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

[Robert Harris]

Silly me, I have some of those discs including that one. I think I forgot about Shout's 4K releases is because I was thinking of feature films and not nature or science documentaries.

A comparison of their NDR vs HDR variants can be quite instructive. Before projection was more properly set up for tone mapping, the NDR was my go to. Now that hardware and software are playing more nicely together, the HDR is quite interesting.

Obviously they’re able to give viewers the choice, as the films run only about 40 minutes, but I salute their decision to do so.

 

[PMF]

[...]I do wonder how many people that posted in this thread except a few people would've noticed the issue pointed out by RAH?

I saw the 4K of "It's a Wonderful Life" before RAH's review was posted and was very disappointed in what my eyes had seen.

On a technical basis, I would not have been able to articulate the issues I was seeing,
except to say that it simply did not look right.

I hope that Paramount can rectify this transfer and disc;
otherwise, the efforts of archivists Andrea Kalas and Laura Thornburg will have been all for naught.

 

[DavidJ]

Nope.
Tried on multiple displays, and playback hardware-same results.
Have you seen the HDR on "Unforgiven", or "Pet Semetary" (1989)? Try with and without HDR, and tell me what you think.

I haven’t watched my Unforgiven disk yet but I’m interested to see how it looks so I’ll move it up in the queue a bit.

 

[warnerbro]

I thought it looked pretty good. There's a documentary about the restoration which is actually in 4k and they say they were mostly able to use the original nitrate negative. I was very impressed with the bonus material. We get a brand-new making of documentary in 4k! Also, we get a home movie of the wrap party from 1946 in 4k!

 

[PMF]

I thought it looked pretty good.[...]

How would you stack it up against the 2K discs from Warner Archives?
IMHO, "It's a Wonderful Life" in 4K didn't even come close to that standard.

 

[Dave H]

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.

These UHD BD discs really just contain P3/DCI within a 2020 container, right? Many displays are getting well over 90% P3/DCI coverage, so I'm not sure getting full 2020 matters at all here. 2020 will serve more importance once we get native content with it.

I agree though, with HDR you really cannot think in terms of a standard like 709. It does require some "letting go" and just enjoy the ride if you can.

The problem with many of these "remastered" Blu-rays that accompany the UHD BD is, they appear to be cheap and easy HDR to SDR conversions. This can include shadow detail crushed, odd colors, highlights blown out, etc. The encoding is rather poor on some of them too. I've found the UHD BD to be far superior each time.

I can only count on Arrow for high quality remastered BD these days.

 

[Brent Reid]

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

This is very unusual. What is the Herald trying to hide!

"Unavailable due to legal reasons
We recognize you are attempting to access this website from a country belonging to the European Economic Area (EEA) including the EU which enforces the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and therefore access cannot be granted at this time".

Ever since the botched roll-out of GDPR with all its attendant misinformation, we in the EU have been blocked from accessing numerous sites for no good reason whatsoever. Easy to get around it with proxy sites like HideMyAss and HideMe, or even look up a site's last Internet Archive save.

Very informative article, by the way.

 

[Robert Harris]

Ever since the botched roll-out of GDPR with all its attendant misinformation, we in the EU have been blocked from accessing numerous sites for no good reason whatsoever. Easy to get around it with proxy sites like HideMyAss and HideMe, or even look up a site's last Internet Archive save.

Very informative article, by the way.

One must fully understand, and decode the information, before the truth comes to the fore.

it is the silver screen, made silver by the off-gassing of the explosive nitrous-silver-oxide film stock, that creates the 4k roller scan of the OCN, and combines it with the equally combustible dueling masters.

A simple process, really. Once it’s understood.

From an audience perspective, one would be aware of the highly artistic asbestos fire curtains - mainstays of the nitrate era.

Those same rollers, used to extract an image during the data harvest process, were used (once fully loaded with excess silver nitrate data) to imbibe that silver nitrate to the mordant layer on the reflecting side of the screen, thereby creating the silver coating on said screen.

unfortunately, the silver nitrate coated screens were extremely flammable. Hence the need for the asbestos curtain.

 

[davidmatychuk]

The new Blu-Ray is absolutely great.

 

[ghostwind]

These UHD BD discs really just contain P3/DCI within a 2020 container, right? Many displays are getting well over 90% P3/DCI coverage, so I'm not sure getting full 2020 matters at all here. 2020 will serve more importance once we get native content with it.

I agree though, with HDR you really cannot think in terms of a standard like 709. It does require some "letting go" and just enjoy the ride if you can.

The problem with many of these "remastered" Blu-rays that accompany the UHD BD is, they appear to be cheap and easy HDR to SDR conversions. This can include shadow detail crushed, odd colors, highlights blown out, etc. The encoding is rather poor on some of them too. I've found the UHD BD to be far superior each time.

I can only count on Arrow for high quality remastered BD these days.

It matters in terms of the inability to calibrate a display to a standard. Black levels, white levels, and of course colors can be all over the place. It's all subjective. While one release may look good to someone with a certain display, it may look awful to another on another display. So without any consistency, it's hard to know or gauge how good a transfer really is. That's why standards are nice - like BT.709. You know that even a $500 TV can display BT.709 @ 100nits properly just like a $3000 TV can when both are calibrated to that standard.

So yeah, not to belabor the point, but for sure HDR requires a lot of "letting go" as you say

In terms of remastered Blu-rays as you say, again, it's a case-by-case evalutation. And it's quite time consuming and bothersome to have to think about all this, research it, etc. As videophiles we deserve better. When a 4K UHD tittle comes out that I want to own, because I love the film, I don't feel like doubting it, reading 10 different reviews, testing it against a known quantity (BT.709 Blu-ray), etc. With a Blu-ray, I know what I'm getting. If there are issues, it's because of the disc, not my display's inability to handle the standard. With UHD/HDR, I'm lost. Life is like a box of chocolates with UHD/HDR, you never know what you're gonna get!

When Mr. Harris and Mr. Crawford disagree on this title, it can be due to different display devices and how they handle the EOFT curve, the black levels, brightness, etc. It's hard to know as there are so many variables in play. And that's troubling for me.

I'm going to pick up the new Blu-ray today, and check it out against the 2009 Blu-ray and the new 4K tonight and report back. It's money spent for me to do this, and yeah, a lot of time consumed as well. Standards please!!!

 

[titch]

It matters in terms of the inability to calibrate a display to a standard. Black levels, white levels, and of course colors can be all over the place. It's all subjective. While one release may look good to someone with a certain display, it may look awful to another on another display. So without any consistency, it's hard to know or gauge how good a transfer really is. That's why standards are nice - like BT.709. You know that even a $500 TV can display BT.709 @ 100nits properly just like a $3000 TV can when both are calibrated to that standard.

So yeah, not to belabor the point, but for sure HDR requires a lot of "letting go" as you say

In terms of remastered Blu-rays as you say, again, it's a case-by-case evalutation. And it's quite time consuming and bothersome to have to think about all this, research it, etc. As videophiles we deserve better. When a 4K UHD tittle comes out that I want to own, because I love the film, I don't feel like doubting it, reading 10 different reviews, testing it against a known quantity (BT.709 Blu-ray), etc. With a Blu-ray, I know what I'm getting. If there are issues, it's because of the disc, not my display's inability to handle the standard. With UHD/HDR, I'm lost. Life is like a box of chocolates with UHD/HDR, you never know what you're gonna get!

When Mr. Harris and Mr. Crawford disagree on this title, it can be due to different display devices and how they handle the EOFT curve, the black levels, brightness, etc. It's hard to know as there are so many variables in play. And that's troubling for me.

I'm going to pick up the new Blu-ray today, and check it out against the 2009 Blu-ray and the new 4K tonight and report back. It's money spent for me to do this, and yeah, a lot of time consumed as well. Standards please!!!

I look forward to reading your remarks! I have no pleasure from projecting most HDR 4K discs on my set-up - even with the HDR turned off, many are mastered way too dark for me. Difficult to know from reviews what other people are seeing. Blu-ray.com has posted their reviews of the 4K disc and the remastered blu ray. There the reviewer says that the picture quality on the 4K disc is perfect - but then the same reviewer writes on the blu-ray disc review that "some may even find its less aggressively sharp and more contained grayscale tones better to their liking compared to the UHD". From what I've read and seen, I'll have to go with the remastered blu-ray - which in itself sounds like a worthy upgrade from the previous one.

 

[Bryan^H]

I have no pleasure from projecting most HDR 4K discs on my set-up - even with the HDR turned off, many are mastered way too dark for me.

It is a problem. HDR can be one of the most amazing features currently in the home theater hobby. But it can also ruin films, and crush the life out of dark content. The sad thing is I know what the mastering of many of these movies is going for...more realism as to how the human eye perceives things. But many time this process unfortunately makes scenes look unnatural. Which is the exact opposite the desired effect.

HDR implemented with care, and being correct is beautiful.

 

[Brent Reid]

One must fully understand, and decode the information, before the truth comes to the fore.

it is the silver screen, made silver by the off-gassing of the explosive nitrous-silver-oxide film stock, that creates the 4k roller scan of the OCN, and combines it with the equally combustible dueling masters.

A simple process, really. Once it’s understood.

From an audience perspective, one would be aware of the highly artistic asbestos fire curtains - mainstays of the nitrate era.

Those same rollers, used to extract an image during the data harvest process, were used (once fully loaded with excess silver nitrate data) to imbibe that silver nitrate to the mordant layer on the reflecting side of the screen, thereby creating the silver coating on said screen.

unfortunately, the silver nitrate coated screens were extremely flammable. Hence the need for the asbestos curtain.

Very droll!

 

[Stephen_J_H]

Standardisation seems to have been a problem from the dawn of the digital formats, and one on which our dear RAH has been raging against the machine for some time. http://www.thedigitalbits.com/site_archive/articles/robertharris/harris102802.html

 

[Dave H]

It matters in terms of the inability to calibrate a display to a standard. Black levels, white levels, and of course colors can be all over the place. It's all subjective. While one release may look good to someone with a certain display, it may look awful to another on another display. So without any consistency, it's hard to know or gauge how good a transfer really is. That's why standards are nice - like BT.709. You know that even a $500 TV can display BT.709 @ 100nits properly just like a $3000 TV can when both are calibrated to that standard.

So yeah, not to belabor the point, but for sure HDR requires a lot of "letting go" as you say

In terms of remastered Blu-rays as you say, again, it's a case-by-case evalutation. And it's quite time consuming and bothersome to have to think about all this, research it, etc. As videophiles we deserve better. When a 4K UHD tittle comes out that I want to own, because I love the film, I don't feel like doubting it, reading 10 different reviews, testing it against a known quantity (BT.709 Blu-ray), etc. With a Blu-ray, I know what I'm getting. If there are issues, it's because of the disc, not my display's inability to handle the standard. With UHD/HDR, I'm lost. Life is like a box of chocolates with UHD/HDR, you never know what you're gonna get!

When Mr. Harris and Mr. Crawford disagree on this title, it can be due to different display devices and how they handle the EOFT curve, the black levels, brightness, etc. It's hard to know as there are so many variables in play. And that's troubling for me.

I'm going to pick up the new Blu-ray today, and check it out against the 2009 Blu-ray and the new 4K tonight and report back. It's money spent for me to do this, and yeah, a lot of time consumed as well. Standards please!!!

I agree. I have always been such stickler for video standards and good calibration. Honestly, it's still hard to believe they rolled out the new format in the way they did. What might have helped: two layers for each UHD BD; 4K SDR layer (retaining standards!) and 4K HDR layer but requiring every display to have dynamic tone mapping to take in account the nits of each display capability (as part of the spec). At least this would have been a step in a better direction, sigh.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

I agree. I have always been such stickler for video standards and good calibration. Honestly, it's still hard to believe they rolled out the new format in the way they did. What might have helped: two layers for each UHD BD; 4K SDR layer (retaining standards!) and 4K HDR layer but requiring every display to have dynamic tone mapping to take in account the nits of each display capability (as part of the spec). At least this would have been a step in a better direction, sigh.

The only problem with this approach is that it would only work with shorter films, and I suspect this is how Shout! Factory has handled its short documentary titles. I'm pretty sure there isn't a feature length title out there that uses less than a BD-66 and in some cases a BD-100 triple layer disc to deal with the mass amounts of data involved, even after compression. 4K is a bit of a data hog, if you'll pardon the pun.

 

[Dave H]

The only problem with this approach is that it would only work with shorter films, and I suspect this is how Shout! Factory has handled its short documentary titles. I'm pretty sure there isn't a feature length title out there that uses less than a BD-66 and in some cases a BD-100 triple layer disc to deal with the mass amounts of data involved, even after compression. 4K is a bit of a data hog, if you'll pardon the pun.

Good point and they surely wouldn't have wanted to release two actual different UHD discs.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

Good point and they surely wouldn't have wanted to release two actual different UHD discs.

Of course, if they eventually adopt the quad layer disc, this may be possible for some titles. It's a question of whether there will be sufficient demand for it.

 

[OliverK]

While I understand all the frustration about UHD with HDR I also have to say that it has provided me with some of the best looking pictures I have seen on my projection setup.

The key is to select a setup with some added headroom that will allow for average brightness levels that are more or less identical between SDR and HDR content, maybe a bit less if there is not that much headroom for HDR in the first place. Once that has been achieved the highlights provide the icing on the cake and to have some icing to speak of one would need an at least 50% higher light output in HDR in my experience with about twice as much being a very good tradeoff between sacrificing blacker blacks and adding some nice HDR dynamics to the picture.

This will take care of both added dimensionality with HDR and also with the often voiced criticism that HDR is too dark on projectors.
OK, back now to our regular program and the wait for feedback about the remastered Blu-ray, Hopefully it will have very similar detail and textures as the UHD version but better shadow delineation.

 

[Carlo_M]

Memo to self: stop buying sight-unseen on classic film 4Ks...wait for RAH's recommendation/reviews. Still shrink wrapped. Debating whether I should return it...