'Superman: The Movie' 4K UHD Blu-ray... it's official.

Discussion in 'Visual Arts' started by The Hermit, Sep 26, 2018.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Vidiot

    Vidiot Now in 4K HDR!

    Location:
    Hollywood, USA
    No, it was done via telecine on a Spirit HD scanner from an IP. Technically, the IP was timed to an extent, but it still has to be corrected for video color space.

    Haven't seen the HDR yet -- too damned busy. But I did watch most of the "Extended TV version" on Blu-ray a few weeks back and thought it was fine. I don't think it was a sharp as the original negative would be, but for what it was (a 1978 movie with a ton of vintage optical effects), it was alright.
     
    The Hermit and PhantomStranger like this.
  2. The Hermit

    The Hermit Wavin' that magick glowstick since 1976 Thread Starter

    That's the trouble with this new 4K UHD remaster; the original camera negative isn't sharp at all thanks to the heavy diffusion/grain that's baked into the original photography... some people have claimed the previous DVD/Blu ray releases have been contrast-boosted... thank goodness they were if that was indeed the case, they looked really, really good, with great contrast and overall detail (considering how it was originally shot)... this new presentation has increased clarity but almost no fine detail in some shots/scenes.

    In this particular film's case, it would appear the interpositives were the superior source if you want an agreeable and pleasing picture, alas...
     
  3. Vidiot

    Vidiot Now in 4K HDR!

    Location:
    Hollywood, USA
    Naaa, that's not my experience. You can match an IP and a negative if you work with it, but the IP is always softer. Contrast is a creative mastering choice, like anything else. One problem is that if you try to force contrast in a shot that doesn't really have much -- like a scene with a lot of smoke or haze -- you'll wind up introducing a lot of grain and noise into the picture. But Geoffrey Unsworth did use a lot of diffusion on Superman, and that was just the style for a lot of films of that period.

    Not too long ago, I did a 1982 remaster and was appalled by how much diffusion they used. I'm all for a soft "filmic" look, but this was like somebody stuck a wool sock over the lens, really stupid. I think sometimes, the creative people involved get all wrapped up in some wacky look and they think it's going to be a bandaid for a crappy story and shoddy performances. That didn't happen with Superman, but I can think of quite a few films and shows (even recently) where that happened.
     
  4. Vidiot

    Vidiot Now in 4K HDR!

    Location:
    Hollywood, USA
    Meanwhile: just fired up the 4K Blu-ray of Superman tonight, and I loved it. It is somewhat grainy, but not as bad as CE3K. I really liked the color, and the added punch of HDR brought out some of the extreme reds quite a bit -- it looked dynamic as hell, really intense. This is what an HDR movie should like like... very black blacks, very white whites, bright, but not over-the-top. And pin-sharp, most likely as sharp as a 40-year-old anamorphic film could possibly be. The sound felt like a remix as well, but I liked what I heard.

    This was on a brand-new Sony X800 I got as a Black Friday special, played on a calibrated LG C8. Great experience overall. If it were up to me, I would've knocked about half the grain out of the whites. In particular, the peak white on the snow & high-tech Krypton buildings had super-grain, but I gritted my teeth and got through it. The rest of the movie felt a little grainy, but tolerable.
     
    IronWaffle and budwhite like this.
  5. jh901

    jh901 Forum Resident

    Location:
    PARRISH FL USA
    Close Encounters is 4K demo material. Sony was involved. Bank on it.

    Further, the notion of "knocking" grain out must be put to rest. Hopefully, independent minded readers of posts suggesting anything of the sort will dismiss outright.
     
    Oatsdad and genesim like this.
  6. Dan C

    Dan C Forum Fotographer

    Location:
    The West
    Two prime examples of movies that shoot holes in the purist pro-grain argument happen to be family films I've recently watched on home video. Don Bluth's animated "Land Before Time" and to a lesser extent "The Muppets Christmas Carol".

    I love film and I love grain, but the grime and grit of the existing "Land Before Time" transfer is basically unwatchable. It also suffers from much of the mis-matching of grain pattern and texture that @Vidiot often writes about.

    The Muppets film is far better, but is still a bit rough and could look better. I'm not saying eliminate grain but it likely could be better controlled, particularly in some of the process shots.

    I do appreciate a transfer team that plays it safe rather than mindlessly slathers on the NR, but I also don't believe that's what Vidiot ever advocates.

    Anyway, I'm really looking forward to seeing this new Superman transfer. It's been many years since I've seen the movie, which was one of my favorite childhood memories when we went way back in the day.

    dan c
     
    Vidiot and budwhite like this.
  7. Matthew

    Matthew Senior Member

    Saw it on the big screen and those Krypton FX scenes are unfortunate - way, way too much grain that is inconsistent with the Jor-El scenes they intercut with.

    So much so it takes you out of the movie.

    Some here taking an “all or nothing” stance are drawing hard conclusions not being discussed. No one has suggested grain management should be grain elimination, there is a big difference.

    Superman would’ve benefitted from some gentle touch ups here and there.

    There was also one scene in Lex’s lair with Superman that seemed to be from a different source, might’ve been our showing but it was a noticeable reduction in quality, in picture and sound.
     
    The Hermit and budwhite like this.
  8. genesim

    genesim Forum Resident

    Location:
    St. Louis
    It never took me out of the movie at all.

    The movie does not need touched up to "fix it".

    I like the grain and it is authentic to the source.
     
  9. Matthew

    Matthew Senior Member

    It would’ve benefitted from a little adjustment on those heavy optical FX scenes, particularly Krypton.

    A missed opportunity.
     
    budwhite likes this.
  10. genesim

    genesim Forum Resident

    Location:
    St. Louis
    I think we all have our opinions on the matter and we can respect each others differences.

    I believe in absolutely hands off and I see zero benefit. The film should be maintained in accuracy and that includes not erasing cables that held up Reeves etc.

    The film has worked fine for 40+ years.

    But you feel differently, cool. I respect that.

    I am just glad that Warner left it alone for my feelings on the matter....now the default to Doby digital....stupid.
     
  11. Matthew

    Matthew Senior Member

    They didn’t leave it alone. Removed wires and colour adjusted suit - but snow-blizzard grain in some shots?

    Where’s the line?
     
    budwhite likes this.
  12. genesim

    genesim Forum Resident

    Location:
    St. Louis
    And as I said they should have left those things alone BUT as I also said, I am glad they at least left the grain alone.

    Grain gives detail from shot to shot that the human eye resolves. Color correction and digital erasing while just wrong...could be argued as adhering to a director's vision.

    Grain is detail of the silver nitrate particles adhering to a physical surface and is part of the picture. Three wrongs don't make a right. Me saying I am happy about one fake change not happening does not equate to approval of others.

    Grain removal is assuming all details are uniform...they are not...but the red outfit and cables...actually they are more consistent for obvious reasons.
     
    Last edited: Nov 27, 2018
  13. jh901

    jh901 Forum Resident

    Location:
    PARRISH FL USA
    All that said, STM is not a good looking film. There is no fixing it. We will see how bad panty hose over a lens turns out. In greater detail than ever. Yuck!
     
  14. genesim

    genesim Forum Resident

    Location:
    St. Louis
    There are some things that I think benefit the surreal look. If tlyou didn't have the weird distorted look in the flying scene so many others wouldn't be as convincing.

    It has such a charm to me exactly as it looked.
     
  15. Matthew

    Matthew Senior Member

    On the big movie screen this weekend there was little evident additional detail in those opening Krypton shots, just much more noise. Too much noise. The grain pattern of the non-optical fx scenes was quite acceptable and what one would expect. Very filmic.

    I doubt the director’s vision included such significantly varying grain patterns throughout the movie, he simply had no choice at the time.
     
    budwhite likes this.
  16. genesim

    genesim Forum Resident

    Location:
    St. Louis
    And what you or I or a technician thinks is immaterial. Unless the director approves changes then it shoud be left alone.

    Varying shots is the nature of the process much like the fact for example that absolute whites didn't really exist. Even if the director wanted it at the time...if it wasn't processed then it shoud stay exactly as it is. No computer fudging is proper IMHO.

    Does it happen and I put up with it because I have choice.. sure. .but it usn't the truth.

    Again this all comes back to preference of some fans vs the truth. I choose the truth every single time.
     
  17. Rachael Bee

    Rachael Bee Miembra muy loca

    I watched it last night. I was OK with the Krypton scenes being a bit grainy. The detail was intact.
     
  18. Matthew

    Matthew Senior Member

    Much like the TV version then, which Richard Donner detests. We should throw it out?

    Without computers we'd have nothing to discuss right now, we'd still be watching VHS.

    Remember, they tried to colour correct the suits as best they could back at the time, Roy Field confirms this in interviews for the 2000 DVD. So director's intent was for consistent colours on the suit.

    Whose "truth?"

    Richard Donner's "truth" is reportedly the Special Edition from 2000, additional scenes, colour correction, wire removal and consistent grain et all.
     
    budwhite likes this.
  19. The Hermit

    The Hermit Wavin' that magick glowstick since 1976 Thread Starter

    The sequence in Lex Luthor's lair between Superman uncovering the Kryptonite and Lex dumping him in the pool was sourced from an IP that was spliced into the original camera negative because that part of the original 35mm negative had become damaged at some point and someone (who knows who?) spliced in the relative interpositive section as replacement.

    That's what happens when the film's owners - in this case the notorious Salkind family - don't pay the bills for storage of the negative and it gets shipped from one facility to another for a couple of decades until WB finally secured rights to it and gave it a proper restoration back in 1999-2000 for the 'Special Edition' DVD release (which, incidentally, still looks a heckuva lot better than the recent 4K UHD release, in my humble opinion) .... but by then, the damage had already been done, and Michael Thau, who produced said 'Special Edition' as well as the later so-called 'Richard Donner Cut' of Superman II, said they couldn't locate the relevant original damaged negative section in question to even attempt to restore it, alas...
     
    budwhite, genesim and Matthew like this.
  20. Rachael Bee

    Rachael Bee Miembra muy loca

    Maybe the grain was managed some....? I saw the film many times in the cinema. It was grainy then.
     
  21. Matthew

    Matthew Senior Member

    There's definitely a layer of grain throughout the film, which is normal.

    The new 4K version from the camera negative exaggerates the issue on certain optical fx shots but on the whole is okay for most of the film.

    Like mentioned earlier, a little grain management is not the same as grain elimination. No one wants Soap-opera-Man!
     
    The Hermit and budwhite like this.
  22. genesim

    genesim Forum Resident

    Location:
    St. Louis
    Where did I say or imply that no other version should exist?

    If the original exists in theatrical presentation...warts and all....you can have the entire film bathed in DNR as an addition.

    I think that this is being taken to an extreme just because I disagreed with the attitude that films need to be "fixed".

    The truth is original presentation as best as possible. The guesses on what should be right are exactly that...guesses.

    Consistent grain is nice but not at the expense of detail.

    As for director intent...again there is a difference between a special edition and the director sitting in on a restoration that is based in theatrical release.

    There are obviously limits to my example and arguing extremes doesn't change my reasonable stance.

    I say we just agree to disagree.

    Here is the problem I have. The grain management with some technicians is not scientific.

    An IP is a good guide as to how a film should look and the dupe dials down the grain.

    While I think that people stretch the so called problems with grain...the color timing is a big issue and the horrendous just turning knobs approach is just not cutting it.

    Using the IP is a great guideline and matching that could be very helpful...and if one is not available, make it based on directors release notes.

    Nolan's blurays were made from IP's and they look wonderful.
     
    Last edited: Nov 27, 2018
  23. Matthew

    Matthew Senior Member

    Quote: "Unless the director approves changes then it shoud be left alone."

    Donner did not approve the TV version, in-fact he hates it. He did approve the Director's Cut, and all that came with that. Reportedly it's his preferred version of the film. If we're holding to the rule of "what the director wants" we should respect that, no? So no TV version.

    The "truth" would seem to be that Richard Donner was perfectly happy with a little image clean-up to give a more consistent presentation then, so would've been perfectly happy with a little grain clean-up with the 4K also.

    Was he even consulted this time? From what I can tell, no.
     
  24. Matthew

    Matthew Senior Member

    Sounds like you've sat in on some sessions, can you expand on what you observed?
     
  25. genesim

    genesim Forum Resident

    Location:
    St. Louis
    IT in my quote refers to the defacto thetrical presentation.

    Unless the director approves the THEATRICAL version then any digital changes like grain management etc should not be done at all outside of a scientific IP source

    He approved a special edition which means it is not being promoted as a replacement for theatrical....hence the label.

    Again I never ever said that no other version should be allowed to exist. I think at this point if you say it again that you are purposely misrepresenting my stance since I have clarified twice now.

    Which means it should not happen if it ever should to begin with outside of matching to IP since a negative can and does show more grain than a release print.

    No I haven't. Is that supposed to change me having an opinion?

    I think this has gone as far as it should. Respect my rights to an opinion even if you don't agree with it.
     
    Last edited: Nov 27, 2018
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine