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

[OliverK]

Too many people are making comments that haven't watched this 4K/UHD disc.

Sorry about that, please delete all my posts in this thread.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Sorry about that, please delete all my posts in this thread.

That is not necessary as my point was to those that haven't seen the disc, who are questioning/doubting people that have actually watched this 4K/UHD.

 

[Robert Harris]

Thanks for the quote. I think it needs to be read in context - he was talking about grain that would have been introduced from a dupe and optical blow-up. Spielberg hated that type of grain because it stuck out compared to the rest of the film. It's the reason why, prior to digital compositing, he would shoot effects plates in 70mm. By the time the optical compositing was done, the grain pattern of the finished effects shot would more closely resemble the rest of the 35mm footage.

All true, except that once we had modern stocks, ie 5243 c. 1984 (a T grain stock), dupes were no longer grainier. The edges of the grain were slightly softened yielding a more cohesive, velvety look to dupes.

As I recall, specifically on CE3K, the dupes cut into the OCN, and other printing dupes, were CRIs.

 

[bobclampett]

Night of the Hunter shows every grain, and I’m not happy about it. Scan is superb, but what next.

I should also point out that there is no “one size fits all” 70mm blow-up. There are major differences.

Do you think the reason so many Warner Archive discs and WB 4K discs like the Maltese Falcon look so filmic is the acute awareness by the technicians of what a virgin release print should look like, then carefully applying digital tools to dial back resolution. Not sure if it’s as simple as turning a dial from 10 to 5. When it is done well, I forget I’m watching a video. Was wondering if Kino or any other disc producer, excluding the majors, have reached out to you to get your thoughts on techniques that may improve the end result. You’ve been very generous sharing your opinion on this forum, but I know you have to make a living, and sharing technical expertise is a different matter. I guess, just wondering generally, how much of this technical expertise is shared in the industry.

 

[Robert Harris]

Do you think the reason so many Warner Archive discs and WB 4K discs like the Maltese Falcon look so filmic is the acute awareness by the technicians of what a virgin release print should look like, then carefully applying digital tools to dial back resolution. Not sure if it’s as simple as turning a dial from 10 to 5. When it is done well, I forget I’m watching a video. Was wondering if Kino or any other disc producer, excluding the majors, have reached out to you to get your thoughts on techniques that may improve the end result. You’ve been very generous sharing your opinion on this forum, but I know you have to make a living, and sharing technical expertise is a different matter. I guess, just wondering generally, how much of this technical expertise is shared in the industry.

Quite a bit

 

[plektret]

Night of the Hunter shows every grain, and I’m not happy about it. Scan is superb, but what next.

This is exactly how I want films to look on Bluray, especially UHD, provided the encoding is first grade (I'm aware that it's difficult to encode grain). Films produced with heavy grain should have heavy grain on disc and vice versa. In other words, untouched grain. I'm sure I'm in the minority though.

 

[JoshZ]

This is exactly how I want films to look on Bluray, especially UHD, provided the encoding is first grade (I'm aware that it's difficult to encode grain). Films produced with heavy grain should have heavy grain on disc and vice versa. In other words, untouched grain. I'm sure I'm in the minority though.

The problem is that a 4K scan of the OCN allows us to see that grain a lot heavier and coarser than it ever looked on an actual 35mm release print back in the day. Filmmakers knew the characteristics of the film stocks they were shooting on, and of the stocks the product would be printed on. They knew that grain would be reduced and softened as part of the printing process, and took that into account when shooting.

If there's no beneficial increase in real picture detail to go with it, then you're just getting grain for grain's sake. That's rarely what the filmmakers wanted audiences to see.

 

[plektret]

The problem is that a 4K scan of the OCN allows us to see that grain a lot heavier and coarser than it ever looked on an actual 35mm release print back in the day. Filmmakers knew the characteristics of the film stocks they were shooting on, and of the stocks the product would be printed on. They knew that grain would be reduced and softened as part of the printing process, and took that into account when shooting.

If there's no beneficial increase in real picture detail to go with it, then you're just getting grain for grain's sake. That's rarely what the filmmakers wanted audiences to see.

Good pointI've not seen this particular disc yet (the exchange rate USD-SEK is insane) but I've liked those earlier MGM/UA UHDs which were believed to have sharpened grain.
I believe Quentin Tarantino wants to scan prints and release them on bluray. Perhaps that's the reason.

 

[jayembee]

I‘m thinking more of 80s movies. Aside from Ghostbusters, I remember Blue Thunder, Platoon, Predator and Aliens as all being very grainy in 70mm, but not in standard 35.

Hunh. I think Aliens (and to a slightly less degree) Predator were quite grainy in 35mm, mostly during low-light scenes.

 

[jayembee]

Um...Spielberg does not hate grain. See, e.g., Minority Report.

Do I have to?

 

[Josh Steinberg]

The problem is that a 4K scan of the OCN allows us to see that grain a lot heavier and coarser than it ever looked on an actual 35mm release print back in the day. Filmmakers knew the characteristics of the film stocks they were shooting on, and of the stocks the product would be printed on. They knew that grain would be reduced and softened as part of the printing process, and took that into account when shooting.

If there's no beneficial increase in real picture detail to go with it, then you're just getting grain for grain's sake. That's rarely what the filmmakers wanted audiences to see.

A 35mm original camera negative is no more a final product than a cookie recipe and bag of ingredients is an actual cookie.

 

[jayembee]

A 35mm original camera negative is no more a final product than a cookie recipe and bag of ingredients is an actual cookie.

True enough. But sometimes the uncooked cookie dough can be more enjoyable than the finished cookies.

 

[Robert Harris]

The problem is that a 4K scan of the OCN allows us to see that grain a lot heavier and coarser than it ever looked on an actual 35mm release print back in the day. Filmmakers knew the characteristics of the film stocks they were shooting on, and of the stocks the product would be printed on. They knew that grain would be reduced and softened as part of the printing process, and took that into account when shooting.

If there's no beneficial increase in real picture detail to go with it, then you're just getting grain for grain's sake. That's rarely what the filmmakers wanted audiences to see.

Thank you!

 

[Gerani53]

Thank you!

We seem to be talking about two different things here, with the differences being blurred. On the one hand, there's scanning from the OCN; on the other hand, we have issues directly related to the 4K UHD format. In terms of scans from the original 35mm negs, my God, look at the miraculous work being done at Warner Archives: b/w negative scans of THE BODY SNATCHER, MURDER MY SWEET, OBJECTIVE BURMA, SERGEANT YORK... the list goes on and on. No grain problems at all, folks... the image is so clear and immersive you almost feel like you're on the movie set, looking through a camera lens. Spectacular. And just when you think you've seen it all... get a load of those astonishing three-negative Technicolor recombine scans, like THE THREE MUSKETEERS, ROMANCE OF THE HIGH SEAS, ANNIE GET YOUR GUN, THE PRIVATE LIVES OF ELIZABETH AND ESSEX, RANCHO NOTORIOUS, FLYING LEATHERNECKS, etc. Replace this astonishing scanning approach with outdated transfers from old prints, when original Technicolor negatives still exist and can produce flawless, perfectly-in-register results like this? Quentin, we love you, but there's no way in the universe your route will produce a more satisfying image on a video screen

And then there's the second thing under discussion in this thread: the pros and cons of the 4K UHD format. When you get lucky and everything works as it should, this format can also be a joy to behold (Kino's Leone western 4Ks, for example). But, just as often, the image will have issues, with "too grainy" and "too dark" being the most frequent complaints. I remember watching ten minutes of ANATOMY OF A MURDER in 4K UHD, and finding the image grainier and chalkier than I remembered it. Then I put on the Blu-Ray equivalent -- offered in the same package, and also scanned from the original negative -- and all those problems went away. Many 4K UHD complainers have noted the same phenomenon with other titles.

Unfortunately, when it comes to Kino's release of THE NIGHT OF THE HUNTER, there is no Blu-ray taken from the same scan in the package. If there had been, we'd instantly compare them, and most likely conclude that the HUNTER negative scan is perfectly fine, with grain issues either evaporating, or being reduced to the point where they aren't even worth mentioning. Put another way, if HUNTER had been a WB-owned title, and the Archives released it as yet another negative scanned-Blu-ray akin to their previous b/w releases, we'd undoubtedly be talking about how drop-dead beautiful it is.

So, here's the verdict, as I see it... Negative scans, handling by people who know what they're doing? The greatest thing that has happened to classic movie collecting since the concept began. 4K UHD? Sometimes great, but often problematic, possibly because the format is pushing things beyond their natural limit. Since we are often talking about two different extremes, quality-wise, I feel it's important not to confuse our analysis by mistaking what might be the inherent flaws of 4K UHD with the brilliance of a correctly scanned negative (or, as we have seen, three correctly-scanned Technicolor negatives).

 

[Robert Crawford]

We seem to be talking about two different things here, with the differences being blurred. On the one hand, there's scanning from the OCN; on the other hand, we have issues directly related to the 4K UHD format. In terms of scans from the original 35mm negs, my God, look at the miraculous work being done at Warner Archives: b/w negative scans of THE BODY SNATCHER, MURDER MY SWEET, OBJECTIVE BURMA, SERGEANT YORK... the list goes on and on. No grain problems at all, folks... the image is so clear and immersive you almost feel like you're on the movie set, looking through a camera lens. Spectacular. And just when you think you've seen it all... get a load of those astonishing three-negative Technicolor recombine scans, like THE THREE MUSKETEERS, ROMANCE OF THE HIGH SEAS, ANNIE GET YOUR GUN, THE PRIVATE LIVES OF ELIZABETH AND ESSEX, RANCHO NOTORIOUS, FLYING LEATHERNECKS, etc. Replace this astonishing scanning approach with outdated transfers from old prints, when original Technicolor negatives still exist and can produce flawless, perfectly-in-register results like this? Quentin, we love you, but there's no way in the universe your route will produce a more satisfying image on a video screen

And then there's the second thing under discussion in this thread: the pros and cons of the 4K UHD format. When you get lucky and everything works as it should, this format can also be a joy to behold (Kino's Leone western 4Ks, for example). But, just as often, the image will have issues, with "too grainy" and "too dark" being the most frequent complaints. I remember watching ten minutes of ANATOMY OF A MURDER in 4K UHD, and finding the image grainier and chalkier than I remembered it. Then I put on the Blu-Ray equivalent -- offered in the same package, and also scanned from the original negative -- and all those problems went away. Many 4K UHD complainers have noted the same phenomenon with other titles.

Unfortunately, when it comes to Kino's release of THE NIGHT OF THE HUNTER, there is no Blu-ray taken from the same scan in the package. If there had been, we'd instantly compare them, and most likely conclude that the HUNTER negative scan is perfectly fine, with grain issues either evaporating, or being reduced to the point where they aren't even worth mentioning. Put another way, if HUNTER had been a WB-owned title, and the Archives released it as yet another negative scanned-Blu-ray akin to their previous b/w releases, we'd undoubtedly be talking about how drop-dead beautiful it is.

So, here's the verdict, as I see it... Negative scans, handling by people who know what they're doing? The greatest thing that has happened to classic movie collecting since the concept began. 4K UHD? Sometimes great, but often problematic, possibly because the format is pushing things beyond their natural limit. Since we are often talking about two different extremes, quality-wise, I feel it's important not to confuse our analysis by mistaking what might be the inherent flaws of 4K UHD with the brilliance of a correctly scanned negative (or, as we have seen, three correctly-scanned Technicolor negatives).

I wish The Night of the Hunter 4K/UHD looked as good as Anatomy of a Murder 4K/UHD.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

In the examples you site as being good, yes, original camera negatives were scanned, but the studio also employed digital tools for managing the grain to compensate for the fact that negatives were meant to be printed rather than viewed directly.

In the examples you site as being bad, little or no grain management was used, resulting at you looking at something sourced from the negative in a way that was never intended.

Because…

The negative isn’t meant to be the finished product.

It either needs to be printed photochemically or needs to be digitally manipulated in a way to mimic the characteristics of printing it.

 

[JoshZ]

So, here's the verdict, as I see it... Negative scans, handling by people who know what they're doing? The greatest thing that has happened to classic movie collecting since the concept began.

Those "people who know what they're doing" are always the most critical component.

One potential issue with scanning from the negative is that the OCN has no color timing or grading. That step was performed further down the chain originally, and must be redone from scratch after an OCN scan. This has led to far too many cases of people (sometimes the original filmmakers themselves, sometimes not) applying a revisionist color grade to conform the movie to how they think it should look today, regardless of how it looked originally. Thus, we're inflicted with so many teal-and-orange travesties.

 

[Gerani53]

In the examples you site as being good, yes, original camera negatives were scanned, but the studio also employed digital tools for managing the grain to compensate for the fact that negatives were meant to be printed rather than viewed directly.

In the examples you site as being bad, little or no grain management was used, resulting at you looking at something sourced from the negative in a way that was never intended.

Because…

The negative isn’t meant to be the finished product.

It either needs to be printed photochemically or needs to be digitally manipulated in a way to mimic the characteristics of printing it.

Yes indeed, the negative is not meant to be the finished product. It requires exactly the kind of work you've outlined for the proper video presentation.

With all due respect, what you're pointing out is true in all aspects of life. The person you hire to fix your car is supposed to know what he or she is doing. We somehow expect that the surgeon operating on us is not going to skip a few steps; he's going to do the job he was trained to do, and is expected to do.

But to me, the important point here is, a negative scan handled by people who are doing their jobs correctly produces the most impressive video image imaginable. All they have to do is follow the spectacular example set by Warner Archives, and we're home free.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

You’re talking about two different things here - there’s scanning the negative stage, and then there’s the mastering stage. The negative scanning is the same either way. It’s simply that Warner Archive is providing additional budgetary funds for first-rate mastering, while other studios that license out their titles are in some cases providing raw scans that haven’t really been properly mastered yet. In those instances, while I would agree that the final product might be lacking, I’m less inclined to blame a boutique label like Kino, as they don’t own the master and only have limited physical media rights for a limited period of time - it’s not really their responsibility to do that, it’s the responsibility of the rights-holder who owns that master in perpetuity. And if the rights holder isn’t doing that work, that’s on them.

But to a certain degree it’s also hard to fault the rights holder. There’s an extremely limited market for these titles and good mastering takes time, which requires personnel and money. Warner Archive releases four to six discs a month. MGM provides dozens of titles to Kino for release in the same timeframe.

There’s no perfect solution in an environment where the demand isn’t there to allow for the possibility that everything gets a perfect or near-perfect Warner Archives style release. Every studio and boutique label must make the decision for whether the use their limited resources to release as many titles as possible or to release a much smaller number with more attention paid to each.

There are legitimate cases to be made for each approach. Warner is sitting on thousand of titles and with just 4-6 coming out in a month, they’ll never get anywhere close to releasing everything they have before the disc market evaporates, but what they do get to will be of very high quality. Kino releases dozens of titles a month and while they might not all achieve perfection, they more or less accurately represent what the studio has provided them, and Kino will get far more titles into the hands of interested customers before discs are no longer financially viable.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

I would certainly much rather they don't do much, if any, grain management than they overdo it... that is, if the extra grain doesn't present a significant problem for encoding (and bit rate and disc capacity).

Afterall, there may (eventually, even if not right now) be good, feasible ways to handle the grain ourselves (beyond merely viewing from greater distance), if need be, but if they overdo it, then whatever damage may well be irreversible. And honestly, I haven't seen *any* 4K so far that I actually find too grainy on my 120" FP setup (though it's just a good, faux-K Epson, not native 4K).

At minimum, the typical DNR capability of most decent displays would/could probably satisfy most consumers in this regard afterall...

_Man_