Fortunately, I have a new LG C1 77" OLED which has been calibrated for SDR and HDR by one of the most sought after pros in the business, D-Nice. I got the set in August 2021, after being on a three month waiting list, so I don't have near the hours that you have, but it's nice an' warmed up. As for The Godfather 4K releases, I really don't have much to complain about. Anything I would have to say would be extremely nitpicky, as it's just a few odd shots here and there, but the films look great, especially considering that how many sources were used? I read that it was quite a few, so to seamlessly meet these sources, with very few hitches is quite the feat. I just thought, from my consumer point of view, that 50% seems like a ton of scrubbing, when the grain structure exhibited in The Godfather 4K looks very comparable to movies from the same era, and that the grain on the 2008 BDs was roughly the same, as well. (although I've noticed that grain upscaled from 1080p to 4K can sometimes take a texture of its own, that might not be intrinsic to the source.) It's pretty cool that you have an eye for different kinds of grain. All I know is what I find aesthetically pleasing, but I do pay close attention to source information if it's provided by the studio. Yeah, I love film grain. That was point about Get Back. If a cheapo horror flick, shot on 16mm, can get the 4K treatment and look pretty swell, how much more could the 16mm Beatles footage? I would think quite a bit. The grain in Texas Chain Saw Massacre is not that obtrusive. The more light that hits the film, like the sun beaming through clouds, the more that whites bloom, giving a globular effect to the grain, in and around the affected areas. Happily, most of the film is in mid to dark lighting, where it's pretty stable. I'm not saying that Texas Chain Saw looks amazing or anything, but yeah, couldn't Get Back have looked pretty damn good without turning the boys into wax figures? I know it's 16mm and that puts you behind the cue ball right off the bat. On the other hand, if a little studio like Turbine, who put out The Texas Chain Saw Massacre in 4K, where it looks better than it ever has - chroma grain/noise, and all, with very little restorative work - then I would think that the big money wouldn't have to resort to egregious grain-scrubbing to get the job done. Were they afraid of a 1.78:1 aspect ratio, or whatever it was for 16mm? I think they underestimate the consumer by underestimating the consumer.
Let's agree to disagree. I've said this before: if you want to complain, tell Peter Jackson. Park Road Post Production Attn.: Mr. Peter Jackson 141 Park Road PO Box 15132 Miramar, Wellington New Zealand I've worked on tons and tons of 16mm, and the amount of grain in the image is due to a lot of factors, including the nature of the specific emulsion, how it was exposed and processed, how it was scanned, and how far the dynamic range was "stretched" during the final color process. Me, I try not to push it too far, but sometimes it's necessary. Again (for the last time), using common sense and good judgement is necessary in mastering, and you can pull out about half the grain and still leave a lot behind. My goal is usually around 40% or less, if I have control of the NR process, but it goes up and down depending on the nature of the scene. By all accounts, Let It Be was originally shot for TV in 1.33 (Wikipedia claims 1.37), but at some point it was decided to release it as a theatrical film, and I saw it projected in theaters in the summer of 1970 in 1.85, which was pretty standard in those days. In general, movies were only 1.85 (flat) or 2.35 (scope) in those days, though of course older films made prior to about 1955 might be released in 1.37. I've encountered a dozen or so European film shot in 1.66, so that was a thing as well. In fact, I recently encountered a 1973 Swedish film shot in Super 16mm, which looked best to me in 1.66. I was pretty surprised, because I'd never seen a Super 16mm film prior to the late 1980s, when we started seeing it in post here in LA. 1.78 (or 1.75) was an extremely rare aspect ratio, but there are a handful of films shot in that aspect ratio. Famously, Mary Poppins was hard-matted in that format, and there are a few more Disney films like it (Bedknobs & Broomsticks, Pete's Dragon, etc.).
A lot of film restoration people I know are incensed that the Let It Be footage was blown up to 1.78. I think Peter Jackson was thinking about engaging a modern audience in a film that was more than 50 years old, and the reaction of a lot of under-30 (if not under-40) people is, "why am I watching a square picture on my TV? Why isn't it wider?" Mark Cuban did the same thing with HDNet when that satellite channel started in 2001. His rule was "no letterboxing," so all shows and films -- regardless of original aspect ratio -- were blown up to 16x9 (1.78), and that included widescreen 2.39 films.
The "why doesn't this picture fill my screen" folks used to complain about letterboxing. Now TVs are widescreen, so they complain about pillarboxing. Black and white AND pillarboxed? Fuhgetaboutit. Then you have content that is pillarboxed AND letterboxed: windowboxed. That one actually is frustrating to see.
Just for the record, I'm not one of the big voices of dissent. All I did was come in with diplomacy. I'm even softening toward brickwalling music. I'm not in any way for it, but when it comes down to nut cutting, if there's nothing I can do about it, except buy or not buy, then I ask myself what good does it actually do to gripe? But as for film, I have a tremendous learning curve, commensurate to my increased passion. I would imagine, like music, it's a lifetime of learning. That feels great because it provides meaning, which feeds happiness. Don't go to blu-ray.com, though, lest you want to pull your hair out.
Firstly, things drift. Your monitor which was calibrated 10K hours ago has drifted and would need to be calibrated again if you're going to argue precision/accuracy so that odd bit of condescension is vapid at best. Secondly, I don't need to be a chef to know when a meal is good or bad. That is an often repeated empty argument at best that has no roots in actual reality. Moreover, grain is not dependent on whether a screen is calibrated or not to appear. Your argument is merely one that is rooted in subjectivity and your tastes are not worth more nor carry more weight than the OP or mine.
I'd buy the older releases if possible -- the ones mastered without brickwalling. If it's recent music, then I guess you're screwed. There is some craziness there, but I have to say they've generally been complimentary towards my work.
Applying denosing on grainy sources removes detals too. Like how the hell is software supposed to find a difference between skin cells and grain
Just this week I finally watched Get Back. Truly amazing. I was spellbound for the entire eight hours. Loved it. So much fun stuff. They should burn all copies of "Let It Be" -- that dreary, ugly film. Grain removal? I thought the footage LOOKED SPECTACULAR. Clean, bright, ALIVE. "Let It Be" with it's dark GRAINY footage looked like a snuff film. I spied ONE awful grain removal shot of 3-seconds of a close-up of Ringo. Didn't notice anything else that bothered me for the entire film. I watched it on a 17" Mac Retina screen and was blown away by what an improvement was wrought. I'm sure if you have a 79" TV it was more apparently, but most people watch stuff on their phones these days. A laptop is probably just a common. GRAIN SUCKS. People don't want to watch that except before cappuccinos at an art house. "Get Back" looked clear and contemporary. I felt like I was with the living Beatles in a whole new production. They did the right thing cleaning up every minute of this film.
Not for people who want the most detail possible in an image, DNR just sucks fine detail out the more aggressive you get with it. I genuinely think this is the worst case DNR absolutely ruining fine detail I’ve ever seen other than Terminator 2’s 4k Blu-ray.
Yeah, that's because it was absolutely crappy footage that needed a lot of work. It went from looking like bad 16m to almost HD quality. No, grain does not give more detail, grain is missing detail. I'm a photographer and filmmaker with 50 years of experience and there isn't a photographer in the who WANTS GRAIN. Ridiculous. You probably get MORE detail because of digital interpolation after cleaning it up. One lousy shot of Ringo and the people who don't work with film freak out like they just colorized "It's A Wonderful Life." God bless Peter Jackson for bringing the footage back to life. My favorite bits are Lennon being funny as hell "They died so we can wank" killed me.
I’m not saying grain is detail, but removing grain also in turn removes fine detail because no DNR algorithm is perfect, so the stronger the DNR is, the more detail you lose. And it’s not just “one lousy shot of Ringo,” I think almost every shot in this movie looks terrible because of way over done DNR.
Speak for yourself, I'm not going to get all "I've been a photographer/filmmaker for x years" on you because I haven't been alive for 50 years let alone done it for 50 years but that's totally irrelevant to taste, and there are plenty of us out there who WANT GRAIN. I was shooting 35mm for a few years before the pandemic came in and it disrupted my access to the local developer and I just stopped doing it for a while. If you don't think there are people out there who appreciate grain then you are living in a bubble pal. And when I get my 35mm scans into the computer I don't immediately run de-graining in Photoshop on them because it destroys all the detail in the images. Often when I shoot digital I will add grain to the movie to make it look interesting. Whether or not you are finding extra detail in the shot really comes down to the process that they went with. A good temporal denoiser might be able to find extra information from adjoining frames but when you take these processes too far what you tend to end up with is a smeary mess, not an "almost HD quality image".
I hate the way it looks. Way overdone. And I dont care what or how they did it. It looks rubbery. Plastic Soul man..plastic soul.
What exactly were you comparing? The Let It Be film, especially as released on home video, was not indicative of what the original footage looked like. And yes, the detail is literally in the grain. The grain is how the image is captured.
I think documentaries like this are a whole different story, the composition is done on the fly and is never perfect, so it doesn’t bother me at all. Jackson did however make a wise move by presenting the rooftop section in the original aspect ratio, so the wide shots of the band don’t cut off their feet.
It's a 35mm print. The original film Jackson has never been a fan of celluloid. He's always preferred digital. Unfortunately, he's had to work with celluloid for this release. He's not the most experienced person with this medium so maybe he wasn't the most prudent choice. There are far more experienced directors around than Jackson when it comes to celluloid. However, I suspect they wouldn't be interested in this project. Then again, every director has their price
That doesn't change the fact that Jackson is relatively inexperienced using celluloid. Maybe they couldn't get anyone else who was more experienced. I've seen the original film and it looks fine.
No, they scanned from the original 16mm negative. It was all shot on Arriflex 16BL cameras, generally with the standard 12-120 Angenieux zoom lenses (very standard for documentaries in this era). One of the 16mm cameras is visible in the lower left of this shot: Nobody uses 35mm prints for scans these days whenever possible, because the negative almost always has more dynamic range and better color. Even worse, in the case of Let It Be, the 35mm theatrical prints were all blow-ups from the 16mm, so they were several generations away from the original camera negative. Jackson used the actual o-neg for Get Back. Now, you can argue the digital processing of the neg scans was excessive, and I think that's a valid criticism. Jackson's first 13 features (as producer or director or both) were shot on motion picture film, so he's extremely aware of the benefits and limitations of film. Even the Lord of the Rings films were completely shot on 35mm film, albeit with extensive digital effects.
