Superman: The Movie 4K UHD (1978)

[Geoff D]

I think the skin tones are a fraction too pallid throughout, but it's so much worse in the Krypton council scenes. Didn't mind the colour on Supes' suit either, but then I'm no superfan who says what it should/shouldn't look like. Didn't think it looked too bright/too dark either, though some highlights do extend into several thousand nits IIRC.

Let's hope that the new transfer gives everyone a bit of what they want!

[Tok]

Originally Posted by Croweyes1121

I honestly had issues with the grading for the whole film, not just the Krypton scenes. That's where things were the most glaringly obvious for sure, but the skin tones are really off on that disc, and the contrast is extremely strange. As I've said before, it's like I'm seeing HDR employed improperly (which perhaps I am). The brights are too bright and the darks are too dark. The reds in Superman's suit, for example, are closer to a deep blood red or maroon on the 4K, while skin tones are a sickly yellowish / salmon, and the whites of eyes are too bright. At the same time, it is also too dim overall (and not just on Krypton - it's a blanket problem over the whole film when compared to prior transfers). It's just incredibly strange and offputting. This movie should be vibrant. I know it's not my setup, because other discs look completely fine, so it's clearly something that was done to this film in particular. I'm extremely excited for the coloring to be fixed on this one as it's one of my favorite films of all time.

Problem with a film this old is that most of us were only familiar with how it looked on old analog formats and SDR based digital formats like VHS and DVD respectively.

I can’t tell anyone how a film looked 40+ years ago in a theater even if I saw it on a first run print.

I like the current release. Not saying it couldn’t be improved but IMHO it’s not as bad as some want others to believe.

I have a hard time with anyone claiming they remember exactly how a film looked projected decades ago. Now if someone was involved in a film’s production I will grant them more authority but even we’ve seen filmmakers totally revise a films look too after years. Point is unless something is so far off we should be a little more forgiving. After all HDR and wide color gamut is still relatively new territory for home entertainment.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Tok

Problem with a film this old is that most of us were only familiar with how it looked on old analog formats and SDR based digital formats like VHS and DVD respectively.

I can’t tell anyone how a film looked 40+ years ago in a theater even if I saw it on a first run print.

I like the current release. Not saying it couldn’t be improved but IMHO it’s not as bad as some want others to believe.

I have a hard time with anyone claiming they remember exactly how a film looked projected decades ago. Now if someone was involved in a film’s production I will grant them more authority but even we’ve seen filmmakers totally revise a films look too after years. Point is unless something is so far off we should be a little more forgiving. After all HDR and wide color gamut is still relatively new territory for home entertainment.

I don't see him saying anywhere that it should've looked exactly like a print from 1978? But there's some stuff that does indeed look 'so far off' in the existing 4K HDR grade e.g. those Krypton Council scenes are terrible, they're so bad with their bright yellow skin tones and the Kryptonian suits dimmed way down. There's "relatively new territory" then there's "who let the receptionist do the colour grading?" and parts of STM fall into the latter territory.

I still enjoyed it overall but its flaws were plainly apparent at the time (not just re: colour) and have become more niggling over the last five years as more movies of this age and status have been restored to a higher level of quality and consistency. I'd never kick it out of bed just for that amazing 70mm audio but I hope that the remastered version combines a betterer transfer with that same 70mm audio (in lossless this time). But knowing Warners it won't have Dolby Vision this time though

[starmike]

I remember watching in opening weekend thinking that the Krypton council scenes had a very "dreamlike" look, but I couldn't give you specifics.

[Croweyes1121]

Indeed, Geoff. I'm not saying it looks bad compared to anything. I'm just saying it looks bad, full stop. And it isn't just me who thinks so. Jim Bowers doesn't like it much, either. That tells me literally everything I need to know about a transfer of this particular film. It's simply not right.

[IndyMLVC]

Originally Posted by starmike

I remember watching in opening weekend thinking that the Krypton council scenes had a very "dreamlike" look, but I couldn't give you specifics.

We demand specifics! It's only been 45 years!!

[david_blu]

I have specifics in this thread no less, countless times. Have a read, all the info you need why it doesnt look correct.

[IndyMLVC]

Originally Posted by david_blu

I have specifics in this thread no less, countless times. Have a read, all the info you need why it doesnt look correct.

[cminer72]

Back in the eighties (and late seventies), soft focus was a popular technique. Rocky 3 used it for example. Donner shot the pre-Metropolis stuff with a soft filter for a warm, fuzzy nostalgic vibe. The film dropped the filter and sharpened up when Clark reached Metropolis. I may be reciting what everybody already knows. But maybe not.

[david_blu]

Originally Posted by IndyMLVC

Which part dont you get? Read my posts in this thread I give enough examples why the current 4k is not correct, but also why the DCP I saw at the Royal Albert Hall in London in June last year actually looks great. If colourwise they get they new 4k to match that, then finally SUPERMAN would have returned.

[IndyMLVC]

Originally Posted by david_blu

Which part dont you get? Read my posts in this thread I give enough examples why the current 4k is not correct, but also why the DCP I saw at the Royal Albert Hall in London in June last year actually looks great. If colourwise they get they new 4k to match that, then finally SUPERMAN would have returned.

Wow.

[Tok]

Too many people complaining when an older film that they experienced on old legacy tech for years looks different… well duh you’re not watching a version with the same limitations.

Again not saying that these new versions are 100% accurate but neither were the older legacy formats. Even film prints fade after sitting for years. Unless one has notes and original artists involved and even then it’s still open to new interpretations and possibly errors.

[KC-Technerd]

Originally Posted by cminer72

Donner shot the pre-Metropolis stuff with a soft filter for a warm, fuzzy nostalgic vibe.

This Donner perhaps? (Spelled "Geoffrey Unsworth." With Peter MacDonald behind the camera.)

[HDMan72]

I'm all in for an improved transfer but please Warner, leave that 2.0 OG audio alone.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Tok

Too many people complaining when an older film that they experienced on old legacy tech for years looks different… well duh you’re not watching a version with the same limitations.

Again not saying that these new versions are 100% accurate but neither were the older legacy formats. Even film prints fade after sitting for years. Unless one has notes and original artists involved and even then it’s still open to new interpretations and possibly errors.

Again: It's. Not. About. "Accuracy". It's about several parts of STM 4K's transfer looking like hammered shit in and of themselves. And no, it's got nothing to do with 'soft focus' or whatever. Is it any wonder why I get as snarky as I do when people are simply incapable of listening to what's actually being said and just carry on with their own pretzel logic to justify it? Fookin hell

[Tok]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Again: It's. Not. About. "Accuracy". It's about several parts of STM 4K's transfer looking like hammered shit in and of themselves. And no, it's got nothing to do with 'soft focus' or whatever. Is it any wonder why I get as snarky as I do when people are simply incapable of listening to what's actually being said and just carry on with their own pretzel logic to justify it? Fookin hell

Here’s something to take into account as well… quality of elements. None of us really know how well the elements were maintained. Would make sense that some parts aren’t up to the level of others.

My comments weren’t necessarily just about this disc but many discs where some get upset because they don’t align with how they remembered them on legacy technologies.

[captainsolo]

The best I’ve ever seen was a non faded perfect condition release print with the puny Dolby Stereo mix about 5 years ago. The closest any video release has come so far to matching my memory of that is the TV cut WAC disc.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Tok

Here’s something to take into account as well… quality of elements. None of us really know how well the elements were maintained. Would make sense that some parts aren’t up to the level of others.

My comments weren’t necessarily just about this disc but many discs where some get upset because they don’t align with how they remembered them on legacy technologies.

Right. Except that Warners literally have betterer sources for a whole bunch of that stuff in STM because they created a 35mm negative roll of fixes when they did the Special Edition in 2000. Previous transfers of the theatrical utilised this C roll but when they did the 4K they ignored it completely.

People might well say "but aren't you lot the purist's purists, always calling for OG this and that? What's wrong with just using the theatrical negative as is?" and they'd have a point...if most transfers (dare I call them "restorations"? lol) of most major movies of this age didn't already resort to alternative sources like interpositives and YCM seps to fill in the gaps in the negative, something which most folks are completely oblivious to. I just wanna see them do the same for Superman, ESPECIALLY because they're apparently ignoring the SE completely for release on 4K anyway. Don't release that cut on UHD, fine, but for the love of Krypton don't ignore the C roll.

[SpacemanDoug]

Originally Posted by HDMan72

I'm all in for an improved transfer but please Warner, leave that 2.0 OG audio alone.

if you mean the stereo track from the 2011 BD, no it's terrible

the lossy 5.1 track on the 4K is much better sounding as it's sourced from the 70mm mix, that will likely be included but now in lossless

it's the Atmos track I hope gets fixed too since it was still mostly the 2000 remix

[HDMan72]

Originally Posted by SpacemanDoug

if you mean the stereo track from the 2011 BD, no it's terrible

the lossy 5.1 track on the 4K is much better sounding as it's sourced from the 70mm mix, that will likely be included but now in lossless

it's the Atmos track I hope gets fixed too since it was still mostly the 2000 remix

Lossy 5.1 (70mm mix) I meant. That 2.0 from 2011 Bd was terrible when decoded in surround sound.