What's new

JoshZ

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 26, 2012
Messages
2,379
Location
Boston
Real Name
Joshua Zyber
I saw the Kino Lorber 4K UHD of High Noon yesterday. I kept thinking of the nod between the opening scene of Once Upon A Time In The West and the three baddies hanging out at the railway station in High Noon. Three baddies. Nervous stationmaster, with stationmaster cap, telegraph machine. The water tank. The view of the empty railway track. The main bad guy is called Frank.

At the same time, I kept thinking how much better High Noon looked, compared to the 4K UHD of Once Upon A Time In The West.

High Noon wasn't shot in 2-perf Techniscope.
 

Robert Harris

Archivist
Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 8, 1999
Messages
18,719
Real Name
Robert Harris
To confirm, in FM the 4k is soft, but not noticeable from NSD. Problem is, you have the Italian lab, Paramount and Film Foundation all in the mix.

Could imagery have been different/better?

Yes.

Where did the decisions come from? I’d not even hazard a guess.
 

OliverK

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2000
Messages
5,819
High Noon wasn't shot in 2-perf Techniscope.

The Good, The Bad and The Ugly is and it got a number of pretty crisp Blu-ray and UHD releases based on that new 4K master. Not saying there weren't other issues, but none of those releases look soft.
 

Stephen_J_H

All Things Film Junkie
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2003
Messages
7,963
Location
North of the 49th
Real Name
Stephen J. Hill
I believe the proverbial horse is being killed again.
south park beat a dead horse GIF
 

Dave H

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2000
Messages
6,203
To confirm, in FM the 4k is soft, but not noticeable from NSD. Problem is, you have the Italian lab, Paramount and Film Foundation all in the mix.

Could imagery have been different/better?

Yes.

Where did the decisions come from? I’d not even hazard a guess.

I'd like to know which one of them removed so much of the film grain in shots with the skies. The blue skies can look distracting with digital oddities and absence of grain too much of the time. Maybe combined with the encoding made this worse. I tried not to look, but couldn't help it. Once you see it, it's hard to unsee. Outside of that, I felt the film looked mostly fine. The color grade, blacks, and HDR application looked wonderful.
 

Jonathan Perregaux

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 10, 1999
Messages
2,075
Real Name
Jonathan Perregaux
Well, since we appear to be vigorously bearing down on a bottle of Elmer’s glue using a well-worn riding crop…

I threw this up on my 65” got real close to it and got that old sinking feeling. I didn’t like what I saw. But then I sat back, emptied a full vacuum cleaner bag in my face to add some film-like grain, got lost in this amazing movie and came away happy.

Mr. Choochoo sends his regards.
 

OliverK

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2000
Messages
5,819
I have to say that I feel very bad and apologize to all lovers of horses dead and living.

Mentioning any movies shot in the same process and by the same director in very similar locations and conditions and also handled by the same Italian lab certainly constitutes a severe beating even when answering to another post.

Still looking for that new NSD. It must be somewhere outside of my room or maybe I just need a smaller screen...
 

tenia

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Oct 24, 2012
Messages
231
Location
France
Real Name
Rémy
It's so far from a disaster it's not even funny.
No, it's just a 7/10 PQ release that should have been an easy 9-9.5, and people pointing out the issues on it doesn't mean they're saying it's a 2/10. Just that it's not the 9-9.5 it should have been (and could have easily been achieved).
 

Robert Crawford

Crawdaddy
Moderator
Patron
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 9, 1998
Messages
68,498
Location
Michigan
Real Name
Robert
No, it's just a 7/10 PQ release that should have been an easy 9-9.5, and people pointing out the issues on it doesn't mean they're saying it's a 2/10. Just that it's not the 9-9.5 it should have been (and could have easily been achieved).
That's your score, but others disagree that have actually watched the 4K/UHD on their HT setup.
 

tenia

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Oct 24, 2012
Messages
231
Location
France
Real Name
Rémy
That's your score, but others disagree that have actually watched the 4K/UHD on their HT setup.
And as said before on other cases, if people have missed the DNR and the sub-optimal UHD encode despite such conditions, all the best to them, but that's really related to them, not me nor the actual on-disc content.
I mean, the fact that the encode isn't optimal has already been factually pointed out, and I know first hand the new presentation has been artificially filtered (more over : it shows), so it's not as if I'm talking out of thin air.

But if people are perfectly fine with this, again, all the best to them, I'm happy for them not noticing existing digital tech issues. But it also means that : they're not noticing existing digital tech issues. We've already gone through this at length in other threads and am surprised to have to repeat myself about this point, rather than talking about the presentation itself. It's not as if circling again and again on this is going to suddenly make the UHD encode being actually good, or make the scrubbed-out grain re-appear. It's just going yet again to sidetrack the discussion.

Where did the decisions come from? I’d not even hazard a guess.
There's a certain common point to several Paramount's released having been filtered, and it seems to point to, well, Paramount.
 

Robert Crawford

Crawdaddy
Moderator
Patron
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 9, 1998
Messages
68,498
Location
Michigan
Real Name
Robert
And as said before on other cases, if people have missed the DNR and the sub-optimal UHD encode despite such conditions, all the best to them, but that's really related to them, not me nor the actual on-disc content.
I mean, the fact that the encode isn't optimal has already been factually pointed out, and I know first hand the new presentation has been artificially filtered (more over : it shows), so it's not as if I'm talking out of thin air.

But if people are perfectly fine with this, again, all the best to them, I'm happy for them not noticing existing digital tech issues. But it also means that : they're not noticing existing digital tech issues. We've already gone through this at length in other threads and am surprised to have to repeat myself about this point, rather than talking about the presentation itself. It's not as if circling again and again on this is going to suddenly make the UHD encode being actually good, or make the scrubbed-out grain re-appear. It's just going yet again to sidetrack the discussion.
You can disregard what others think and say about this release because it doesn't fit your narrative, but I for one, will not disregard people that disagree with your assessment and your beef with Paramount regarding their digital tech issues.
 

tenia

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Oct 24, 2012
Messages
231
Location
France
Real Name
Rémy
You can disregard what others think and say about this release because it doesn't fit your narrative, but I for one, will not disregard people that disagree with your assessment.
I guess it all depends what you're looking when people come on a tech-oriented board in a tech-oriented topic and feedback about how a release looks and sounds. If you're fine with feedbacks that can't detect certain levels of sub-optimal compression or certain levels of grain management because, I don't know, they won't be noticeable on your setup, I get that, but it just means this : that you're not seeing existing limitations and, as such, don't care about it. It's all fine and logical for you in your context, but it's a truncated look at the disc that isn't going to tell the whole picture, and isn't going to change what's on the disc, and I do think not reporting limitations that are present isn't ensuring readers will know what they're be in for if/when watching this.

And it's not a "narrative" : cyclic compression and grain having been managed just are demonstrably there, and c'est la vie. What could people disagree with ? That it's not grain managed ? That's that the encode isn't sub-optimal ?

The only narrative one could discuss about is how much damage these are doing to the PQ (a bit, a lot, something in the middle ?), and I don't think scoring it at 7/10 is being harsh; it's exactly what the blu-ray.com review is scoring it (3.5/5) for instance. But I'd totally understand people telling me "yes, it's grain managed and not encoded as well as it should have, but I don't think they're that detrimental".
Which is, however, a different argument than, say, "it's not grain managed and the encode is fine".
 
Last edited:

Robert Crawford

Crawdaddy
Moderator
Patron
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 9, 1998
Messages
68,498
Location
Michigan
Real Name
Robert
I guess it all depends what you're looking when people come on a tech-oriented board in a tech-oriented topic and feedback about how a release looks and sounds. If you're fine with feedbacks that can't detect certain levels of sub-optimal compression or certain levels of grain management because, I don't know, they won't be noticeable on you setup, I get that, but it just means this : that you're not seeing existing limitations and, as such, don't care about it. And it's all fine and logical for you in your context, but it's a truncated look at the disc that isn't going to tell the whole picture, and isn't going to change what's on the disc, and I do think not reporting something that is there isn't optimal.

So it's not a "narrative" : if one can spot cyclic compression or if grain has been scrubbed out to some extent : it's there, and c'est la vie. What could people disagree with ? That it's not grain managed ? That's that the encode isn't sub-optimal ?

The only narrative one could discuss about is how much damage these are doing to the PQ (a bit, a lot, something in the middle ?), and I don't think scoring it at 7/10 is being harsh; it's exactly what the blu-ray.com review is scoring it (3.5/5) for instance.
I think you're forgetting one important thing. Most people that read and participate on this board are not looking at these home video releases strictly from your technical point of view. It comes down to how these home video releases look on their HT setups. I have zero problem with you discussing technical aspects of home video releases. However, I do take exception to you disregarding our membership's posted thoughts about this release in a condescending manner. You might not find any value to their thoughts, but I value all thoughts expressed on this forum including yours.
 

OliverK

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2000
Messages
5,819
I think you're forgetting one important thing. Most people that read and participate on this board are not looking at these home video releases strictly from your technical point of view. It comes down to how these home video releases look on their HT setups. I have zero problem with you discussing technical aspects of home video releases. However, I do take exception to you disregarding our membership's posted thoughts about this release in a condescending manner. You might not find any value to their thoughts, but I value all thoughts expressed on this forum including yours.

I do not really see a condescending tone that you seem to see but there is an issue I think with an evaluation on a technical level and people just wanting to feel good about their new purchase.

While everybody should have the right to like what they like there should also be a room to discuss technical aspects of a release but this is where we start to see a back and forth that sometimes is rather unpleasant. People going into certain aspects think they do not get heard or ridiculed and the same goes for people who do not really want to know that much about their recent purchase yet they continue to post in these threads, it is a bit difficult at times.

With that being said I still like to think that the discussion has been quite civil so far and without personal attacks except maybe a funny remark or two but that should be fine among friends.
 

OliverK

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2000
Messages
5,819
No, it's just a 7/10 PQ release that should have been an easy 9-9.5, and people pointing out the issues on it doesn't mean they're saying it's a 2/10. Just that it's not the 9-9.5 it should have been (and could have easily been achieved).

Let's just say there are issues, some deduct a lot of points for it and some don't.

In school at some point it did not matter how good your grades were in some areas when you did not pass in others. This is how I see some of these Paramount releases but I am not very hopeful that they will change their ways as even reviewers seem reluctant to call them out on it.
 

Robert Harris

Archivist
Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 8, 1999
Messages
18,719
Real Name
Robert Harris
Let's just say there are issues, some deduct a lot of points for it and some don't.

In school at some point it did not matter how good your grades were in some areas when you did not pass in others. This is how I see some of these Paramount releases but I am not very hopeful that they will change their ways as even reviewers seem reluctant to call them out on it.
We’re on very opposite sides of the coin here as to Paramount, as I see the work coming out of the studio continually gaining in quality, with some superb product.

Two things to keep in mind per studio releases. As I’m certain you understand, there are older masters with baked in problems, and newer image harvests, with all (or most) tools being used properly. In some cases, because of budgetary or other reasons, an older master may be massaged, and that final result after compression, authoring, etc, should not be considered as an indication of either the studio‘s desires or capabilities.

The other problem that can occur, and has affected my team’s work in a few situations, is having more than one voice leading a project. This may have come into play in the instant case — which is not a purely Paramount product.
 

Robert Crawford

Crawdaddy
Moderator
Patron
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 9, 1998
Messages
68,498
Location
Michigan
Real Name
Robert
I do not really see a condescending tone that you seem to see but there is an issue I think with an evaluation on a technical level and people just wanting to feel good about their new purchase.

While everybody should have the right to like what they like there should also be a room to discuss technical aspects of a release but this is where we start to see a back and forth that sometimes is rather unpleasant. People going into certain aspects think they do not get heard or ridiculed and the same goes for people who do not really want to know that much about their recent purchase yet they continue to post in these threads, it is a bit difficult at times.

With that being said I still like to think that the discussion has been quite civil so far and without personal attacks except maybe a funny remark or two but that should be fine among friends.
Come on now! The technical stuff is constantly being discussed in this thread. Everyone has been able to discuss their thoughts and have done so on a number of occasions.

Furthermore, I think it’s dangerous to speculate on what others are feeling about their purchases. Too many of us have expressed negative feelings towards some of our purchases without you speculating their responses as trying to feel good about this particular purchase.
 

David Weicker

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2005
Messages
4,692
Real Name
David
I don’t mind deep discussions - technical or personal - from people who own, and have seen with their own eyes, a particular release.

But, IMO, anything beyond “I will/won’t be purchasing this based on other reviews” is wrong.

(And, in my mind, I have a name for those who go beyond that)
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Sign up for our newsletter

and receive essential news, curated deals, and much more







You will only receive emails from us. We will never sell or distribute your email address to third party companies at any time.

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
357,618
Messages
5,142,340
Members
144,432
Latest member
jls
Recent bookmarks
0
Top