|
My Gravity Falls Blu Ray is stuck in pre-shipment hell. Anyone have that issue with Shout? I just want to know if it resolves itself or I’ll have to contact them.
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 19:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 10:15 |
|
|
Iron Crowned posted:The Wizard of Oz is the same way, and it must have been mind blowing at the time to walk into a movie, and suddenly it's in color. I've told this story before, but one of my parents' first dates was to go see The Wizard of Oz. They'd both seen it before, but my mom had only ever seen it on her family's lovely 1950s TV, so she thought the whole thing was in black & white. My dad said that when Dorothy opened the door after the tornado my mom gasped so loud that people were turning around to see where the noise was coming from.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2018 23:31
|
|
|
Rastor posted:I mean you can't bump the resolution above the grain of the film itself so it's not like you can make it so sharp that it never would have looked like that in any theater. 35mm release prints were typically less sharp than 1080p, actually. It *is* a problem with Blu-Ray already, even more so with 4K home setups.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2018 03:03
|
|
|
trdn89 posted:I've told this story before, but one of my parents' first dates was to go see The Wizard of Oz. They'd both seen it before, but my mom had only ever seen it on her family's lovely 1950s TV, so she thought the whole thing was in black & white. My dad said that when Dorothy opened the door after the tornado my mom gasped so loud that people were turning around to see where the noise was coming from. That’s adorable.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2018 04:41
|
|
|
Kino Lorber just confirmed today they've licensed 100 films from Universal made between 1932 and 2009 for Blu-ray.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2018 05:59
|
|
|
Egbert Souse posted:I doubt even original prints were high-res enough to be close to 4K. Huh? It's 35mm like any number of UHD releases.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2018 09:06
|
|
|
Free international shipping from Vinegar Syndrome today in celebration of Friday the 13th.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2018 12:51
|
|
|
Also, since I never use the digital codes, I have one for Get Out I'll put up sometime this weekend when I have a minute
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2018 12:58
|
|
|
Five Cent Deposit posted:35mm release prints were typically less sharp than 1080p, actually. It *is* a problem with Blu-Ray already, even more so with 4K home setups. Well, there's a difference between the release print and the negative. 35 mm has about 2k-4k of resolution. Release prints generally were copies of copies, and may have been run a few times, and so you're not going to get a great picture from them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2018 17:32
|
|
|
There's other factors based on how that negative was shot too. A neg that was shot on a higher ISO film will have more noise inherently, same with just plain ole bad underexposure or overexposure if they used a neg like reversal film with a much lower latitude. Not to mention the lenses they used would have an effect on the resolution of the image which can then even be more influenced by how that lens was used (some lens fall apart and diffuse more wide open than stopped down to the ideal aperture but it could be a chosen look)..It could also happen if they did something in the development process like pushing or pulling the exposure after the fact...Ironically I think older films from certain decades really benefit the most from a good UHD or HD scan...the speed of films back then were so much slower so you have a much cleaner neg if it was archived properly...and the good thing with film is it is inherently an archival analog format that is known to be able to last vs all these digital things we have. e: I think when we eventually hit 8k displays and we get 70mm scans at that res, we'll be at the highest peak of quality for anyone that collects films. Something like the sound of music already had a 8k scan done off that 70mm neg a long time ago and it's insane what you can resolve in that thing. I think it's showing this year in certain markets in 4k now. I remember seeing an early 4k projection from that scan a long long time ago and you could make out the drat fibers of her costume when she's singing on that mountain top. zer0spunk fucked around with this message at 18:31 on Jul 13, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2018 18:26
|
|
|
Arrow are doing a fantastic release for Candyman in the UK later this year. I hope somebody does the same thing for the US soon. That movie deserves a proper Blu-Ray release.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2018 21:52
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:Well, there's a difference between the release print and the negative. 35 mm has about 2k-4k of resolution. Release prints generally were copies of copies, and may have been run a few times, and so you're not going to get a great picture from them. I know the difference. I work in feature post production on stuff you’ve seen. I came into the industry before the transition from film to digital acquisition and before high definition home media formats. I’ve worked with, and for, film labs, DI facilities, VFX facilities, restoration facilities, and so on. My broader point, which I didn’t explicitly spell out, is that the intended final aesthetic of every film shot and finished in the pre-digital era (so, like 95% of everything you’ve ever seen, assuming typical CineD viewing tastes and habits) took into account the generational loss in sharpness that was inherent to the process. Stuff that was made pre-2K digital exhibition was not meant to be seen in 2K digital, with its incredible sharpness. It’s not what they were “shooting for”, figuratively and literally. Extra care must be taken when transitioning older material to newer formats, lest “flaws” become apparent which were never actually flaws in the first place. A poster above mentions how TV shows which rendered their final visual effects in standard definition have this problem. I am saying that the problem is not limited to standard definition broadcast programming. Feature films pre 2000s were somewhere in between standard definition and high definition, so they too fall under the wide umbrella of material which, when presented in 1080p or higher resolution, is permanently *altered* from its original form. Whether one approves of that alteration is a matter of taste, and some might say principle as well. What’s on the negative is not what you are meant to see, and there is a major distinction I am trying to make between the technology of acquisition and the technique of exhibition. The cut negative isn’t the movie. The prints (film or digital) are the movie. In order to try to better illustrate what I’m saying, I’ll try an analogy. Raw studio recordings of Taylor Swift’s vocals are sufficiently high fidelity enough to hear her take breaths in between words, to miss notes, to warble, smack her lips, rattle the phlegm in her throat, and so on. All of those things are smoothed out and not present in the ubiquitous .mp3 and .m4a files which millions have downloaded. If one were to go back to the higher fidelity sessions and remix, remaster, re-release for an entirely new listening experience... one could easily end up releasing a final product in which listeners could suddenly hear all sorts of imperfections they’d never noticed. Some self anointed purists might applaud such a release. Other fans might be dismayed. 35mm prints are the .mp3s in this analogy. UHD discs are the... I dunno what we’re calling the hypothetical new music format. But you’ll get my meaning, I hope. Release prints represent a great, expensive, time consuming effort to smooth out imperfection. A case in point you might not be aware of is that early CG work relied heavily on the final printing process to marry the CG objects into the plates, and any high resolution scan of an untimed VFX internegative or specially timed interpositive element may really harm the perceptual quality of the final shot. I believe there is a whole generation of films which had more convincing CG finals in their theatrical release prints than on home media. I’m thinking of films like King Kong and FOTR and that era where exhibition was still 95% film but the prints were made from a digital intermediate. The Blu-rays are made from the DI, and as such have one less generation of matching grain to help “bake” the CG into the plates. An entirely new technological workflow that throws all that work away and starts from scratch is not more “faithful” to the original filmmaker’s vision. It may be an *opportunity* to revisit and improve the final product - but it isn’t intrinsically an improvement simply by virtue of being perceptually sharper.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2018 03:46
|
|
|
Taylor Swift sounds like trash regardless of the audio format.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2018 04:02
|
|
|
CPL593H posted:Taylor Swift sounds like trash regardless of the audio format. Well, yeah.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2018 06:42
|
|
|
I like that Katy Perry
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2018 13:26
|
|
|
TheScott2K posted:I like that Katy Perry  although her Miley Cyrus look sucks.I loved her Superbowl performance especially because it pissed off all the olds.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2018 13:33
|
|
|
Where the Wild Things Are: feedmyleg fucked around with this message at 15:19 on Jul 14, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2018 15:12
|
|
|
feedmyleg posted:Where the Wild Things Are: NHTEWXRAEKYP Took. Super curious what my kids will think of this. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2018 15:15
|
|
|
I take something like the twillight zone on blu ray as a high point of why films deserve good scans if the negs exist. Those scans/blu rays look gorgeous. That show was meant for tube televisions, but the detail that exists in the recorded image is there. If there's a proper source to scan even if the neg isn't the greatest it'll still benefit over whatever weak rear end telecine for home video was done originally for a majority of these films. What will really suffer, and we've already seen it, are films captured and mastered @ 2k (esp vfx heavy things). While RED had 4k from the outset in 2009 it was still rare that the whole pipeline would be 4k considering 4k projection was almost nonexistent (and most digital projection now is still 2k). Arri getting into the game with the alexa line has also tended to be the goto camera for most cinematography and aside from the alexa 65 @ 6k (of which there's a dozen or so films that used it in the last 4 years..a tiny tiny slice of production overall) they STILL haven't gotten into 4k capture...They've got the Alexa LF coming out which will actually do true 4k, but everything since has just been 2.8k or an upscaled version of that. All that said I think 95% of people don't give a poo poo about upscales and won't even notice enough to care. And that's coming from someone who's been a working gaffer & cinematographer in NYC for the last 14 years, starting in film and being on the frontline of the transition to digital.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2018 15:21
|
|
|
Five Cent Deposit posted:I know the difference. I work in feature post production on stuff you’ve seen. I came into the industry before the transition from film to digital acquisition and before high definition home media formats. I’ve worked with, and for, film labs, DI facilities, VFX facilities, restoration facilities, and so on. Thank you for this. Anyone have links to any good articles / examples of films with technical flaws exposed because the home video version being too revealing? I recall reading when Superman 3 was released to DVD, an area of the sky that was supposed to be "bleached" in the theatrical run wasn't on the DVD transfer, revealing the wires holding Christopher Reeve during some flying sequences.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2018 15:31
|
|
|
roffels posted:Thank you for this. Anyone have links to any good articles / examples of films with technical flaws exposed because the home video version being too revealing? I recall reading when Superman 3 was released to DVD, an area of the sky that was supposed to be "bleached" in the theatrical run wasn't on the DVD transfer, revealing the wires holding Christopher Reeve during some flying sequences. The Wire is a quick one. They filmed on 35mm 4:3 but protected 16:9. The blu ended up being an open matte 16:9 release in 1080p where it had only aired in SD before so the makeup effects on the junkies (bubbles teeth especially) look pretty bad in higher resolution having been made with the idea that SD would help sell it at the time. Here's a great post by david simon about the dilemma as a creator inherent in changing your "vision" in service of technology that you'd prolly dig. There's some pretty bad examples of this in TV..I don't watch it, but I've heard buffy the vampire slayer the show had an open matte release and you see puppeteers and poo poo where the 4:3 aspect would have cropped it out. Not to mention most of these shows that shot on a widescreen format framed for 4:3 even if they protected the edges, so you'd get this weird thing where all the action in a widescreen frame would happen dead rear end center in every shot. e: the x files HD release is a good example of that framing thing..most of it works but a lot of it was framed with 4:3 in mind and you can tell easily in the 16:9 versions until they actually switched to that aspect in later seasons and it doesn't feel "off" in subtle way like the aforementioned earlier seasons zer0spunk fucked around with this message at 15:52 on Jul 14, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2018 15:40
|
|
|
zer0spunk posted:The Wire is a quick one. They filmed on 35mm 4:3 but protected 16:9. The blu ended up being an open matte 16:9 release in 1080p where it had only aired in SD before so the makeup effects on the junkies (bubbles teeth especially) look pretty bad in higher resolution having been made with the idea that SD would help sell it at the time. A while ago this subject came up and someone posted this screen cap from an episode of Malcolm in the Middle where the open matte revealed a stand-in that was previously unseen. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2018 15:57
|
|
|
I personally love open matte stuff like that. It's like this surreal look into production that you shouldn't be seeing but someone decided "gently caress it" much later down the road. It's the yin to 4:3 content being top and bottom cropped to create a 16:9 frame's yang, aka eyeball cancer. The best open matte is when another lead is in the safety area feeding lines or something and just bein' a real ham thinking they'll never be in the frame.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2018 16:04
|
|
|
zer0spunk posted:I personally love open matte stuff like that. It's like this surreal look into production that you shouldn't be seeing but someone decided "gently caress it" much later down the road. It's the yin to 4:3 content being top and bottom cropped to create a 16:9 frame's yang, aka eyeball cancer. I kind of hate it and now we're just going the other direction from "WIDESCREEN CUTS OFF HALF THE PICTURE". Basically everything has to be poo poo because a bunch of morons can't stop yelling "ME WANT THING TO FILL SCREEN". Granted open matte doesn't always reveal poo poo like this and I can more or less ignore it but it's the spirit of the whole thing that bothers me.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2018 16:11
|
|
|
There's a pretty big difference between putting out a better presentation of something shot on film that was broadcast in SD and taking movies that were shot on 35mm, put through a 2kish DI, and released as "4k." There's a lot more value in terms of resolution to the former than the latter.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2018 16:13
|
|
|
It's also such a broad term now..it used be a very specific thing where you'd have a soft matte in projection that would "letter box" the full film frame but now it's just really anything that's extended the OAR. It's fascinating.TheScott2K posted:There's a pretty big difference between putting out a better presentation of something shot on film that was broadcast in SD and taking movies that were shot on 35mm, put through a 2kish DI, and released as "4k." There's a lot more value in terms of resolution to the former than the latter. But the beauty is the source for both is the same- film. The only limit to presenting it in "true" 4k is the negative itself and all those factors we talked about that effect its resolution (density really since it's analog). That same mediocre upscale from a "2k" di could be replaced with a much better 4k scan of the actual neg assuming it's not the type of thing where a ton of finishing was done vfx wise. Timing can easily be reproduced in a grade after scanning the neg...Things that only release prints exist for will obviously be a bigger issue. I feel bad for poo poo on varicams/DV like session 9. Those films will forever look like rear end going forward. I'm sure all the dogme95 stuff is in this camp. zer0spunk fucked around with this message at 16:30 on Jul 14, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2018 16:19
|
|
|
TheScott2K posted:There's a pretty big difference between putting out a better presentation of something shot on film that was broadcast in SD and taking movies that were shot on 35mm, put through a 2kish DI, and released as "4k." There's a lot more value in terms of resolution to the former than the latter. It seems like the industry gets that though, because while we're seeing upscaled versions of new releases like A Quiet Place or Rampage, the majority of the older films that are getting the 4k treatment seem to be native 4k. We've seen recent releases of The Matrix, Blade Runner, Mission Impossible, The Fifth Element, and Men in Black that all look great because they're native 4k. So I just don't see it as a huge issue right now, and for a new release like A Quiet Place I just buy the upscaled 4k version because why not? It's not the same as upgrading a film I already own where I have to figure out if it's "worth it".
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2018 16:33
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:It seems like the industry gets that though, because while we're seeing upscaled versions of new releases like A Quiet Place or Rampage, the majority of the older films that are getting the 4k treatment seem to be native 4k. We've seen recent releases of The Matrix, Blade Runner, Mission Impossible, The Fifth Element, and Men in Black that all look great because they're native 4k. I'd imagine the reason you see a lot of 4k scans of things shot on 35mm, especially iconic things are because they need to exist. A good chunk of films never got a real scan for blu ray release and were just upscaled dvds..or the ones that did would have so much noise reduction and smoothing done to them they'd look like weird vaseline versions. So now it finally starts to make sense to actually try and futureproof and scan at the highest possible resolution (like that 8k scan of sound of music) to have one reference version of a negative for all future releases. That's what excites me the most. I just want to own "reference quality" versions of films I love and be done with it. I'm sure someone will still release a 480p dvd upscaled to a UHD at some point.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2018 16:39
|
|
|
I'm still back here in 1998 wondering when we're getting an anamorphic DVD of True Lies
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2018 17:04
|
|
|
I remember hunting down the German HD versions of The X Files, before they got an official release. I believe someone synced them to the English audio DVDs in the meantime, and it was like watching a whole new show. Any downside to the open matte and dodgy effects was overruled by just how nice it looked compared to the old DVDs. And yeah, the TBS Seinfeld way of cropping to 16:9 is too much, I'm a bit more used to it now but I'd rather a hi-res scan at the original aspect ratio if it wasn't shot on a film type that can be opened up.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2018 17:20
|
|
|
EL BROMANCE posted:I remember hunting down the German HD versions of The X Files, before they got an official release. I believe someone synced them to the English audio DVDs in the meantime, and it was like watching a whole new show. Any downside to the open matte and dodgy effects was overruled by just how nice it looked compared to the old DVDs.. That and the Twilight Zone got me to actually gasp at how pretty the shows looked. It's strange to see something you grew up with and remember fondly on a crappy CRT in this beefed up version where you can actually start to notice the subtle lighting things they did on set that are just mushy blobs in other mediums. I agree if you were an x files fan at all, it's well worth owning that blu ray set for high bit rate encodes of that show..It's also kind of crazy how much of the negatives from the early seasons they lost since they use an upscaled dvd source cut in for missing footage and it's really jarring. I'd buy a Seinfeld set like that with 4:3 HD scans instead of the tbs crops but it'll never happen. Same for the Simpsons, same for curb (if you look at curb on hbo streaming they quietly swapped all the 4:3 seasons to cropped versions)
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2018 17:47
|
|
|
Techmoan just put up the first part of a video on Hi-Vision laserdisc: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkQEobE2RUk He also did some other videos on obsolete formats... CD Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6u2j1Q8uCgQ Video 8: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdObeF9VHiA&t=1444s VHD: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCWLaAwr3sM D-VHS: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jiu0LPeLQPE CED: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LrPe0rwXOU Laserdisc: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOrn2hBsYKE
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2018 18:47
|
|
|
zer0spunk posted:Same for the Simpsons Yeah, those Simpsons remasters are gross. But sadly, I think I'm getting used to them too. Bleh. Luckily, most of the time I look at whats on FXX, it's an episode from s25 or something anyway so I don't have to worry about actually watching it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2018 18:51
|
|
|
Can highly recommend Techmoan if you like a good dry, exhaustive video. Which I really do.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2018 20:26
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:It seems like the industry gets that though, because while we're seeing upscaled versions of new releases like A Quiet Place or Rampage, the majority of the older films that are getting the 4k treatment seem to be native 4k. We've seen recent releases of The Matrix, Blade Runner, Mission Impossible, The Fifth Element, and Men in Black that all look great because they're native 4k. Also, a big selling point, for me at least, is HDR color. The resolution gains don't really mean much to me, but the color... Like, Pacific Rim was gorgeous. Sure, it was a 2k native source (or a little higher, but it was an upscale to 4k), but goddamn the colors were amazing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2018 20:43
|
|
|
I think studios are more serious with UHD because all the issues with Blu-ray. Just like how a ton of early DVDs were right off laserdisc-era transfers, studios were using obsolete transfers originally meant for DVD downsampling for Blu-ray. That's one reason to be pleased with Sony and Warner Bros., who have generally stuck to high quality masters. For that matter, Sony's 4K restorations have all been a joint home video and preservation thing. I was surprised by the liner notes on Indicator's release of The Lady from Shanghai. It noted that after the 4K restoration was completed, Sony created a new 35mm negative and prints. And they did the same for Lawrence of Arabia - they actually made new 70mm prints after outputting a pristine 65mm negative. WB takes it even further by outputting both a restored negative and a raw version minus digital cleanup.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2018 21:16
|
|
|
EL BROMANCE posted:Yeah, those Simpsons remasters are gross. But sadly, I think I'm getting used to them too. Bleh. Luckily, most of the time I look at whats on FXX, it's an episode from s25 or something anyway so I don't have to worry about actually watching it. Pretty soon, 1/3 of all Simpsons episodes will be HD native. Think about that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2018 22:51
|
|
|
Is it wrong that I want to see how long they can continue dragging out The Simpsons?
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2018 22:56
|
|
|
I'll stop watching the Simpsons when something better comes on during its timeslot. Your move, television!
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2018 23:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 10:15 |
|
|
The Simpsons will never end. They'll bring in sound-alikes and it'll be like the post-Henson Muppets. It won't be quite right but it'll be good enough for them to keep doing it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2018 23:05
|
|