, as a presumably newer transfer, should look every bit as good, or better.

It ain’t brain surgery.

OK, Mr. Harris. Maybe I was being a little too positive. Maybe I was under the impression this was IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE's Blu-ray's Bar Mitzvah & I was the rabbi and had to say something nice. The new IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE Blu-Ray is not the worst I've ever seen. On the other hand, It doesn't look every bit as good or better, than say, THE LETTER. In fact, it looks downright disappointing in comparison. The only Warner Blu-Ray of a film from the same era I would compare this new Blu-Ray to would be the first version of CASABLANCA, the one without much grain and an overly smooth appearance. And unfortunately, I must give the edge to that first issue of CASABLANCA, as at least that had some smattering of grain, and looked a little bit filmic, which this new Blu-Ray of IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE, supposedly derived from a new 4K scan of the original negative, does not.

 

[haineshisway]

I was asking the setup, because for 4K HDR is absolutely matters. And it also matters when splitting hairs IMHO over a 1080p Blu-ray's fine grain or lack of "true" grain strength compared to a 16mm print or a 35mm nitrate. Is one looking on a 10ft screen via a projector? A 55" OLED? It matters, even with the great transfers when nitpicking, as I don't think this is a troubled transfer, but people looking at it with different expectations based on prior experiences with this film. If this was a truly problematic transfer, like others (see 2009 version), I believe everyone would be complaining/unhappy for the most part. That's not the case. Anyway, I could be wrong as I've said in how much grain there should be. But that's missing the point IMHO. A 4K UHD or a Blu-ray will never look like a print. It can get close, but it won't. This one gets very close IMHO.

I've been pretty clear that I don't do 4K at this time. I'm only talking about the Blu-ray and I don't play these set-up games because they're BS. I have a great 55-inch TV on which great black-and-white transfers look, well, great. As I said, I'm glad you like it. I'm glad others like it. Some of us clearly have problems with at least the Blu-ray iteration, and Mr. Harris clearly has problems with the 4K disc. How much grain there is and how it looks is exactly the point, for me. I have many Blu-ray transfers that actually look as good or better than a print and actually resemble what film looks like. Maybe the 4K iteration here is better - but you're not going to change my mind about what the Blu-ray looks like to ME.