What's new

Robert Harris

Archivist
Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 8, 1999
Messages
14,540
Real Name
Robert Harris
I don't have the LOTR 4K discs so I can't say how they look on my 65" or 55" OLEDs. I'm waiting on the rumored ultimate 4K release to buy them. With that said, I have sampled the LOTR 4K digitals on my OLEDs and they look great to my eyes.
The LotR series looks precisely as the filmmakers wish them to look at this time.
 

titch

Screenwriter
Joined
Nov 7, 2012
Messages
1,301
Real Name
Kevin Oppegaard
But how are they watching films when they sign off on them? On a large projection screen, or a 30" reference monitor?
The same size screen as I have in my living room, as well as monitors. The aim was to make all three films look the same - Peter Jackson states that in the YouTube clip.


So, yes - they look as he intended them to look. They just don't look as good as anything that doesn't have such a large amount of CGI baked in. On a large screen it is noticeable. But good to hear that Willy Wonka doesn't look bad.
 

Robert Harris

Archivist
Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 8, 1999
Messages
14,540
Real Name
Robert Harris
Grain seems to have been preserved, judging from screen captures

There is something in the image that appears more akin to noise, than grain. More like modern data noise or 65mm grain.

The film looks incorrect for an early 1970s production shot on 5254.

Might it have been shot on a foreign produced stock, with an oat base emulsion?

Doubtful.

Grain reduced and modified?

Possibly the use of some interesting tool. Neat comes to mind.

I’m not suggesting that the image is not pleasing. Just not correct.

Will this matter to the majority of viewers, who want clean and shiny?

Absolutely not.

It’s just right.
 

Robert Harris

Archivist
Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 8, 1999
Messages
14,540
Real Name
Robert Harris
Very well thought out review over at high def disc news.

While I don’t generally trust frame grabs, if these are correct, the film has been re-framed, potentially correcting an earlier problem of exposing too much of the left side of the frame, which would have been covered by the track.

But that isn’t what was done in this situation, as the new version of exposed picture area changers in different shots.

Cropping the image to 1.85, as well as losing the track area, loses a great deal of real estate, changing positioning for different shots, and turns medium shots into medium close-ups. If this was the original intent, then it’s fine. All one has to do is run a masked print, which was presumably done.

But again, that’s not what was done here.

Someone was deciding how they liked each shot framed, and that function, short of having the DP or director at one’s side, should not occur.

If both filmmakers’ intent and also history were set aside, the film would probably appear less claustrophobic at 1.66.

As it is, the new closer-ups make a strange film, even more odd.

I’ll leave the task of comparing the attached 4k frames to the new disc to confirm.

 
Last edited:

owen35

Second Unit
Joined
Oct 14, 2008
Messages
279
Real Name
Steve
Got my copy last night. I'll let the experts debate the framing, grain, and all the other technical details. For me, a fan of this film since I was a child and saw it in theaters, it's the best I've ever experienced it. My fiancee joined me after Augustus Gloop toppled into the chocolate river and let out an audible "wow" when Gene Wilder's close-up appeared. She rarely does that, so that was a high compliment to this release. I'd have to agree.
 

Robert Harris

Archivist
Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 8, 1999
Messages
14,540
Real Name
Robert Harris
Got my copy last night. I'll let the experts debate the framing, grain, and all the other technical details. For me, a fan of this film since I was a child and saw it in theaters, it's the best I've ever experienced it. My fiancee joined me after Augustus Gloop toppled into the chocolate river and let out an audible "wow" when Gene Wilder's close-up appeared. She rarely does that, so that was a high compliment to this release. I'd have to agree.
No contest. It’s lovely.
 

Dave H

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2000
Messages
5,906
Looking forward to this - does the audio deviate that much from the original?
 

moviebuff75

Screenwriter
Joined
Oct 4, 2009
Messages
1,073
Location
Indianapolis, Indiana
Real Name
Eric Scott Richard
As far as I know, just the "Wait!" is missing. But I don't remember her saying this until the vhs release. I saw it a hundred times on cable years before I first rented the vhs in 1987. I noticed something different about the scene. That's why I don't think the vhs was the original mono.
 

MatthewA

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2000
Messages
9,727
Location
Salinas, CA
Real Name
Matthew
Not being born until the early 1980s, I had never seen any version prior to that late 1980s VHS in the slipcover with the WB shield replacing the \\' that replaced the Paramount mountain when it moved to the house that Jack built.

The Disney Channel had the rights to it in the early 1990s and I think they might have gotten a copy with a \\' at the end.

I'm also surprised to find there was no laserdisc release prior to 1991 and that it was tape-only throughout the 1980s.
 

Dave H

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2000
Messages
5,906
I was born in the early 1970s; I don't recall which one (Showtime or HBO) is when I first saw this in the early 80s and eventually taped in on VHS re-watching almost countless times. My Dad would watch it sometimes together before going to the store and getting some candy bars!
 
Joined
Jul 31, 2015
Messages
21
Real Name
Jordan
I was happy when I saw the original review for this but after seeing the revised lower scores and seeing the reframing I will have to pass. They should have left the framing alone and not let someone go through the movie and reframe whatever they wanted as it's no longer the same movie as before. Is there anyone with contacts at WB who could provide an answer on why they changed the framing destroying the original intent? That is the main dealbreaker as I could have lived with the overly cleaned grain and no mono even if it would be a letdown.
 

JoshZ

Screenwriter
Joined
May 26, 2012
Messages
1,016
Location
Boston
Real Name
Joshua Zyber
I'm also surprised to find there was no laserdisc release prior to 1991 and that it was tape-only throughout the 1980s.

Although the Laserdisc format launched way back in 1978, it didn't come into its own as a "videophile" medium until the early 1990s. Disc releases in the 1980s were sporadic and tended to be poor quality.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Forum Sponsors

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
348,747
Messages
4,855,321
Members
142,370
Latest member
napasada
Recent bookmarks
0
Top