Saturday Night Fever 4K disc - major problems (1 Viewer)

[Will Krupp]

The Lumagen receives direct output from an Oppo 203. It adjusts the signal to what the projector can handle irregardless of the disc encoding, so the Lumagen has done all the processing before sending a proper signal to the projector where the processing is in override mode

So then you ARE running Dolby Vision from the Oppo? I don't know why you didn't just SAY that, then. Lol

 

[Kyle_D]

So then you ARE running Dolby Vision from the Oppo. I don't know why you didn't just SAY that, then. Lol

I don't think the Lumagen processes Dolby Vision. Dolby Vision support is not listed on the product spec sheet, so it's likely just processing the HDR10 base layer.

Between the abnormally low reported HDR10 bitrate here and the report on the other site that the Dolby Vision FEL alleviates some of the compression issues, it's plausible that this was an improperly authored title. It would not be the first FEL title with authoring issues.

 

[madfloyd]

The Lumagen does NOT process DV. I own a Lumagen and know it well.

 

[Tino]

Guess this proves 4k not for every film --

Proves? It does nothing of the sort.

 

[JoshZ]

Yes, but the Lumagen can only process what it's being fed, right? If you're projector is not Dolby Vision capable, then it's (by necessity) feeding an HDR10 signal to the Lumagen. If there IS an issue with HDR10 (and I'm only saying if there is as I really have no idea at this point) then your Lumagen must be working from that flawed signal in the first place. Right?

Dolby Vision is just metadata added to the HDR10 base layer. They are not separate encodings.

If feeding the signal to a projector (or video processor first in this case) that can't process Dolby Vision, it will just ignore the metadata and look at the HDR10 layer directly.

If there was something terribly wrong with the encoding of the movie (such as crushingly low bit rates), that would show up when watching with Dolby Vision just as much as it would without.

(Note: I don't have a copy of Saturday Night Fever to check, so I can't verify whether there is or isn't anything wrong with the disc.)

 

[Kyle_D]

Dolby Vision is just metadata added to the HDR10 base layer. They are not separate encodings.

If feeding the signal to a projector (or video processor first in this case) that can't process Dolby Vision, it will just ignore the metadata and look at the HDR10 layer directly.

If there was something terribly wrong with the encoding of the movie (such as crushingly low bit rates), that would show up when watching with Dolby Vision just as much as it would without.

(Note: I don't have a copy of Saturday Night Fever to check, so I can't verify whether there is or isn't anything wrong with the disc.)

This is not entirely accurate, as Dolby Vision on UHD is not necessarily "just metadata."

Dolby Vision Profile 7, which is used on UHD, consists of an HDR10 base layer and an enhancement layer. There are two types of a enhancement layers. A "minimum enhancement layer" or MEL consists of the RPU metadata and an empty second video stream, and it works consistently with your description.

A "Full Enhancement Layer," or FEL, consists of the RPU as well as a second video stream with residual video information constituting the difference between the 10-bit HDR10 base layer and the 12-bit master. Dolby Vision FEL playback actually requires a second video decoder working in parallel with the main decoder to play back properly. So, if the HDR10 base layer is over compressed, the second video stream in the FEL can add back video information that is discarded in the HDR10 base layer, although it was never intended to operate this way. It was only intended to provide an extra 2-bits of color information.

Most studios do not use FELs because they are an authoring hassle, and there is currently minimal benefit to 12-bit video when virtually all consumer displays are 10-bit. Paramount, however, encodes their Dolby Vision titles with FELs.

 

[RolandL]

caps-a-holic comparison

 

[Noel Aguirre]

I saw this when it came out and it was never an attractive film but very gritty and shot on the film stock of its day. Not surprised.

 

[Kyle_D]

Yikes...I am normally hesitant to judge a release based on screenshots, but the "grain" looks posterized in those caps. I see major encoding issues.

 

[Kyle_D]

Travolta looks like he has a digital tumor on his neckline, just below his ear, in the 12th screenshot, which is not there on the blu-ray.

 

[Lee Sandersen]

What some might call grain, others might call a fuzzy picture. There needs to be a compromise here. Reminds me of the Blu-ray of Highlander I bought and was so disappointed I returned it to then later buy another from a different store to find it was the same bad transfer. To this day I am not sure if that was a directors silly idea (like the absurd decoloring of 1978s Dracula on the discs vs the nice color of the movie) or a poor transfer. I see 4K is coming out for that movie. Will it still disappoint me? I know, a cheesy film, but I do love it so.

 

[RobertMG]

Proves? It does nothing of the sort.

Proves? It does nothing of the sort.

What some might call grain, others might call a fuzzy picture. There needs to be a compromise here. Reminds me of the Blu-ray of Highlander I bought and was so disappointed I returned it to then later buy another from a different store to find it was the same bad transfer. To this day I am not sure if that was a directors silly idea (like the absurd decoloring of 1978s Dracula on the discs vs the nice color of the movie) or a poor transfer. I see 4K is coming out for that movie. Will it still disappoint me? I know, a cheesy film, but I do love it so.

1978s Superman always looked horrible

 

[Will Krupp]

1978s Superman always looked horrible

But it looks a better grade of horrible in 4K than the horrible it looked on Blu-ray!!

 

[mskaye]

I knew this title would be a problem. I vividly remember seeing it at the drive-in, and even in it's original release, the image varied. It was never a pretty film. Some scenes were very grainy, while others were crystal clear. That has to be difficult to transfer.

Grainy 70's film stock! Lots of location shooting! I love that look actually and think the 70's the greatest and most transformative decade for American filmmaking.

 

[Noel Aguirre]

Grainy 70's film stock! Lots of location shooting! I love that look actually and think the 70's the greatest and most transformative decade for American filmmaking.

Exactly and I think many not aware are expecting another Grease with popping primary colors which SNF never was. Many of if not most of those films from that period the directors were giving us urban grittiness for the most part and glamour was far from what they were intending to project. But in particular Paramount directed films always used this cheap lookmg film stock- not sure why but they did. In actuality I think this film which was hyped as a disco movie really didn’t do disco any service at all which was a fun upbeat escape from all the misery the country was going through at that time. Even though the soundtrack was so memorable it really was more about unhappy disco A-list wannabes than the actual existential experience that It actually was. A much better film is the directors cut of 54. IMHO.

 

[ahollis]

The story was gritty and the film looked gritty. Just as Looking For Mr. Goodbar was. It was a product of film stock and the eye of the director and cinematographer at the time.

 

[roxy1927]

I agree with others who are saying this was the urban grittiness of the period. These films always had not great lighting and desaturated colors. That was the desired look and hardly needed 4k. Strangely I don't remember Superman looking like this though it certainly could have been better. And I saw it on the large screen at the late great Times Square Criterion.

 

[Douglas R]

1978s Superman always looked horrible

I don’t agree with that. I saw it in 70mm and remember thinking how good the picture quality was.

 

[Kyle_D]

Exactly and I think many not aware are expecting another Grease with popping primary colors which SNF never was. Many of if not most of those films from that period the directors were giving us urban grittiness for the most part and glamour was far from what they were intending to project. But in particular Paramount directed films always used this cheap lookmg film stock- not sure why but they did. In actuality I think this film which was hyped as a disco movie really didn’t do disco any service at all which was a fun upbeat escape from all the misery the country was going through at that time. Even though the soundtrack was so memorable it really was more about unhappy disco A-list wannabes than the actual existential experience that It actually was. A much better film is the directors cut of 54. IMHO.

I agree with others who are saying this was the urban grittiness of the period. These films always had not great lighting and desaturated colors. That was the desired look and hardly needed 4k. Strangely I don't remember Superman looking like this though it certainly could have been better. And I saw it on the large screen at the late great Times Square Criterion.

I don't think people are necessarily complaining that the UHD looks "gritty." Au contraire, they're complaining that it looks digitally processed and that the film's inherent "urban grittiness" is not accurately represented. Those capsaholic screenshots are swarming in video noise, posterization artifacts, and compression artifacts, not film grain.

 

[Kaskade1309]

I watched a slew of YouTube reviews on this title last night, being that it's been a favorite of mine (along with the soundtrack) since I was a kid. Seems the consensus is that something definitely went wrong here, with both the video and audio elements. For what it's worth, I'm sticking with my 25th Anniversary DVD edition which, to this day, still looks and sounds absolutely fine.

With regard to the Paramount DNR issue, I noticed this on the recently launched Escape From Alcatraz 4K UHD, which was released by Kino Lorber but boasted a scan prepared by Paramount, and this too looked a bit waxy and detail-less in certain places (however, it didn't bother me on that title because I was used to a grainy, soft and ugly image from the non-anamorphic DVD I lived with for...like...ever).