UHD Review A Few Words About A few words about...™ -The Godfather(s) 50th Anniversary Restoration -- in 4k UHD (1 Viewer)

[Robert Saccone]

I’m going to ask about the digital versions now.
I have the iTunes copy which I’ve already stated don’t look great to me.
Especially the very beginning in Vito’s den before the wedding and I think in GF2 when they go into the back room where the senator’s “worker” was murdered in his bed.
Even with the DV active it looks rough.

So I noticed that Paramount + now has these up in 4K with DV.

It looks significantly better then the stream on iTunes.

Wondering if anyone has tken a peak to see this.

I watched the Apple TV version of Godfather when I wanted to listen to the commentary after having viewed the 4K Disc earlier in the week. To my eye the stream seemed to look more like the original color scheme as that yellow hue seemed more prevalent.

 

[Carlo_M]

Is it possible that AZ finished the film, matching Willis' color, and sent it off to Paramount who went "okay, let's make a few tweaks!"? I don't know how this "restoration pipeline" worked, but that would make A LOT more sense to me as to why AZ and Francis would say "we were guided by Gordie's work" and then we see the results which are not that.

Check out the two videos on my post back on page 41. Especially the second one (I'm quoting my original post below which also involved a little bit of detective work).

I think a healthy discussion that doesn't devolve into name-calling, straw man argumentation, or personal insults is not only warranted, but actually the core mission of forums like HTF. As much as I grew frustrated of certain arguments which I felt were missing the point, I find it even more puzzling why people would post in this thread only to say "they're tired of this thread". I think many (though admittedly not all) have tried to add to the conversation, though admittedly for a while we did get sidetracked in bickering and for that I apologize for the part I played.

To bring it back to the topic at hand, just in case anyone had any question about who was chiefly responsible for the films' aesthetic look, I encourage you to watch Emulsional Rescue which was on the 2007 release and is also on the 2022 release. Here it is on YT.


It's a fascinating watch and only 19 minutes, but if you don't have the time, go the 4:30 mark of the video. It addresses the colors, darkness, *and brightness* of the film. It runs in stark contrast to the Jan Yarbrough segment of 4K set documentary where he specifically calls out "bringing out more detail in the wedding dress" when you see in the original documentary that Gordon Willis intentionally wanted that scene to look like "old anscochrome" (4m50s mark of that video) with blown out whites. So the way to get more detail is to dial down the "blown out whites" which, sure you can choose to do that, but you're fundamentally altering the intent of the original artist.

And if there's any question who is one of, if not the, chief architect of the film's look, keep watching that Emulsional Rescue doc. You will hear nothing but praise over Willis's work, including Coppola specifically saying when he saw the first dailies and saw what Willis had done, he thanked him from the very first day. There is nothing of the disgruntled nature that say Lucas had when describing the conditions he worked with on Star Wars, or that Ridley Scott has on a lot of his works where he didn't get final cut, two artists who later "righted wrongs" in many of their works. Coppola clearly loves the work that Willis did, there is ample, incontrovertible evidence of this, and he rightfully praises him for it (as he praises Puzo for writing the source novel). So it would strike me as odd to think he’d have a change of heart on this project especially since he’s still in recent interviews praising Willis’s work. (Edited to complete this sentence)

So while there's no shortage of things I'm sure he'd change (and with Part III, that was quite a lot) there is simply no existing evidence over 50 years that he was unhappy with the way it was photographed, and in fact there is ample evidence to the opposite, that he loved it.

And when you couple that with Mr. Yarbrough's comments on the work he and his team at MPI did to "take advantage of the larger color palette, and higher dynamic range of HDR and the extra pixels of 4K TVs" on the current doc, it seems to me very clear who and where the decision was made to alter the color timing. When you watch the new documentary, you have the archivist at Zoetrope (James Mockoski) and the two women in Paramount who were in charge of the project (Andrea Kalas and Laura Thornburg) talk glowingly of the 2007 effort and how that was to be the reference point for the new project. They even mentioned it was the last thing Willis blessed, and Thornburg kept reciting the "four point yellow, one point red" to Jan and his team at MPI (she says this nearly verbatim in the 50th anniversary documentary). So with the Zoetrope Archivist and Paramount Project managers on record (via the video doc) as wanting to honor and maintain the look of the 2007 effort, but just with the added benefit of 4K transfer and a better compression codec...it's clear that it was when the data was handed over to MPI and Jan starts talking about all the changes he and his team made where the divergence from the original stated intention occurred.

It's literally on those two docs. Start with Emulsional Rescue (again on both 2007 and 2022 release, as well as that YT link above) and then watch Full Circle: Preserving the Godfather (in the 2022 release).

Oh, in case you don't want to break out your copy, I just found it on YouTube:


Honestly after you watch those two documentaries back to back, it's hard for me to envision any other conclusion.

Here is the second video, which is included in the Extras disc on the 2022 release:

It's only 15 minutes but it explains the workflow. Jan Yarbrough (and MPI, where he works) did the color work, which occurred in the later stages of the project. That seems to be where things went sideways.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

IF only we got something like this and the powers-that-be at Paramount (and wherever else) chose to go such route instead of having their desired, homogenized/biased look baked fully into the masters and these discs, etc...

_Man_

 

[TonyD]

Tony,

I haven't compared the two different streaming services, but I thought the 4K discs looked better than the iTunes 4K stream.

I think you’re right Robert.
Others have said that in this thread too.
That’s why I’m wondering about the P+ version as I thought it looked better and different from the iTunes version

 

[haineshisway]

The director of a film does not “own“ the film (ie his vision) for it?? That’s a fascinating stance to take. I’m sure it comes as a huge surprise to directors everywhere.

Really? This is your response? For the cheap seats: HE DOES NOT OWN THE FILM. PARAMOUNT OWNS THE FILM. I'm not sure what's hard to understand about that simple fact.

 

[haineshisway]

I think it depends on what the goal of the restoration was. The term itself can mean different things depending on the overall design of the project and the intent.

For example, Alfred Hitchcock's "Marnie" was released this week on 4K. The restoration that was needed on this particular film was supposedly pretty extensive due to the incredibly poor condition of the materials. For a film like that, the process of "restoration" most certainly means something quite different than projects on other films...where it's perhaps mostly focused on color timing, for example.

I doubt Marnie need any restoration. They simply went back to a better element, probably the original negative rather than trying to take an old transfer and slap it onto Blu-ray. You're not an expert in this - Mr. Harris is. The End.

 

[Robert Harris]

I doubt Marnie need any restoration. They simply went back to a better element, probably the original negative rather than trying to take an old transfer and slap it onto Blu-ray. You're not an expert in this - Mr. Harris is. The End.

I agree.

The original A & B rolls should have been close to pristine. Universal takes extremely good care of their assets, and Marnie, a late 1963-early '64 production, shot on 5251 should have had zero fade problems.

It was also only printed via dye transfer for it's original release, with all future prints coming from dupes, which means that the OCN would have had extremely minimal wear.

Don't know where this concept of a problematic element is coming from.

 

[Lord Dalek]

I think this thread has run its course.

 

[haineshisway]

I agree.

The original A & B rolls should have been close to pristine. Universal takes extremely good care of their assets, and Marnie, a late 1963-early '64 production, shot on 5251 should have had zero fade problems.

It was also only printed via dye transfer for it's original release, with all future prints coming from dupes, which means that the OCN would have had extremely minimal wear.

Don't know where this concept of a problematic element is coming from.

In this thread, it was brought up by the person who's been endlessly posting about Mr. Coppola and his vision.

 

[Robert Harris]

In this thread, it was brought up by the person who's been endlessly posting about Mr. Coppola and his vision.

I’m aware. I was wondering where this info came from.

 

[mdhaus]

Really? This is your response? For the cheap seats: HE DOES NOT OWN THE FILM. PARAMOUNT OWNS THE FILM. I'm not sure what's hard to understand about that simple fact.

The director owns their vision of the film....And it's their vision they pour into it, regardless of who holds the rights of the finished product.

I doubt Marnie need any restoration. They simply went back to a better element, probably the original negative rather than trying to take an old transfer and slap it onto Blu-ray. You're not an expert in this - Mr. Harris is. The End.

What I read several weeks ago is that the film needed quite a bit of work to look great on UHD. Now in fairness, perhaps the context indeed was that the original source material was fine and they needed to go back to it and then start from there again because the current material they had to work from was subpar. That's certainly possible - but it wasn't real clear.

And Lord knows the previous Blu-ray version was quite awful - Even Mr. Harris agreed with that almost 10 years ago: https://www.hometheaterforum.com/community/threads/a-few-words-about-tm-marnie-in-blu-ray.318416/

Lastly, let's all keep in mind that nobody is an "expert" in every single thing within this hobby. It's simply way too huge and complex. The ability for people to debate their honest opinion is a big part of why it's so much fun.

So please take a breath, grab a favorite beverage, stop taking things so seriously, and relax. The End.

 

[haineshisway]

The director owns their vision of the film....And it's their vision they pour into it, regardless of who holds the rights of the finished product.


What I read several weeks ago is that the film needed quite a bit of work to look great on UHD. Now in fairness, perhaps the context indeed was that the original source material was fine and they needed to go back to it and then start from there again because the current material they had to work from was subpar. That's certainly possible - but it wasn't real clear.

And Lord knows the previous Blu-ray version was quite awful - Even Mr. Harris agreed with that almost 10 years ago: https://www.hometheaterforum.com/community/threads/a-few-words-about-tm-marnie-in-blu-ray.318416/

Lastly, let's all keep in mind that nobody is an "expert" in every single thing within this hobby. It's simply way too huge and complex. The ability for people to debate their honest opinion is a big part of why it's so much fun.

So please take a breath, grab a favorite beverage, stop taking things so seriously, and relax. The End.

Yes, I remember the thread very well - Mr. Harris referenced me once I'd seen the transfer and spoken up about it.

Thus spoke Mr. Harris: "
Note and Update: After reading Mr. Kimmel's comments -- I trust his eyes implicitly -- I'm going to agree with him, that something untoward is going on with why the grain structure looks as it does.

While it might partially be the optical concept as I earlier averred, much of the film does have the look of someone trying to have their digital way with it. And it's not good."

Referencing my thus spoke:

"It doesn't matter what you watch this on. Something clearly went wrong somewhere in this transfer. If I had to posit a guess, I think they used the DVD transfer from the velvet box, used some DNR then put back in, well, can't call it grain, so just call it that ugly black crawling stuff and snow - yes, Mr. Wrigley called it right. This is a disaster. Dye transfer prints on this film were wonderful, whether you like what Mr. Hitchcock and Mr. Burks were doing or not. The street scenes at Marnie's mother's are just awful - they should be extremely sharp. And the color has been futzed with from the DVD color - you can see just how much very clearly in the car ride towards the end of the film - the rear projection plate should be almost all gray with the rain - and here it's anything but that. But nothing works in this transfer and whatever they've done it has exacerbated the diffusion in a way that is grotesque. Shame on Universal for trying to spruce up something that was fine for DVD but hardly befitting something called The Masterpiece Collection in a little year called 2012. I now have to keep the velvet box."

 

[plektret]

I'm not exaggerating when I'm saying that this restoration is a hackjob!
UHD=garbage
The Coppola Restoration Bluray=keeper

 

[Tom St Jones]

Yes, I remember the thread very well - Mr. Harris referenced me once I'd seen the transfer and spoken up about it.

Thus spoke Mr. Harris: "
Note and Update: After reading Mr. Kimmel's comments -- I trust his eyes implicitly -- I'm going to agree with him, that something untoward is going on with why the grain structure looks as it does.

While it might partially be the optical concept as I earlier averred, much of the film does have the look of someone trying to have their digital way with it. And it's not good."

Referencing my thus spoke:

"It doesn't matter what you watch this on. Something clearly went wrong somewhere in this transfer. If I had to posit a guess, I think they used the DVD transfer from the velvet box, used some DNR then put back in, well, can't call it grain, so just call it that ugly black crawling stuff and snow - yes, Mr. Wrigley called it right. This is a disaster. Dye transfer prints on this film were wonderful, whether you like what Mr. Hitchcock and Mr. Burks were doing or not. The street scenes at Marnie's mother's are just awful - they should be extremely sharp. And the color has been futzed with from the DVD color - you can see just how much very clearly in the car ride towards the end of the film - the rear projection plate should be almost all gray with the rain - and here it's anything but that. But nothing works in this transfer and whatever they've done it has exacerbated the diffusion in a way that is grotesque. Shame on Universal for trying to spruce up something that was fine for DVD but hardly befitting something called The Masterpiece Collection in a little year called 2012. I now have to keep the velvet box."

I wouldn't call it a "disaster", but a very disappointing, frustrating situation for sure. If anything, I feel they should have at least included the orig., unaltered look as an option on the UHDs. Sure, it may have meant a slight compromise in PQ, but the orig. look representing Mr. Willis' cinematographic vision should be considered of paramount importance (sorry) to preserve.. And it's only "The Godfather" trilogy, ofcourse..

 

[plektret]

Does anyone know if all the Blurays around the world of the 2008 Coppola restoration shares the exact same video encoding?

 

[Dave H]

If they would have just created a new 4K SDR rec 709 master from the 2007 raw scan (along with the newly found footage) with improved H.265 compression that would have been perfect. All so simple too, but...

 

[Dave H]

I watched all three UHD BDs this past week. JVC 4K projector.

With the original BD color timing so ingrained in my head having watched those every 1-2 years since the initial release, it felt weird watching the UHD BDs with the different color timing. If affected me more on the first film for some reason. But I did watch some of the original BD of the first movie afterward and and felt at peace with the Willis supervised color and warm saturations. Almost like at home again? The compression on the original BDs while showings its age a little still seems sufficient enough and without some of the artifacts on the UHD BDs (some grain reduction and frozen grain). There is no question the UHD BDs are technical superior with better detail, HDR, and compression, but the more 'neutral' color throws me for a loop.

 

[PMF]

Why is it that newer versions of anything must always preclude or make the prior perfections from earlier editions obsolete?

Why are our options of preferences eradicated?

At least with Friedkin’s color changes to the BD of The French Connection, we finally got to have a disc release of the original palate, as well.

I hope that one day Paramount will allow and make room for a 4K/UHD release of the approved Gordon Willis version; maybe through Criterion or Kino Lorber.

 

[plektret]

This "restoration" keeps receiving awards for Best Restoration, perhaps setting a precedent for how film restorations should be done nowadays. So sadI still don't understand how F.F.Coppola himself could've approved this hackjob. None of the restorations done entirely at Zoetrope have ended up looking like this.

All I ask is for is the old Coppola Restoration DCP to be put out on SDR UHD Bluray as it is without any further digital work

I don't own the UHD anymore. I always watch the old Bluray (in mono), sometimes with a light deblocking filter.

 

[Wes Candela]

30 March 2022

Updating these words, based upon what I perceive as a bit of confusion at either the studio or replication level.

Comments from two members of the studio team tell us that this is a definitive restoration, using the 2007 Digital Cinema Package as a basis of color, density, black and white levels as well as grain structure.

This is an absolute. Something either matches the version approved by Mr. Willis, or it does not.

The 2022 release does not match in any way, although as I’ve noted in the past, I support the right of filmmakers and the studio to affect changes in their film, and have taken a position of it being a new work for a new generation. The excellence that is The Godfather can bring pleasure to new viewers, who may have a different mindset as to the original look of the film.

The important factor is that new audiences see and appreciate the film(s).

The colorist has spoken, and has made note of his changes to the earlier version, based upon new technology, HDR, and experimentation in the color suite.

Presumably, the new master was approved by the studio, but the comments of the studio reps vs the colorist bring into question precisely what the final product on 4k Blu-ray actually is, and whether it is, in fact correct as opposed to, for example, the new DCP, and what it is that has been released.

Was this predestined to match the ‘07 DCP as reported by the studio reps?

Did the colorist decide (during Covid) to make personal changes?

I’m now a bit confused as to intent vs final released product, which is not as discussed on camera.

A number of years ago, I was visiting a novelist friend, and he was telling me about an interview he'd given during which he was asked how he felt about one of his novellas, recently produced as a TV special, not getting a great reception. Did he feel that his book was in any way damaged?

He told me that he pointed to a bookshelf where his work resided, and asked "What do you mean? My book is still right there."

In an odd way this reminds me of questions I've been receiving about how I feel about the new 2022 restoration of The Godfather(s). Almost as if I might take umbrage to a new, updated restoration.

First, and most important, as I've now had the opportunity to view enough of the final work to have an opinion - it's still The Godfather(s), and a great many people are going to love it.

There are, however, a few minor points that trouble me.

One is grain reduction, but that's viewing it through my eyes, and one must acknowledge that a modern audience may love it in it's new incarnation.

Two, actually, are very minor points, but more on that later.

Bottom line is that the work that my team did in 2007 is still available on the older Blu-ray set, and (hopefully) via DCP should someone wish to see it via the original color grading.

So what's good about this new set, and does the final result live up to sizzle and publicity?

In my opinion, in a word - yes, especially for those who desire a newer shiner overall appearance, unfettered with the original look - a matter of taste.

What Paramount and Zoetrope have created in this 50th Anniversary offering is something different, with a slightly different color bias - whites are cleaner white, for example. And another major point, there are probably a couple of hundred feet of original negative that have been culled from the library and re-inserted in place of opticals or dupes. Viewers may not notice them, but they're there.

That noted, there's an interesting thing about human vision. Our eyes perceive color in different ways, but also quickly get used to what they're seeing.

Will someone look at the 50th and after three minutes, think to themselves that something is different. Very doubtful, as it looks terrific.

What we had performed has been called a technical restoration, tracking every shot as Mr. Willis wanted them to be seen - 2007.

Tastes change. Technology changes. New audiences arrive, and while there are differences, there's no downside.

Beginning with a more modern scan, with a deeper bit depth, allowed for some updates, which work nicely. The restoration still took thousands of hours of digital clean-up and repair, then color and densities.

What don't I love?

Only a single shot, really. The Vegas shot of the sign, which was found in the stock footage library, and added - in VistaVision - appears (at least to me) wrong for the purpose, which might better have stayed with a dupe, as opposed to an 8-perf original.

The only other problem I have is the marquis at the Chinese in the fall of 1945, when Tom Hagen goes to L.A. to meet with Woltz.

It now clearly reads - "Susanna Foster - Boris Karloff - The Climax," which opened in 1944. But I doubt that anyone will notice it. I look at it with a bit of dark humor, as going through generations of film in 1972 to a dye transfer print, it was far less legible. In 2007, we softened the lettering a bit.

But that's looking at it with my eyes.

Image – awaiting information (Dolby Vision)

Audio – 5 (5.1Dolby TrueHD)

Pass / Fail – Pass

Plays nicely with projectors - Yes

Makes use of and works well in 4k - n/a

RAH

I agree with you, Mr. Harris. There is either accurate replication of Gordon Willis‘s intended color.
Or there is not.

so many of the movies we are watching, now have been altered by HDR, and I am accepting them for what they now look like

but with respect to the painstaking work, you and your team went through to restore… Again, to restore Coppola and Gordon Willis's original vision, you are an unsung hero

There are many of us out here who not only respect you, but who like myself, list you amongst the greats.

For your efforts, dedication, and the the life you have granted the films that would have been lost to us all. I salute you, I look up to you, and again…

Thank you for everything you've done for cinema. Vertigo and Lawrence of Arabia. The Godfather…

I am indebted to you as are many cinephiles out there.

You are a hero.