Which looks better is a subjective judgement - which has more original grain intact is an objective fact.
Here’s this comparison again, the top being the from 2015 1+ blu-ray, the bottom from the 2021 Get Back trailer. Anyone who thinks the bottom image looks better than the top must be , especially as a video. Detail is (bye bye).
Original grain from what? From a 1970 print? From the blow-up elements? From the camera negative? From a new release print? Grain is a moving target (literally), and don't assume that what you think you see in your head is the ideal representation of what grain should be. Also: don't assume you know more than Peter Jackson's people. They worked for 3 years on this project, and I guarantee you, grain was a topic of discussion.
No different than "hiss" in audio - doesn't matter where it came from, trying to reduce it in post is a compromise. Yes, the noise is reduced but so is the original fine detail. It comes down to which you prefer - I'm a details guy (the random noise can be ignored by the brain).
I've just seen that the trailer is on Disney+ There are still sort of obvious signs of heavy-handed DNR work however I think a layer of grain was put over the top of it which takes the edge off. My sort of general opinion is that some shots now look pretty good while others make me think they should have backed off a bit. A bit like the 4k LOTR box set really though obviously, the LOTR film stock would have been in much better condition than what they were handed for Get Back. I still think this could have done with some more tasteful restraint but I'm still looking forward to its release as It'll probably be quite a good watch.
I'm sorry but if you click on those pix and get a slightly larger image the top is Sooo grainy hardly any detail can be made out...
The grain in film from multiple film generations is exactly the same thing as additional hiss in audio from multiple tape generations.
I don't know how much more clearly @Vidiot can say it - Jackson and his crew have been working with original camera negatives, while what Beatles fans have been used to for years have been at least four additional generations of film worse. He and I may occasionally disagree on some subjects, but this is what he does every working day. I consider him as the most reliable expert on this board, and possibly one of the most reliable experts in the world.
In the still photo, yes, but watch it in action, there’s lots of detail. Here is part of the video that still is drawn from. Watch the full video on your Beatles 1+ bluray to see that Billy Preston scene in question.
But not the clips from the 2015 1+ bluray. I’m not sure how many times we have to keep saying that we’re NOT talking about VHS or bootleg videos. See my post above for far superior video quality than the Peter Jackson trailer. That clip was newly compiled from the original negatives in 2003, restored in 2015 for the bluray. There’s no clearer way to say this. Heck, even if it turned out that Get Back video above (found on the 1+ bluray) was NOT from the original negatives, it’s even more of a shame how this new film has been handled, because the former looks significantly better.
We've seen a glimpse of a relatively tasteful transfer, restoration and mastering back in 2015. Not perfect but I'd be happy with something along those lines (full-frame please!). Are you saying that the 2015 restoration wasn't from the same original elements that Jackson is using but from higher generation copies? The 2015 looks like I'd expect from 16mm with a little cleaning up applied (mostly to dirt and scratches, etc.) - after whatever processing was done, the grain level is acceptable to me. Obviously we are looking at compressed video as consumers but in relative terms, the Get Back trailer is what I would call an extreme restoration.
However, accomplished Jackson and his crew may well be they are not sacrosanct, nor are they about criticism. How much noise reduction to use or not use ultimately is a question of taste, having access to the 16mm negative gives them a leg up when working on this project but what matters most is what they do with the material they are given. Until someone from the project comes out and talks about the restoration and the techniques used all we can really do is make educated guesses as to what was done and I'm not sure "You don't know better than Jackson" is all that constructive in a conversation.
I thank you sir. I think it's possible to have a reasonable difference of opinion but never lose respect for each other. In this case, I'm saying three things: 1) the amount of grain to leave in is a judgement call (that is, a subjective opinion); 2) nobody's ever seen the original negative before (not necessarily even from the 2011 Scorsese Living in the Material World documentary, which was the last time this was released on home video); and 3) it's premature to speculate before the thing is out. Once November 25th happens, we can all watch the 4K streaming on Disney+ and offer an opinion. I gotta say, though, I winced when I saw what happened with Terminator, Terminator 2, and The Abyss in HD & 4K. That's really sucking all the grain out, which is kind of weird. My general thing is to take maybe 40-50% out and leave the rest, and then chase it so it looks even shot to shot, scene to scene. Chances are, if people saw this thing with zero noise reduction, they'd run screaming from the room. 50-year-old 16mm has grain the size of canned hams. Yes, you can draw a comparison there. There's the original grain, there's the grain on top of the grain, and then there's the artifacts and issues that these two cause together, kind of distortion that clashes against each other. Plus stuff gets soft. It's a weird film problem that copies-of-copies are softer and grainier. But it's also known that adding back some grain creates the illusion of sharpness (I think for similar reasons that a little tape hiss kind of adds the illusion of more high frequencies). As I say, it's a subjective call. If you sit in a studio mastering room and look at a calibrated display, believe me, we go back and forth and argue about "how much is too much" when it comes to processing. If there's any doubt, we always back off. An old pal of mine uses the expression "Taste+One," meaning you crank it up a little too high, then come down a little bit. Sometimes even more than a little bit. And I think there's something like 20 different parameters in Neat Video (to name just one of the grain-reduction tools we use).
“Thou shalt Not grow Old “ was fine / great colorized. But ..Get Back is in color anyway, Guess wait for the finished product. Audio - noise, less concerned with that. Usually applies to remastered CDS no noise / brickwalled = ear bleeder. That’s unacceptable on headphones. Won’t be listening on cans while watching this movie. So it’ll be a picture issue ultimately.
Most Beatles fans are never really happy, in fairness. No matter what gets offered up, many will smack it down. I remember when the unreleased songs and Anthologies came out all those years ago, the complaining was biblical. It's carried on since with every release. The circus Love thing nearly ended the world. There's many of us who are fans of other bands, but never get the amount of content that gets offered up to Beatles fans. One can't help but be envious. And yet...
By and large I prefer natural organic looking grain, rather than digital over-smoothing and dnr artefacts. You can’t but back detail you’ve taken out. But will reserve judgement until I’ve seen the final product. Judging by Jackson’s handling of the LOTR “4K” upscales though I have the feeling it’s going to look rather manipulated and over-smoothed. Seems to be his current aesthetic preference.
Everyone wants to have an opinion or a seat at the table. What better way to force your way up to the seat at that table than with a complaint or two. It's fine to prefer one thing or another over yet another. But it gets weird sometimes when a rarity arrives, something really previously unseen and unheard and folks look for something to dislike and lean on that rather than what they find good and interesting (if anything). Some find comfort in negativity as well. The Anthology CD/LP sets took a beating. Yet each of them (especially Vols. 2 & 3) offered up things not previously booted ever, and in really great sound quality. I have all the great Beatles boots, and still, find that series just great. Yet not that much love for them. At least those did sell like hotcakes at the last breakfast.
