UHD Review A Few Words About A few words about...™ - The Night of the Hunter -- in 4k UHD (1 Viewer)

[Robert Crawford]

I think it’s sharpened. Film never looked like this.

Too many people are making comments that haven't watched this 4K/UHD disc. I do hope some of those people actually watch the 4K/UHD and then come back and comment about what they observed.

 

[Robert Harris]

Too many people are making comments that haven't watched this 4K/UHD disc. I do hope some of those people actually watch the 4K/UHD and then come back and comment about what they observed.

Agreed.

 

[JPCinema]

I watched it last night. For me , the image was slightly better than the Criterion blu ray. As I mentioned before I prefer the sound on the Kino disc.

 

[JPCinema]

I watched it last night. For me , the image was slightly better than the Criterion blu ray. As I mentioned before I prefer the audio on the Kino disc.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I watched it last night. For me , the image was slightly better than the Criterion blu ray. As I mentioned before I prefer the sound on the Kino disc.

That's exactly how I would describe this 4K/UHD to the Criterion Blu-ray.

 

[mskaye]

Is it worth getting for at least the new supplements? It's one of my favorite films.

 

[Keith Cobby]

Perhaps our expectations are simply too high with most 4k presentations of older films just providing incremental improvements. If this was a favourite film of mine I would upgrade but as it isn't, the blu ray will be fine. What I want is for more large format older films to be released, although I accept the huge cost set against likely sales makes most prohibitive.

 

[titch]

The extra detail on the 4K UHD has to be seen with a microscope

The Night of the Hunter • US Ultra HD Blu-ray vs. US Blu-ray

caps-a-holic.com

 

[Robert Crawford]

Perhaps our expectations are simply too high with most 4k presentations of older films just providing incremental improvements. If this was a favourite film of mine I would upgrade but as it isn't, the blu ray will be fine. What I want is for more large format older films to be released, although I accept the huge cost set against likely sales makes most prohibitive.

I've seen plenty of older films on 4K/UHD that had more of an improvement over their prior Blu-ray releases than The Night of the Hunter which is why I was a little disappointed in this 4K/UHD release.

 

[Robert Harris]

I've seen plenty of older films on 4K/UHD that had more of an improvement over their prior Blu-ray releases than The Night of the Hunter which is why I was a little disappointed in this 4K/UHD release.

Point should be made that aide from sharpened grain, the master is fine - and not of Kino’s doing. There is no further detail in the OCN.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Point should be made that aide from sharpened grain, the master is fine - and not of Kino’s doing. There is no further detail in the OCN.

I'm not questioning the further detail aspect. However, I've seen other movies from that film era on 4K/UHD that looked nicer on my OLED than The Night of the Hunter which is my silly complaint.

 

[Robert Harris]

I'm not questioning the further detail aspect. However, I've seen other movies from that film era on 4K/UHD that looked nicer on my OLED than The Night of the Hunter which is my silly complaint.

I believe what we’re seeing here, gives a false impression of what the film actually looked like.

 

[OliverK]

The extra detail on the 4K UHD has to be seen with a microscope

The Night of the Hunter • US Ultra HD Blu-ray vs. US Blu-ray

caps-a-holic.com

Not sure that beyond the different framing and the stronger sharpening there is any added detail worth mentioning. Overall it just isn't a very detailed movie and we have to accept that.

 

[mskaye]

Not sure that beyond the different framing and the stronger sharpening there is any added detail worth mentioning. Overall it just isn't a very detailed movie and we have to accept that.

All the astounding details - both narrative, character based and of course the beautiful visual ones - are present in the Criterion. It's a singular piece of cinema - Charles Laughton's gift to the world. It's a movie of stark, elemental contrasts which is mirrored in the great cinematography and production design. If the transfer gets the sharpness and black levels correct, it will do justice to this great film. I'll probably buy it eventually to support Kino and for the extras but I have a feeling I will like the Criterion better. Velvety grain is better than larger over sharpened grain anytime.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Not sure that beyond the different framing and the stronger sharpening there is any added detail worth mentioning. Overall it just isn't a very detailed movie and we have to accept that.

I disagree that the movie isn't a very detailed movie.

 

[stevenalejandro]

As to the film grain in contemporary home video releases. I'm 57 and been going to theaters for most of that time, spent a significant time as an amateur and freelance film photographer and did time also as a film projectionist in the late 80's early 90's. So I may have been more cognizant of the presence and utilization of grain. I have a distinct memory of the 1989 reissue of Lawrence of Arabia and being astonished as to how clean and fine the grain was (and how clean the soundtrack was! I remember the first scene in the desert and how all you could hear in the theater was the tiny bit of wind on the soundtrack...and the Theater's cooling system) and I also remember seeing and screening sex lies and video tape and noticing how coarse and chunky the grain was in that film. I also remember going into a high end audio video store somewhere in 1993 and going into their theater demo room and watching something on their new projector that had a Faroudja Line Doubler and remarking how you could see the grain. As far as contemporary home video I have seen releases that clearly have too much grain where they shouldn't and none where they should. I'm sure there are extremists who unfairly holler at lack of film grain but I think most home video enthusiasts are smart enough and have seen enough films in theaters to know the difference

 

[mskaye]

I disagree that the movie isn't a very detailed movie.

Not sure that beyond the different framing and the stronger sharpening there is any added detail worth mentioning. Overall it just isn't a very detailed movie and we have to accept that.

As to the film grain in contemporary home video releases. I'm 57 and been going to theaters for most of that time, spent a significant time as an amateur and freelance film photographer and did time also as a film projectionist in the late 80's early 90's. So I may have been more cognizant of the presence and utilization of grain. I have a distinct memory of the 1989 reissue of Lawrence of Arabia and being astonished as to how clean and fine the grain was (and how clean the soundtrack was! I remember the first scene in the desert and how all you could hear in the theater was the tiny bit of wind on the soundtrack...and the Theater's cooling system) and I also remember seeing and screening sex lies and video tape and noticing how coarse and chunky the grain was in that film. I also remember going into a high end audio video store somewhere in 1993 and going into their theater demo room and watching something on their new projector that had a Faroudja Line Doubler and remarking how you could see the grain. As far as contemporary home video I have seen releases that clearly have too much grain where they shouldn't and none where they should. I'm sure there are extremists who unfairly holler at lack of film grain but I think most home video enthusiasts are smart enough and have seen enough films in theaters to know the difference

Summarizing our feelings about the right amount vs. the wrong amount of grain in TNOTH (obviously Spike Lee was a fan.)

 

[Robert Harris]

I've heard from a colorist representing the post facility that did the work on Night, and am told that the image was not sharpened, either during or after the scan.

I'll take him at his word, and presume that this is simply a grainy film - whether via stock or processing. Point here is that what viewers should be seeing is not the negative with reversed polarity, but a representation of an original print.

NotH looks fine from a normal seating distance. Getting to close, however can be problematic, depending upon one's sensitive to grain.

And for the record, I love grain.

 

[Worth]

I think the problem is that video now is so sharp and so stable that grain can start to look like noise. Compression also probably doesn’t help. But removing all the grain just looks wrong. Whatever the Warner Archive is doing seems to strike the right balance. It’s not overly grainy, but there’s a hint of it still there.

35mm prints tended to smooth over the grain, as did projection gate-weave, giving it more of a texture. It’s been a while since I’ve seen one, but I remember 70mm blow-ups being very grainy. Ghostbusters was horribly grainy in 70mm, but the 35mm print I saw a few years ago wasn’t grainy at all.

 

[plektret]

And yet, there are certain types who LOVE heavy film grain - these types must have never gone to the movies because no DP wanted unnaturally heavy film grain, unless it was to make a point about something, say a "documentary" type look. I just have to giggle every time I see these comments about grain because no one was more of an avid moviegoer than I, and I can't recall a single time I sat in a movie theater and thought, look at how highly resolved the grain is, or look how horrible the grain looks.

I absolutely love heavy film grain so feel free to laugh at me. I'm 36 so old enough to have seen both 35 and 16mm screenings. The grainiest movie a can recall seeing on film was the premier screening of F*cking Åmål aka Show Me Love. I believe the last time a saw an actual analog film projection was Roy Andersson's You, the Living in 2007.