UHD Titles Worth/Not Worth Upgrading [Archive]

[tenia]

I wasn't sure if there was a method to detect such an issue, which fueled my reasoning around it.
But still, I suppose too many people in the industry are still only doing these checks when something definitely looks weir, and otherwise process under the assumption that if it doesn't seem broke, there's probably nothing to look to fix. I'm not saying it's a good thing, but I know there can be a difference between the best (or even just the good) practices and the reality of a job.

[Finch]

Get Carter (BFI) added

[rrenault]

I was watching the Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie UHD the other day, and I'd agree it belongs in the 'solid' category. I can live with it, but my main quibble is it's a bit too dark in my opinion. On the other hand, Criterion's Le Cercle Rouge UHD I think could qualify for 'reference' status, assuming it's possible to conclude the color grading isn't as problematic as initially believed, but it's not my place to make that determination.

Saying that, should we just put StudioCanal's UHD of Cercle Rouge in the 'Avoid' pile, since the DV layer on the Criterion probably renders talk of watchable DV on the SC disc redundant?

[Finch]

Nah, some people might still buy the SC if it's cheaper and they have a DV capable player.

[M_A]

If Breathless can be in the reference category because it is a big upgrade over the criterion, despite not being reference due to bad compression, then I think Ran and The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie should be reference as well because they are such big upgrades. Ran should be solid upgrade over the 2016 blu though.

Criterion's Le Cercle Rouge compression isn't perfect either and it looks quite bad in many shots such as here, here, and here.

[Finch]

The Witch (Second Sight)

God Told Me To (Blue Underground)

GTMT isn't scoring higher since folks more familiar with the film than I am (only seen it once) are saying the colors are boosted (which admittedly you can fix with your remote). Whether this is a grading issue or incorrect color space issue is for others to say. Outside of the colors, I'm not hearing or seeing other complaints.

Edit: Shifted Breathless to the solid upgrade column. No change to Le Circle Rouge (Criterion)'s status.

[rrenault]

I wonder to what degree the perceived compression issues on Breathless could be due to the source material and elements available, because yes, there are shots here and there that look poorly compressed and/or muddy-looking but the grain is pristine on most of the transfer. It's hard to say.

[M_A]

Here and here definitely do not look like source issues. They look like StudioCanal's trademark of bitrate dropping to 0 randomly.

[rrenault]

True, but those are two of the only shots in the film on that disc that look like that, so there must be a reason besides simply bad compression. Granted, I could be wrong and you right, but on Le Cercle Rouge the bit rate drops with more frequent regularity. It is curious that Breathless only seems to look bad in those two shots.

[rrenault]

I'm very tempted to blind buy Get Carter at some point. Either that or Arrow's Oldboy disc at some point within the next month or so. I'm leaning towards Get Carter, however. I've never actually watched either film.

[jegharfangetmigenmyg]

Criterion's Le Cercle Rouge compression isn't perfect either and it looks quite bad in many shots such as here, here, and here.

I don't know about Breathless, but Criterion's Le cercle rouge uses FEL Dolby Vision, meaning you won't be able to judge from screencaps how the compression looks on that disc. EddieLarkin explained this in the dedicated thread:

Both releases are using FEL Dolby Vision, meaning those caps are not showing how the compression will appear during playback on either release. Both will look better (assuming you're DV capable). My money would be on the Criterion being the best given it has literally double the AVB (and indeed does already look better overall in HDR10, once you consider the dark areas)

Read more here.

[M_A]

Yes, I know about FEL. However, if the HDR10 base layer is not encoded well then users who can not use DV (such as people with a projector) will be seeing the base layer, which is why it is also important that it be encoded well.

[manicsounds]

Belle (All The Anime) (UK) added

Note that this is an ATA/Zavvi exclusive.

I don't think a disc with forced subtitles can be declared as "reference"...

[Finch]

The Killing (Kino)

Eternal Sunshine of The Spotless Mind (Kino)

Since Universal could in theory go back and re-do the digital intermediate filmout material for the composite shots in Eternal Sunshine, this UHD could still be improved upon but whether it'll ever happen is another matter.

Cinematographer Ellen Kuras on shooting the film and the work on the Digital Intermediate in post

[rrenault]

Reviews for the UHD of Michael Mann's Heat are starting to come in. It looks like a solid upgrade at best.

[eerik]

Eternal Sunshine of The Spotless Mind (Kino)

Caps-a-Holic has comparison shots up for this one. Unfortunately it looks like Kino were not able to improve much on the original DI master. Just another example on why to be cautionary with 4K upgrades for titles from 00s and 10s.

[Finch]

Taking HDR>SDR conversion into account, I like the colors on Kino's UHD quite a bit better but yes, not a title I'd purchase at full price. It bears repeating though, who'd be willing to splurge on rebuilding the DI if not Universal? (if UK rights are up for grabs, I can only see Second Sight or Arrow going for it)

[EddieLarkin]

Why rebuild the DI at all? That would entail repeating the entire post production of the film, so you'd inevitably end up with something slightly different, which should be seen as a far bigger issue than putting out a disc that isn't quite as sharp as people would like. The article you linked to upthread makes this clear. Everyone just needs to get used to the idea that the DI is the first (and thus highest quality) finished form of the film. Other than for something like Star Trek: TNG (where the incentive is massively greater, because of its video post production rather than digital post production, though I understand even this project was a massive disappointment for CBS, returns wise) I don't believe a "DI rebuild" has ever been performed. There are some films that were released in 2K DIs and now have genuine 4K DIs, but that's because they also had cut negatives at the time, i.e. the finished film existed both as a DI and a finished neg, so it was simple enough to pull the latter and give it a scan. But no one is going to pull cans upon cans of raw footage, scan them in 4K, re-edit the entire film from scratch (making sure every single take is the one used originally), and then re-perform all of the original digital effects and other post-production aspects. Not gonna happen, nor should it happen.

Whether or not a studio or a boutique should take a 2K DI and slap it on a UHD, that's another question. I think the results we've seen so far make it abundantly clear that it is worth doing (especially for anything shot anamorphic, since there's a big resolution loss when they are put on Blu-ray).

[dwk]

Funnily enough, I was re-listening to Lee Kline's interview on the Deakins podcast and the subject of 2K DI's came up and his opinion was that is how the films are supposed to look, so why rebuild.

[tenia]

I might be wrong, but I think Le pacte des loups' new 4k restoration comes quite close to a DI rebuild (and might actually be one, since Gans talked about having to go back to the film cans and be sure to use the proper bits again), and I'm also quite certain the new restoration is likely to be a much bigger upgrade than what is happening on Eternal Sunshine, for which I wonder exactly what was used and how since the movie was shot, after all, with a 35mm negative. That's my main grip here : this is, in the end, a movie shot on 35mm, choke full of pratical effects rather than digital ones, which had a BD that was awfully electronic-looking, and now a UHD that barely seem to give the movie back any film-like look.

[EddieLarkin]

That's my main grip here : this is, in the end, a movie shot on 35mm, choke full of pratical effects rather than digital ones, which had a BD that was awfully electronic-looking, and now a UHD that barely seem to give the movie back any film-like look.

Shooting on 35mm means little if the entire film was actually then assembled in the digital realm, in a resolution far below what 35mm can offer, and then (again, according to the article above), degrained and sharpened. This film was literally noise reduced and edge enhanced before it ever hit cinema screens, by the filmmakers themselves. A pretty foolish and short sighted decision if you ask me, but it is what it is. Lord of the Rings was no different. You're wanting to give these films a look "back" that they never had in the first place.

[tenia]

Yes, right, I'm visualising only now what it means, and that it looks similar to what happened with Irréversible.

[EddieLarkin]

Right, but there's nothing unusual about what happened with Eternal Sunshine or Irréversible, it's the same for anything that was post produced solely in the digital realm. Drive for instance, which everyone is very pleased with on UHD, is from its original 1080p source. Despite it being shot on film, it doesn't exist on pre-print film in a finished form, and never has.

[Finch]

Heat (Disney)

Edge of Tomorrow (WB)

Flatliners (Arrow) (if compared to all previous releases)
Flatliners (Arrow) (if compared to their own 2022 BD)

[rrenault]

I canceled my Heat preorder when I realized it wouldn't be a reference disc and decided to get BFI's Get Carter release instead. I may pick up Heat on UHD at some point in the fall.