Technical 4k-8k video question (Vidiot?)

I've seen the best possible prints, shown on lovingly maintained pairs of projectors by Chicago's best projectionist Jimmy Bond at the private screening room of the Chicago International Film Festival...and have never seen a 35mm print that can compare to a regular 4K Christie or SONY screening at any regular old AMC or Regal. Not to mention that the 100th screening of a digital "print" will look as good as the 1st.

 

Will definitely do so if I get the opportunity!

 

You’ve missed my point entirely. Again, I want to see what the director envisioned. I said as much above. Spielberg did not envision or want me to see film grain in that movie.

Ed

 

I got your point and you truly can't know what Spielberg wanted any more than you can know how white Kubrick wanted the lights to be in 2001 he had the physical limitations the same as Spielberg did.

I am sure we could go around correcting every single color and every single grain fleck but like the quote in Jurassic Park said just because we could doesn't mean we should.

By the way as a side note wasn't Spielberg involved I recall there was some kind of director approval actually.

 

Based on @Chris DeVoe’s comment, it would have been something he’d have to have lived with. He didn’t want excessive film grain on that film - no one would - protest to the contrary be darned.

Ed

 

My point is specifically about older films. For example, I've seen Chinatown in 35mm and DCP, the former was preferable to me.

Again, I will agree with you that digital projection is to be preferred for day to day viewing. I have nothing against digital and have seen enough bad 35mm prints in my time to see the advantages.

 

I gave you an example where excessive film grain was wanted and there are so any examples of these artistic choices.

Chris and Vidiot like digital scrubbings. This is not a put down toward them but me calling it like it is. I cannot disagree more.

That and Vidiot has clained that more grain was sonehow manufactured.

All I can say is that mindset is going down a dark path.

The 4K presentation got good reviews so perhaps you may feel differently after you see it. I think it looks wonderful. To each his own.

And I agree too. I am in no way saying that digital projection is bad, but needs to get better. It obviously has many advantages for preservation.

 

Looking at three other Spielberg science-fiction films - A.I., Minority Report and War of the Worlds - it doesn't look like he's in love with film grain. They all used digital effects, and film grain could have been added to those films if he wished. If he had never made Close Encounters when he did, and he were to make it now, I doubt that it would look as grainy as the old one.

 

I think you coparing new films to old is rather obvious.

I never claimed Spielberg wanted grain but the movies are products of their time. I have only stated that there is no way to know the exact look that Spielberg wanted so it should be preseved faithfully as released. I do think that Spielberg saw the finished product and signed off on it...and that includes home versions.

They shouldn't be sweetened up to please a modern mindset.

The degraining is fake no matter how pleasing to some that it may look.

 

The 4K Blu-ray on Close Encounters has horrific grain. The exec in charge of remastering is adamantly against grain reduction, and this is what you get when you make those decisions. The movie in theaters never, ever looked this grainy.

The trick is not to remove all of it. I think even knocking it back by half helps a bit, and that's usually my tactic when I have control of that decision. And I also try to keep the grain level consistent throughout the whole film, which takes some time and experience to manage.

 

I first saw Close Encounters at the Glenwood in Overland Park Kansas, one of those theaters originally built for Cinerama, with a deeply curved screen, and curved rows of seats. This let you sit in the front row and still be a decent distance from the screen. While visual memory is flawed, I don't remember it ever looking as grainy is it does on my 55".

 

Some of the comments in this thread are what happens when the "analog love affair" goes completely awry. Digital video is not all bad. I don't love revisionist history but if digital correction can be used to make a movie more visually pleasing by leveling out undesirables like film grain as to make more visually pleasing, I'm all for it. The grain in "Close Encounters" is impossible to deal with and my Blu-ray will continue to gather dust until I toss it...and mine isn't even the 4k version. I shudder to think how much worse that'd be.

Ed

 

Naaaa, I work in a 20' x 24' room, and I sit 5 feet away from the 55" screen when I master films for color. The screen completely fills up my field of vision, and to me, that's exactly as it should be.

SMPTE has specific guidelines for how close or how far away to sit based on resolution, but believe me, sitting closer with high-res material is fine. I've never had a situation where I felt the screen was too big. I can recall back in the early 1980s going from a 17" set to a 25" screen (and later 32") and thinking that was monstrous. One thing that helps make modern flat-screens tolerable is they're very thin, and I think that greatly reduces their relative impact on the room.

 

People can also use the "nose test" - close your left eye and sight the tip of your nose on the right edge of the screen. Then open your left eye and close your right. If the tip of your nose is on the left edge of your screen, you're at SMPTE optimum distance.

This is assuming you have an ANSI standard nose.

 

I’m curious why what was exhibited in theaters would differ so much from the home release in regards to film grain? Was there some way back when it came out to somehow mask it for the big screen?

 

Where did I say digital video is ALL bad?

 

There's a big difference in the look when you take a camera negative and make an interpositive, then an IN, then strike a theatrical print from that. The image gets a lot softer and a lot of the inherent noise gets lost as well.

In this case, it's the HDR that expands out the contrast and stretches out the dynamic range in a way that exaggerates the grain that's there. I find it obnoxious as hell... but I have seen other films re-released on UHD HDR Blu-ray that are not nearly as grainy, including E.T. (mastered by Universal).

 

LOL, how do I calibrate my nose?

 

It can be done by any competent plastic surgeon equipped with a scalpel and a slide caliper.

 

Ah, that sounds like it falls under the auspices of ANSI NJ-Rhinoplasty-2.0...

 

If one has followed the releases then they would know that the bluray was director approved.

While it is easy to blame Sony, the truth is that there has been grain on ever single release. While some would claim that the 4K is just so much worse, reputable websites beg to differ. Of course there are websites that start arguments the other way, so there you go. Though the 4K release seems to get a much more favorable review, and I add to that from personal experience (buyer beware of the packed in bluray which is a mess).

Regardless of how one feels about the presentation I have made the argument many times over that the film print is much closer to the original vision then the OCN unless there is a artist around that will given sensible direction in "correcting" for the obvious difference.

It is funny that I was going to say the same thing but edited the comment for fear that it would start another negative debate, but then there it is anway.

Vidiot has stated many times that the print process takes away from detail and it is only the equivalent of "2K" or actually less than that, but yet is this not how one could use their expertise to compare against the final product and work in cooperation as opposed to the "correction by gut" approach?

As I have stated before, the problem is that the lab tech's are making those decisions for the artist (and quite badly in some cases) and instead of a physical save state that preserves the visions, you get yet another look that sadly some viewers applaud because they like the results instead of accuracy to the vision.

Close Encounters had "grain" as far back as the laser disc days and the only thing that I saw different was a sharpness change from the obvious superior transfer. While there are so many that have seen the film for the first time on home media (and it is rather obvious from comments, not saying that this is the case here), it has giving out a false negative so to speak.

E.T. never had the same look for the fact that it was a different studio but more so because of the fact that it was a different director of photography for each film as well.

Alas you have the biggest problem of all, Kodak Eastman 100t 5247 was used on each film so there you have the rub. I myself would rather have the film grain unless there is proof that the film grain was never exhibited. Others want it artificially dialed back at whatever the cost.

Instead of debating and throwing jabs, it is a shame that we can't at least come to a general consensus that it is a screwed up process that is in dire need of seeing some kind of standard. That standard should be how the film print looked, because that was how it was released and loved by millions and most importantly in most cases peer reviewed and approved (even if compromised by studio in some cases).

Here is what I propose. If the original artist isn't involved in congruence with the release print, keep your hands off of it and release grain intact.

One of the biggest reasons I went to see 2001 is that I knew Kubrick's notes were used from way back then and there was no digital restoration. While the print had damage, the experience was still glorious and did not have the "whiter whites" kind of thing going on, because as we all know, it was impossible to develop exactly that way and Kubrick never saw it any different. Physics prohibited it, and that is why it goes back to...

 

So, reading through the thread, there's no need for an 8k TV unless you want a humongous screen? If you're sitting 10 feet back from the TV, and let's a say a 65", 4k with all of the latest upscaling and HDR should work just fine you want to whole image in front of you and don't want to have to look up, down, and side to side to view the whole image?

 

65” no probs. Honestly you could watch 75” at that distance....10 feet.

83” ? I may consider. Guess for all three, price comes into the equation.

 

Yeah, that's what I'm reading now, that it would be a waste for 8k, unless it's a huge TV. Anything in that 4k range + distance is what to consider. Actually, 10Ft is just a guess. I need to measure. It might be as close as 8ft. Right now I have a 55" and honestly it's a pretty good view, but the kids think bigger is better. I'm thinking the best 4k TV that money can buy. I could get that 65" 8k TV; I'm just thinking it may be overkill for such a short distance.

 

That's what I feel with TVs that are bigger than 32¨, of which I have 2 (small house), when the screen is full 16:9 (not with 4:3 or 2:35/1, which looks kinda smallish, but doesn't make me want to buy a bigger set) I sit at 7 feet for TV an movie viewing and 9 feet for concert DVDs (because of distance from the speakers). On bigger TVs, I feel I 'm watching a tennis game from all the side-to side head movement I have to do to get details that are not in the action zone (center) of the picture. I wonder if that's the habit of having owned only CRT 4:3 TV until up to 2 years ago. Well I guess I'm saving money on the purchase of the sets and the energy bill as a side effect anyway.

Plus, owning mostly SD concert DVDs, and in spite of the unparalled upscaling of my Oppo, I guess watching at a closer distance, or owning a bigger set, would make me spot the imperfections more.