This doesn't directly relate to the excessive DNR, but I noticed something interesting in the 60 Minutes segment about the documentary aired last night: It appears that the rooftop footage has been cropped to ~1.5:1 as opposed to the rest of the film being cropped to widescreen, so it looks like we're getting different aspect ratios in this documentary
I agree. I trust Vidiot's judgement on things cinematic, and things visual on this forum. He's the one with the expertise and knowledge from inside on this. Major props to Vidiot, he calls it as he sees it.
I was a bit concerned watching the trailers and seeing how overly processed the video looked so far, but this comparison really confirmed my fears. They've smushed out all the detail to the point where it looks like an amateur AI upscaling job -- faces smeared to look like paintings, new color introduced where it didn't exist, and no traces of the original film. If any Beatles albums were "remastered" to such a sterile and artificial extent there'd be an uproar; seems like a double-standard that people find this treatment of archival footage to be acceptable. For those complaining about the grain in the top shot, remember that it's much less bothersome in motion than in a still frame. Nobody's upset that the Criterion 4K remaster of "A Hard Day's Night" has noticeable film grain, because it's an iconic and beautiful look. I'm just hoping this is an additional layer of processing that's being applied to the trailers/preview footage alone. I'm not sure I can handle six hours of The Beatles in the uncanny valley.
These clips only look good on my iPhone screen. Anything else, like my OLED 4k TV, watching these trailers in Dolby Vision, it's BAD. As far as the hope that the actual film will have less processing applied compared to the trailers: not a chance. This is how they want the film to look. I'm hoping that being immersed in it for 2 hours will help it to not look as bad, i.e. I get used to it. It's sad we have to hope we get used to a crappy image when it never had to be this way in the first place.
Except the statement is wrong. People are comparing a restoration from the OCN to a different restoration from the OCN. Not something "at least four additional generations of film worse".
Yeah, you have a point. Apple doesn't put out everything possible - there's also the DC 1964 show that remains an iTunes exclusive, I believe. You'd think they'd have put that out on disc! Still, I find it really tough that a project like "Get Back" would remain streaming only forever.
You’re totally right; this will for sure get a blu-ray release. I’d love a well-mastered DC 1964 blu-ray! It’s a phenomenal concert and time capsule.
Yeah, the cropping which wouldn't be too bothersome for most of the film would be obvious on the rooftop if their feet were cut off....
People keep complaining about the blue-green tint to the windows, but have you considered that maybe Magic Alex secretly invented special colour-changing glass for the studio?
At 1:39 there are two seconds of Ringo fooling with a Sony video camera, probably a black and white camera. I wonder if that/those videotapes were found and logged.
Amen, sure hope Apple, Jeff Jones would wake up and release a physical media release please....! Your target market is not around forever!
I am perfectly fine with recolour-grading. Maybe video's got a different tint now, but it's still relatively the same. I don't get why lots of people are so angry because of it, blacks weren't crushed down and there was no contrast enhancement.
My old pal, noted documentary maker (and film scanning expert) Jeff Kreines just posted this on Facebook: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Restoration or desecration? This 16mm footage from 1969 has been digitally deracinated to the point that everything looks like plastic. Some people do not subscribe to my belief that “grain is the soul of the emulsion. It’s what separates us from animals.” They think all grain is bad, something to be eliminated at all costs. The result is — for me — hard to watch. All of the fine detail has been mushed-over, to eliminate grain. People’s hair now looks like solid plastic Halloween wigs. I thought my glasses had suddenly stopped working. There was nothing sharp for one’s eyes to focus on. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Welp... I watched the segments on 60 Minutes from Sunday, and I commented publicly to Jeff on Facebook: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jeff, you and I have clashed a little bit in the past on this subject, but ya know... I just finished watching the segment on 60 MINUTES, and I have to say I think they went too far with the NR. And then they tried to enhance what was left. I think they went about 50% too far. Let's see what the 4K version looks like on Disney+ on November 25th (and the 26th and 27th). --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So... now I'm leaning on the side of they used too much NR. I think they should have dialed it back by about half, but only if I'm judging what I just saw on 60 Minutes. I still have no idea what the actual film looks like. I will be tuning in on Disney+ to see the whole 6-hour documentary. Granted, it's Peter Jackson's film (and note that he spent 4 years working on this thing), and he and his crew made that creative choice. But even 35mm film has more grain than this. There is some grain left in -- I still-framed it from 60 Minutes and examined it -- but edge detail is a little smeary to me, particularly on high-contrast images like the guitars. BTW, I love the content, love the editorial approach, and I have to say, there's moments in the footage that I don't think anybody has ever seen before. On the CBS show, the brief walk that Peter Jackson took through the top-secret underground Apple Corps vaults was eye-opening. Imagine the stuff down there... I also liked this brief shot...
I saw the exact same thing. I'm curious how much of the rooftop concert will be in the documentary, or if that's going to be released as a separate project. I honestly don't know. It looks pretty close to full-ap 16mm to me, close to normal 1.33 (ish). If they went all the way to the aperture edge, maybe they could get 1.40 or beyond that, but the risk is seeing scratches and damage and flare and all that stuff. I also still don't have an answer to "will the original 1970 Let It Be film be reissued as well?" We've been talking about that around here for 10-12-15 years now, and there's still no real answer.
Only if they do some newfangled image enhancement,..and as this thread shows, that’s not always a good thing.
I have very similar feelings to Jeff. I said to my partner something to the same effect of their hair looking like wigs; it's bewildering to me that Peter Jackson signed off on the current look of the film. If you want to see how the footage looks without being compressed for the web, watch the trailer in the Disney+ app, which plays in Dolby Vision as noted earlier in the thread. There's a tiny bit of grain but it's looking pretty dismal overall for people like me who are sensitive to this smearing effect.
I just rewatched the trailer on the Disney+ app. And if I’m being completely honest I think the grain there has been added in post. It’s far too small, subtle and rigidly consistent going from shots incredible smeary to pretty sharp and detailed to be natural grain IMHO.
Finally, a post by you in this thread I agree with. Took ya long enough. I share your friend Jeff’s viewpoint.
