UHD Review A Few Words About A few words about...™ - The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance -- in 4k UHD (1 Viewer)

[Robert Harris]

It's extremely unfortunate that there is still some people who feel they don't need to watch a movie as it was originally intended as much as is feasible within the constraints we all have such as hardware and viewing environment etc.

This is not about snobbery or elitism or any other word that some people alluded to regarding this subject.

To illustrate how important this subject is to those who have made comments on not paying any particular attention to colours or grain I will pose a question or two.

If it is not that important to you then why even have a colour TV?

Why not black and white? Furthermore, why not an old black and white TV to boot?

Why not just collect and watch movies on VHS? You can pick them up for pennies these days. Will save you money from streaming and other avenues.

Why even go to the cinema? Let's all just watch movies on an iPhone.

How many would be happy to watch all their favorite movies that show them in a pan & scan format and not in their original aspect ratio?

And I don't want to hear arguments such as you can't compare loss of grain to aspect ratios etc.

The point I am trying to make here is that we all value the importance of how a work should be shown (whether we believe it or not) but perhaps have not applied much thinking to it whilst also not being educated to the actual science and rationality behind the process of viewing and enjoying any movie as it is supposed to be viewed.

Maybe you don't notice a lot of flaws and changes from how a movie should be presented and viewed as originally created.

Maybe you notice a thing or two but are indifferent.

Maybe you even recognize almost every flaw in a movie that has been butchered.

Regardless of what you spot or what you do not it is without doubt your experience of viewing that particular movie has been reduced whether you recognize that fact or do not. Even if you did not watch the movie shown in theaters and are not aware of how it originally was supposed to look.

A movie story is told through colours, aspect ratio, acting performance, sound and it's mixing etc.

How many would be annoyed if 10 seconds of dialogue or music was cut from a favorite movie due to a technical error from a disc producer?

Would you be happy to buy and own a classic 60s or 70s American automobile without the original seats or wheel rims?

Or if the car got a respray but was slightly off from the original factory color and you noticed it? Would you still buy it if you was aware and noticed these alterations?

How about we alter the stone on the Egyptian pyramids to modernize it? After all the limestone is pretty worn and weathered. It will definitely look nice and clean if we replace the exterior with a new facade especially as the muslims removed the old marble coverings in the 8th century.

We can make a reinterpretation of how the original builders intended the pyramids to look.

It's about preservation. A fundamental principle that must be adhered to for obvious reasons. So we can enjoy it's original beauty and try to understand its significance etc.

We have preservation in paintings and architecture and we should have it in cinema.

Especially when we are talking about great movies in the history of the cinema which is what we are dealing with here and with a release from a major studio.

Why are the boutique independent labels putting some of the major studios to shame on some disc releases?

If some major studios can't do their job properly and not enough people call them out on their incompetence/ignorance then what hope is there?

It is my hope these words show how important it is that major movie releases on disc and also for streaming get shown as close as possible to how they were created.

If not then future generations will not be able to fully appreciate their artistic merit along with ourselves also who want to watch these great movies and experience the artistry put onto the screens for us all to enjoy and admire just as the people who created them wanted us to.

I’m one of those who agrees.

As an aside, when we here in the Colonies booted dear King George, a certain elegance of speech went with him.

I love the word “whilst.”

 

[Robert Harris]

My 4K disc arrived yesterday from Deep Discount. I watched the 4K disc in its entirety last night and noticed a couple of issues that I most likely wouldn't have noticed, if it wasn't for this thread, as I was paying very close attention to the video presentation more so than my usual movie viewing. I won't mentioned those couple of issues because I want to see if anybody else noticed them. Overall, I was pleased with the audio and video presentations on my main HT setup as I was about 10 feet away from my 65" OLED. My video grade is 4 out of 5 which is lower than I thought it would be based on my previous 4K digital viewing.

The problem is that those in the future watching some of these films won’t be able to see them as they were meant to be seen. Something will be wrong, or missing, or added, but they won’t be aware.

And there’s the rub.

The loss of all those elements designed in as a part of the film - film grain (aside from dupes) and color & density is, in many cases, a part of that design. Never more so as with films like The Godfather(s), via which the cinematographer used specific optics, filters, processing and post to achieve an extremely unique specific look, which has now been not so much lost - but neutered and homogenized away.

Part of a film’s beauty has been erased, by executive decision.

The loss of the visceral.

 

[Robert Crawford]

The problem is that those in the future watching some of these films won’t be able to see them as they were meant to be seen. Something will be wrong, or missing, or added, but they won’t be aware.

And there’s the rub.

The loss of all those elements designed in as a part of the film - film grain (aside from dupes) and color & density is, in many cases, a part of that design. Never more so as with films like The Godfather(s), via which the cinematographer used specific optics, filters, processing and post to achieve an extremely unique specific look, which has now been not so much lost - but neutered and homogenized away.

Part of a film’s beauty has been erased, by executive decision.

The loss of the visceral.

No comment as Kino just reached a new deal with Paramount to release a bunch more titles on Blu-ray and UHD disc!

 

[Robert Harris]

No comment as Kino just reached a new deal with Paramount to release a bunch more titles on Blu-ray and UHD disc!

Yes, but we can see their eyes, and they can see ours.

 

[Sam Posten]

It's extremely unfortunate that there is still some people who feel they don't need to watch a movie as it was originally intended as much as is feasible within the constraints we all have such as hardware and viewing environment etc.

Counterpoint: if it matter AT ALL to you how strangers are viewing or listening to any content the problem is you not them. If folks want to watch grand epics on a 13” TV or iPhone, let ‘em. If folks want lossy music let ‘em. If folks want to dance to architecture, let em.

 

[Johnny Angell]

Counterpoint: if it matter AT ALL to you how strangers are viewing or listening to any content the problem is you not them. If folks want to watch grand epics on a 13” TV or iPhone, let ‘em. If folks want lossy music let ‘em. If folks want to dance to architecture, let em.

Except “no man is an island.” When a an existing film is altered and accepted that way, the ability to watch it in it’s original form is lost to all. RH was making that point.

 

[Carl David]

Counterpoint: if it matter AT ALL to you how strangers are viewing or listening to any content the problem is you not them. If folks want to watch grand epics on a 13” TV or iPhone, let ‘em. If folks want lossy music let ‘em. If folks want to dance to architecture, let em.

It doesn't matter to me at all, Sam.

I don't give a damn quite frankly.

But it matters to me to be able to watch LV as it was originally intended.

Unfortunately, I cannot do that.

I would have been a buyer of this movie otherwise.

 

[Richard Kaufman]

I fly quite a bit on business. I never cease to be amazed at the number of people watching films on their phones. It is something I literally cannot fathom. An iPad is the smallest I will tolerate, and that is out of necessity only on long-haul international flights. But a phone? The reduction is absurd. These people will never have the experience of a screen large enough where you need to turn your head to watch the action move right to left or left to right. I am reminded of "that" scene in Wait Until Dark. You know the one where your peripheral vision jerks your head to the side and shoves you back into your seat. No so-called "4D" necessary.

 

[RMajidi]

As an aside, when we here in the Colonies booted dear King George, a certain elegance of speech went with him.

I love the word “whilst.”

I look at you all see the love there that's sleeping
Whilst my sitar gently weepeth

[definite improvement, yes… sorry George]

 

[Douglas R]

My 4K disc arrived yesterday from Deep Discount. I watched the 4K disc in its entirety last night and noticed a couple of issues that I most likely wouldn't have noticed, if it wasn't for this thread, as I was paying very close attention to the video presentation more so than my usual movie viewing. I won't mentioned those couple of issues because I want to see if anybody else noticed them. Overall, I was pleased with the audio and video presentations on my main HT setup as I was about 10 feet away from my 65" OLED. My video grade is 4 out of 5 which is lower than I thought it would be based on my previous 4K digital viewing.

I received my copy yesterday. To me, sitting 6 feet away from my 60" LG screen (considered large in the UK) the picture looked excellent and as an average viewer, other than through reading this thread I wouldn't understand why anyone would have an issue with it. I tend not to scrutinize grain when I'm watching a film but I don't like it if it's very noticeable (as it is in the title sequence on the Blu-ray). There are a couple of brief shots of James Stewart in the newspaper office and in the kitchen which look a bit odd - I don't know if they are the issues Robert refers to but I think they were like that in the original prints.

 

[Worth]

...These people will never have the experience of a screen large enough where you need to turn your head to watch the action move right to left or left to right...

I don't much care for that, either. At the cinema, I always sit far back enough that I can see the entire screen.

 

[tenia]

Just remember this - It's easy to point to the studios as being evil corporations that only care about profits, but remember, at it's core it is a business. But beneath the top brass are people who love film, respect film history and take their job of being caretakers to their studio's legacy seriously. The views shared about the incompetent studio reps that have no clue what they're doing is laughably stereotypical and in many places outdated, but hey, when the legend becomes fact..

Maybe, and I say maybe (who knows), part of the issue is that when such problematic restorations pop up here and there (often from studios, though not only), there extremely rarely is any tangible info given by the rightholders or the rightholding technical decisionmakers to allow viewers on the receiving side to think differently.

So we are indeed left with looking at it from a pure business point of view (which it shouldn't only be, since we're also talking about preserhation here) and trying to grasp with the little info available publicly at what might be the patterns explaining the problematic results.

Look at what happened with the latest To Catch a Thief's restoration/remaster : Paramount had to be pressed (through people with contacts in the industry, not random people like me) to give an answer, and the answer basically repeats what we technically already know, only to conclude there's no issue, they're happy with the result, take it or leave it.

Not only it feels like we should be happy peons being given the right to a word from these fancy studios people, but it... doesn't make the understanding of what went wrong going forward in any fashion. None. Zilch.

So the legend is what it is and has become prominent because... that's mostly what we have. If we were given facts, and if the (co-)responsibles of such problematic restorations/remasters were to be more transparent with what they did and how problematic the result could be seen as, we wouldn't print the legend instead. But we do so because... what we see is all there is.

So again : maybe if the people who worked on and greenlit such results were more transparent on what they did and more open to the possibility it might not have the right technical approach, we wouldn't be still discussing in 2022 the abuse of digital practices known to be problematic for more than 2 decades.

Corollary : it might also be interesting for some studios to wonder why they don't all have the same reputations when it comes at catalogue's technical handling, and why Paramount's people (for instance) might generate more "laughably stereotypical" posts but much less so Sony's people (for instance).

 

[tenia]

(It's too late for me now to edit again this post, but I spot a couple of typos, apologies for those)

 

[OliverK]

Maybe, and I say maybe (who knows), part of the issue is that when such problematic restorations pop up here and there (often from studios, though not only), there extremely rarely is any tangible info given by the rightholders or the rightholding technical decisionmakers to allow viewers on the receiving side to think differently.

So we are indeed left with looking at it from a pure business point of view (which it shouldn't only be, since we're also talking about preserhation here) and trying to grasp with the little info available publicly at what might be the patterns explaining the problematic results.

Look at what happened with the latest To Catch a Thief's restoration/remaster : Paramount had to be pressed (through people with contacts in the industry, not random people like me) to give an answer, and the answer basically repeats what we technically already know, only to conclude there's no issue, they're happy with the result, take it or leave it.

Not only it feels like we're should be happy peons being given the right to a word from these fancy studios people, but it... doesn't make the understanding of what went wrong going forward in any fashion. None. Zilch.

So the legend is what it is and has become prominent because... that's mostly what we have. If we were given facts, and if the (co-)responsibles of such problematic restorations/remasters were to be more transparent with what they did and how problematic the result could be seen as, we wouldn't print the legend instead. But we do so because... what we see is all there is.

So again : maybe if the people who worked on and greenlit such results were more transparent on what they did and more open to the possibility it might not have the right technical approach, we wouldn't be still discussing in 2022 the abuse of digital practices known to be problematic for more than 2 decades.

Corollary : it might also be interesting for some studios to wonder why they don't all have the same reputations when it comes at catalogue's technical handling, and why Paramount's people (for instance) might generate more "laughably stereotypical" posts but much less so Sony's people (for instance).

I think that we have not heard as much from other studios either but the lack of communication is no problem as long as a studio delivers.

Compare that to Paramount who speak up about To Catch a Thief and The Godfather and what they say very much reminds me of the old saying that when you find yourself in a hole the first thing you should do is to stop digging.

 

[tenia]

There is indeed no expection for answers when there is no question to begin with. However, indeed, the reflex shown here towards Paramount's handling of certain titles isn't coming from nowhere, and as you say, some of their own way to answer isn't doing them any additionnal favor (though they're not alone in this...).

 

[Noel Aguirre]

I’m finding this whole thread kind of sad. Did anyone really think Paramount’s The Ten Commandments looked anything like it was originally intended and shown with those newly crackling whites, shimmering golds and tweaked up coloring book colors? That kind of presentation just wasn’t possible back then and it for sure was certainly more muted and refined. Processing HDR both giveths and takeths away but rarely replicates the original. I prefer 4K without hdr just as i wouldn’t want 1080p with HDR however I will purchase LV for the first time- it can’t be any worse than Paramount’s grain on no Foul Play which is not that bad.

 

[Douglas R]

I’m finding this whole thread kind of sad. Did anyone really think Paramount’s The Ten Commandments looked anything like it was originally intended and shown with those newly crackling whites, shimmering golds and tweaked up coloring book colors? That kind of presentation just wasn’t possible back then and it for sure was certainly more muted and refined. Processing HDR both giveths and takeths away but rarely replicates the original. I prefer 4K without hdr just as i wouldn’t want 1080p with HDR however I will purchase LV for the first time- it can’t be any worse than Paramount’s grain on no Foul Play which is not that bad.

What makes you think the Ten Commandments didn't look like that when first released? I saw the film when first released and several times after that during reissues. I don't claim to remember exactly what it looked like but I certainly noted in those showings that it was a very brightly coloured film. Robert Harris gave the 4K UHD release a Highly Recommended rating.

 

[Robert Harris]

What makes you think the Ten Commandments didn't look like that when first released? I saw the film when first released and several times after that during reissues. I don't claim to remember exactly what it looked like but I certainly noted in those showings that it was a very brightly coloured film. Robert Harris gave the 4K UHD release a Highly Recommended rating.

And still do. I believe I’ve previously posted my proof of concept used for that restoration. If not, I can post again.

 

[Noel Aguirre]

What makes you think the Ten Commandments didn't look like that when first released? I saw the film when first released and several times after that during reissues. I don't claim to remember exactly what it looked like but I certainly noted in those showings that it was a very brightly coloured film. Robert Harris gave the 4K UHD release a Highly Recommended rating.

And still do. I believe I’ve previously posted my proof of concept used for that restoration. If not, I can post again.

Sorry but to clarify you all must be talking projection here. Because on UHD HDR panels most of these HDR discs including Singing in the Rain look very tweaked/ fake ( but not all of course HDR discs do). Jewelry and water break caps, etc. never crackled like that off a screen back then- not sure what they look like on your projection now. They look exotically interesting but nothing like film- even modern digital direct projections don’t look like what you see in a panel set .
I prefer upscaled blus to 4K on my 3D set myself as opposed to my UHD HDR set in another room if I want to see a faithful reproduction to what I saw in a theater and glad Flower Drum Song and the Wonderful World of the Bros Grimm are released as such (Grimm on a panel looks basically like what I saw projected at MOMA for a comparison) . Even Spiderman No Way Home looks aMAYzing in HDR/DV but nothing like what I saw in a theater. Very happy I have a 3D Dune upscaled that looks tremendous and like what I saw flat in a theater. Not pumped up nor tweaked.
Just my opinion members.

 

[Robert Harris]

Sorry but to clarify you all must be talking projection here. Because on UHD HDR panels most of these HDR discs including Singing in the Rain look very tweaked/ fake ( but not all of course HDR discs do). Jewelry and water break caps, etc. never crackled like that off a screen back then- not sure what they look like on your projection now. They look exotically interesting but nothing like film- even modern digital direct projections don’t look like what you see in a panel set .
I prefer upscaled blus to 4K on my 3D set myself as opposed to my UHD HDR set in another room if I want to see a faithful reproduction to what I saw in a theater and glad Flower Drum Song and the Wonderful World of the Bros Grimm are released as such (Grimm on a panel looks basically like what I saw projected at MOMA for a comparison) . Even Spiderman No Way Home looks aMAYzing in HDR/DV but nothing like what I saw in a theater. Very happy I have a 3D Dune upscaled that looks tremendous and like what I saw flat in a theater. Not pumped up nor tweaked.
Just my opinion members.

Have you looked into HDR settings to see if you’re able to remove that edge? Keep in mind that theaters may be running with far less illumination.