UHD Review A Few Words About A few words about...™ - "Death Wish” -- in 4k UHD (1 Viewer)

[Keith Cobby]

I am often disappointed with 4k presentations because they are basically 2k and want it to be better than it can be. Agree with Robert, most people I know have no idea (and don't care) what they're watching. A good 4k disc is likely the pinnacle of home theatre, but I am more discerning over upgrading from blu ray than upgrading from DVD to blu.

I'm not a fan of Michael Winner's work, so won't be buying DW. He was a much more entertaining restaurant critic than film director!

 

[Paul Penna]

For those who care, and are not simply purchasing a 4k at Costco because all of the panels are 4k -And also have 4k players - I’d think that most are aware that generally TV broadcasts are HD, and that they only see 4k when they run a 4k UHD disc. But probably have no idea what resolution they’re actually seeing on their 4k panel, and presume that if they’re running a 4k disc, they’re see 4k.
Even when they’re not.

I wouldn’t make that assumption.

Oh, that's very easy to assume. Most people think their 16x9 screens are either always supposed to be filled with image or they like them that way even if it distorts the image, such as stretching 4x3 horizontally or 2.37:1 or wider vertically - and for that matter many can't even tell that's what's happening. Those people are perfectly happy with what they're seeing.

 

[Garysb]

I know that for certain sport events like the Olympics Verizon has a separate channel that broadcasts in 4K. You get a pop up message when you tune to the HD channal asking if you want to switch to the 4k broadcast with the usual warnings that your equipment must be 4K to view it in 4K. So 99% + of HD broadcasting is mostly in 1080i but some like ABC and other Disney owned channals including ESPN in 720p per Wilkipedia if that is up to date. Streaming is 2K or 4K depending what is available but you need to have a fast internet connection to get 4K when available, I assume.

It is up to the viewer to decide when watching a 4K disc if what they are seeing is a 4k derived from a 2K or 4K source. As far as I know, other than reading reviews, there is no list stating which 4K discs were apparently derived from a 2K scan. KINO states if their master was scanned in 2K or 4K for blu ray releases. I don't recall their saying a 4K disc was derived from a 2K source. Seems like this is similar to the early days of blu ray when DVD masters were used as the source for blu rays though I believe the masters used for the DVD were HD. They were just not recent and technolgy improved.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Oh, that's very easy to assume. Most people think their 16x9 screens are either always supposed to be filled with image or they like them that way even if it distorts the image, such as stretching 4x3 horizontally or 2.37:1 or wider vertically - and for that matter many can't even tell that's what's happening. Those people are perfectly happy with what they're seeing.

If I read my follow up post you will see that I think many people don’t know what they’re watching.

 

[Bryan^H]

Since 2016 4K has been a complete failure in terms of marketing. Buzz words like HDR10, Dolby Vision HDR10+ have just confused the consumer. Most don't even know what the hell HDR is. I have a couple friends that still watch HDR content in a natural light filled room and wonder why the picture is "so dark". Probably because the biggest buzzword since the launch (HDR obviously) was never explained to the public to be viewed in a completely dark room and to emulate the theater experience. It is something I didn't know in the first few months, and I keep up on all this 4K news, and forum jibber jabber. How could the most important feature be masked in secrecy? Is a secret handshake also required?


Fake 4K is the norm not the exception. But I can count on one hand titles on standard BD that look better than the "4K" counterpart.

 

[Vincent_P]

One needs to remember that even "fake UHD" (i.e., 2K DIs uprezzed and such) still have quadruple the color "resolution" than Blu-ray (4:2:0 color being 540 X 960 on Blu-ray, and 1080 X1920 on UHD), and 10-bit color vs. 8-bit color, to boot. This is true even of SDR UHDs in the Rec.709 color space. This is one of the big reasons that even 2K DIs uprezzes usually look noticeably better on UHD than Blu-ray. It's not just about HDR "pop", but better color reproduction overall on the format (and even SDR black & white titles will benefit from 10-bit vs. 8-bit re: gradients). There are also interesting instances of UHDs based off 2K DIs actually appearing to have more detail (Scorsese's SHUTTER ISLAND comes to mind)- I wonder if that mostly comes down to better compression on the UHD vs. a decade-old Blu-ray, though, as I doubt they "rebuilt" the 2K DI in 4K or something like that.

It is odd that the Blu-ray of this particular title resolves grain better than the UHD. This suggests some untoward digital trickery having been done on the 4K master. Maybe they did the 1080P downrez before subjecting the 4K file to "grain management"?

Vincent

 

[Robert Harris]

A representative of Kino has confirmed with their tech people that Paramount did deliver a 4k.

Beyond, grain manipulation, I believe there may be dupe footage cut into the original, leading me to believe that it's an IP.

In every case, had grain been left as it was, the final product would look better.

 

[Vincent_P]

I wonder if they might have accidentally sent over a 4K master that was "optimized for streaming" or something? Streaming bit rates for 4K are NOT a good match with film grain- check out the 4K Dolby Vision streams of the early seasons of SEINFELD on Netflix for proof of that! They look atrocious. Later seasons look better (Kodak film stock improvements I imagine), but those early seasons- YIKES!!! The swarming compression artifacts in the film grain are ghastly!

Vincent

 

[Worth]

...I have a couple friends that still watch HDR content in a natural light filled room and wonder why the picture is "so dark". Probably because the biggest buzzword since the launch (HDR obviously) was never explained to the public to be viewed in a completely dark room and to emulate the theater experience.

It was sold as the opposite - brighter images and punchier colours (simulated HDR on the right).

 

[sbjork]

One needs to remember that even "fake UHD" (i.e., 2K DIs uprezzed and such) still have quadruple the color "resolution" than Blu-ray (4:2:0 color being 540 X 960 on Blu-ray, and 1080 X1920 on UHD), and 10-bit color vs. 8-bit color, to boot. This is true even of SDR UHDs in the Rec.709 color space. This is one of the big reasons that even 2K DIs uprezzes usually look noticeably better on UHD than Blu-ray. It's not just about HDR "pop", but better color reproduction overall on the format (and even SDR black & white titles will benefit from 10-bit vs. 8-bit re: gradients). There are also interesting instances of UHDs based off 2K DIs actually appearing to have more detail (Scorsese's SHUTTER ISLAND comes to mind)- I wonder if that mostly comes down to better compression on the UHD vs. a decade-old Blu-ray, though, as I doubt they "rebuilt" the 2K DI in 4K or something like that.

It is odd that the Blu-ray of this particular title resolves grain better than the UHD. This suggests some untoward digital trickery having been done on the 4K master. Maybe they did the 1080P downrez before subjecting the 4K file to "grain management"?

Vincent

I also maintain that all things being equal, upscaling the 2K data files at the uncompressed source, rather than via compressed 1080p Blu-ray at the user's end, makes a visible difference. Especially if the original source material was shot at higher resolutions than 2K. It's a bit like supersampling on computer video cards -- less aliasing, and cleaner edges.

Combine that with the improvements in color resolution that you mention, and they can make a real difference. It's a mistake to dismiss 2K upscales as quickly as some people do.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

I’ve been giving the Death Wish situation some thought, and the answer is simple.

A New Format.

A 4k UHD release derived from a 2k master, not to in any way take advantage of actual 4k resolution, but rather simply for the HDR/DV “pop” that will be seen on OLED panels.

The question, since they do not actually carry true 4k resolution, is…

What to call them?

I’d go with “2k UHD”

How to market them?

Just try and explain this to the consumer.

How to price them?

A few dollars above Blu-ray.

The variant already exists, but has not been recognized as such.

I personally have no interest in these, as I’d be equally as happy with a Blu-ray derived from the same newer master, but those who purchase 4k should be on notice before they place an order, that they are not receiving true 4k, and merely the HDR pop.

I like the idea of an alternate format designation. Eagle Vision has released several concerts originated on videotape as SD Blu-ray, taking advantage of the better audio formats available. My suggestion would get more to the heart of the matter: 2K HDR. It addresses what has ostensibly been "improved" for the release, as there isn't 4K of information.

 

[Dave H]

This is really no different than any other format. There were way too many BDs with 480i or less resolution (Paramount guilty AGAIN with abusing DNR all too often along with Universal, but at least Universal eventually woke-up). And then there were DVDs with less than VHS resolution (240).

 

[Wayne Klein]

Ah too bad. I’m hoping the image beats the old Blu-Ray if nothing else. Paramount has been really funky with some of their releases. At least those of us on this forum know what we would be getting if we purchase it. I wonder if there will be a replacement program ( I doubt it).

 

[Robert Harris]

Want to be totally transparent.

Kino’s rep checked with their tech staff and confirmed that they were told that this is a new 4k scan of OCN.

I’ve not viewed the entire fIlm. Need to see film again, but time not available. I do need to spot check further, and here’s why.

What I’m seeing in the first reel (not the MT dupes) - beyond grain massaging, and odd grain (digital) clumping in skies, is both negative (sparkles) and positive dirt. Unless some sort of processing has added this, I have no idea how it gets on to an OCN, as any dirt reads as white.

On top of that, there is instability, ie movement of the image within the frame, which you don’t get in a new stabilized scan, unless the scanned element is a contact printed IP.

I don’t really want to make this release an avocation, but also need to report findings accurately and honesty.

For the record, color in opening sequence in Hawaii has lovely color, but color and densities seem fine generally.

I’ll make the point again. There is no secret sauce to creating a quality 4k UHD release, whether the film element has true 4k resolution (beyond grain structure) or not.

The trick is that there is no trick. Simply reproduce what’s on the film element or data, color, clean.

Paramount seems to like to add additional steps.

More transparency.

Without examining the OCN, I’m unable to tell you that The Italian Job has full original grain, as digital layers can cover / mimic pretty much everything. It is possible that grain was removed and replaced with something that APPEARS to be proper grain.

To me, it doesn’t matter, because it looks natural, no artifacts, full resolution of original image. Is the red in the MT slightly hyped? Possibly, as I don’t recall original film, and would be affected by print stock anyway.

But those titles are startlingly red - and beautiful.

Truly a tale of two releases from same studio, handled in two different ways.

 

[Robert Harris]

I also maintain that all things being equal, upscaling the 2K data files at the uncompressed source, rather than via compressed 1080p Blu-ray at the user's end, makes a visible difference. Especially if the original source material was shot at higher resolutions than 2K. It's a bit like supersampling on computer video cards -- less aliasing, and cleaner edges.

Combine that with the improvements in color resolution that you mention, and they can make a real difference. It's a mistake to dismiss 2K upscales as quickly as some people do.

Agreed.

My point, however, is more toward truth in packaging re resolution, all other niceties aside.

People purchasing a 4k derived from 16mm should not expect A24s Midsommar, derived from Panavision 8k.

 

[sbjork]

Agreed.

My point, however, is more toward truth in packaging re resolution, all other niceties aside.

People purchasing a 4k derived from 16mm should not expect A24s Midsommar, derived from Panavision 8k.

Midsommar is in a class of its own. I don't give out many A+ ratings for video, but that disc earned it, and then some.

But I agree that it would be nice if the origination for any given transfer was clearly denoted on the packaging of all releases. Unfortunately, as a not particularly wise man once said, that train has sailed.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Agreed.

My point, however, is more toward truth in packaging re resolution, all other niceties aside.

People purchasing a 4k derived from 16mm should not expect A24s Midsommar, derived from Panavision 8k.

Understood, but unfortunately that horse left the barn a long time ago. Furthermore, truth in advertising is not being practiced like it should be in protecting the consumer.

 

[Robert Harris]

Understood, but unfortunately that horse left the barn a long time ago. Furthermore, truth in advertising is not being practiced like it should be in protecting the consumer.

Time for someone to start scanning Ken 8mm in 4k and market as ”Brilliantly restored 4k scan!.

 

[Paul Penna]

Time for someone to start scanning Ken 8mm in 4k and market as ”Brilliantly restored 4k scan!.

I'll wait for the Complete Thunderbird Films: The Questionable Legality Collection, in custom steelbooks, thank you very much.

 

[Robert Harris]

"He is not perfect!"

I may have misspoken or misreported some information in my Death Wish comments, and desire to make amends.

I've taken a longer look, and here's what I'm seeing.

It appears that the film may partially be derived from IP or dupe, but in deference to the studio techs, it's extremely difficult to tell the difference between the three, especially if at some point rolls may have been mis-canned.

A dupe neg in an OCN can? No real way to tell the difference.

An IP in an OCN can? Ditto. Orange-based Kodak stock is all the same. Even if one looks at the perforations for a clue. They're all the same.

Set up an IP on the scanner rather than a negative? No real difference.

It's also possible that mis-canned rolls were sent to a scanning facility which also could not tell the difference between an OCN, a dupe and an IP.

If you recall, I noted that it's extremely difficult to tell the difference.

Without checking timing, I'd say that the first two or three reels are derived from some element other than an OCN, as they have a different appearance on screen, with more movement. It's possible that DP Arthur Ornitz or camera operator Lou Barlia may have been consuming too much caffeine, which affected the stability of the image - but these gentlemen knew their way around a camera, so it's doubtful.

It may be that the scanning facility had an extremely loose transport. Who knows?

Or all of the reels could be from OCN. If that's the case we'll go with the problematic scanner, second rate scanning facility, or caffeine induced camera crew.

As far as grain, it's entirely possible that parts of the film were shot with Kodak's (new at the time - and experimental) "Living Grain" stock, which allowed grain to move around and take different positions on the film, joining friends in granular peace and love.

From a nominal seating distance, everything is fine, and that fact that there is no 4k information is irrelevant to most viewers, who can't tell the difference anyway.

But 4k does come with bragging rights.

So is the release safe to view?

Sure. And it comes with a free set of HDR.