UHD Review A Few Words About A few words about...™ - Point Break -- in 4k UHD (1 Viewer)

[Robert Harris]

Point Break, a 1991 release from Kathryn Bigelow is a thoroughly entertaining film - basically a California surfing police procedural, with great action and a terrific cast.

Shot on a higher speed stock than the just previously reviewed Titanic, there is requisite grain, and a generally slightly softer natural image. Part of that may come from being a generation down from the OCN, but Shout's new Select release, beautifully mimics an original 35mm print.

Dolby Vision adds a bit of help to the blacks, which may also bring in some contrast and thereby, perceived sharpness.

Additional scenes and featurettes will be found on the included Blu-ray disc.


Image – 10 (Dolby Vision)

Audio – 10 (DTS-HD MA 5.1)

Pass / Fail – Pass

Plays nicely with projectors - Yes

Makes use of and works well in 4k - 7

Worth your attention - 8

Slipcover rating - 1

Highly Recommended

RAH


Thank you for supporting HTF when you preorder using the link below. As an Amazon Associate HTF earns from qualifying purchases. If you are using an adblocker you will not see link.

See on Amazon

 

[Jeffrey D]

Thanks, Robert, but the film was released in 1991.

I’ll be upgrading to this UHD- one of my favorite fun films.

 

[Robert Harris]

Thanks, Robert, but the film was released in 1991.

I’ll be upgrading to this UHD- one of my favorite fun films.

quite true. Tipo.

 

[Carl David]

This might be the 2nd 4k disc I upgrade from blu ray.

Great action movie.

If the upcoming Warriors 4k release by Arrow next month turns out well it most likely will be 3 upgrades from blu.

A nice problem to have one supposes.

 

[sbjork]

Shot on a higher speed stock than the just previously reviewed Titanic, there is requisite grain, and a generally slightly softer natural image. Part of that may come from being a generation down from the OCN, but Shout's new Select release, beautifully mimics an original 35mm print.

Dolby Vision adds a bit of help to the blacks, which may also bring in some contrast and thereby, perceived sharpness.

I was just looking the film up in the American Cinematographer archives, and Don Peterman shot the daylight exteriors on Eastman 5247 instead of 5248 because he wanted a lower-contrast image with desaturated colors, and he didn't want the grain to be as fine. It was rated for daylight at 64 ASA, although he rated it at 80 instead with the filters that he used. So it wasn't necessarily high speed. He also used Tiffen Ultra Contrast filters on nearly every shot to desaturate things even further. (The interiors were shot on 5296, but with the same Tiffen filters.)

My copy hasn't shipped yet, but I'm really looking forward to seeing how this looks in 4K. With all of those factors, plus the fact that it was sourced from an IP, there would have been plenty of room for this release to be mucked up. From your description, it sounds like it was handled right.

 

[Robert Harris]

I was just looking the film up in the American Cinematographer archives, and Don Peterman shot the daylight exteriors on Eastman 5247 instead of 5248 because he wanted a lower-contrast image with desaturated colors, and he didn't want the grain to be as fine. It was rated for daylight at 64 ASA, although he rated it at 80 instead with the filters that he used. So it wasn't necessarily high speed. He also used Tiffen Ultra Contrast filters on nearly every shot to desaturate things even further. (The interiors were shot on 5296, but with the same Tiffen filters.)

My copy hasn't shipped yet, but I'm really looking forward to seeing how this looks in 4K. With all of those factors, plus the fact that it was sourced from an IP, there would have been plenty of room for this release to be mucked up. From your description, it sounds like it was handled right.

Don’t know where he would have found 5248, as it should have been depleted c. 1961. Also, be aware of the fun. Kodak used the number 5247 twice, for two totally different stocks.

The first was the initial run of color neg stock in 1950, replaced by 5248 c. 1952, which was used until 1959-60.

 

[sbjork]

Don’t know where he would have found 5248, as it should have been depleted c. 1961. Also, be aware of the fun. Kodak used the number 5247 twice.

 

[Robert Harris]

View attachment 204784

I’m incorrect.

Kodak strikes again.

They created a new emulsion in 1990, calling it 5248 (again), but it’s not the original 5248.

The second stock called 5247 replaced 5254 in 1974. There were those who liked shooting 54, which went back into production, ending c. 1978.

I have no idea why they did this, as there were seemingly enough numbers that could have been appended to 52 to go around. Or they could have gone to a new numbering system.

For what it’s worth stocks beginning in 52 were 35 and 65mm. Stocks beginning in 72 were 16mm.

 

[sbjork]

I have no idea why they did this, as there were seemingly enough numbers that could have been appended to 52 to go around. Or they could have gone to a new numbering system.

Perhaps just to make the lives of archivists, restoration specialists, and OCD disc reviewers miserable?

 

[lark144]

I’m incorrect.

Kodak strikes again.

They created a new emulsion in 1990, calling it 5248 (again), but it’s not the original 5248.

The second stock called 5247 replaced 5254 in 1974. There were those who liked shooting 54, which went back into production, ending c. 1978.

I have no idea why they did this, as there were seemingly enough numbers that could have been appended to 52 to go around. Or they could have gone to a new numbering system.

For what it’s worth stocks beginning in 52 were 35 and 65mm. Stocks beginning in 72 were 16mm.

The revived 5247 which replaced 5254 in 1974 was a much faster color stock and allowed a cinematographer to push it and use night for night shooting. I believe those night scenes in TAXI DRIVER were shot in 5247. The only problem was, it was quite grainy when pushed.

 

[Robert Harris]

The revived 5247 which replaced 5254 in 1974 was a much faster color stock and allowed a cinematographer to push it and use night for night shooting. I believe those night scenes in TAXI DRIVER were shot in 5247. The only problem was, it was quite grainy when pushed.

Afaik, nothing was “revived.” It was a new emulsion.

 

[Robert Harris]

From John Pytlak:

5247 - Pytka

One of the old reliables has always been Kodak. Well, almost always. Kodak decided to replace their 5254 emulsion with a new one, 5247. The new one was supposed to be superior but I hadn’t been able to use it, shoot a test (or two). By a strange set of circumstances I was represented by … 5247...

pytka.com

 

[lark144]

Afaik, nothing was “revived.” It was a new emulsion.

I meant the number was revived. Not the emulsion.

I shot a lot on 7247. Admittedly this was 16mm, so it had slightly different characteristics than 5247, but was very similar. I loved it it for the clarity in low light situations as it was much faster then 7254 and also the purity of the color which expressed mixed sources--florescent and tungsten, for instance--really well, especially the way the different light blended and washed across faces and yet revealed expressions and characteristics, which you didn't always get with 54 in 16mm. But it was also grainer than 54, even in bright daylight.

It was best in documentary-style situations, which I was doing a lot of. I preferred a rougher look back then. Almost guerilla-style filmmaking. It was a great stock for that.

 

[Robert Harris]

I meant the number was revived. Not the emulsion.

I shot a lot on 7247. Admittedly this was 16mm, so it had slightly different characteristics than 5247, but was very similar. I loved it it for the clarity in low light situations as it was much faster then 7254 and also the purity of the color which expressed mixed sources--florescent and tungsten, for instance--really well, especially the way the different light blended and washed across faces and yet revealed expressions and characteristics, which you didn't always get with 54 in 16mm. But it was also grainer than 54, even in bright daylight.

It was best in documentary-style situations, which I was doing a lot of. I preferred a rougher look back then. Almost guerilla-style filmmaking. It was a great stock for that.

Regardless of whether 52 or 72, the rolls of stock were merely cut and perforated differently

 

[Wes Candela]

The revived 5247 which replaced 5254 in 1974 was a much faster color stock and allowed a cinematographer to push it and use night for night shooting. I believe those night scenes in TAXI DRIVER were shot in 5247. The only problem was, it was quite grainy when pushed.

Oh yeah it was.

 

[Wes Candela]

I meant the number was revived. Not the emulsion.

I shot a lot on 7247. Admittedly this was 16mm, so it had slightly different characteristics than 5247, but was very similar. I loved it it for the clarity in low light situations as it was much faster then 7254 and also the purity of the color which expressed mixed sources--florescent and tungsten, for instance--really well, especially the way the different light blended and washed across faces and yet revealed expressions and characteristics, which you didn't always get with 54 in 16mm. But it was also grainer than 54, even in bright daylight.

It was best in documentary-style situations, which I was doing a lot of. I preferred a rougher look back then. Almost guerilla-style filmmaking. It was a great stock for that.

I learn so much from this forum and site.

 

[sbjork]

A timeline of Kodak's different stocks, including the confusing repeated numbering system that they used over the years;

History of Film

A leading global manufacturer focused on commercial print and advanced materials & chemicals. We believe in the power of technology and science to enhance what the world sees and creates.

www.kodak.com

 

[Alec Steingart]

The 4K disc won't play on my Oppo 203 - the title screen appears, but there's no menu, and apparently no way to actually play the movie. I know there's supposed to be a menu there because I see it on my Sony UBP X700. The only other mention of this problem that I can find is one review on Best Buy, so I'm wondering if anyone else has this problem or knows of some workaround. I do have the final firmware for the 203.

I also had a problem with the 4K version of the Princess Bride released by Criterion, but Criterion did reissue the disc and the new one works, but I'm starting to worry that the 203 will have increasing problems playing new titles.

 

[Neil S. Bulk]

The UHD of Point Break played perfectly on my 203.

 

[Alec Steingart]

The UHD of Point Break played perfectly on my 203.

That's interesting. I don't think I have a damaged disc since it plays OK on my Sony, so there must be something about my configuration that prevents it from playing - which I'll probably never figure out. There doesn't seem to be any way to contact Shout Factory either. At least I was able to contact someone at Criterion.