Yes, thanks Mr.Harris. Another wrinkle - from what I understand the digital copy included with the new Blu-ray will redeem in 4K UHD on iTunes, so anyone with the new disc can have both if they so desire.
Yes, thanks Mr.Harris. Another wrinkle - from what I understand the digital copy included with the new Blu-ray will redeem in 4K UHD on iTunes, so anyone with the new disc can have both if they so desire.
Yes, it’s one of the few positives of Paramount not joining Movies Anywhere. They give you an HD code which can be redeemed directly in iTunes. iTunes as a matter of policy provides all purchases and direct redemptions in the highest available resolution format, which for this movie is 4K.
So yeah, buy the Blu-ray, and get the movie in 4K on iTunes too. That’s what I did.
I think you'll enjoy it despite the video presentation naysayers.My 4K UHD Blu-ray just arrived today and I will see if I have time to view it today!
View attachment 65049
I have it on iTunes, but am not 4K/HDR capable. It looks pretty good to me, definitely an improvement over the previous blu-ray, though it does look like there's been some "grain management."
Have you tried pausing the movie during parts that look devoid of grain. Maybe it's there but your eyes aren't refreshing fast enough to see it? Old movies always look grainier when paused. The wider dynamic range may leave some tones that look grainless in motion.??Now that I’ve seen the 4k I’m a bit sad
parts look great, parts look devoid of film grain
better than the old Blu ray for sure , but still I’m left wondering
In Australia we get the remastered blu Ray included rather than the colorised version
View attachment 65054 View attachment 65056
Have you tried pausing the movie during parts that look devoid of grain. Maybe it's there but your eyes aren't refreshing fast enough to see it? Old movies always look grainier when paused. The wider dynamic range may leave some tones that look grainless in motion.??
My 4K UHD Blu-ray just arrived today and I will see if I have time to view it today!
View attachment 65049
Here’s another thought.
If the final result does not mi ic a 35mm film print, as the best standard issue Blu-rays releases of the era do, why even consider a 4k release?
Especially when wrangling HDR or DV variants,
Compare Wonderful Life in 4k, in projection, to something like The Letter.
To my eye, Letter appears akin to a film print, while WL takes on the look of entirely something else, possibly too close to a reverse polarity negative. Technically ultra-sharp, and with a beautifully harvested image, but in some ways too unforgiving of the stocks and optics, that need a generation of air.
Some films will work in 4k, albeit with a bit of digital massaging. Others can be problematic. Oz works beautifully. Robin Hood and GWTW would work less so.
I see it as an interesting experiment, and am pleased that Paramount gave it a shot.
Here’s another thought.
If the final result does not mimic a 35mm film print, as the best standard issue Blu-rays releases of the era do, why even consider a 4k release?
Especially when wrangling HDR or DV variants,
Compare Wonderful Life in 4k, in projection, to something like The Letter.
To my eye, Letter appears akin to a film print, while WL takes on the look of entirely something else, possibly too close to a reverse polarity negative. Technically ultra-sharp, and with a beautifully harvested image, but in some ways too unforgiving of the stocks and optics, that need a generation of air.
Some films will work in 4k, albeit with a bit of digital massaging. Others can be problematic. Oz works beautifully. Robin Hood and GWTW would work less so.
I see it as an interesting experiment, and am pleased that Paramount gave it a shot.
Mr. Harris,
Your thoughts on this controversy have been interesting and appreciated, and your above post in particular brings the following question to mind:
Is the true goal (in your opinion) of any film restoration that starts with the original negative to make the final master look like a film print?
If I understand you correctly in the case of IAWL you are arguing yes, and your thoughts above indicate that maybe the 4k is TOO close to the original elements.
Yet it seems we have had many releases sourced from restorations starting with the original negatives (even before 4k UHD) where the majority of reviewers were extremely happy with end results that were acknowledged to probably looking better and revealing more detail than any release print of the film ever would have.
So is this really something that needs to be decided on a film-by-film basis, and if so, what are the criteria that should be used to determine whether to add "a generation of air", as you put it, to the final result?