UHD Review A Few Words About A few words about...™ - The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance -- in 4k UHD (3 Viewers)

[JoshZ]

The way I read it, not so much “lower bit rate than the other disc”, but rather “the bit rate dips in the areas where the video gets especially problematic. Oh and by the way, those dips don’t occur on the 1080p disc”

Certainly a relevant point and not as reductionist as you make it sound.

I really don't want to belabor this argument, but this is what was written:

"[F]or every problem spot I double-checked, the 1080p disc easily outpaces the 4K disc. When the train pulls into Stoddard, the 4K discs leaves the impressive 70-ish mbps range of the credits and craters into the low 20s. The 1080p disc? Stays at a healthy 30mbps even peaking into the mid-upper 40s!"

To me, what he's saying there is: "30 and 40 are bigger numbers than 20. Therefore, the Blu-ray is better than the UHD."

Now, to your point, the next sentence is: "Obviously that number fluctuates but it stays relatively consistent without the dramatic flips from one scene to the next."

Even so, he's still comparing two completely different compression formats and drawing conclusions just by looking at the numbers. That's not how these formats work.

Again, I'm not arguing that this disc was encoded optimally. However, it seems clear to me that the real damage was done during the digital manipulation before anything got as far as the compression stage. The grain and detail don't go away because the compression bit rate is too low. The bit rate drops because the grain and detail were already removed during the "restoration" and there's less data to compress.

 

[Kent K H]

LOL. He gave 4.5 to The Longest Day BD, which to my eyes was even waxier than Patton.

The real question is, what did he give Madame Tussaud's Predator?

 

[jim_falconer]

Just to add a not so unrelated comment here. I am reminded of the time in the early 2000's when large numbers of people I knew couldn't see the difference between DVD and Blu-ray/HD DVD, or said that you can't tell the difference between SD and HD from a reasonable distance. These same people enjoyed what they were watching, regardless of how "wrong" they were.

Some people need to be trained to see, much like a budding musician needs to learn to hear. Thank goodness we have people like Robert A. Harris to share his enormous wealth of experience inform and educate us all.

EDIT: I should add, I'm not saying someone's opinion concerning what they enjoy is "wrong", just that they may not be seeing the whole picture, so to speak. Even after they are "educated" they may still hold the same view... and that is fine by me.

Glad you added in the EDIT. It was a pretty condescending post up until that point

 

[Carl David]

This whole physical media internet review situation is becoming a fiasco. It seems the disc producer companies fare no better either.

Talk about the blind leading the blind.

There is no consistency and no reference from what reviewers or disc sellers/producers go by. Bit of a mess, really.

Completely subjective from both parties subject to both their whims and fancies which is certainly not going to encourage sales toward consumers who want the movies to look as close to how they were photographed as possible without any unnecessary "manipulation" of the source image due to ignorance, incompetence or even with the intention to increase sales if that is possible by butchering any movie (it appears so).

It seems it's not going to improve any time soon or even at all in the future.

It would be ideal as a starting point if reviewers watched and analysed the material on screens over 100 inches in ideal viewing conditions from a high end projector professionally calibrated that displays accurately movies as they should be intended to be viewed.

From what I can tell, many reviewers appear to be "hobbyists" voluntarily working without pay or for very low pay as a side project.

How many of them have formal training or education in photography? Are any of them even self taught if not formally educated?

How much do they know about colour and how it should be accurately displayed?

Are they familiar with The Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers standards and do they understand the principles behind them and why it was formed in the first place?

We are talking about a industry here that is not for the casual hobbyist but people who need to be educated about many technical areas but very few (RAH being one) if hardly any at all seem to have the experience or knowledge of how to correctly grade and assess if a movie has been properly and professionally produced onto disc and if it represents when viewed in the home environment the video and sound fidelity as was originally intended by the creators.

If the reviewers are incapable of discerning if the movies are being shown accurately whether due to poor or inferior equipment/poor viewing conditions or lack of knowledge and understanding or both then it gives the disc seller companies (and directors and other people "overseeing" their projects) free reign to continue releasing inferior products that do no favours to not only the people who are paying for these products but also to the rest of us who refrain from buying these products as a consequence of knowing that they have been produced to a low standard who otherwise would be willing to part with their money if only the companies in the first place delivered every film they released as close to accurately reproducing the original source material as possible within accepted budgets and other constraints.

Unfortunately, I do not see how this gets resolved.

I cannot think of any suggestions that might help things going forward. Perhaps a company that gives a seal of approval of a movie on disc that confirms the film release meets the highest standards in relation to accurately representing the original source.

However, will disc sellers pay for a company to do this? Is there enough money in the industry to compensate for this?

Most probably not. They would probably be such a company that already exists if there was a market for it.

The physical media market especially 4k UHD has taken on a life of its own and it does not appear to be changing any time soon.

It may even get worse if you take into account that the majority of reviewers are not recognising the errors being made by the disc sellers and giving favourable reviews to movies that have been altered from their original look.

Going by what I have seen I am surprised there have not been more problems than what we have had considering there is no kind of standard that companies must adhere to.

It is a business based on interpretation as opposed to meeting strict standards set by people who know and understand how a movie should be viewed on a TV or projector in the home environment.

It's a miracle we have all the great movies released over the last 10 years or so that have been done to a high standard.

I for one am grateful for that so I don't want this to be coming across as some kind of rant as it is not.

Just an observation from my point of view.

It is a shame though that physical media mainly 4k UHD material seems to be quickly developing into some kind of modern revisionist type of situation which if not enough people call out on will only exacerbate going forward.

 

[Robert Harris]

This whole physical media internet review situation is becoming a fiasco. It seems the disc producer companies fare no better either.

Talk about the blind leading the blind.

There is no consistency and no reference from what reviewers or disc sellers/producers go by. Bit of a mess, really.

Completely subjective from both parties subject to both their whims and fancies which is certainly not going to encourage sales toward consumers who want the movies to look as close to how they were photographed as possible without any unnecessary "manipulation" of the source image due to ignorance, incompetence or even with the intention to increase sales if that is possible by butchering any movie (it appears so).

It seems it's not going to improve any time soon or even at all in the future.

It would be ideal as a starting point if reviewers watched and analysed the material on screens over 100 inches in ideal viewing conditions from a high end projector professionally calibrated that displays accurately movies as they should be intended to be viewed.

From what I can tell, many reviewers appear to be "hobbyists" voluntarily working without pay or for very low pay as a side project.

How many of them have formal training or education in photography? Are any of them even self taught if not formally educated?

How much do they know about colour and how it should be accurately displayed?

Are they familiar with The Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers standards and do they understand the principles behind them and why it was formed in the first place?

We are talking about a industry here that is not for the casual hobbyist but people who need to be educated about many technical areas but very few (RAH being one) if hardly any at all seem to have the experience or knowledge of how to correctly grade and assess if a movie has been properly and professionally produced onto disc and if it represents when viewed in the home environment the video and sound fidelity as was originally intended by the creators.

If the reviewers are incapable of discerning if the movies are being shown accurately whether due to poor or inferior equipment/poor viewing conditions or lack of knowledge and understanding or both then it gives the disc seller companies (and directors and other people "overseeing" their projects) free reign to continue releasing inferior products that do no favours to not only the people who are paying for these products but also to the rest of us who refrain from buying these products as a consequence of knowing that they have been produced to a low standard who otherwise would be willing to part with their money if only the companies in the first place delivered every film they released as close to accurately reproducing the original source material as possible within accepted budgets and other constraints.

Unfortunately, I do not see how this gets resolved.

I cannot think of any suggestions that might help things going forward. Perhaps a company that gives a seal of approval of a movie on disc that confirms the film release meets the highest standards in relation to accurately representing the original source.

However, will disc sellers pay for a company to do this? Is there enough money in the industry to compensate for this?

Most probably not. They would probably be such a company that already exists if there was a market for it.

The physical media market especially 4k UHD has taken on a life of its own and it does not appear to be changing any time soon.

It may even get worse if you take into account that the majority of reviewers are not recognising the errors being made by the disc sellers and giving favourable reviews to movies that have been altered from their original look.

Going by what I have seen I am surprised there have not been more problems than what we have had considering there is no kind of standard that companies must adhere to.

It is a business based on interpretation as opposed to meeting strict standards set by people who know and understand how a movie should be viewed on a TV or projector in the home environment.

It's a miracle we have all the great movies released over the last 10 years or so that have been done to a high standard.

I for one am grateful for that so I don't want this to be coming across as some kind of rant as it is not.

Just an observation from my point of view.

It is a shame though that physical media mainly 4k UHD material seems to be quickly developing into some kind of modern revisionist type of situation which if not enough people call out on will only exacerbate going forward.

Amen!

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Martin Liebman gave Patton 5 out of 5 for video quality - the wax version:

Patton Blu-ray

Patton Blu-ray Release Date June 3, 2008. Blu-ray reviews, news, specs, ratings, screenshots. Cheap Blu-ray movies and deals.

www.blu-ray.com

As for his display one can always sit closer to a smaller screen - helps a lot.
In any case he obviously has not changed his ways to a significant degree as he seems to be rather happy with the old Liberty Valance release giving it 4.5 out of 5 stars for video.

In any case no need for me to read his review with that kind of track record.

LOL. He gave 4.5 to The Longest Day BD, which to my eyes was even waxier than Patton.

I'm pretty forgiving of folks who make the occasional misjudgment.

I've written 9000+ reviews, and there are probably more that are "wrong" than I would like to admit.

Maybe this is a regular pattern with Liebman and he just digs the DNR look.

But unless someone "gets it wrong" the majority of the time, I cut 'em a break.

 

[Robert Harris]

I'm pretty forgiving of folks who make the occasional misjudgment.

I've written 9000+ reviews, and there are probably more that are "wrong" than I would like to admit.

Maybe this is a regular pattern with Liebman and he just digs the DNR look.

But unless someone "gets it wrong" the majority of the time, I cut 'em a break.

Mr. Liebman is a true gentleman, and has done numerous superb reviews.

None of us are perfect. I’ve had my share of mis-judgements. Normally I catch them, but sometimes not. In certain occasions, a bad day, not enough time, the wrong hardware (normally whilst traveling) - but those of us who do this, try our best to get it correct.

It’s getting more difficult.

 

[compson]

It is a shame though that physical media mainly 4k UHD material seems to be quickly developing into some kind of modern revisionist type of situation which if not enough people call out on will only exacerbate going forward.

Is it, though? Disney and Paramount don’t respect creators’ work, but look at what we’re getting from Warner, Universal, Sony/Columbia, Criterion, Arrow, Kino Lorber, even Shout, and now BFI. Their work isn’t perfect, but even when they’re not called to task by on-line reviewers, they’re likely to be pilloried by passionate consumers over any perceived fault. In a month in which we watch a gorgeous collection of Hitchcock movies (the second set, after the first set cherry-picked the most popular available titles), are things really so bad?

 

[lark144]

Mea Culpa!

Mr. Kimmel is absolutely correct regarding my original 2015 review of the Liberty Valance Blu-ray.

I recall at the time, viewing on my old projector, the glass of which left a great deal to be desired as far as resolution, and also on a Samsung LED, which had other problems.

I thought I saw something off, but neither device allowed me to identify it, and I dropped it to get on with real life.

Viewing that disc on my newer equipment confirms that the data is the same, with the same digital patterns in skies, et al - which were too unresolved at the time to pick up.

The old review seems to have come over in a port with parts blacked out, and rather than attempt to fix, I've locked the old thread. As to the UK release, I no longer have a copy to check.

What this seems to tell us is that as far back as 2015, Paramount was playing the grain game.

I have the UK release, it looks exactly the same way you describe the 4K: degrained, milky-contrast, "clean as a baby's bottom" and with swatches of fake grain. I find it unwatchable.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

This whole physical media internet review situation is becoming a fiasco. It seems the disc producer companies fare no better either.

Talk about the blind leading the blind.

There is no consistency and no reference from what reviewers or disc sellers/producers go by. Bit of a mess, really.

Completely subjective from both parties subject to both their whims and fancies which is certainly not going to encourage sales toward consumers who want the movies to look as close to how they were photographed as possible without any unnecessary "manipulation" of the source image due to ignorance, incompetence or even with the intention to increase sales if that is possible by butchering any movie (it appears so).

It seems it's not going to improve any time soon or even at all in the future.

It would be ideal as a starting point if reviewers watched and analysed the material on screens over 100 inches in ideal viewing conditions from a high end projector professionally calibrated that displays accurately movies as they should be intended to be viewed.

From what I can tell, many reviewers appear to be "hobbyists" voluntarily working without pay or for very low pay as a side project.

How many of them have formal training or education in photography? Are any of them even self taught if not formally educated?

How much do they know about colour and how it should be accurately displayed?

Are they familiar with The Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers standards and do they understand the principles behind them and why it was formed in the first place?

We are talking about a industry here that is not for the casual hobbyist but people who need to be educated about many technical areas but very few (RAH being one) if hardly any at all seem to have the experience or knowledge of how to correctly grade and assess if a movie has been properly and professionally produced onto disc and if it represents when viewed in the home environment the video and sound fidelity as was originally intended by the creators.

If the reviewers are incapable of discerning if the movies are being shown accurately whether due to poor or inferior equipment/poor viewing conditions or lack of knowledge and understanding or both then it gives the disc seller companies (and directors and other people "overseeing" their projects) free reign to continue releasing inferior products that do no favours to not only the people who are paying for these products but also to the rest of us who refrain from buying these products as a consequence of knowing that they have been produced to a low standard who otherwise would be willing to part with their money if only the companies in the first place delivered every film they released as close to accurately reproducing the original source material as possible within accepted budgets and other constraints.

Unfortunately, I do not see how this gets resolved.

I cannot think of any suggestions that might help things going forward. Perhaps a company that gives a seal of approval of a movie on disc that confirms the film release meets the highest standards in relation to accurately representing the original source.

However, will disc sellers pay for a company to do this? Is there enough money in the industry to compensate for this?

Most probably not. They would probably be such a company that already exists if there was a market for it.

The physical media market especially 4k UHD has taken on a life of its own and it does not appear to be changing any time soon.

It may even get worse if you take into account that the majority of reviewers are not recognising the errors being made by the disc sellers and giving favourable reviews to movies that have been altered from their original look.

Going by what I have seen I am surprised there have not been more problems than what we have had considering there is no kind of standard that companies must adhere to.

It is a business based on interpretation as opposed to meeting strict standards set by people who know and understand how a movie should be viewed on a TV or projector in the home environment.

It's a miracle we have all the great movies released over the last 10 years or so that have been done to a high standard.

I for one am grateful for that so I don't want this to be coming across as some kind of rant as it is not.

Just an observation from my point of view.

It is a shame though that physical media mainly 4k UHD material seems to be quickly developing into some kind of modern revisionist type of situation which if not enough people call out on will only exacerbate going forward.

It's an unfortunate reality, but on the positive side, the tech and quality have come so very far now that we really don't often even *need* a 4K release, especially for most older catalog titles (or even many more modern titles w/ 2K DIs), though faithfully pristine 4K output is always appreciated (to varying degrees), so...

_Man_

 

[Carl David]

It's an unfortunate reality, but on the positive side, the tech and quality have come so very far now that we really don't often even *need* a 4K release, especially for most older catalog titles (or even many more modern titles w/ 2K DIs), though faithfully pristine 4K output is always appreciated (to varying degrees), so...

_Man_

True!

A lot of movies don't have any data over 2k so 4k is overkill in a lot of cases which goes back to my point that UHD 4k has taken on a life of its own.

There are many Blu Ray discs that look absolutely beautiful and do not require 4k releases but that won't stop the disc sellers from doing so.

It appears there is money to be made.

I'm not complaining. It is what it is.

If the buying customers are happy then everyone is a winner.

There are not many movies in 4k yet to be released that I care much for to add to my collection. This one (TMWSLV) would have been a welcome addition especially as it appears the previous Blu Ray was not much better either although I have not seen it.

Like I said previously, I am grateful for what has been released over the years in Blu Ray and the odd 4k release so anything new from now on is a bonus.

But I still find it unfortunate that this poorly created 4k release of a movie by one of America's and cinemas greatest directors is a great shame.

 

[Carl David]

Is it, though? Disney and Paramount don’t respect creators’ work, but look at what we’re getting from Warner, Universal, Sony/Columbia, Criterion, Arrow, Kino Lorber, even Shout, and now BFI. Their work isn’t perfect, but even when they’re not called to task by on-line reviewers, they’re likely to be pilloried by passionate consumers over any perceived fault. In a month in which we watch a gorgeous collection of Hitchcock movies (the second set, after the first set cherry-picked the most popular available titles), are things really so bad?

Valid point.

There is some great work getting put out by those companies and that will certainly help things going forward.

The problem is if they don't will it get picked up by the reviewers? And will enough customers care?

Company personnel come and go. Businesses can get complacent.

If mistakes don't get recognised then they will likely be repeated.

Clearly not enough people are paying attention to bother Paramount.

 

[OliverK]

I'm pretty forgiving of folks who make the occasional misjudgment.

I've written 9000+ reviews, and there are probably more that are "wrong" than I would like to admit.

It is honorable of you to say that but the original Patton disc is no Liberty Valance where you may watch a segment that looks pretty much OK if you do not pay attention. Or to put it another way: If your eyes, display or taste prevent you from seeing it is very very wrong why would I trust you as a reviewer to reflect my taste and requirements for a proper release?

Maybe this is a regular pattern with Liebman and he just digs the DNR look.

But unless someone "gets it wrong" the majority of the time, I cut 'em a break.

This has been a recurring pattern with him. Others will probably be happy with his reviews but for me life is too short to constantly check if at some point he comes around and changes his review standards.

 

[titch]

This whole physical media internet review situation is becoming a fiasco. It seems the disc producer companies fare no better either.

Talk about the blind leading the blind.

There is no consistency and no reference from what reviewers or disc sellers/producers go by. Bit of a mess, really.

Completely subjective from both parties subject to both their whims and fancies which is certainly not going to encourage sales toward consumers who want the movies to look as close to how they were photographed as possible without any unnecessary "manipulation" of the source image due to ignorance, incompetence or even with the intention to increase sales if that is possible by butchering any movie (it appears so).

It seems it's not going to improve any time soon or even at all in the future.

It would be ideal as a starting point if reviewers watched and analysed the material on screens over 100 inches in ideal viewing conditions from a high end projector professionally calibrated that displays accurately movies as they should be intended to be viewed.

From what I can tell, many reviewers appear to be "hobbyists" voluntarily working without pay or for very low pay as a side project.

How many of them have formal training or education in photography? Are any of them even self taught if not formally educated?

How much do they know about colour and how it should be accurately displayed?

Are they familiar with The Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers standards and do they understand the principles behind them and why it was formed in the first place?

We are talking about a industry here that is not for the casual hobbyist but people who need to be educated about many technical areas but very few (RAH being one) if hardly any at all seem to have the experience or knowledge of how to correctly grade and assess if a movie has been properly and professionally produced onto disc and if it represents when viewed in the home environment the video and sound fidelity as was originally intended by the creators.

If the reviewers are incapable of discerning if the movies are being shown accurately whether due to poor or inferior equipment/poor viewing conditions or lack of knowledge and understanding or both then it gives the disc seller companies (and directors and other people "overseeing" their projects) free reign to continue releasing inferior products that do no favours to not only the people who are paying for these products but also to the rest of us who refrain from buying these products as a consequence of knowing that they have been produced to a low standard who otherwise would be willing to part with their money if only the companies in the first place delivered every film they released as close to accurately reproducing the original source material as possible within accepted budgets and other constraints.

Unfortunately, I do not see how this gets resolved.

I cannot think of any suggestions that might help things going forward. Perhaps a company that gives a seal of approval of a movie on disc that confirms the film release meets the highest standards in relation to accurately representing the original source.

However, will disc sellers pay for a company to do this? Is there enough money in the industry to compensate for this?

Most probably not. They would probably be such a company that already exists if there was a market for it.

The physical media market especially 4k UHD has taken on a life of its own and it does not appear to be changing any time soon.

It may even get worse if you take into account that the majority of reviewers are not recognising the errors being made by the disc sellers and giving favourable reviews to movies that have been altered from their original look.

Going by what I have seen I am surprised there have not been more problems than what we have had considering there is no kind of standard that companies must adhere to.

It is a business based on interpretation as opposed to meeting strict standards set by people who know and understand how a movie should be viewed on a TV or projector in the home environment.

It's a miracle we have all the great movies released over the last 10 years or so that have been done to a high standard.

I for one am grateful for that so I don't want this to be coming across as some kind of rant as it is not.

Just an observation from my point of view.

It is a shame though that physical media mainly 4k UHD material seems to be quickly developing into some kind of modern revisionist type of situation which if not enough people call out on will only exacerbate going forward.

We would all like everything to be 100% transparent, 100% accurate, 100% reliable and 100% valid, wouldn't we? Doesn't exist in any field. I publish medical research in peer-reviewed journals. Even a medical experiment, subjected to rigorous scientific methods, can never be 100% free from bias, mistakes, corruption, fraud dishonesty and deceit - in fact, these are widespread problems (see attached article, if you're interested).

I can only observe that in 2022, the much lower cost - and much more widespread availability - of ultra high definition consumer displays now means that very many more people are currently able to enjoy a home video experience, similar to myself. This was not the case fifteen years ago, when screen sizes generally were considerably smaller. I notice that I often agree with reviewers now, compared to when I purchased my first projector set-up back in 2007. In scientific terms, this is known as good reproducibility. Very few releases given top-ratings for picture quality on blu-ray on internet sites actually looked good to me in 2007. Now they very often do, with a few exceptions.

In the end, the most important aspect for me, are those companies which consistently deliver. Without waiting for a review, I will buy 4K UHD titles I want from Arrow Video, A24, BBC, Synapse, BFI, Universal, Disney, Second Sight, Severin, Sony, Blue Underground, Warner Bros, Kino and Criterion. Such a long list of companies shows how very good the level of quality has become. Any other company - and there aren't that many others - I'll approach on a title by title basis. And that's where discussions on this forum prove to be time well-spent.

 

[Robert Crawford]

It would be ideal as a starting point if reviewers watched and analysed the material on screens over 100 inches in ideal viewing conditions from a high end projector professionally calibrated that displays accurately movies as they should be intended to be viewed.

Most people that purchase these discs are not viewing them on such projectors. It's obvious to me that Paramount has made a conscious decision to release The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance to consumers that like the look of this 4K release on their non-projector 4K displays.

If mistakes don't get recognised then they will likely be repeated.

Clearly not enough people are paying attention to bother Paramount.

Again, I don't think Paramount is making a mistake. You might not like their decision-making in regard to this release. However, I think they know exactly what they're doing and feel that most of their consumers except for a vocal minority of film purists on the internet, will enjoy the look of this 4K disc on their 4K displays.

Anyhow, I just ordered my 4K disc from Deep Discount so I hope to have this disc in-hand either later this week or next week at the latest. I'm looking forward to watching it on my 65" OLED. I recognized that I'm swimming upstream with my minority opinion in this thread, but I feel a need to speak out for those that don't share the prevalent opinion being expressed here as I've found these Paramount titles looking very pleasing on my OLEDs, whether on disc or digitally.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I'm pretty forgiving of folks who make the occasional misjudgment.

I've written 9000+ reviews, and there are probably more that are "wrong" than I would like to admit.

Maybe this is a regular pattern with Liebman and he just digs the DNR look.

But unless someone "gets it wrong" the majority of the time, I cut 'em a break.

And, he's not alone in that regard as I suspect that many consumers dig the DNR look on their non-projector displays. IMO, there is a silent segment of consumers that don't share their fondness for that DNR look because they're happy and have no reason to complain which is in contrast to film purists and/or those that don't mind film grain being present on their displays. I fall in the latter group, who can find enjoyment with or without grain on my display.

 

[Robert Harris]

Most people that purchase these discs are not viewing them on such projectors. It's obvious to me that Paramount has made a conscious decision to release The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance to consumers that like the look of this 4K release on their non-projector 4K displays.

Again, I don't think Paramount is making a mistake. You might not like their decision-making in regard to this release. However, I think they know exactly what they're doing and feel that most of their consumers except for a vocal minority of film purists on the internet, will enjoy the look of this 4K disc on their 4K displays.

Anyhow, I just ordered my 4K disc from Deep Discount so I hope to have this disc in-hand either later this week or next week at the latest. I'm looking forward to watching it on my 65" OLED. I recognized that I'm swimming upstream with my minority opinion in this thread, but I feel a need to speak out for those that don't share the prevalent opinion being expressed here as I've found these Paramount titles looking very pleasing on my OLEDs, whether on disc or digitally.

Robert,

We will agree to disagree.

Fact:

It is generally just as easy (or not any more difficult), and no more expensive to produce a 4k disc of superior quality, that reproduces the look of the original film, as opposed to something like Paramount’s abominable Valence.

I contend that the people you reference as liking the look of heavily processed product - and have zero doubt, Valance is a heavily processed product - don’t know, understand or care about what they’re looking at. They’re uneducated, and should not purportedly to be serviced as a viable demographic of consumers, as you opine.

I further contend that those same people would find a properly reproduced film on disc just as pleasant a viewing experience. Something with full grain structure (possibly except a half dozen heavy-grain outliers), perfect color, great black levels, proper shadow detail, and a stable image.

You seem to place yourself in the same boat with these people.

But a serious question for you:

Do you have copies of Elizabeth & Essex (on BD), or on 4k The Red Shoes, For a Few Dollars More, any of my work - Aurens, MFL, Vertigo, Spartacus, GF (2008, on BD) - Paramount’s Court Jester (BD), Singin’ in the Rain, The Ten Commandments, The Hurt Locker, Citizen Kane, Apocalypse Now, Jaws, Dr. Strangelove, A Clockwork Orange, Do the Right Thing, Scarface (1983), It’s a Wonderful Life, Psycho, The Apartment, Oliver, Shadow of a Doubt, The Wolf Man (1941), Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, Suspiria (1977), The Mask of Zorro, Gladiator, The Shawshank Redemption…

Are any of these titles acceptable to you? Do you feel they look good (or better) on your OLED panel?

If you DO find them acceptable, I posit that others on your boat would find them equally acceptable.

And if this is correct, it is certainly NOT that you simply tend toward an overly cleaned, falsely granular image, built over a decent beginning.

If you agree, then why not have all films (quality elements permitting) in the quality of the short list above?

 

[Robert Crawford]

Robert,

We will agree to disagree.

Fact:

It is generally just as easy (or not any more difficult), and no more expensive to produce a 4k disc of superior quality, that reproduces the look of the original film, as opposed to something like Paramount’s abominable Valence.

I contend that the people you reference as liking the look of heavily processed product - and have zero doubt, Valance is a heavily processed product - don’t know, understand or care about what they’re looking at. They’re uneducated, and should not purportedly to be serviced as a viable demographic of consumers, as you opine.

I further contend that those same people would find a properly reproduced film on disc just as pleasant a viewing experience. Something with full grain structure (possibly except a half dozen heavy-grain outliers), perfect color, great black levels, proper shadow detail, and a stable image.

You seem to place yourself in the same boat with these people.

But a serious question for you:

Do you have copies of Elizabeth & Essex (on BD), or on 4k The Red Shoes, For a Few Dollars More, any of my work - Aurens, MFL, Vertigo, Spartacus, GF (2008, on BD) - Paramount’s Court Jester (BD), Singin’ in the Rain, The Ten Commandments, The Hurt Locker, Citizen Kane, Apocalypse Now, Jaws, Dr. Strangelove, A Clockwork Orange, Do the Right Thing, Scarface (1983), It’s a Wonderful Life, Psycho, The Apartment, Oliver, Shadow of a Doubt, The Wolf Man (1941), Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, Suspiria (1977), The Mask of Zorro, Gladiator, The Shawshank Redemption…

Are any of these titles acceptable to you? Do you feel they look good (or better) on your OLED panel?

If you DO find them acceptable, I posit that others on your boat would find them equally acceptable.

And if this is correct, it is certainly NOT that you simply tend toward an overly cleaned, falsely granular image, built over a decent beginning.

If you agree, then why not have all films (quality elements permitting) in the quality of the short list above?

Like you said, we agree to disagree as you clearly think those that are uneducated when it comes to how film should look like, doesn’t matter at all despite them being the majority group among us.

Furthermore, I guess you missed my point in my previous post that I can find enjoyment watching movies on my OLEDs with or without grain. It’s not a major issue for me as it is for those that hate grain on their displays or those that insist a movie should look like film and not looked processed.

 

[Robert Harris]

Like you said, we agree to disagree as you clearly think those that are uneducated when it comes to how film should look like, doesn’t matter at all despite them being the majority group among us.

Furthermore, I guess you missed my point in my previous post that I can find enjoyment watching movies on my OLEDs with or without grain. It’s not a major issue for me as it is for those that hate grain on their displays or those that insist a movie should look like film and not looked processed.

Let me try this again.

If grain, lack of smeared imagery and certain other attributes do not damage the viewing pleasure of those who don’t know what they’re looking at…

What possible point could those creating the digital versions of those images have toward purposefully creating damaging problems to make those people happy…

If they’d be just as happy with quality imagery.

And if you’re suggesting that you’ve seen some of the titles on the list offered, and are not troubled or offended by them, then you may be bi-granular. Please don’t take that as an insult. Members of the aristocracy have been known to be bi-granular, especially post 16th century.

But my question remains, if none of this matters to you and those who represent as bi-granular, do we presume that there is a more intense group, who must have a fully Pattonized image in order to purchase a disc, and that Paramount is orienting all of their work toward them, as opposed to placing them in re-education centers?

And finally…

What proportion of those who purchase 4k software actually desire the imagery to look like an original print of a motion picture?

 

[sbjork]

This whole physical media internet review situation is becoming a fiasco. It seems the disc producer companies fare no better either.

Talk about the blind leading the blind.

There is no consistency and no reference from what reviewers or disc sellers/producers go by. Bit of a mess, really.

Completely subjective from both parties subject to both their whims and fancies which is certainly not going to encourage sales toward consumers who want the movies to look as close to how they were photographed as possible without any unnecessary "manipulation" of the source image due to ignorance, incompetence or even with the intention to increase sales if that is possible by butchering any movie (it appears so).

It seems it's not going to improve any time soon or even at all in the future.

It would be ideal as a starting point if reviewers watched and analysed the material on screens over 100 inches in ideal viewing conditions from a high end projector professionally calibrated that displays accurately movies as they should be intended to be viewed.

From what I can tell, many reviewers appear to be "hobbyists" voluntarily working without pay or for very low pay as a side project.

How many of them have formal training or education in photography? Are any of them even self taught if not formally educated?

How much do they know about colour and how it should be accurately displayed?

Are they familiar with The Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers standards and do they understand the principles behind them and why it was formed in the first place?

We are talking about a industry here that is not for the casual hobbyist but people who need to be educated about many technical areas but very few (RAH being one) if hardly any at all seem to have the experience or knowledge of how to correctly grade and assess if a movie has been properly and professionally produced onto disc and if it represents when viewed in the home environment the video and sound fidelity as was originally intended by the creators.

If the reviewers are incapable of discerning if the movies are being shown accurately whether due to poor or inferior equipment/poor viewing conditions or lack of knowledge and understanding or both then it gives the disc seller companies (and directors and other people "overseeing" their projects) free reign to continue releasing inferior products that do no favours to not only the people who are paying for these products but also to the rest of us who refrain from buying these products as a consequence of knowing that they have been produced to a low standard who otherwise would be willing to part with their money if only the companies in the first place delivered every film they released as close to accurately reproducing the original source material as possible within accepted budgets and other constraints.

Unfortunately, I do not see how this gets resolved.

I cannot think of any suggestions that might help things going forward. Perhaps a company that gives a seal of approval of a movie on disc that confirms the film release meets the highest standards in relation to accurately representing the original source.

However, will disc sellers pay for a company to do this? Is there enough money in the industry to compensate for this?

Most probably not. They would probably be such a company that already exists if there was a market for it.

The physical media market especially 4k UHD has taken on a life of its own and it does not appear to be changing any time soon.

It may even get worse if you take into account that the majority of reviewers are not recognising the errors being made by the disc sellers and giving favourable reviews to movies that have been altered from their original look.

Going by what I have seen I am surprised there have not been more problems than what we have had considering there is no kind of standard that companies must adhere to.

It is a business based on interpretation as opposed to meeting strict standards set by people who know and understand how a movie should be viewed on a TV or projector in the home environment.

It's a miracle we have all the great movies released over the last 10 years or so that have been done to a high standard.

I for one am grateful for that so I don't want this to be coming across as some kind of rant as it is not.

Just an observation from my point of view.

It is a shame though that physical media mainly 4k UHD material seems to be quickly developing into some kind of modern revisionist type of situation which if not enough people call out on will only exacerbate going forward.

That's all fine in the abstract, and I understand what you're going for, but in practice, what you would hope for isn't within the realm of possibility regardless of education and calibration. Reviewing is indeed a subjective process, but it can't be anything else. How exactly can anyone determine if something has been altered from its original look? How can they determine accuracy, or the original intent of the filmmakers? That may be possible in some cases, but it's completely impossible in others.

An example: I'm currently finishing up the Miklós Jancsó Collection from Kino, for a review to be posted later this week. I'm quite familiar with Jancsó, but my exposure to his films has been via VHS, laserdisc, and DVD. Even if I had managed to catch repertory showings of 35mm prints, what guarantee is there that the colors on those prints were still accurate? Any current repertory showings are now going to be via DCPs of the NFI restorations, so again, what frame of reference could I have to judge them against the intentions of Jancsó, Tamas Somló, and János Kende? Kende appears to have supervised the grades on three of the restorations, but Jancsó and Somló are no longer with us, and who's to say that Kende hasn't revised the look compared to the original intentions? Look at all the different Dean Cundey approved grades on home video to see how the same cinematographer can change his mind repeatedly. And even if I'd seen each and every one of these films during their original theatrical releases, those were between forty and fifty years ago. Anyone, and I do mean anyone, who tells you that they can accurately remember the color timing of a given film from decades ago is selling swampland to you.

I just watched the UHD for Top Gun last weekend, which I freely admit that I've never seen before, and I've read various comments about the accuracy of the HDR grade on that compared to previous versions. But in this case, we're talking about Blu-ray, DVD, laserdisc, and even VHS. How accurate were any of those? Again, anyone who tells you what the timing originally looked like theatrically is full of hot air. That was 35 years ago. To me, it looked good, but was it accurate? How could I tell if it wasn't?

Fortunately, I didn't have to review that one, but I am taking care of Jancsó, so I have to make judgement calls, and they're definitely subjective, regardless of experience or calibration. For the record, I'm running a calibrated JVC RS200, so in theory at least, I should be seeing what's on the disc represented fairly. But judging quality is still subjective -- up to a point, at least. Now, can we all do better? Yes, as with all things in life, we should strive to improve our knowledge, experience, and abilities. Some things shouldn't be given a pass the way that they have been, and I agree with you about that. The goal should try to compare to the original intentions of the filmmakers as much as possible, but you have to acknowledge that they change their minds and their views, so even that requires some subjective interpretation. And in many cases, especially with catalogue titles, you simply have to judge if it looks good to you. That will always be subjective. Should things improve? Yes, they should. Can the situation be "resolved," as you say? No, it can't, regardless of the circumstances. Even if every single reviewer had RAH's knowledge and experience, they'd still be faced with films for which they have no frame of reference, and for which none can be determined, so all they can do is make a subjective judgement.