A Few Words About A few words about...™ Joy -- in 4k UHD Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[DavidMiller]

My copy of Deadpool is waiting for me at home... Won't have time to watch it though.

 

[MikeTV]

My copy of Deadpool on 4K Blu-ray is on my shelf. Will try to watch tonight, even though I'm leaving town in the morning and have a lot to do still.

 

[zoetmb]

Would it be fair to say adding HDR to films created before it was available as a tool for filmmakers (as noted in the difference between Spartacus and Joy in earlier posts) is somewhat akin (even if clumsily) to releasing a film with a 5.1/7.1 soundtrack, exclusively, where the original had a mono track? I can see the HDR issue as even more problematic as it cannot be solved by adding a duplicate w/o HDR on the disc, unlike the mono vs 5.1/7.1 issue, where an extra audio track is easily provided. Or perhaps I'm overthinking this issue..

IMO, there's no way the home experience ever replicates the original theatrical experience for numerous (and obvious) reasons. But having said that, there are all kinds of subtleties when you get into the audio argument. Let's take the simplest case: a film from the 1950's or 60's that was only released in 35mm optical. First we have the issue that it could have sounded quite different from theater to theater. In the theater, using the Academy Curve, the frequency response starts rolling off at 2KHz. But the studio still has the magnetic masters for the soundtrack. So they issue it on DVD, Blu and Digital with that mag mono soundtrack and it sounds much better due to lower distortion and the wider frequency response. But it's not how anyone originally experienced it theatrically. So is that a valid way to see the film or not?

Let's assume that most people think it is.

Now let's take it one step further. The original score was recorded in stereo. So now they can issue it in at least an L-C-R (even if they market it as 5.1, since there's nothing that says any 5.1 release has to put anything in the surrounds or subwoofer channel). Is that legit or not? And on and on and on.

The fact is that watching a movie at home digitally is a totally different experience than seeing a classic film when it was released in a theater. Sometimes better, sometimes worse, obviously depending upon the film, the mastering and the viewing system.

Now let's take a 70mm discrete 6-track film from the 1960's. The original sound format was five screen channels and one mono surround channel. Because that's not the standard multichannel home configuration and because most people would freak out if they dared to issue a film with mono surrounds, everything gets remixed for DVD and Blu. Is that legitimate? All the Star Wars fanboys are demanding that Disney release the unaltered originals. But if they really released them unaltered, that would mean Star Wars with mono surround and if you believe what's been written about Lucas' comments at the time the mix was done, you'd believe that the mono mix was canon. Think the fanboys want it in mono or with mono surround? They'd bring down the interweb.

Visually, due to the reasons that Robert stated, the Blu or UHD version is also a different experience. But I would contend that aside from the issues of a group experience and a large screen filling your field of vision, for vintage films, it's usually a better experience than what most people saw unless they lived in a major city and went to a first run theater early in the run. The reality is that most people saw handed-down, scratched and dirty prints, frequently poorly projected. So even though a restored movie in a digital form is certainly different than the original, I think we have to look at the total experience and in most cases, the current experience is pretty damned fantastic, especially when someone like Mr. Harris was involved in the restoration. (Of course seeing a pristine silver nitrate print was a great experience.)

Furthermore, for vintage films, we don't really have a choice. If the original negative is non-existent or in bad shape, either we watch it damaged or we watch it restored.

And there are some things that can never be replicated. While the restoration of "It's A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World" was wonderful, it's never going to be the same experience in anyone's home, even on a projection system, as seeing it originally in a Cinerama theater.

I don't think non-HDR films should be released as HDR not because it violates the original intention, but because it's simply not necessary. If it's done, it will be done for marketing purposes. Taking a film and giving it slightly better whites and blacks is not going to improve those films and it might make them worse. And they damned better not do it to Citizen Kane.