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

[Tom St Jones]

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

That IS rather curious..
Perhaps some employee of Allied or Republic back in the day managed to "snatch" themselves a one-of-a-kind souvenir when no one was looking..?..

 

[Nelson Au]

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

Fine Grain Master?

 

[Robert Crawford]

Fine Grain Master?

That's correct!

 

[Robert Crawford]

Target shipped my 4K/UHD so I should have it next week. I'll watch the 1.85 ratio first.

 

[Nelson Au]

That's correct!

Thanks!

 

[Robert Harris]

That IS rather curious..
Perhaps some employee of Allied or Republic back in the day managed to "snatch" themselves a one-of-a-kind souvenir when no one was looking..?..

Has happened before!

 

[tenia]

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.

I guess the question then should be why Kino deemed it a good candidate for a UHD release considering the material available for it.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Because they believe it will sell, and they are in the business of selling discs.

 

[aPhil]

Because they believe it will sell, and they are in the business of selling discs.

and I will buy it for the 1.85 (as I think this is one of the best movies ever made)

 

[tenia]

Because they believe it will sell, and they are in the business of selling discs.

Which I get, but there's probably only so many mediocre UHDs you can do before your public starts to approach your releases with more caution.

It also kinda sets a low bar of quality about what a label is willing to release on a given format, which I believe never really was a service to the said-format. You don't want to have in mind that this very premium format can also be home for something that makes such a poor use of its capacity. These aren't cheap to buy.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

The disc market is fragmented and there isn’t one single overriding reason that disc purchasers are using to determine their purchases.

Some people are buying solely for playback quality. Others are interested in the physical object and prioritize things like package design that make an item collectible. Others are interested in bonus material/special features content.

This new release features a slipcover and collectible packaging design that appeals to that segment of the market. This new release features new bonus material and a choice of aspect ratios, which appears to another segment of the market. So-called “genre films” like this typically outsell non-genre catalog titles from the same era. The previous release was issued by Olive, which no longer exists; this edition brings an out of print title back into print.

There are numerous business reasons for why a label may find it profitable to issue a title beyond absolute technical quality.

 

[Worth]

I guess the question then should be why Kino deemed it a good candidate for a UHD release considering the material available for it.

They also released it as a standard blu - you can always get that one instead.

 

[David Weicker]

I guess the question then should be why Kino deemed it a good candidate for a UHD release considering the material available for it.

Maybe because many will feel that it does actually look good.

There are a lot of reviewers that have their own personal criteria that may not align with others viewers.

 

[tenia]

The disc market is fragmented and there isn’t one single overriding reason that disc purchasers are using to determine their purchases.

Some people are buying solely for playback quality. Others are interested in the physical object and prioritize things like package design that make an item collectible. Others are interested in bonus material/special features content.

This new release features a slipcover and collectible packaging design that appeals to that segment of the market. This new release features new bonus material and a choice of aspect ratios, which appears to another segment of the market. So-called “genre films” like this typically outsell non-genre catalog titles from the same era. The previous release was issued by Olive, which no longer exists; this edition brings an out of print title back into print.

There are numerous business reasons for why a label may find it profitable to issue a title beyond absolute technical quality.

I do get all your arguments accounting for a re-release, but that wasn't my point. My point was about : why not just releasing this on BD instead of also doing a UHD when the source barely takes advantage of it ? If the source isn't good enough, it's just not good enough. It's fine, it happens, it's OK, and all your arguments, the collectible packaging, the new bonuses, the additional AR, putting back the movie in print, still works with a BD release.

Which is my point (and not a particularly new one, since the same had been made numerous times when labels were doing BD releases with inadequate sources that should only have served for DVD releases) : releasing it, yes, with all this yes,... but on this higher format ? That's all I'm questioning : should it be aiming at being released as a fine BD or amped up as a debatable UHD ?

Those aren't cheap, and there is a price difference to account for from a customer perspective. I don't think anybody likes to buy the more premium version of something only to wonder if the biggest difference wasn't just the price one ($6, in the present case).

Maybe because many will feel that it does actually look good.
There are a lot of reviewers that have their own personal criteria that may not align with others viewers.

I've seen people praising the PQ of BD releases sourced from SD upscales so you're probably right about how it can be welcomed anyhow. This being written, reviewers aren't supposed to have "own personal criteria not aligning with other viewers". They're supposed to provide an accurate and exhaustive assessment of PQ and AQ, within which viewers can be pick and choose depending on what their eyes and ears are most sensitive to. But if a source is not good enough to use a higher format's capacities, no "personal criteria" or "alignment with other viewers" is going to turn this source into something making technical sense for the format. It'll remain a release on a format that looks like overkill.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

My point was about : why not just releasing this on BD instead of also doing a UHD when the source barely takes advantage of it ?

And the answer remains the same as what I said before:

Because they believe it will sell, and they are in the business of selling discs.

 

[Patrick McCart]

There's plenty of 4K UHD adopters who simply wouldn't buy a remastered Blu-ray at this point, whether 4K UHD is appropriate for the title or not. I look at this release as "Remastered Blu-ray with bonus 4K UHD" much like many other pre-60s titles that would be 99% fine with a high quality Blu-ray as opposed to 4K.

I'm at least grateful that Kino did what they could, given some of the critics of the release have brought up how AI could have fixed the issues.

 

[tenia]

And the answer remains the same as what I said before:

And my answer remains that it's only looking at the label side of things, but does it make sense from a consumer and technical standpoint ?

If one thinks it'd sell, would it warrant, idk, a UHD sourced from an 20 years old HD master AI-upscaled to 4K ? And then, how long before labels doing that build pedigrees of releasing inadequately sourced UHDs, which I think no label would like to be known for (I mean : otherwise, wouldn't the market be flooded with such UHDs ?) ?

Kino, IMO, already have enough technical challenges to deal to start adding on top of these "UHD releases done despite inadequate sources".

Anyway, it's a minor grip, but an interesting one to discuss market-wise. There's enough of a variety of formats to release movies on depending on their sources, and I always believed the best course of action for a label was to only release stellar releases, even if it means avoiding overkills when having to deal with limited sources.

 

[Robert Crawford]

And my answer remains that it's only looking at the label side of things, but does it make sense from a consumer and technical standpoint ?

If one thinks it'd sell, would it warrant, idk, a UHD sourced from an 20 years old HD master AI-upscaled to 4K ? And then, how long before labels doing that build pedigrees of releasing inadequately sourced UHDs, which I think no label would like to be known for (I mean : otherwise, wouldn't the market be flooded with such UHDs ?) ?

Kino, IMO, already have enough technical challenges to deal to start adding on top of these "UHD releases done despite inadequate sources".

Anyway, it's a minor grip, but an interesting one to discuss market-wise. There's enough of a variety of formats to release movies on depending on their sources, and I never believed it was such a good idea (except maybe short-term) to overkill things.

It does make sense from a consumer standpoint, if there is a demand for such a release. Now, technical, perhaps not, as RAH has stated numerous times, but Kino is a small company trying to stay profitable while horror and sci-fi movies that sell well in the 4K/UHD format. Other than that, I think this argument has become circular in which stated POVs have been noted from both sides of this argument.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Target shipped my 4K/UHD so I should have it next week. I'll watch the 1.85 ratio first.

I'm watching the 4K/UHD now in 1.85 ratio.

 

[Indy Guy]

When you buy a classic book you can choose between a paperback, a dust jacketed hard bound edition or a leather clad collectors edition. There is a market for all 3 and the creative works within are all identical. Buyers choice drives the market!