The Matrix 4K UHD (1999)

[Fat Phil]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Agreed, the Sony menus are SHITE.

Once, while trying to navigate a Sony UHD menu, I got lost, blacked out and woke up three weeks later in a ditch wearing only one shoe.

[ergalthema]

Originally Posted by jh901

Who calibrated your display panel? What AVR and speakers?

I calibrated my panel and see no reason to adjust it further.

Samsung 65"KS8000
Sony UBP-X800
Onkyo TX-NR646
Polk Audio OWM3 side heights
Dayton Audio SUB-1000 10-Inch 100 Watt Powered Subwoofer

I have Philharmonic Affordable Accuracy series speakers, but recently replaced the L/R with JBL L890 towers which were given to me. It's quite a hybrid setup, but it sounds fine to me.

[VonMagnum]

Why would 4K "improve" the look of film grain. Ghostbusters 4K is the most horrible grainy looking transfer I've ever seen. Sharper means sharper grain too. You only get less grain with DNR. Some love grain. Some hate grain. Some tolerate it.

[ergalthema]

Originally Posted by VonMagnum

Why would 4K "improve" the look of film grain.

Because it should look closer to analog film than digitally encoded noise.

[VonMagnum]

Originally Posted by ergalthema

Because it should look closer to analog film than digitally encoded noise.

Lol. What do you think grain is? It's the result of an imperfect chemical process where every pigment doesn't perfectly blend with it's neighbor. It's also random. That's why even in still shot with nothing moving, the grain patterns continue to be animated as each cell grain pattern is different like a snowflake only uglier. Dnr attempts to blend those errant pigments (now pixels after digital conversion) with its neighbors. The more you try to eliminate, the greater chance of error and a posturized almost cartoon look is the result (see T2 4K). I prefer mild grain reduction when the original film is ultra grainy (Ghostbusters should have it). I don't want a cartoon just to be 100% rid of grain.

I'm not certain, but it's possible that film negatives might get grainier over long periods of time. The chemical process might not be 100% innert and vary by batch, etc. That might help explain why it didn't seem as grainy in the theaters as it does when the rescan 30 or 40 years later. B&W seems more resistant. Most of my Bogart films look great in HD, grain and all despite their age.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by fighthefutureofhd

Well, Damn! That's one of the things I like about Sony's UHD presentations. I'll admit they do look quite the SHITE, but I like the fact that they actually decided to do a new menu screen instead of half assing it like some of the rest. Even if it is SHITE.

So even though they're awful you like them just because they're new? It's not about the look for me, it's about the dreadfully clunky navigation and no pop-up menu which has been a staple of disc-based HD media for over a decade. New doesn't always mean better, I thought this sort of menu-based faffery was left behind on DVD, they may have been a fun novelty 15-20 years ago but are now a sheer annoyance. Give me Warners' boilerplate menus every time.

[guachi]

Originally Posted by VonMagnum

Why would 4K "improve" the look of film grain. Ghostbusters 4K is the most horrible grainy looking transfer I've ever seen. Sharper means sharper grain too. You only get less grain with DNR. Some love grain. Some hate grain. Some tolerate it.

Ghostbusters, as has been explained several times on this board, was shot with highspeed film like many other films in the early '80s. It's grainy because that's the way it was shot and 4k improves (or can improve) the look of film grain by making it look more like it did when the film was shot. It's probably (there are others that can say for certain) Kodak 5293 that was introduced in 1982 or 5294 introduced in 1983 and replaced the 5247. So Ghostbusters from 1984 should look grainier than ET or Bladerunner from 1982.


Like another poster said, grain should look like analog film grain not digital noise. Though the two do look superficially similar.

[guachi]

Adding to my comments above - looking at the Kodak website of its film used in motion pictures the grainy high-speed stuff was introduced in 1982 and 1983 and replaced in 1986. Here are the products and their descriptions:

EASTMAN Color High Speed Negative film, 7292. Tungsten, EI 320. Replaced 7294. First motion picture film to have "T" Grain. T-Grain is in the fast magenta and slow blue (N).Discontinued 1992.
EASTMAN Color High Speed SA Negative film, 5295 Tungsten, EI 400. Greater blue/green separation and tighter tolerance perforations. Especially for blue screen applications. -- Awarded TECHNICAL EMMY 1988.(F)
EASTMAN Color High Speed Daylight Negative film, 7/5297. Daylight, EI 250. -- Awarded TECHNICAL EMMY 1988. Discontinued 1997.
EASTMAN Color Intermediate film, 7/5243, IMPROVED. Reduced grain and increased blue speed. T-Grain in the blue.(A)

T-Grain (tabular grain) as described by wikipedia: "Tabular grain technology brought significant improvements to the image quality of the film, particularly in the improvement of resolution and granularity. "

There's better film introduced for blue-screen work.

The film introduced lasted awhile, unlike the film Ghostbusters was shot on (which was either discontinued in 1983 if it was 5293 or 1986 if it was 5294).

In other words, we should expect films from 1983-1986 to be quite grainy if shot on that high speed film.

EDIT: The "high speed" film was rated ASA400. We've advanced so far we can do ISO speeds well into the thousands with digital cameras.

[VonMagnum]

Whatever the reason, Ghostbusters is the WORST looking 4K movie I've ever seen. The 2K remaster version looked like shit also. I don't remember it looking like shit at the theater. Not at all. Did they have DNR back then? In any case, I'd rather watch the DVD than that level of grain. They should have at least mildly degrained it. Awful. Just farking awful in 4K.

[ergalthema]

Originally Posted by VonMagnum

Lol. What do you think grain is?

...umm.... not digital noise?

I said 4K should "improve the look of the film grain" - nothing about reducing it...

[VonMagnum]

Originally Posted by ergalthema

...umm.... not digital noise?

I said 4K should "improve the look of the film grain" - nothing about reducing it...

Um um um um. WHAT digital noise? If you can't tell grain from noise... Jeebus. Film does NOT generate digital noise. So where is this noise coming from? Your imagination?

[fighthefutureofhd]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

So even though they're awful you like them just because they're new? It's not about the look for me, it's about the dreadfully clunky navigation and no pop-up menu which has been a staple of disc-based HD media for over a decade. New doesn't always mean better, I thought this sort of menu-based faffery was left behind on DVD, they may have been a fun novelty 15-20 years ago but are now a sheer annoyance. Give me Warners' boilerplate menus every time.

I like the fact that Sony put in some effort. Even if the effort was piss poor. It was still an effort. A pop-up menu isn't a big need/deal for me. I think with a new format there should be new menus.

[ergalthema]

Originally Posted by VonMagnum

Um um um um. WHAT digital noise? If you can't tell grain from noise... Jeebus. Film does NOT generate digital noise. So where is this noise coming from? Your imagination?

You're not comprehending. 4K should improve the look of the grain so that it looks more like analog film grain than digital noise. Lower bitrates and older compression algorithms make the grain look like digital noise. UHD can improve that.

[jh901]

Originally Posted by VonMagnum

Whatever the reason, Ghostbusters is the WORST looking 4K movie I've ever seen.

Are you serious?

Originally Posted by VonMagnum

I don't remember it looking like shit at the theater. Not at all.

You don't remember a single thing about the image from the theater. Not a thing.

Originally Posted by VonMagnum

Did they have DNR back then? In any case, I'd rather watch the DVD than that level of grain. They should have at least mildly degrained it. Awful. Just farking awful in 4K.

Is this a serious post or is it a satire or parody? When is this "back then" with respect to DNR?

If you prefer DVD over this 4K release, then your 4K display is due for a major upgrade.

Finally, no member of this site should be calling for "mildly degrain". No one.

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by ergalthema

I should have been more clear. The grain didn't look natural to me. I thought it had a digitally-encoded look at times. It's like it stood out more than the previous versions, but I might just be more critical of 4K (since it's supposed to improve the look of the film grain). I need to watch the regular Blu-ray again and compare, though.

Why do you think watching the regular blu-ray will reveal anything? It's not even the same quality and has no bearing on the 4K disc or how the 4K disc would/should look.

And no, the grain doesn't look "digitally encoded." That's how grain looks.

[bbwiscfan]

Originally Posted by fighthefutureofhd

I like the fact that Sony put in some effort. Even if the effort was piss poor. It was still an effort. A pop-up menu isn't a big need/deal for me. I think with a new format there should be new menus.

I don't see how forcing you out of the movie just to get to the main menu is an effort that we should like. This was done away with on blu-ray and was a major selling point with the pop-up menus, now Sony has gone back to ancient times with the UHD. I deal with it, but doesn't mean I have to like it.

[koberulz]

Frankly I could take the lack of pop-up menu if it didn't require fifteen clicks through a bunch of slow animations to get to anything.

[fighthefutureofhd]

Originally Posted by bbwiscfan

I don't see how forcing you out of the movie just to get to the main menu is an effort that we should like. This was done away with on blu-ray and was a major selling point with the pop-up menus, now Sony has gone back to ancient times with the UHD. I deal with it, but doesn't mean I have to like it.

I hardly ever go back to the main menu during a movie. I almost never use the pop-up menu either. Once a movie has started I don't have a need for any of the items on the disc's menu screen. Pop-up or otherwise. I try to watch a movie and leave everything else alone. Shut off for a couple of hours. I treat it as though I'm at the movie theater. I can get too distracted otherwise.

[ergalthema]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

Why do you think watching the regular blu-ray will reveal anything? It's not even the same quality and has no bearing on the 4K disc or how the 4K disc would/should look.

And no, the grain doesn't look "digitally encoded." That's how grain looks.

People compare regular Blu-ray to UHD all the time here. Rarely, but occasionally, changes to the UHD are considered worse by many.

[koberulz]

Originally Posted by fighthefutureofhd

I hardly ever go back to the main menu during a movie. I almost never use the pop-up menu either. Once a movie has started I don't have a need for any of the items on the disc's menu screen. Pop-up or otherwise. I try to watch a movie and leave everything else alone. Shut off for a couple of hours. I treat it as though I'm at the movie theater. I can get too distracted otherwise.

I don't think anyone sits there fiddling with the pop-up menu just for something to do, but sometimes you can't quite catch a line and want subtitles, or you realise you're listening to the wrong audio track, or the credits are rolling and you want to jump straight into the special features.