Why I’m looking forward to a HDR release of the Godfather Movies

3 Stars

I’ve bought the Godafather Trilogy on Blu-ray when it came out and I haven’t watched it until this weekend. Unfortunately the European Edition omits the original mono mix – thanks Paramount :angry: – But the the 5.1 mix wasn’t bad at all. Kudos to the mixing team. The picture quality was pretty damn nice. Details I haven’t seen before and an interesting color floor. So overall a good presentation of the movies. Yes? NO! The blacks are terrible. I don’t know what went wrong, but many scenes have really murky and redish blacks. This is even more showing on the featurette “Emulsional Rescue: Revealing The Godfather” on the 4th disc. The blacks of the restored scene shown there looked great. So why did they change it for the movie discs? I don’t know.
But with UHD and HDR this movie can be saved and shown how it should truly have been. HDR can produce some impressive blacks while retaining mid and high levels of details. On the Blu-ray some scenes, e.g. the wedding in part 1, looses details and result in clipping. Not in an extreme level, mind you, but still clipping.

I’v no doubts Paramount will make the movies available in native 4K and HDR at some point, and hopefully including the original mono mix in lossless for regions in the world too ;), to give us the ultimate Godfather experience :D

Published by

Kevin Collins

administrator

87 Comments

  1. HDR?

    Apparently that featurette got the color correct, but in the feature, they must have turned the wrong knob, or something. Sorry, is that what they do. Is it a knob?

    Maybe a wheel?

    No, a lever of some sort. I’m certain of that.

    But it must be a really huge lever.

    Horrible.

    But no problem.

    I’ve ordered an investigation, and heads will roll!

    And yes, that wedding sequence is also horrible. Looks like old Agfachrome, or something. Like way overexposed!

    Please return for a full refund.

  2. I'm thinking that the last thing The Godfather needs is darker blacks. So an Agfachrome look is what the cameraman was going for with the wedding scene, I'm sure it's not just a bit of overexposure, maybe some defusing filters & other stuff, whatever, he pulled it off.

  3. Robert Harris

    ***sarcasm***

    Instead giving that major sarcasm post, you could've clarified what I was seeing actually was.
    The red shift in the blacks is definitely there, while it wasn't the featurrete.
    And I didn't say anything about horrible.

    Mind you, this was viewed on a calibrated OLED TV and which can reveal bad blacks levels pretty harshly.

    I also didn't mean any disrespect to your and others hard work on the project.

    Scott Merryfield

    I'd rather have the version that shows how the film actual was, not how it "should have been".

    Unless you've watched the actual print, you haven't seen the movie how it was intended or was. BT709 Colorspace is not capable to fully show what a 35mm print has to offer. BT2020 – that's used for HDR – can come pretty close.

  4. EnricoE

    Instead giving that major sarcasm post, you could've clarified what I was seeing actually was.
    The red shift in the blacks is definitely there, while it wasn't the featurrete.
    And I didn't say anything about horrible.

    Mind you, this was viewed on a calibrated OLED TV and which can reveal bad blacks levels pretty harshly.

    I also didn't mean any disrespect to your and others hard work on the project.

    Unless you've watched the actual print, you haven't seen the movie how it was intended or was. BT709 Colorspace is not capable to fully show what a 35mm print has to offer. BT2020 – that's used for HDR – can come pretty close.

    Can you please define the words “color print,” and I’ll attempt to respond

  5. EnricoE

    …Unless you've watched the actual print, you haven't seen the movie how it was intended or was. BT709 Colorspace is not capable to fully show what a 35mm print has to offer. BT2020 – that's used for HDR – can come pretty close.

    For a top quality show print that may be true, but only a handful of people outside the film industry ever see one of those. Once you factor in generation loss, I doubt a typical projected 35mm release print actually yields much better colour than blu-ray.

  6. Scott Merryfield

    I'd rather have the version that shows how the film actual was, not how it "should have been".

    Many blu-rays look different than they did in first release… usually better than it looked, though not always so.

  7. bigshot

    Many blu-rays look different than they did in first release… usually better than it looked, though not always so.

    I was referring to the OP's comments on wanting the wedding scene to look different than it was intended.

  8. Robert Harris

    Can you please define the words “color print,” and I’ll attempt to respond

    If you refer to my "color floor" statement… I was referring to the golden hues. As Mr. Coppola and Mr. Willis said in the emulsion featurette, it was done/intended to look like the 40s and 50s. But I haven't said "color print" :huh:

    Scott Merryfield

    I was referring to the OP's comments on wanting the wedding scene to look different than it was intended.

    I said the highlights are a bit clipped. This has nothing to do with a change in look, when HDR can bring back the lost highlights

    A good example can found here for Die Hard UHD vs BD of HDR bringing back lost highlight details.

    Worth

    For a top quality show print that may be true, but only a handful of people outside the film industry ever see one of those. Once you factor in generation loss, I doubt a typical projected 35mm release print actually yields much better colour than blu-ray.

    The Godfather master for the Blu-ray was not taken from a release print.

  9. Now here's a thread on a very reasonable topic that is getting off to an awful start.

    Between this and some of the recent 2001 threads, I will ask if we can please engage in civil discussion on the topic at hand and possibly not assume the worst of people who are raising topics and issues.

  10. EnricoE

    If you refer to my "color floor" statement… I was referring to the golden hues. As Mr. Coppola and Mr. Willis said in the emulsion featurette, it was done/intended to look like the 40s and 50s. But I haven't said "color print" :huh:

    I said the highlights are a bit clipped. This has nothing to do with a change in look, when HDR can bring back the lost highlights.

    Sorry. Didn’t fully understand that HDR is capable of capturing lost highlights.

    Good to know.

    I was under the false impression that if something lacked certain information, whether purposefully, or by error, that the information wasn’t there.

    Heading over to Amazon now to download a book on HDR, and lost highlights.

    I’ll report back.

  11. Robert Harris

    HDR?

    Apparently that featurette got the color correct, but in the feature, they must have turned the wrong knob, or something. Sorry, is that what they do. Is it a knob?

    I’ve ordered an investigation, and heads will roll!

    Please return for a full refund.

    Heads did roll…..a horse got it first! :unsure:

  12. What's going on here? Seems like a lot of snark is being expressed here when it's not necessary. I thought The Godfather Trilogy looked fine on Blu-ray. I'm looking forward to the 4K release too whenever Paramount decides to do so. Maybe, HDR isn't a requirement, but is it out of line to ask why that's the case? I just want the sarcastic remarks to stop, as it's not helping to educate the forum novices when it comes to whether HDR is necessary for catalog films, whenever they're released on 4K/UHD disc. Also, of note, RAH had previously stated that HDR isn't necessary because it changes the actual look of the film from what it suppose to look like. I'm sure RAH will correct me if that comment isn't correct.:) Peace!

  13. Robert Harris

    more sarcasm

    Lost highlights in the transition from the Master Print to BT709 or lost on purpose, as I showed in the example for Die Hard. No need be that rude, Mr. Harris.

  14. Robert Crawford

    What's going on here?

    I can answer that. We seem to be inundated with new people who believe they have more insight into film restoration due to their research than people actually in the field. And they keep spitballing things based on clips taken out of context. And its become frustrating for folks like Mr. Harris to constantly keep batting these statements down.

    Sarcasm is expressed.

    People who think they know more than they do double down.

    Rinse, repeat.

  15. Robert Crawford

    What's going on here? Seems like a lot of snark is being expressed here when it's not necessary. I thought The Godfather Trilogy looked fine on Blu-ray. I'm looking forward to the 4K release too whenever Paramount decides to do so. Maybe, HDR isn't a requirement, but is it out of line to ask why that's the case? I just want the sarcastic remarks to stop, as it's not helping to educate the forum novices when it comes to whether HDR is necessary for catalog films, whenever they're released on 4K/UHD disc. Also, of note, RAH had previously stated that HDR isn't necessary because it changes the actual look of the film from what it suppose to look like. I'm sure RAH will correct me if that comment isn't correct.:) Peace!

    You're correct. Usually are…

  16. Sam Posten

    I can answer that. We seem to be inundated with new people who believe they have more insight into film restoration due to their research than people actually in the field. And they keep spitballing things based on clips taken out of context. And its become frustrating for folks like Mr. Harris to constantly keep batting these statements down.

    Sarcasm is expressed.

    People who think they know more than they do double down.

    Rinse, repeat.

    I wasn't aware of that inundation, I need to be more active in dealing with those type of situations. Seriously, we're all tired of misinformation being spread around the internet.

    Sarcastic Meter Off.

  17. Sam Posten

    I can answer that. We seem to be inundated with new people who believe they have more insight into film restoration due to their research than people actually in the field. And they keep spitballing things based on clips taken out of context. And its become frustrating for folks like Mr. Harris to constantly keep batting these statements down.

    Sarcasm is expressed.

    People who think they know more than they do double down.

    Rinse, repeat.

    And you all wonder why I roll my eyes everytime somebody demands a 4k transfer of Superman with HDR10. (PSST…its not going to look much better)

  18. Lord Dalek

    And you all wonder why I roll my eyes everytime somebody demands a 4k transfer of Superman with HDR10. (PSST…its not going to look much better)

    I think the problem, for the general public, and even most UHD buyers, is that pretty much every UHD to date has HDR, kinda like 99.9% of modern films have a 5.1 or greater soundtrack – it’s just expected as a given, right or wrong.

    It a absolutely should only be applied on a case by case basis, esp for older titles – i’m assuming pre mid-80’s when colour fade became less of an issue.

    It’s getting to the point where, when there’s no HDR, their gonna have to say why on the packaging!

    M

  19. MarkantonyII

    I think the problem, for the general public, and even most UHD buyers, is that pretty much every UHD to date has HDR, kinda like 99.9% of modern films have a 5.1 or greater soundtrack – it’s just expected as a given, right or wrong.

    It a absolutely should only be applied on a case by case basis, esp for older titles – i’m assuming pre mid-80’s when colour fade became less of an issue.

    It’s getting to the point where, when there’s no HDR, their gonna have to say why on the packaging!

    M

    Exactly. Its like the faction here who refuse to buy certain UHDs of older movies because the sound wasn't remixed to full-blown Atmos.

    What? The stems don't even exist for a lot of these to do such a thing and all they have are mixdowns? Nope. No Atmos? No Sale!

  20. Lord Dalek

    And you all wonder why I roll my eyes everytime somebody demands a 4k transfer of Superman with HDR10. (PSST…its not going to look much better)

    Totally true. Mr. Unsworth's methods when it came to the cinematography on this one yielded diffuse focus and milky blacks, which no amount of HDR is going to fix.

  21. I'll take Gordon Willis' word on the subject. When I attended a 35mm screening of the 4K restoration of THE GODFATHER that was also used for the Blu-rays in 2008, Mr. Willis said during the post-screening discission said the look and color of the print was "dead on", and the Blu-ray looks like that print.

    Vincent

  22. Has it really gotten to the point where how we want a film to look supersedes how the film actually looked on original release or was intended to look? I concede that with some tweaking, it's possible to make a film look better than it looked during its original run but should it? If, say, a film was intended to have soft focus brownish look to it, is it ethically right to make it sharper looking and the colors brighter? I've given up on protesting 5.1 soundtracks on mono movies since I'm in the minority 🙁

  23. Thomas T

    Has it really gotten to the point where how we want a film to look supersedes how the film actually looked on original release or was intended to look? I concede that with some tweaking, it's possible to make a film look better than it looked during its original run but should it? If, say, a film was intended to have soft focus brownish look to it, is it ethically right to make it sharper looking and the colors brighter? I've given up on protesting 5.1 soundtracks on mono movies since I'm in the minority 🙁

    Specifically re Godfather, much of it looks as it does because there’s nothing more in the neg to be extracted.

    It looks precisely as it was designed to look.

    For most other films, the “look” is crafted in color timing and printing. Tools or no tools, one should not tinker with that.

  24. Thomas T

    Has it really gotten to the point where how we want a film to look supersedes how the film actually looked on original release or was intended to look?

    Oh yes, easily, & I'm sure a great many Blu-ray films do look better than they ever looked at the cinema. I think the problem is that some people will always want the film to look pristine, which is not always possible with older movies (either technically or financially). We must not forget that we're film fans before we're tech-heads, so many film that I love, I first saw in 4×3 b/w on our little telly, & I thoroughly enjoyed seeing them.

  25. Billy Batson

    Oh yes, easily, & I'm sure a great many Blu-rays do look better than they ever looked at the cinema. I think the problem is that some people will always want the film to look pristine, which is not always possible with older movies (either technically or financially). We must not forget that we're film fans before we're tech-heads, so many film that I love, I first saw in 4×3 b/w on our little telly, & I thoroughly enjoyed seeing them.

    But being "pristine" is not the issue here. Gordon Willis shot THE GODFATHER films in a very precise way in order to specifically make it impossible to print them in any way other than he intended without the image falling apart, which is different than talking about film damage or whatever.

    Vincent

  26. Vincent_P

    But being "pristine" is not the issue here. Gordon Willis shot THE GODFATHER films in a very precise way in order to specifically make it impossible to print them in any way other than he intended without the image falling apart, which is different than talking about film damage or whatever.

    Vincent

    I don't know if there is an issue here. We seem to have one opinion saying one thing and the rest of us disagreeing with that opinion. IMO, there isn't much else to say on this matter as I think the majority opinion is the correct position.

  27. Robert Crawford

    I don't know if there is an issue here. We seem to have one opinion saying one thing and the rest of us disagreeing with that opinion. IMO, there isn't much else to say on this matter as I think the majority opinion is the correct position.

    With regard to the original posters hopes & expectations for HDR for this or any other film, I've had another look at all the covers of the 30+ UHD's I own & all, bar none, have a big shiny HDR logo on the front. I don't recall any other tech option, whether audio or visual, having such prominence on consumer packaging as this. Studios are culpable for this misunderstanding and potential expectation IMO.

    M

  28. MarkantonyII

    With regard to the original posters point, I've had another look at all the covers of the 30+ UHD's I own & all, bar none, have a big shiny HDR logo on the front. I don't recall any other tech option, whether audio or visual, having such prominence on consumer packaging as this. Studios are culpable for this misunderstanding and potential expectation IMO.

    M

    Hell, some of us myself included we're saying that when this format launched back in 2016. Without question the industry has confused its consumer base in regard to HDR. We've had numerous discussions about that same matter in 2016, 2017 and now 2018.

  29. MarkantonyII

    With regard to the original posters point, I've had another look at all the covers of the 30+ UHD's I own & all, bar none, have a big shiny HDR logo on the front. I don't recall any other tech option, whether audio or visual, having such prominence on consumer packaging as this. Studios are culpable for this misunderstanding and potential expectation IMO.

    M

    Back in the early days of DVD's, the studios would sometimes indicate a release was a DTS Edition with a big banner across the top of the front cover, so this isn't the first time. But I do agree that HDR is expected by many people for all UHD releases, partly due to how the format is being marketed.

  30. Scott Merryfield

    Back in the early days of DVD's, the studios would sometimes indicate a release was a DTS Edition with a big banner across the top of the front cover, so this isn't the first time. But I do agree that HDR is expected by many people for all UHD releases, partly due to how the format is being marketed.

    Yeah, I remember those DVD titles as I think Universal was really big on applying that banner. Also, how many people bought HD displays thinking that SD material will suddenly turn into 1080p? The same with 4K displays except it's 1080p into 4K.

  31. My question is, is it possible to have the expanded BT.2020 color space of the UHD format *without* HDR? I ask because I have two non-HDR UHDs in my collection- the domestic release of Malick's SONG TO SONG, and the overseas release of Romero's DAWN OF THE DEAD– and when I click on the info on my LG OLED, they don't register as BT.2020. Are all non-HDR UHDs in the Rec709 color space? Can you have BT.2020 without HDR, or are they intertwined?

    Vincent

  32. MarkantonyII

    With regard to the original posters hopes & expectations for HDR for this or any other film, I've had another look at all the covers of the 30+ UHD's I own & all, bar none, have a big shiny HDR logo on the front. I don't recall any other tech option, whether audio or visual, having such prominence on consumer packaging as this. Studios are culpable for this misunderstanding and potential expectation IMO.

    M

    Exactly. On the first few that I bought I tried to peal the sticker off, can’t. Not a sticker.

  33. Thomas T

    Has it really gotten to the point where how we want a film to look supersedes how the film actually looked on original release or was intended to look? I concede that with some tweaking, it's possible to make a film look better than it looked during its original run but should it? If, say, a film was intended to have soft focus brownish look to it, is it ethically right to make it sharper looking and the colors brighter? I've given up on protesting 5.1 soundtracks on mono movies since I'm in the minority 🙁

    The "I want to improve on the original look" philosophy has been around for quite a few years. The "everything must be HDR" stance is just the latest manifestation of it.

  34. There always seems to be a little bit of a tension between the two schools of thought. The first is that the content is key, and that we purchase our home theater equipment to replicate, as close as possible, the original intent of the filmmakers. The second is that we've spent a lot of money on the latest and greatest equipment, and that we want to watch content that will take maximum advantage of what our systems can do. The pendulum seems to swing back and forth at any given time. And this isn't just a dilemma that affects the home viewer, but one that affects filmmakers as well.

    As an example, I remember reading an interview with the director and cinematographer of Star Wars: The Last Jedi about their post-production workflow, and specifically about the application of HDR to the finished film. When they were shooting the film, they had a specific look in mind, and were able to achieve that look mostly in camera and with standard editing techniques. They said that they used HDR rather sparingly in the end, because their goal was to present the movie looking the way they had always intended for it to look, and that they avoided making choices with HDR solely to show off what the newest generation of theatrical 4K laser projection systems (like Dolby Cinema and IMAX WIth Laser) are capable of. I respect that choice, and that's what I would have done if I had been in their shoes. But another set of filmmakers might have felt differently and that's understandable too.

    I'm personally in favor of viewing films in a format as close as possible to what the original intention was. Sometimes it's no longer possible to present a film that way, and sometimes it's unclear what the original intention was, but for a large portion of films in existence, it's fairly clear what the intent was. I'm also okay with variations on that original intent, provided that there's a readily available option to view the film as it had been created. It's the same thing, for me, with audio. I have no objection to 5.1 or 7.1 or Atmos remixes of films that were originally mono or in stereo – but I don't want that to come at the expense of losing the original track. Sometimes I might enjoy a remixed track more than the original, but I want the original one to be on the disc as well.

  35. The biggest advantages of HDR come in the form of:

    -making it very hard to hard-clip highlight information (which has been a problem on many blu-ray transfers), which can help when mimicking film's roll off response to being "over driven"
    -due to a lack of hard clipping, detail can be preserved in highlight information
    -very efficient use of available bits (10-12bpc) by Dolby's PQ curve to render banding a thing of the past, even with the increased dynamic range.

    The general guidance from what I've seen is to grade a transfer much like you'd grade an SDR version, with the majority of content being between 0-100 nits, with the extra flexibility of having some brighter parts that go in to 200 nits, and specular highlights going even higher if necessary.

    If colorists stick to that mentality as a general rule for film transfers, would this not be faithful to a theatrical experience whilst taking advantage of technological developments?

  36. Synnove

    The biggest advantages of HDR come in the form of:

    -making it very hard to hard-clip highlight information (which has been a problem on many blu-ray transfers), which can help when mimicking film's roll off response to being "over driven"
    -due to a lack of hard clipping, detail can be preserved in highlight information
    -very efficient use of available bits (10-12bpc) by Dolby's PQ curve to render banding a thing of the past, even with the increased dynamic range.

    The general guidance from what I've seen is to grade a transfer much like you'd grade an SDR version, with the majority of content being between 0-100 nits, with the extra flexibility of having some brighter parts that go in to 200 nits, and specular highlights going even higher if necessary.

    If colorists stick to that mentality as a general rule for film transfers, would this not be faithful to a theatrical experience whilst taking advantage of technological developments?

    Since every film is different…

  37. smithbrad

    Just trying to understand your position. Do you see any merit in the use of HDR? If so, what? If not, Why?

    Certainly. For some films, old and new. Older with droit moral, presuming the elements allow it.

    New? Go for it, especially if used during conception, prod and post.

    No problem overall with HDR.

  38. Robert Harris

    Certainly. For some films, old and new. Older with droit moral, presuming the elements allow it.

    New? Go for it, especially if used during conception, prod and post.

    No problem overall with HDR.

    I believe I got it.

    For new films, where the creators are available throughout the process, you should be able to assume their intent will be carried through to the final product, whether deciding to utilize HDR or not.

    For older films, the most important step is whether it can first be restored to meet the original intent of the creators. If done, then it can be evaluated as to whether the expanded color space of HDR provides any meaningful value in replicating the original intent to a digital format over not using HDR. It can't hurt if used correctly, but may provide no perceived value. However, an obvious fear is that those at the HDR switchboard may become over zealous with the capability and become revisionist or just feel the need to make change for no better reason than to support selling a new format.

    As a long-time software developer I have worked with simple images. Many times they were originally stored with the capability of 16.7M colors, and to save memory I would convert them to a 256K or even down to a 256 color space with no perceived loss, or in some cases, no loss in quality. In simple terms, just because more range may be available, doesn't always mean it is necessary or need be used.

    If I missed the point, I'm sure someone will let me know 🙂

  39. Robert Harris

    Certainly. For some films, old and new. Older with droit moral, presuming the elements allow it.

    New? Go for it, especially if used during conception, prod and post.

    No problem overall with HDR.

    I believe I got it.

    For new films, where the creators are available throughout the process, you should be able to assume their intent will be carried through to the final product, whether deciding to utilize HDR or not.

    For older films, the most important step is whether it can first be restored to meet the original intent of the creators. If done, then it can be evaluated as to whether the expanded color space of HDR provides any meaningful value in replicating the original intent to a digital format over not using HDR. It can't hurt if used correctly, but may provide no perceived value. However, an obvious fear is that those at the HDR switchboard may become over zealous with the capability and become revisionist or just feel the need to make change for no better reason than to support selling a new format.

    As a long-time software developer I have worked with simple images. Many times they were originally stored with the capability of 16.7M colors, and to save memory I would convert them to a 256K or even down to a 256 color space with no perceived loss, or in some cases, no loss in quality. In simple terms, just because more range may be available, doesn't always mean it is necessary or need be used.

    If I missed the point, I'm sure someone will let me know 🙂

  40. smithbrad

    For older films, the most important step is whether it can first be restored to meet the original intent of the creators. If done, then it can be evaluated as to whether the expanded color space of HDR provides any meaningful value in replicating the original intent to a digital format over not using HDR

    Important to remember that HDR isn't a color space nor a bit depth; HDR can be used with even REC709 if one wanted, or REC2020 space could be used with SDR. It's better to think of HDR as a new bit value -> optical function intended to replace the gamma function, and as a new brightness range that video is mastered in.

    The idea behind the gamma function (REC1886 to be specific) is you can make MUCH more efficient use of the available bits-per-channel by taking advantage of the fact that human vision has an easier time noticing differences in in two close dark shades vs two close bright shades; more bits are allocated to the darker parts of the image. This efficient allocation of bits helps to avoid the perception of banding or stair stepping on smooth gradients. Problem is the gamma function was modeled after CRT behavior which, while decent, isn't necessarily the most efficient use of the bits available; even with 10 bits a REC1886 video signal would still have visible banding.

    Before describing HDR, it's important to remember that a white pixel value correlated to about 80-100 nits back in the CRT days, so displays were *generally* calibrated with that in mind, and video transfers were *generally* mastered within the range of 0-100 nits. Given that most Blu-Rays, which *generally* use the REC1886 gamma function, look pretty good using this system, it's fair to say that most of the information the colorist would wish to present resides within that 0-100nit range. Unfortunately, one of the problems with this limited range is that highlights can easily be hard clipped which destroys the detail within those highlights.

    HDR is centered around two new developments: a new bit value -> optical function by Dolby called the Perceptual Quantizer, and a new brightness range of 0-10,000 nits (10k nits is about the brightness of a fluorescent tube). Dolby's PQ function is so efficient with it's usage of bits that it can cover the range of 0-10,000 nits using 12 bits without any visible banding. The averaged brightness of an average frame mastered in HDR is, ideally, the averaged brightness of an average frame mastered in SDR in that the majority of material resides within 0-100 nits (with 100 being the white value we are familiar with), but the colorist has that extra 100-10,000 nit range for elements of the frame that need that extra brightness (such as specular highlights) whilst preserving detail in those areas.

    Basically, if the colorist is using the system as intended by the developers of this system, your average brightness within the frame will be similar to Blu-ray, just with the added benefit that highlight detail is preserved and the capability to make brighter elements stand out if necessary. A mis-use of this system would be to simply make the average brightness in the frame higher.

  41. Like Synnove posted above, this was my understanding for the use of HDR.
    I don't want movies slammed with HDR just for the sake of it. It's like making
    a 5.1 mix from a mono source, that in the end sounds like shit, e.g. Conan The Destroyer.

    So when I finally watched the Blu-ray of Godfather 1 & 2, I saw potential for HDR to "fix" some
    issues I had, like the redish/orange blacks, which was absent in the documentary. I'm not after a new
    look for said movie or any movie. But when posted this, it felt more like "How dare you to speak
    bad about this work done to the Godfather". I actually was looking for an explanation why there
    are difference from the doc to finished movie, while doc implicates "Look what we have achieved".

    HDR should be applied with care and knowledge and any movie shot on film could benefit from it,
    no matter if color or black & white movies.

    So…. a movie like The Bridge on the River Kwai, on UHD BD with HDR applied, doesn't benefit from it?
    Idk, as I haven't seen this release yet. Or what about movies shot on 70mm like 2001, Lawrence of Arabia,
    The Hateful Eight or great 65mm movies like Cleopatra, Ben-Hur? Wouldn't a movie like Casablanca,
    Schindler's List benefit too from HDR? I would say "Yes, absolutely".

  42. EnricoE

    Like Synnove posted above, this was my understanding for the use of HDR.
    I don't want movies slammed with HDR just for the sake of it. It's like making
    a 5.1 mix from a mono source, that in the end sounds like shit, e.g. Conan The Destroyer.

    So when I finally watched the Blu-ray of Godfather 1 & 2, I saw potential for HDR to "fix" some
    issues I had, like the redish/orange blacks, which was absent in the documentary. I'm not after a new
    look for said movie or any movie. But when posted this, it felt more like "How dare you to speak
    bad about this work done to the Godfather". I actually was looking for an explanation why there
    are difference from the doc to finished movie, while doc implicates "Look what we have achieved".

    HDR should be applied with care and knowledge and any movie shot on film could benefit from it,
    no matter if color or black & white movies.

    So…. a movie like The Bridge on the River Kwai, on UHD BD with HDR applied, doesn't benefit from it?
    Idk, as I haven't seen this release yet. Or what about movies shot on 70mm like 2001, Lawrence of Arabia,
    The Hateful Eight or great 65mm movies like Cleopatra, Ben-Hur? Wouldn't a movie like Casablanca,
    Schindler's List benefit too from HDR? I would say "Yes, absolutely".

    Wonderful!

  43. Seriously Mr. Harris, you can keep your stupid sarcasm!
    It seams like to "criticize" your work doesn't result in answers on why i'm seeing what i'm seeing,
    but merely ends in crybaby responses.

  44. EnricoE

    Seriously Mr. Harris, you can keep your stupid sarcasm!
    It seams like to "criticize" your work doesn't result in answers on why i'm seeing what i'm seeing,
    but merely ends in crybaby responses.

    The answer is, that one cannot “fix” an issue that does not exist in the real world.

    The Godfather films walk an extremely fine line between light and dark, shadow detail, no shadow detail, extremely slight shadow detail, and presumed under, or over-exposure, when exposures are precisely where the filmmakers designed them to be.

    Likewise, the films have an extremely precise color scheme, that changes slightly from era to era.

    If a viewer deigns something to be incorrect, based upon their own set of personal desires and parameters, that does not make it so.

    It merely sets something up in the viewers mind, allowing them to tell themselves that something they believe they’re seeing is incorrect, and thus not fitting a preconceived norm.

    There are numerous films that, to the uneducated (and that is not meant as a personal affront) viewer, appear odd, as they are set apart from that norm.

    But keep in mind that cinema is not meant to reproduce a normalcy of life. It is art, as seen through the eyes, and specific intentions, of artists.

    At some point, as you view films at home, presuming that your equipment is properly calibrated, you must learn to trust what you’re seeing, as correct, and possibly try to understand what makes it seem “off” to you.

    I’m trying to explain this in the best way possible.

    The best advise that I can give you, is to educate yourself as to what you will be seeing, before you do so, as that may raise the level of your enjoyment.

    Cinema is very much like classical music or fine wine.

    Sometimes ones’ palette must be trained.

    RAH

  45. Lord Dalek

    Maybe its time somebody started a list of films that wont benefit from 4k no matter what.

    Since one already receives a decent uprez via a quality player, that list would include the majority of non-large format productions.

  46. Robert Harris

    At some point, as you view films at home, presuming that your equipment is properly calibrated, you must learn to trust what you’re seeing, as correct, and possibly try to understand what makes it seem “off” to you. RAH

    Completely understand. However, what becomes difficult from a fan/consumer perspective is trying to understand when what we are seeing is the true artistic intent vs. flaws in the source material that can or couldn't be easily corrected, limitation in the source materials that just are what they are, errors/revisionism introduced during a transfer/restoration effort, limitations in the technology available at any given time, financial constraints, and a lack of proper reference to always know how a particular film is intended to look. If there was a consistent standard of quality performed across all releases it would be easier to just accept what we are seeing is correct. Unfortunately, when you mix the inconsistencies with questionable memories and the "educated" arm chair fan with an internet connection to do research, there are going to be many questions.

    For me, forums like this, while mostly great, can sometimes be destructive at the same time. It can be great to learn about releases, read reviews, and learn about various aspects of the industry. At the same time, I can't help but some times read about potential flaws that may or may not even be there, hindering the enjoyment of watching a film. Luckily, I have a bad memory and will typically forget what I've read after a while and will just sit back and enjoy the show.

  47. Robert Harris

    Since one already receives a decent uprez via a quality player, that list would include the majority of non-large format productions.

    I think this is where the confusion lies. Jumanji, Apollo 13, A Few Good Men, Groundhog Day, the Dark Crystal, Die Hard, the Matrix. All of these look spectacular in 4k.

    In your few words about… you even mentioned that Apollo 13 presumably looks better now than it did upon initial theatrical release. And you gave glowing reviews of A Few Good Men and Die Hard.

    But now you are saying that since these weren't photographed in large format that a 4k uprez of a regular blu ray should suffice just fine.

    When not talking about a specific title you tend to downplay 4k and hdr, yet the majority of your comments pertaining to specific titles tend to be overwhelmingly positive.

    Please don't misunderstand me, I have the utmost respect for you and your expertise and have learned a tremendous amount reading your posts.

    This is just something ive noticed and am curious about.

  48. sleroi

    I think this is where the confusion lies. Jumanji, Apollo 13, A Few Good Men, Groundhog Day, the Dark Crystal, Die Hard, the Matrix. All of these look spectacular in 4k.

    In your few words about… you even mentioned that Apollo 13 presumably looks better now than it did upon initial theatrical release. And you gave glowing reviews of A Few Good Men and Die Hard.

    But now you are saying that since these weren't photographed in large format that a 4k uprez of a regular blu ray should suffice just fine.

    When not talking about a specific title you tend to downplay 4k and hdr, yet the majority of your comments pertaining to specific titles tend to be overwhelmingly positive.

    Please don't misunderstand me, I have the utmost respect for you and your expertise and have learned a tremendous amount reading your posts.

    This is just something ive noticed and am curious about.

    I have the utmost respect for RAH too, but if that's what he's saying then I don't agree with him that a 4K uprez of a Blu-ray will look as good as a 4K/UHD disc of the same title. I won't even get into the audio aspect improvement of Dolby Atmos.

  49. Robert Crawford

    I have the utmost respect for RAH too, but if that's what he's saying then I don't agree with him that a 4K uprez of a Blu-ray will look as good as a 4K/UHD disc of the same title. I won't even get into the audio aspect improvement of Dolby Atmos.

    Robert…

    We’re discussing films NOT finished in 4k.

    To be clear, and presuming that the Blu-ray and 4k disc are derived from the same recent master, you’ll get a slight quality bump in image quality in viewing the 4k vs your player uprez.

    They will not be equal, but can be very close. The Oppo does a superb job of uprezzing.

    But the more obvious upgrade, which for many is the rationale for replacing a quality HD Blu-ray, will be the audio upgrade to Atmos or X.

    I did that recently for the Pitch Perfect films.

  50. Robert Harris

    Robert…

    We’re discussing films NOT finished in 4k.

    To be clear, and presuming that the Blu-ray and 4k disc are derived from the same recent master, you’ll get a slight quality bump in image quality in viewing the 4k vs your player uprez.

    They will not be equal, but can be very close. The Oppo does a superb job of uprezzing.

    But the more obvious upgrade, which for many is the rationale for replacing a quality HD Blu-ray, will be the audio upgrade to Atmos or X.

    I did that recently for the Pitch Perfect films.

    RAH,

    Understood!

    However, I did several comparisons to films not finished in 4K, but have received a 4K/UHD release. I compared that 4K disc to the previously released BD of the same title. With my Oppo 203 and untrained eyes, I can see significant differences on my LG OLED. I've done such comparisons on countless titles because of my former logic of not buying 4K/UHD releases in which the film wasn't finished in 4K. That was my mantra when I first got into the 4K format. However, those comparison differences changed my thought pattern on using that logic to determine my purchasing strategy.

  51. Lord Dalek

    I'm pretty confident in saying a 4k UHD of Renoir's Rules of the Game will look no better than the Criterion blu-ray.

    I don't agree, perhaps on some titles because of other factors, but not on most of them.

  52. Robert Crawford

    RAH,

    Understood!

    However, I did several comparisons to films not finished in 4K, but have received a 4K/UHD release. I compared that 4K disc to the previously released BD of the same title. With my Oppo 203 and untrained eyes, I can see significant differences on my LG OLED. I've done such comparisons on countless titles because of my former logic of not buying 4K/UHD releases in which the film wasn't finished in 4K. That was my mantra when I first got into the 4K format. However, those comparison differences changed my thought pattern on using that logic to determine my purchasing strategy.

    Important that HD Blu and 4k are derived from same master.

    One of the more confusing ethics, at least to me, is that when a new image harvest is performed for a new 4k release, the BD that rides along, is not from that new master, but rather a re-packaging of the previous Blu.

  53. Robert Harris

    Important that HD Blu and 4k are derived from same master.

    One of the more confusing ethics, at least to me, is that when a new image harvest is performed for a new 4k release, the BD that rides along, is not from that new master, but rather a re-packaging of the previous Blu.

    Now, we're changing the dynamics of the situation. As my comparisons were the previous BD of the same title with the most recent 4K release. If the BD that came with 4K disc is derived from the same master as the 4K disc then we're talking about something different then what I was arguing. If for instance Criterion which has been releasing some titles derived from new 4K masters, released it on Blu-ray and 4K disc separately, both derived from that same new master then those differences I previously noticed would be a lot harder to detect on my Oppo 203/LD OLED set up.

  54. Robert Crawford

    Now, we're changing the dynamics of the situation. As my comparisons were the previous BD of the same title with the most recent 4K release. If the BD that came with 4K disc is derived from the same master as the 4K disc then we're talking about something different then what I was arguing. If for instance Criterion which has been releasing some titles derived from new 4K masters, released it on Blu-ray and 4K disc separately, both derived from that same new master then those differences I previously noticed would be a lot harder to detect on my Oppo 203/LD OLED set up. Perhaps, that's one of the reasons why Criterion hasn't released any 4K/UHD releases. I don't know so I'm just speculating there.

    Sorry if I didn't make that clear.

  55. Ok, I think the light bulb is starting to go off now.

    So a lot of the films I mentioned before, late 80s or 90s, shot on 35mm have received 4k scans off the OCN, thus the image we are seeing has captured 4k worth of information and looks so much better.

    But a film finished in, say, 2k and has a blu and 4k blu from the same master, the difference will be miniscule when the blu is uprezzed.

    And thusly, a 4k blu from an hd master is meaningless.

    And to get back on topic, the Godfather was filmed in such a way that a 4k scan would render pointless the artistic achievement of Mr. Willis.

    Took me awhile, but I think I learned something. Thank you.

  56. sleroi

    Ok, I think the light bulb is starting to go off now.

    So a lot of the films I mentioned before, late 80s or 90s, shot on 35mm have received 4k scans off the OCN, thus the image we are seeing has captured 4k worth of information and looks so much better.

    But a film finished in, say, 2k and has a blu and 4k blu from the same master, the difference will be miniscule when the blu is uprezzed.

    And thusly, a 4k blu from an hd master is meaningless.

    And to get back on topic, the Godfather was filmed in such a way that a 4k scan would render pointless the artistic achievement of Mr. Willis.

    Took me awhile, but I think I learned something. Thank you.

    Totally depends upon the film.

    The Godfather(s) in 4k are magnificent. Just no HDR. The films have far more than 2k info, and projected in 4k are perfection.

  57. sleroi

    Ok, I think the light bulb is starting to go off now.

    So a lot of the films I mentioned before, late 80s or 90s, shot on 35mm have received 4k scans off the OCN, thus the image we are seeing has captured 4k worth of information and looks so much better.

    But a film finished in, say, 2k and has a blu and 4k blu from the same master, the difference will be miniscule when the blu is uprezzed.

    And thusly, a 4k blu from an hd master is meaningless.

    And to get back on topic, the Godfather was filmed in such a way that a 4k scan would render pointless the artistic achievement of Mr. Willis.

    Took me awhile, but I think I learned something. Thank you.

    Totally depends upon the film.

    The Godfather(s) in 4k are magnificent. Just no HDR. The films have far more than 2k info, and projected in 4k are perfection.

  58. sleroi

    Since the Godfather(s) were shot on film, when you say "projected in 4k" are you talking about digital projection from a 4k digitally restored master or actual film projection?

    4k projection is superior to a 35mm print.

  59. Robert Crawford

    I don't agree, perhaps on some titles because of other factors, but not on most of them.

    I think having your negative blown up in World War II and the best surviving materials being cobbled together from dupes (and in some cases dupes of dupes) counts as "other factors".

  60. It's hard to believe the BDs are nine years old already. I actually watched The Godfather BDs fairly recently on my front projection set-up: JVC RS440 calibrated by one of the top traveling calibrators to a 9 foot wide Stewart ST100 scope screen. So, I'm watching these at around 95" on my CIH set-up sitting about 9.5 feet back. In four words: they still look gorgeous. The color, contrast, blacks, shadows, and overall 'look'. I really think any complaints around these matters stems around lack of proper calibration and/or lack of understanding the filmmaker's wishes. Having a poor gamma, contrast not set right, etc. could certainly make the delicacies of these films lost on such a display or projector.

    With I and II being on my very top favorite movie list, I would love to see these on UHD BD even at SDR + rec 709.

  61. Lord Dalek

    I think having your negative blown up in World War II and the best surviving materials being cobbled together from dupes (and in some cases dupes of dupes) counts as "other factors".

    I'm sorry for the quoting your post about Rules of the Game, as I was thinking in general terms regarding classic films getting 4K/UHD releases. I shouldn't have quoted your post.

  62. Again, just because you use the HDR format (the PQ EOTF) doesn't mean you have to grade for the full range offered by HDR. If a studio released this, or any other film on UHD in SDR (2.4 gamma EOTF), it would be worse for it due to higher potential for banding.

    Same could be said for REC709 primaries; given that film has a larger gamut than 709, there is no reason to not use P3.

  63. Sam Posten

    You guys still arguing about this? 🙂

    Yeah and I don't know why either. Hard to make a convincing argument about increasing the color gamut (no matter how technobabble gets copy pasted without any practical context) when your film was intentionally stylized with a very limited color pallet.

  64. Ken Koc

    I remember well the conversations I had with Gordon Willis on set during shooting GODFATHER II…..about shadows and light.

    Then you understand how specific optics, filters, processing and precise color timing play a role in which HDR plays no part.

  65. When Godfather gets released on 4k disc will it have the original Paramount logo? I know Paramount is no longer owned by Gulf & Western and is a corporate decision but just wondering since I do have the older vhs & lasers of the film. I think in another post Robert did mention about there never was an head logo, only at the end and Mr. Coppola approved the addition of a beginning logo.

  66. atcolomb

    When Godfather gets released on 4k disc will it have the original Paramount logo? I know Paramount is no longer owned by Gulf & Western and is a corporate decision but just wondering since I do have the older vhs & lasers of the film. I think in another post Robert did mention about there never was an head logo, only at the end and Mr. Coppola approved the addition of a beginning logo.

    This is true. The oldest VHS copies of The Godfather and Godfather Part II start in complete darkness with the Paramount logos only showing up at the very end (for whatever reason Paramount spliced the 1968 logo back in on the 1990 VHS of Part I). Although funnily enough the original logo was preserved on the first DVD of Godfather Part II.

  67. Robert Harris

    Then you understand how specific optics, filters, processing and precise color timing play a role in which HDR plays no part.

    Exactly! It was great to watch the rushes of the film with cast members but most importantly overhearing Coppola and Willis discussing them.

  68. Robert Harris

    Important that HD Blu and 4k are derived from same master.

    One of the more confusing ethics, at least to me, is that when a new image harvest is performed for a new 4k release, the BD that rides along, is not from that new master, but rather a re-packaging of the previous Blu.

    One of the most frustrating things. Don't have a 4K player yet, but do have a 4K television, it would be nice if they included the 4K master for the blu ray instead of keeping the old blu. For Grease, Paramount released the 4K master on HD Blu Ray as well ass UHD 4K, because they issued a separate blu ray collectors edition. Would love a new 4K blu of Die Hard to hold me over until I get the 4K player.

  69. Brian Husar

    One of the most frustrating things. Don't have a 4K player yet, but do have a 4K television, it would be nice if they included the 4K master for the blu ray instead of keeping the old blu. For Grease, Paramount released the 4K master on HD Blu Ray as well ass UHD 4K, because they issued a separate blu ray collectors edition. Would love a new 4K blu of Die Hard to hold me over until I get the 4K player.

    Why don’t you have a player yet?

    They aren’t expensive. Probably get one for around $150

  70. TonyD

    Why don’t you have a player yet?

    They aren’t expensive. Probably get one for around $150

    I know and I do plan on getting one this year. The main reason is we have a Sony Blu Ray Disc/Home Theatre System BDV-E3100. It has the player and the 5.1 surround speakers in one box. The player acts as the receiver, and the speakers get plugged into the back of the blu ray player. Unless I can hook the UHD 4k Player up to the Sony Blu Ray player via a digital or a coaxial cable to use those speakers, I would have to get a a separate surround sound system, and that's where it would get costly. The players are def affordable, it's the sound system.

  71. Brian Husar

    I know and I do plan on getting one this year. The main reason is we have a Sony Blu Ray Disc/Home Theatre System BDV-E3100. It has the player and the 5.1 surround speakers in one box. The player acts as the receiver, and the speakers get plugged into the back of the blu ray player. Unless I can hook the UHD 4k Player up to the Sony Blu Ray player via a digital or a coaxial cable to use those speakers, I would have to get a a separate surround sound system, and that's where it would get costly. The players are def affordable, it's the sound system.

    An exemplar of why anyone who really cares about decent A/V should avoid HTIB systems like the plague. I hope you get the system you desire and doubtless deserve soon, Brian.

  72. Brian Husar

    I know and I do plan on getting one this year. The main reason is we have a Sony Blu Ray Disc/Home Theatre System BDV-E3100. It has the player and the 5.1 surround speakers in one box. The player acts as the receiver, and the speakers get plugged into the back of the blu ray player. Unless I can hook the UHD 4k Player up to the Sony Blu Ray player via a digital or a coaxial cable to use those speakers, I would have to get a a separate surround sound system, and that's where it would get costly. The players are def affordable, it's the sound system.

    If your current system has any digital inputs (optical or coaxial) you should be able to connect a UHD player to it. Most players have one of those connection type audio outputs.

  73. Scott Merryfield

    If your current system has any digital inputs (optical or coaxial) you should be able to connect a UHD player to it. Most players have one of those connection type audio outputs.

    Ooo thanks for that. I will check.

  74. How fortunate that Mr. Willis was still with us and on hand to guide Mr. Harris;
    not only with The Godfather trilogy, but also with "My Fair Lady".
    It blows me away to think that The Prince of Darkness had worked in his earlier years under Harry Stradling.
    A classic passing of the crown.

  75. PMF

    How fortunate that Mr. Willis was still with us and on hand to guide Mr. Harris;
    not only with The Godfather trilogy, but also with "My Fair Lady".
    It blows me away to think that The Prince of Darkness had worked in his earlier years under Harry Stradling.
    A classic passing of the crown.

    Masters sitting at the knee of masters.

    Actually, one of the extremely positive attributes of our Union / Guild system.

    By the time someone is awarded their ASC, they’ve had a bit of real bottle age. I respect them immensely.

Leave a Reply