UHD Review A Few Words About A few words about...™ - American Graffiti -- in 4k UHD (1 Viewer)

[Robert Harris]

Who was that two-faced character in Batman?

I've been trying to figure out how to relate to Universal's new 4k UHD of George Lucas' 1973 American Graffiti.

It's quite an extraordinary film. Always has been. Look at the above and below the line participants, and you'll be drawn to it with no previous knowledge.

I saw it in August of 1973, in a beautiful dye transfer print, derived from the Techniscope 35/2 negative. It was sharp. Had great color. Very comfortable grain structure. Just a gorgeous production.

Which makes me feel as though I'm now looking at a living, breathing digital oxymoron, and there are two totally different perspectives that go with that.

The first, and probably most important, is the right of the filmmaker to alter, adapt, edit and overall change their art. Strangely, the audience, many members of which may love the film that they originally saw half a century ago, feel that they also have rights.

But they don't.

So from one perspective, I find myself obviously looking at something that, although it's without a label, is obviously "Director Approved."

Putting on my archival hat, and knowing the film that I've loved, I'm actually hating what I'm seeing, especially when walking up to the screen.

Grain is gone. Zip. Out of the picture.

And along with that, the image has been not only softened, but corrupted. Looking at medium shots of Richard Dreyfuss early in the film, and Ron Howard a bit later, it appears that alien creatures are attempting to escape from the sides of their faces. Whatever software has been used, has corrupted the original look of the film.

Is there a 4k image?

Well, yes, sort of.

It appears that the original main titles have been recomped from background and overlays, or possibly new digitally created titles, and they look great. There's definitely at least 2k here. Maybe more.

But for the rest of the film, I doubt that there's even HD resolution.

The track in 5.1 works for me. I've actually not checked to see if the included 2.0 mono is the original, or a fold-down. Hopefully it's original. That would be nice for those wishing to hear it.

Here's another "but..."

But sit at a reasonably distance - for me, that's about twelve feet from my projection screen, and all seems well. No grain problems, no alien creatures, no obviously problematic power windows.

So what do we have?

I depends upon one's perspective. I'd have preferred to have the original grain, and no alien creatures in actors faces, along with the resultant higher resolution.

And the fact that the film no longer looks anything like film, I find troubling.

But it's still American Graffiti. A superb entertainment.

And sitting at a reasonable distance, we can kind of, sort of, make believe that all is well.

The copy that I examined was in the Best Buy steelbook, and it's a solid and attractive package.


Archival Rating - A close examination

Image – 1.5 (HDR10)

Audio – 5 (DTS-HD MA 5.1)

Pass / Fail – Fail

Plays nicely with projectors - No

Makes use of and works well in 4k - 1

Upgrade from Blu-ray - Probably not

Worth your attention - 1

Slipcover rating - 6


Entertainment Rating - at a moderate seating distance

Image – 5 (HDR10)

Audio – 5 (DTS-HD MA 5.1)

Pass / Fail – Pass

Plays nicely with projectors - Yes

Makes use of and works well in 4k - 3

Upgrade from Blu-ray - For the HDR

Worth your attention - 10

Slipcover rating - 6

Very Highly Recommended

RAH


Thank you for supporting HTF when you preorder using the link below. As an Amazon Associate HTF earns from qualifying purchases. If you are using an adblocker you will not see link.

See on Amazon

 

[willyTass]

I assume these video rating scores are out of 100 ?

 

[Robert Crawford]

I know I'm in the distinct minority here, but I have no issues with this 4K/UHD presentation.

 

[Robert Harris]

I assume these video rating scores are out of 100 ?

1 to 5.

 

[Robert Harris]

I know I'm in the distinct minority here, but I have no issues with this 4K/UHD presentation.

You shouldn’t unless you’re looking for the forensics. I’m fine with it a dozen feet away, which is my norm per screen size.

Overall, it’s a good-looking product.

 

[Dave H]

You shouldn’t unless you’re looking for the forensics. I’m fine with it a dozen feet away, which is my norm per screen size.

Overall, it’s a good-looking product.

What is your screen size and aspect ratio?

I sit about ten feet back from a 117.4" 2.35 screen.

 

[Robert Harris]

What is your screen size and aspect ratio?

I sit about ten feet back from a 117.4" 2.35 screen.

I don’t recall offhand. It’s a 1.78 screen, with side markings. Width about ten feet.

 

[compson]

1 to 5.

You didn’t mean to give the image a 5 on close examination, did you?

 

[Wayne_j]

I was going to say that you gave the image a perfect score and gave it a fail. You must have not meant a 5.

 

[Malcolm R]

He's explained that it looks perfectly fine. It just doesn't look like it should (or could).

 

[Powell&Pressburger]

This kind of free pass reviewism only hurts the format.

If you don’t have the guts to call it a fail and give the image a 0 or 1 then you’re just encouraging more mediocre DNR disaster transfers.

It’s sad to see supposed home theater aficionados say it looks good.

This crap might be fine for streaming, but we are the one’s championing physical media and the 4K format for a film-like presentation.

It’s a trash release. Call it what it is.

 

[Worth]

I’ve always found it odd that, for a guy who has long championed film preservation, Lucas really seems to hate the way film actually looks.

 

[Robert Crawford]

This kind of free pass reviewism only hurts the format.

If you don’t have the guts to call it a fail and give the image a 0 or 1 then you’re just encouraging more mediocre DNR disaster transfers.

It’s sad to see supposed home theater aficionados say it looks good.

This crap might be fine for streaming, but we are the one’s championing physical media and the 4K format for a film-like presentation.

It’s a trash release. Call it what it is.

It might be trash to you, but evidently Universal and Lucas wanted this look for the 4K/UHD. Furthermore, you stating RAH has a lack of guts crossed the line in regard to our forum guidelines against personal attacks. Please, stop it.

Terms and rules

You must agree to these terms and rules before using the site.

www.hometheaterforum.com

 

[JoeDoakes]

Who was that two-faced character in Batman?

I've been trying to figure out how to relate to Universal's new 4k UHD of George Lucas' 1973 American Graffiti.

It's quite an extraordinary film. Always has been. Look at the above and below the line participants, and you'll be drawn to it with no previous knowledge.

I saw it in August of 1973, in a beautiful dye transfer print, derived from the Techniscope 35/2 negative. It was sharp. Had great color. Very comfortable grain structure. Just a gorgeous production.

Which makes me feel as though I'm now looking at a living, breathing digital oxymoron, and there are two totally different perspectives that go with that.

The first, and probably most important, is the right of the filmmaker to alter, adapt, edit and overall change their art. Strangely, the audience, many members of which may love the film that they originally saw half a century ago, feel that they also have rights.

But they don't.

So from one perspective, I find myself obviously looking at something that, although it's without a label, is obviously "Director Approved."

Putting on my archival hat, and knowing the film that I've loved, I'm actually hating what I'm seeing, especially when walking up to the screen.

Grain is gone. Zip. Out of the picture.

And along with that, the image has been not only softened, but corrupted. Looking at medium shots of Richard Dreyfuss early in the film, and Ron Howard a bit later, it appears that alien creatures are attempting to escape from the sides of their faces. Whatever software has been used, has corrupted the original look of the film.

Is there a 4k image?

Well, yes, sort of.

It appears that the original main titles have been recomped from background and overlays, or possibly new digitally created titles, and they look great. There's definitely at least 2k here. Maybe more.

But for the rest of the film, I doubt that there's even HD resolution.

The track in 5.1 works for me. I've actually not checked to see if the included 2.0 mono is the original, or a fold-down. Hopefully it's original. That would be nice for those wishing to hear it.

Here's another "but..."

But sit at a reasonably distance - for me, that's about twelve feet from my projection screen, and all seems well. No grain problems, no alien creatures, no obviously problematic power windows.

So what do we have?

I depends upon one's perspective. I'd have preferred to have the original grain, and no alien creatures in actors faces, along with the resultant higher resolution.

And the fact that the film no longer looks anything like film, I find troubling.

But it's still American Graffiti. A superb entertainment.

And sitting at a reasonable distance, we can kind of, sort of, make believe that all is well.

The copy that I examined was in the Best Buy steelbook, and it's a solid and attractive package.


Archival Rating - A close examination

Image – 5 (HDR10)

Audio – 5 (DTS-HD MA 5.1)

Pass / Fail – Fail

Plays nicely with projectors - No

Makes use of and works well in 4k - 1

Upgrade from Blu-ray - Probably not

Worth your attention - 1

Slipcover rating - 6


Entertainment Rating - at a moderate seating distance

Image – 5 (HDR10)

Audio – 5 (DTS-HD MA 5.1)

Pass / Fail – Pass

Plays nicely with projectors - Yes

Makes use of and works well in 4k - 3

Upgrade from Blu-ray - For the HDR

Worth your attention - 10

Slipcover rating - 6

Very Highly Recommended

RAH

This is disturbing for such a great film. Have you looked at the prior blu-ray recently? In other words, is this a recent problem or something that's been around in other incarnations for a while? Also, for those not aware, this has probably the greatest making of documentary I've ever seen. Everyone, including Francis Ford Coppola, is involved and the birth of this film is a great story of artistic creation.

 

[Neil S. Bulk]

I've actually not checked to see if the included 2.0 mono is the original, or a fold-down.

Fold down of the new track and not the 1978 Dolby Stereo mix and definitely not the original 1973 mono.

 

[Robert Harris]

You didn’t mean to give the image a 5 on close examination, did you?

Corrected.

 

[Robert Harris]

This kind of free pass reviewism only hurts the format.

If you don’t have the guts to call it a fail and give the image a 0 or 1 then you’re just encouraging more mediocre DNR disaster transfers.

It’s sad to see supposed home theater aficionados say it looks good.

This crap might be fine for streaming, but we are the one’s championing physical media and the 4K format for a film-like presentation.

It’s a trash release. Call it what it is.

You’re missing the point of the piece, which is that the presumption is that there are two different players here, with the filmmaker taking the lead, and the studio following orders.

I’ve seen enough studio work over the past few years, accurately reproducing the original textures of film to believe that there’s more going on here than meets the eye.

In a way, it’s a loss for those who love the look of film, a win for the filmmaker, but also a win for those who couldn’t care less for accuracy over pretty revisionism, especially when said revisionism can only be seen forensically.

I wonder if you’re responding to the dual set of numbers, with a typo in the first set - since corrected - or the fact that I’m setting the situation in a real screening situation?

As to a “lack of guts,” which I don’t take personally — if that was the case, there would be no review and no discussion.

In the end, what seems obvious here, is that the 4k UHD format is not necessarily designed for purists. And once again, purists are advised to read reviews before ordering.

Or alternatively, view a nice unboxing video.

 

[Robert Crawford]

You’re missing the point of the piece, which is that the presumption is that there are two different players here, with the filmmaker taking the lead, and the studio following orders.

I’ve seen enough studio work over the past few years, accurately reproducing the original textures of film to believe that there’s more going on here than meets the eye.

In a way, it’s a loss for those who love the look of film, a win for the filmmaker, but also a win for those who couldn’t care less for accuracy over pretty revisionism, especially when said revisionism can only be seen forensically.

I wonder if you’re responding to the dual set of numbers, with a typo in the first set - since corrected - or the fact that I’m setting the situation in a real screening situation?

As to a “lack of guts,” which I don’t take personally — if that was the case, there would be no review and no discussion.

In the end, what seems obvious here, is that the 4k UHD format is not necessarily designed for purists. And once again, purists are advised to read reviews before ordering.

Or alternatively, view a nice unboxing video.

RAH, I've been saying the same thing that some of these 4K/UHD releases with their "pretty look" being displayed on "non-projector" screens is an intended look being driven by filmmakers, studios and perhaps other interested parties. including consumers. They are not "hack" jobs caused by mistake or incompetence but are produced this way as an intentional result.

Furthermore, I've said repeatedly on this forum that the 4K/UHD format isn't for film purists in regard to classic films. If you want to see or hear a film like it was during its theatrical run. Chances are it's not going to happen watching and listening to such movies on 4K/UHD format. You're better off sticking to previous Blu-ray releases if that BD release was good enough. That old DVD/Blu-ray marketing term of "watching movies at home like they were intended by the filmmakers at a movie theater" doesn't necessarily apply to many of these 4K/UHD releases. Particularly, those in which the filmmakers are no longer with us.

 

[Robert Harris]

RAH, I've been saying the same thing that some of these 4K/UHD releases with their "pretty look" being displayed on "non-projector" screens is an intended look being driven by filmmakers, studios and perhaps other interested parties. including consumers. They are not "hack" jobs caused by mistake or incompetence but are produced this way as an intentional result.

Furthermore, I've said repeatedly on this forum that the 4K/UHD format isn't for film purists in regard to classic films. If you want to see or hear a film like it was during its theatrical run. Chances are it's not going to happen watching and listening to such movies on 4K/UHD format. You're better off sticking to previous Blu-ray releases if that BD release was good enough. That old DVD/Blu-ray marketing term of "watching movies at home like they were intended by the filmmakers at a movie theater" doesn't necessarily apply to many of these 4K/UHD releases. Particularly, those in which the filmmakers are no longer with us.

I was about to report your post to a mod, for generally agreeing with me. How dare you!?

The one point where we take a different perspective is the viability and reality of newer 4k releases properly mimicking the look of an original film, as shot on film.

I’ve taken discs and projecting them at 37’ in width, and they not only hold up, but look like a quality DCP. There’s no homogenization.

They look like film. All five of the Hitchcock productions in Universal’s latest boxed set fit into that category. If you’ve not seen it…

And one huge agreement in that many of the discs which I (or others) dislike are not hack jobs. They look precisely as those behind their creation wish them to look.

It’s incredibly simple to bend and distort films digitally. Something difficult in the analogue universe.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I was about to report your post to a mod, for generally agreeing with me. How dare you!?

The one point where we take a different perspective is the viability and reality of newer 4k releases properly mimicking the look of an original film, as shot on film.

I’ve taken discs and projecting them at 37’ in width, and they not only hold up, but look like a quality DCP. There’s no homogenization.

They look like film. All five of the Hitchcock productions in Universal’s latest boxed set fit into that category. If you’ve not seen it…

And one huge agreement in that many of the discs which I (or others) dislike are not hack jobs. They look precisely as those behind their creation wish them to look.

It’s incredibly simple to bend and distort films digitally. Something difficult in the analogue universe.

Well, you would know better than I regarding 4K/UHD mimicking the look of an original film, so I defer to your educated opinion. I never watched a lot of those movies in a movie theater or watch them on a quality print. However, I still stand by my assertion that the 4K/UHD format isn't necessarily the best thing for film purists.