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

[haineshisway]

My 16mm prints came directly from, as I recall, NTA. They were beautifully produced, and derived from a Neg that came from a 35 fine grain. Full gray scale.

My 35 was derived from the new printing element produced, again as I recall, by UCLA. The print is magnificent, and again, with a full gray scale, and highly resolved image.

The new 4k, is to my eye, taken from a gorgeous image harvest, with meticulous grain structure and perfect stability. It only falls below perfection in terms of the missing shadow detail.

I would bet that the pre-HDR master is glorious.

I owned one of the most beautiful 16mm prints ever on Wonderful Life. And in the late 1970s when I used to do a Christmas movie marathon, all 35mm save for Wonderful Life, one year, and don't ask me details, a nitrate print was on its way back to the Library of Congress and made a stop at the screening room we were using - we ran it - it was, in a word, the most beautiful black-and-white image I have ever seen. No home video release has come within a country mile of it, I'm afraid. Any reports on the new Blu?

 

[Douglas R]

I owned one of the most beautiful 16mm prints ever on Wonderful Life. And in the late 1970s when I used to do a Christmas movie marathon, all 35mm save for Wonderful Life, one year, and don't ask me details, a nitrate print was on its way back to the Library of Congress and made a stop at the screening room we were using - we ran it - it was, in a word, the most beautiful black-and-white image I have ever seen. No home video release has come within a country mile of it, I'm afraid. Any reports on the new Blu?

Those words "the most beautiful black-and-white image I have ever seen" recall a 35mm screening of a British Film Institute print of Wonderful Life which I saw; also in the late 1970s. I thought at the time that it was stunning in its clarity and I've never seen the film as good as that before or since.

I have the UK 4K version which comes not with a colorised addition but with a standard Blu-ray disc. Both versions display deeper blacks, in comparison to the previous Blu-ray.

 

[Dave H]

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.

I'm using a relatively newer JVC FP paired with the Panasonic 820 and generally have gotten very nice results with the tone mapping (no issues with darkness, clipping, etc.). I am curious to explore a dynamic tone mapping solution at some point down the road.

 

[Robert Harris]

I owned one of the most beautiful 16mm prints ever on Wonderful Life. And in the late 1970s when I used to do a Christmas movie marathon, all 35mm save for Wonderful Life, one year, and don't ask me details, a nitrate print was on its way back to the Library of Congress and made a stop at the screening room we were using - we ran it - it was, in a word, the most beautiful black-and-white image I have ever seen. No home video release has come within a country mile of it, I'm afraid. Any reports on the new Blu?

Amen!

 

[bujaki]

Very droll!

We all breathed asbestos coupled with curtains of cigarette smoke.

 

[Glenn C.]

That other forum gave this 4K title a very positive review.

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Its-a-Wonderful-Life-4K-Blu-ray/249570/#Review

 

[MatthewA]

How is it that the UK was able to get a version that was done right but not the US?

 

[Robert Crawford]

That other forum gave this 4K title a very positive review.

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Its-a-Wonderful-Life-4K-Blu-ray/249570/#Review

Well, I'm glad somebody else thought it looked great. It's been out on iTunes in 4K/Dolby Vision for about a year now and to my knowledge, nobody complained about the video presentation until RAH posted this thread. Now, there are only a few of us that has no issues with the video.

 

[moviebuff75]

How is the framing? The screencaps show quite a bit missing from the top. That concerns me with the scene with Harry's Homecoming in the newspaper. It shows SNOW TONIGHT at the top right of the frame, and a character refers to it. Now, it is probably gone. Did the old version show too much?

 

[Angelo Colombus]

Just received it and did a quick a/b comparison to the 2009 Blu-ray release. The 4K disc is much darker than I expected and looks like it was shot with minimal lighting. I know my tv and player settings are fine and other 4K titles I have look good so I don't know what to say.

 

[Gary16]

Just received it and did a quick a/b comparison to the 2009 Blu-ray release. The 4K disc is much darker than I expected and looks like it was shot with minimal lighting. I know my tv and player settings are fine and other 4K titles I have look good so I don't know what to say.

Just say you agree with most of us.

 

[Angelo Colombus]

I went to my tv settings and turned off the HDR mode and the image was brighter so I might view the disc that way?

 

[ghostwind]

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!!!

OK, so here are my findings after evaluating all 3 above mentioned discs earlier this evening and going back and forth many times to be sure all settings were correct, identical frames were matched, etc. I have two Panasonic UB820 players connected to separate HDMI inputs on a LG 65C8 OLED display, so switching inputs back and forth made things easy to compare. My display is properly profiled and calibrated with LightSpace for REC.709 @ 100nits (Blu-ray), but for 4K/UHD/REC.2020 the only parameter I can calibrate (or rather the only parameter anyone SHOULD calibrate as I mentioned earlier) is the white balance/grayscale. So here goes!

1. The new Blu-ray is (as expected) a major improvement over the 2009 one. It has better detail, looks more like film, grain is visible, doesn't have that ugly DNR and EE applied to it that the 2009 version did, etc. It also has better shadow detail than the 2009 version. Also, the opening titles are not windowboxed in the new version. So clear winner here.

2. The 4K UHD/HDR is a different story, and my findings don't match Mr. Harris', which surprised me. Let me explain. I found just the opposite, that the 4K actually has better shadow detail than the 2009 Blu-ray, hands down. It actually matches pretty closely the new Blu-ray, but of course is better in the detail department as expected. I first watched it with Dolby Vision enabled and then disabled Dolby Vision on the Panasonic UB820 to force it to use the HDR10 mode (the mandatory backup HDR included on all 4K discs for displays that don't support Dolby Vision). With Dolby Vision, the image on my display was a bit too bright, the blacks too lifted, and the HDR10 image was closer to the Blu-ray and closer to what I would prefer.

3. So what does this mean? Who can say? This is the nature of 4K UHD discs unfortunately. On some displays they look one way, and on others another. It's hard to have a conclusive opinion, other than to say that on X set it looks a certain way and on Y set another. And even among sets there can be small variations. I know Mr. Harris said he looked at it on a projector and a Sony OLED. I wonder what display Mr. Crawford has. Maybe an LG? Curious to know actually.

I have no prints and no idea what it "should" look like. The only thing I can say for certain, and with 100% confidence, is that the new Blu-ray is a lot better than the old, and it has better shadow detail. It looks really, really good. The 4K looks even better in HDR10 mode, on my display, where only the grayscale/white balance is calibrated.

 

[Gary16]

OK, so here are my findings after evaluating all 3 above mentioned discs earlier this evening and going back and forth many times to be sure all settings were correct, identical frames were matched, etc. I have two Panasonic UB820 players connected to separate HDMI inputs on a LG 65C8 OLED display, so switching inputs back and forth made things easy to compare. My display is properly profiled and calibrated with LightSpace for REC.709 @ 100nits (Blu-ray), but for 4K/UHD/REC.2020 the only parameter I can calibrate (or rather the only parameter anyone SHOULD calibrate as I mentioned earlier) is the white balance/grayscale. So here goes!

1. The new Blu-ray is (as expected) a major improvement over the 2009 one. It has better detail, looks more like film, grain is visible, doesn't have that ugly DNR and EE applied to it that the 2009 version did, etc. It also has better shadow detail than the 2009 version. Also, the opening titles are not windowboxed in the new version. So clear winner here.

2. The 4K UHD/HDR is a different story, and my findings don't match Mr. Harris', which surprised me. Let me explain. I found just the opposite, that the 4K actually has better shadow detail than the 2009 Blu-ray, hands down. It actually matches pretty closely the new Blu-ray, but of course is better in the detail department as expected. I first watched it with Dolby Vision enabled and then disabled Dolby Vision on the Panasonic UB820 to force it to use the HDR10 mode (the mandatory backup HDR included on all 4K discs for displays that don't support Dolby Vision). With Dolby Vision, the image on my display was a bit too bright, the blacks too lifted, and the HDR10 image was closer to the Blu-ray and closer to what I would prefer.

3. So what does this mean? Who can say? This is the nature of 4K UHD discs unfortunately. On some displays they look one way, and on others another. It's hard to have a conclusive opinion, other than to say that on X set it looks a certain way and on Y set another. And even among sets there can be small variations. I know Mr. Harris said he looked at it on a projector and a Sony OLED. I wonder what display Mr. Crawford has. Maybe an LG? Curious to know actually.

I have no prints and no idea what it "should" look like. The only thing I can say for certain, and with 100% confidence, is that the new Blu-ray is a lot better than the old, and it has better shadow detail. It looks really, really good. The 4K looks even better in HDR10 mode, on my display, where only the grayscale/white balance is calibrated.

I’m one of the people who had the 4K from a download saved to my Kaleidescape Strato 4K player a couple of months ago and totally agree with Mr. Harris’s results. I’m using a new JVC RS4500 laser projector which has given me great results on every 4K I’ve played except IAWL.

 

[Robert Harris]

OK, so here are my findings after evaluating all 3 above mentioned discs earlier this evening and going back and forth many times to be sure all settings were correct, identical frames were matched, etc. I have two Panasonic UB820 players connected to separate HDMI inputs on a LG 65C8 OLED display, so switching inputs back and forth made things easy to compare. My display is properly profiled and calibrated with LightSpace for REC.709 @ 100nits (Blu-ray), but for 4K/UHD/REC.2020 the only parameter I can calibrate (or rather the only parameter anyone SHOULD calibrate as I mentioned earlier) is the white balance/grayscale. So here goes!

1. The new Blu-ray is (as expected) a major improvement over the 2009 one. It has better detail, looks more like film, grain is visible, doesn't have that ugly DNR and EE applied to it that the 2009 version did, etc. It also has better shadow detail than the 2009 version. Also, the opening titles are not windowboxed in the new version. So clear winner here.

2. The 4K UHD/HDR is a different story, and my findings don't match Mr. Harris', which surprised me. Let me explain. I found just the opposite, that the 4K actually has better shadow detail than the 2009 Blu-ray, hands down. It actually matches pretty closely the new Blu-ray, but of course is better in the detail department as expected. I first watched it with Dolby Vision enabled and then disabled Dolby Vision on the Panasonic UB820 to force it to use the HDR10 mode (the mandatory backup HDR included on all 4K discs for displays that don't support Dolby Vision). With Dolby Vision, the image on my display was a bit too bright, the blacks too lifted, and the HDR10 image was closer to the Blu-ray and closer to what I would prefer.

3. So what does this mean? Who can say? This is the nature of 4K UHD discs unfortunately. On some displays they look one way, and on others another. It's hard to have a conclusive opinion, other than to say that on X set it looks a certain way and on Y set another. And even among sets there can be small variations. I know Mr. Harris said he looked at it on a projector and a Sony OLED. I wonder what display Mr. Crawford has. Maybe an LG? Curious to know actually.

I have no prints and no idea what it "should" look like. The only thing I can say for certain, and with 100% confidence, is that the new Blu-ray is a lot better than the old, and it has better shadow detail. It looks really, really good. The 4K looks even better in HDR10 mode, on my display, where only the grayscale/white balance is calibrated.

Thank you for making the effort to report.

I’ll have to find some time, and try de-coupling Dolby Vision. Probably need a wrench...

 

[haineshisway]

I just went to Amazon looking for the new Blu - and I have no idea which one it's supposed to be because Amazon is, well, the "R" word. First off, the 4K says that the Blu-ray is included but in this thread everyone says it isn't. Which is it? Included or not? Can someone link me specifically to the solo NEW Blu-ray on Amazon.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I just went to Amazon looking for the new Blu - and I have no idea which one it's supposed to be because Amazon is, well, the "R" word. First off, the 4K says that the Blu-ray is included but in this thread everyone says it isn't. Which is it? Included or not? Can someone link me specifically to the solo NEW Blu-ray on Amazon.

Here you go Bruce.

https://www.amazon.com/Wonderful-Li..._title_1?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1573036099&sr=1-1

 

[Robert Harris]

I just went to Amazon looking for the new Blu - and I have no idea which one it's supposed to be because Amazon is, well, the "R" word. First off, the 4K says that the Blu-ray is included but in this thread everyone says it isn't. Which is it? Included or not? Can someone link me specifically to the solo NEW Blu-ray on Amazon.

The 4k does include the Blu-ray. It’s the original three-strip version.

 

[Robert Crawford]

The 4k does include the Blu-ray. It’s the original three-strip version.

 

[OliverK]

OK, so here are my findings after evaluating all 3 above mentioned discs earlier this evening and going back and forth many times to be sure all settings were correct, identical frames were matched, etc. I have two Panasonic UB820 players connected to separate HDMI inputs on a LG 65C8 OLED display, so switching inputs back and forth made things easy to compare. My display is properly profiled and calibrated with LightSpace for REC.709 @ 100nits (Blu-ray), but for 4K/UHD/REC.2020 the only parameter I can calibrate (or rather the only parameter anyone SHOULD calibrate as I mentioned earlier) is the white balance/grayscale. So here goes!

1. The new Blu-ray is (as expected) a major improvement over the 2009 one. It has better detail, looks more like film, grain is visible, doesn't have that ugly DNR and EE applied to it that the 2009 version did, etc. It also has better shadow detail than the 2009 version. Also, the opening titles are not windowboxed in the new version. So clear winner here.

2. The 4K UHD/HDR is a different story, and my findings don't match Mr. Harris', which surprised me. Let me explain. I found just the opposite, that the 4K actually has better shadow detail than the 2009 Blu-ray, hands down. It actually matches pretty closely the new Blu-ray, but of course is better in the detail department as expected. I first watched it with Dolby Vision enabled and then disabled Dolby Vision on the Panasonic UB820 to force it to use the HDR10 mode (the mandatory backup HDR included on all 4K discs for displays that don't support Dolby Vision). With Dolby Vision, the image on my display was a bit too bright, the blacks too lifted, and the HDR10 image was closer to the Blu-ray and closer to what I would prefer.

3. So what does this mean? Who can say? This is the nature of 4K UHD discs unfortunately. On some displays they look one way, and on others another. It's hard to have a conclusive opinion, other than to say that on X set it looks a certain way and on Y set another. And even among sets there can be small variations. I know Mr. Harris said he looked at it on a projector and a Sony OLED. I wonder what display Mr. Crawford has. Maybe an LG? Curious to know actually.

I have no prints and no idea what it "should" look like. The only thing I can say for certain, and with 100% confidence, is that the new Blu-ray is a lot better than the old, and it has better shadow detail. It looks really, really good. The 4K looks even better in HDR10 mode, on my display, where only the grayscale/white balance is calibrated.

Thanks for the report, can you tell us if the colorized Blu-ray that comes with the 4k set looks like the new Blu-ray that is separately sold if you take all color out of it?