UHD Review A Few Words About A few words about...™ - Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956) -- in 4k UHD (1 Viewer)

[Denham]

NSD ?

An acronym for . . . ?

Nominal seating distance?

 

[Stephen_J_H]

NSD ?

An acronym for . . . ?

Normal Seating Distance

 

[Denham]

LOL. (brain farts occurring more and more)

 

[aPhil]

So
ASD would be Abnormal Seating Distance?

 

[JoshZ]

So
ASD would be Abnormal Seating Distance?

Posted in another recent thread:

In RAH lingo:

"Forensic" = Nit-picky, pixel-peeping scrutiny with your nose pressed to the screen and the bit-rate meter on display.

"NSD" = Nominal Seating Distance, i.e. a somewhat more realistic expectation for how a viewer would actually watch the disc.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Maybe a label that doesn't crank out so much product and can take their time using remaining resources to their best of their ability should take a crack at it. It looks like this film needs a little more TLC than what a very busy label can offer. Maybe what this needs a good old fashioned photochemical resto?

There’s nothing wrong with it, it’s simply a matter that the original camera negative no longer exists, and what elements do still exist don’t inherently have 4K worth of visual information within them - which is true of many, many films.

A photochemical restoration wouldn’t change that. There doesn’t really seem to be a need to restore anything.

Release prints in the 1950s when this film was originally made had nowhere near 4K worth of visual information on them either, and that’s okay.

Not all films have 4K worth of visual information within them, just as not all films are in surround sound and not all films are in color.

 

[jayembee]

Not all films have 4K worth of visual information within them, just as not all films are in surround sound and not all films are in color.

Heretic!

 

[bujaki]

@Josh Steinberg forgot to mention that not all films are shot in 3D, 70mm, etc.

 

[cineMANIAC]

There’s nothing wrong with it, it’s simply a matter that the original camera negative no longer exists, and what elements do still exist don’t inherently have 4K worth of visual information within them - which is true of many, many films.

A photochemical restoration wouldn’t change that. There doesn’t really seem to be a need to restore anything.

Release prints in the 1950s when this film was originally made had nowhere near 4K worth of visual information on them either, and that’s okay.

Not all films have 4K worth of visual information within them, just as not all films are in surround sound and not all films are in color.

So, essentially, labels are releasing "in name only" 4K versions of films that shouldn't be on 4K discs, just to squeeze more money from re-releases that, essentially, are unnecessary. The Ray Liotta film Turbulence (1997) was just released on 4K and I swear it looks more like a Blu-ray. That may be a different situation since the film is making its official HD premiere but it's still kinda the same thing. Some films don't need to be on 4K. People buy them because "4K" sounds cool and it's the latest thing. Personally, I need to be more discerning with my movie purchases since I'm one of those suckers.

 

[Nelson Au]

As a fan of this film, and even though I have multiple copies in various formats, I’ll add this to my collection. I’m curious to see it. My impression is the fantastic work done by Universal on the classic monsters Frankenstein looks great on blu ray, but on 4K, I thought it was iffy. I’m not saying Frankenstein on 4K was terrible, it wasn’t as astonishing as one might hope. I suspect the same or slightly better for Invasion of the Body Snatchers given it’s a newer film.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

So, essentially, labels are releasing "in name only" 4K versions of films that shouldn't be on 4K discs, just to squeeze more money from re-releases that, essentially, are unnecessary.

Yes.

Where it becomes a bit of a gray area is when there’s a new 4K disc of a film where the prior Blu-ray was from a poorer quality master. Advances in both scanning technology and compression technology mean that most 4K discs today will by default look better than Blu-rays from nearly 20 years ago, even if there isn’t 4K worth of resolution in the film.

I think in general it makes sense to be discerning about repurchasing titles you already own and thinking about whether or not the disc you already have is satisfactory, instead of reflexively purchasing each new iteration.

This new disc of Body Snatchers is probably worth getting if you don’t own the movie at all and want a copy, or if you only have it on DVD and want something better than that. If having the choice between 1.85:1 and 2.00:1 aspect ratio versions is important to you, that’s also a reason to get the new disc. If you want the new special features, it’s probably worth getting. It’s probably not worth getting if you’re satisfied with the Blu-ray you have, don’t really care about new special features, and don’t have a strong opinion on the aspect ratio.

 

[Robert Harris]

As a fan of this film, and even though I have multiple copies in various formats, I’ll add this to my collection. I’m curious to see it. My impression is the fantastic work done by Universal on the classic monsters Frankenstein looks great on blu ray, but on 4K, I thought it was iffy. I’m not saying Frankenstein on 4K was terrible, it wasn’t as astonishing as one might hope. I suspect the same or slightly better for Invasion of the Body Snatchers given it’s a newer film.

Problem with IotBS is that it’s all optical dupe, not merely second gen.

 

[Robert Crawford]

After the last couple of pages, I probably need to stop reading this thread because I just went over the 1000 total for 4K/UHDs in my collection.

 

[Keith Cobby]

I'm undecided whether to upgrade from the blu ray. The big plus would be the different aspect ratio but it's disappointing (although not surprising) that the image isn't better. It's unfortunately not an option for us over here to wait for the sale!

 

[Dick]

After the last couple of pages, I probably need to stop reading this thread because I just went over the 1000 total for 4K/UHDs in my collection.

Well, I have six, so there!

 

[Interdimensional]

They still didn't include the Perspecta track?

I'm curious where they located the 1.85:1 version. Previously I understood all known 35mm material was superscope only.

 

[JoshZ]

After the last couple of pages, I probably need to stop reading this thread because I just went over the 1000 total for 4K/UHDs in my collection.

I thought it was a bit much that I'm closing in on 200.

 

[Robert Harris]

They still didn't include the Perspecta track?

I'm curious where they located the 1.85:1 version. Previously I understood all known 35mm material was superscope only.

There are unknowns here. Aeons ago my company distributed the film in 16mm under license. As I recall those prints were original 1.37.

Back in 1956, a FG would have been struck from the OCN. From the FG, an optical 2:1 matted dupe neg would have been created toward making SS prints.

I find it Very hard to believe that both the OCN and contact FG are gone.

 

[bobclampett]

There are unknowns here. Aeons ago my company distributed the film in 16mm under license. As I recall those prints were original 1.37.

Back in 1956, a FG would have been struck from the OCN. From the FG, an optical 2:1 matted dupe neg would have been created toward making SS prints.

I find it Very hard to believe that both the OCN and contact FG are gone.

Why do you find it hard to believe given the history of lost or destroyed negatives from studios who are still in business and much larger than Allied Artists.

 

[Robert Harris]

Why do you find it hard to believe given the history of lost or destroyed negatives from studios who are still in business and much larger than Allied Artists.

That both an OCN as well as FGM would both be missing.