Should "Classic" Films be released on 4K/UHD? (1 Viewer)

[MarkantonyII]

I agree with RAH that, in the vast majority of cases, a typical home theatre is often as well served by a BD as a UHD, if from the same master and with identical audio tracks.

Unfortunately there are numerous examples of a 4K in which the equivalent BD is from a 10-15 year+ older master, or the BD has a lesser audio track - 7.1 v Atmos/DTS X.

Therefore, for several titles, the 4K is better even thou a BD could have sufficed if re-released properly.

As an aside I can see, within the next 10 years, at least one of two things happening:

1) The majority of DVD/BD/UHD titles, if not all, get outsourced to specialist/boutique labels just as occured with Laserdisc throughout it’s life.

2) Streaming providers up their game, offering a picture/audio experience to match physical media. It’s available now with Kaleidescape but the price needs to halve to get customer levels beyond the most well-heeled (cheapest UK unit is the equivalent of $8K)

M

 

[Albert71292]

Maybe it's just my aging eyes, but I bought a 4K UHD Sony Blu-ray player a few months ago. Bought one 4K UHD disc so far, "Smokey and the Bandit", after having only the DVD version all these years. The 4K release included the movie on regular Blu-ray also. To me, the regular Blu-ray looked better than the 4K disc.

The experience has made me figure that regular Blu-rays are good enough. Haven't had any desire to buy more 4K discs.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Maybe it's just my aging eyes, but I bought a 4K UHD Sony Blu-ray player a few months ago. Bought one 4K UHD disc so far, "Smokey and the Bandit", after having only the DVD version all these years. The 4K release included the movie on regular Blu-ray also. To me, the regular Blu-ray looked better than the 4K disc.

The experience has made me figure that regular Blu-rays are good enough. Haven't had any desire to buy more 4K discs.

If you think the Blu-ray looks better than the 4K disc then I wonder if your display and player settings are correct to properly display that 4K image?

 

[Rick Thompson]

If the same data from the 2019 screenings is accessed, and which apparently Criterion did additional cleanup for their Blu-ray, this could be a beautiful, albeit unnecessary 4k, unless It’s being run on a very large screen.

I continue to posit that films photographed 35/4, especially on older stock (here presumably 5251), have minimal gains in 4k for normal home theater exhibition, especially from a nominal seating distance.

That noted, if HDR can be minimized or avoided for Kino’s release, there should be no need to return to this title again.

I would beg to differ on the epics — the genre that includes Ben-Hur, Lawrence of Arabia, The Big Country, The Ten Commandments, and such. Those big vistas benefit from the resolution. For the general run of films, however, I agree there's no real difference.

 

[Lord Dalek]

Do you have examples of which older films that HDR is a miss? I can only think of "Frankenstein" that generated the loudest criticism.

We literally just had complaints about Citizen Kane's usage of Dolby Vision here.

Also it didn't seem to add much to Its A Wonderful Life.

 

[Robert Crawford]

We literally just had complaints about Citizen Kane's usage of Dolby Vision here.

Also it didn't seem to add much to Its A Wonderful Life.

I thought Citizen Kane looked great with Dolby Vision so I don't understand such complaints about that particular title.

 

[Will Krupp]

Presuming that your 4k player is set to uprez 2k discs, I’ll be interested in your perception of how much more actual resolution you’ll be seeing in comparing the 2k Criterion to the 4k Kino - with uprez on and off - both from your normal seating distance.

That's interesting. I NEVER have the Sony player do the final uprez from 2K to 4K, I always let the OLED do the final lift. It looks better to me and was I basing it on the idea that Sony players have an option that lets the TV do it if the TV is another Sony, but has the player perform the function if the TV isn't. Since that tells me that Sony trusts its TVs to do the uprez moreso than it does their players, I decided I would go with that (since the LG is certainly as good,) Should I have the player do ALL of the uprez-ing?

 

[Robert Harris]

I would beg to differ on the epics — the genre that includes Ben-Hur, Lawrence of Arabia, The Big Country, The Ten Commandments, and such. Those big vistas benefit from the resolution. For the general run of films, however, I agree there's no real difference.

I was referring specifically to 35/4 and lesser formats.

 

[titch]

I was referring specifically to 35/4 and lesser formats.

When projected, I usually find that a UHD of a classic film resolves grain noticeably better than a blu-ray compressed for home viewing. A recent example is the BFI UHD of The Seventh Seal. It uses the exact same master as the 4K-mastered blu ray in the Criterion box, but there is clearly a more filmic appearance on the BFI disc, with a light patina of fine grain on the picture, which is lacking, when I project from the blu-ray.

I assumed the lack of fine grain on the blu-ray projected picture was due to a compression/mastering issue, not a resolution issue, as I saw the same 4K remaster projected from a DCP via a 2K Christie projector at a cinema and the grain was there on the cinema screen. I have also yet to see banding artifacts from a UHD picture - this is not unusual to see from a blu-ray.

 

[Worth]

Do you have examples of which older films that HDR is a miss? I can only think of "Frankenstein" that generated the loudest criticism.

Sometimes I find the additional brightness exaggerates grain, making it look more like noise, for instance in Ghostbusters, Starship Troopers, The Fifth Element (Sony version), and to a lesser extent Dr. Strangelove and Jurassic Park. Some other titles just look darker, without any visible improvement in contrast or colour, like the original Star Wars movies.

 

[JediFonger]

i have asked this in several threads but i still dont understand the relationship between analog films theoretical 15stops vs the virtually unlimited ones of either capture device or synthetically generated hdr

 

[Robert Harris]

i have asked this in several threads but i still dont understand the relationship between analog films theoretical 15stops vs the virtually unlimited ones of either capture device or synthetically generated hdr

Not unlimited.

 

[Mike_Nepo]

My take is that it depends on the studio and who performs the 4K transfer. I end up reading the reviews before deciding to plunk down the hard cash. Movies like Lawrence of Arabia, My Fair Lady, Ten Commandments, and Jaws (if that can be considered Classic) received rave reviews for their 4K incarnations. As long as the treatment results in a great transfer, then I'm willing to patronize the effort. The fact that Criterion is getting into the 4K business is only good news.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

I suspect that more mid/lower-budget source material (if properly handled) can benefit from 4K presentation, though the results may often be subtle (but still meaningful for those who care).

For example, in my home-theater I sit 10 feet away from my 106" diagonal (8 feet wide) 16x9 screen. I recently upgraded to a new JVC 4K projector (NZ8/RS3100) and was eager to "see the difference". Firstly, I was amazed at how good "regular blu-rays" looked on the projector just using the oppo UHD player to upscale. But then it was time to do some direct A/B comparison... and I put in the blu-ray of Willy Wonka from my 4K set (the blu-ray being authored from the same 4K source as the 4K disc). Looked great for what it is given that this is a classic "budget" 35mm movie shot on grainy film stock with low-cost-gear. Then I put in the 4K disc. Wow. What I immediately noticed was the textures became more natural, movement felt more silky, colors somehow seemed more varied and realistic, and the film grain also gained a more natural "wind like" character that was less noisy in comparison to the blu-ray. The phrase that came to mind was that it looked "like projected film". I put back in the blu-ray and switched back and forth to make sure it wasn't just wishful thinking. What I realized in doing so was that objectively speaking, these differences were very subtle... many folks might not even notice them if asked to find a difference. However, they were there, and given my viewing distance and personal "response effect" to these differences, it made a meaningful difference for me. So much so that I swore going forward I'd only buy 4K unless 2K was all that was available (or the rare case where the 4K is botched, like Disney just did with POTC).

In any case, I wanted to share an example of a grainy, low-budget 35mm movie that still subjectively looks better in 4K. Remember, 4K/HDR also brings about improved color space, doubles chroma resolution compared to 2K blu-ray (which has 2K luma, but only 1K chroma), and improves compression. So there are actually many reasons why budget movies could potentially benefit from a good 4K presentation even if one could rightly argue in absolute terms that the source resolution shouldn't make a difference.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I put in the blu-ray of Willy Wonka from my 4K set (the blu-ray being authored from the same 4K source as the 4K disc).

I don’t believe this is the case. The included Blu-ray is the previous release from the older master (as HTF’s review by Todd Erwin confirms) and the 4K disc is from the new master.

You are seeing the benefits of a newer scan and newer master on the 4K disc, while seeing the limitations of an older scan and older mastering on the Blu-ray disc. That’s an apples to oranges comparison.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

I don’t believe this is the case. The included Blu-ray is the previous release from the older master (as HTF’s review by Todd Erwin confirms) and the 4K disc is from the new master.

You are seeing the benefits of a newer scan and newer master on the 4K disc, while seeing the limitations of an older scan and older mastering on the Blu-ray disc. That’s an apples to oranges comparison.

If that's the case then yes, that negates my comparison (I had thought I had read somewhere that the same transfer/master was used to source both, but maybe I'm mistaken... or maybe the source that I read was mistaken). If someone has a good suggestion of a BD vs 4KUHD that are indeed struck from the same transfer (and of a non-optimal "budget movie" source) I'd love to know so I can carefully compare. Because again... besides the added headroom with resolution, UHD brings along expanded color space and improved compression algorithms that, all other things being equal, might still be able to make a difference.

 

[Robert Harris]

If that's the case then yes, that negates my comparison (I had thought I had read somewhere that the same transfer/master was used to source both, but maybe I'm mistaken... or maybe the source that I read was mistaken). If someone has a good suggestion of a BD vs 4KUHD that are indeed struck from the same transfer (and of a non-optimal "budget movie" source) I'd love to know so I can carefully compare. Because again... besides the added headroom with resolution, UHD brings along expanded color space and improved compression algorithms that, all other things being equal, might still be able to make a difference.

Try My Fair Lady, which will look far superior in 4k.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Those areas affect all discs of all resolutions. My point is that more and more films are being re-released in 4k for minimal purpose.

Magnificent Blu-rays can be produced today from 4k image harvests, having been created as new preservation assets, for which 4k UHD discs don’t add a rational uptick in quality.

Blu-rays are just fine, especially for older films.

Per the latest "The Extras" podcast, it appears George Feltenstein agrees with your POV, particularly as it pertains to classic films from the 1930s and 1940s and especially black and white films. With that said, he did say that he would love to see WAC release some 4K discs, but that it's too expensive right now as the cost of doing so is four times more expensive than releasing a Blu-ray.

 

[OliverK]

Per the latest "The Extras" podcast, it appears George Feltenstein agrees with your POV, particularly as it pertains to classic films from the 1930s and 1940s and especially black and white films. With that said, he did say that he would love to see WAC release some 4K discs, but that it's too expensive right now as the cost of doing so is four times more expensive than releasing a Blu-ray.

Well George need not despair - it will be worth the added expense when they finally release a UHD of Raintree County, Cheyenne Autumn or Ryan's Daughter

 

[titch]

Per the latest "The Extras" podcast, it appears George Feltenstein agrees with your POV, particularly as it pertains to classic films from the 1930s and 1940s and especially black and white films. With that said, he did say that he would love to see WAC release some 4K discs, but that it's too expensive right now as the cost of doing so is four times more expensive than releasing a Blu-ray.

It's very interesting to hear somebody actually state that a UHD costs four times more than a blu-ray to produce, as I haven't seen any other publishing company state in dollars and cents what the production costs and profit margins are for discs. Some companies, which specialise in scanning films for making video masters, state what their charges are for 2K and 4K scans. But scanning film is only part of the cost of making a UHD. Mastering and authoring costs, as well as printing and shipping costs, also factor in. Companies obviously have no interest in displaying what their costs are and what their profit margins are. They want to earn as much as possible for their business and customers want to pay as little as possible.

If one compares Arrow Video's recently released blu-rays with their recently released UHD counterparts, it looks like their recommended retail price is double for the UHD version. Criterion's The Red Shoes has a SRP on their website at $39.95 for the DVD and the blu-ray editions, and $49.95 for the UHD. I would guess that they are counting on high volumes of sales to offset the production increases.

Warner Archive Collection probably have low profit margins, as they usually don't provide much in the way of supplements, which are much more expensive to produce, compared with their in-house scanning and restoration productions costs. I remember George Feltenstein saying that they would only release a blu-ray of Captain Blood, if The Sea Hawk sold enough copies to justify it. And it obviously didn't.