The Ten Commandments 4K UHD (1956)

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by WhiskeyGnome

Yeah that doesn't follow logic though.

I thought it might not. But bitrate is not 9/10ths of compression law. I'm not saying it doesn't matter at all, otherwise David M could just encode everything at 10 Mb/s and be done with it (tho he'd still do a great job of it!!), but more goes into interframe compression than just bitrate bitrate bitrate. It's also about how temporally manageable the source material actually is, whether there's lots of grain, high frequency detail and/or movement, and how skilled the compressionist is at managing these things.

I could show you two competing Blu-ray encodes of the same source, each with an almost identical average bitrate https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?d1=17926&d2=17927&c=6588 and yet one is demonstrably betterer than the other in caps, in motion, zoomed in to silly levels, you name it. How can this be? Is it sorcery? No, it's competence: one encode has been properly managed to allow for lower lows but higher highs, to allocate the bits in the right areas at the right times, the other is a virtual CBR encode that's just been shat out with a single button press and pays almost no attention to what the imagery is actually doing. I could also refer to a UHD that's got an average bitrate of 71 Mb/s and somehow managed to be one of the worst encodes I've yet seen on UHD, the grain blocks and pulses and contorts this way and that, and it's even more hideous in motion: https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?go=1&...176165&i=2&l=0

And that's the point: bits do matter, of coursh they do, but equally important if not more so is how those bits are managed. Key to that is recognising the source material's strengths and weaknesses, and if something has been shot very crisply and cleanly then it will compress a heck of a lot betterer than something dark and murky and riddled with grain. I've got 4K HDR rips of [random modern digitally-shot movie] that would literally fit onto a single layer DVD and yet if you told me afterwards it was the full fat UHD disc encode that was 10 or 20 times biggerer I'd usually have no reason to quibble, aside from maybe a little more banding in the rip.

It's kinda ridiculous how returns start to diminish so quickly re: bitrate for content like that, which brings us back to Ten Commandments. You know, the 8/35 VistaVision shot, 6K scanned and 4K remastered (with some extra grain removal) Ten Commandments, which is why I said what I said. The source is so clean and so tidy visually, and edited in that classically stodgy way, that it doesn't offer up too many compression challenges apart from its length (oo-er) so I contend that an average - bearing in mind it can and does go higher throughout the movie - bitrate of 48 Mb/s is plenty for this kind of material. Would doubling the bitrate make you feel betterer when zooming in 400%? Sure it would. Would it make a huge amount of difference in motion? Probably not.

But on something like Ghostbusters or Labyrinth, shot on regular anamorphic 35mm to the uber-grainy high-speed stocks of the '80s, then a few extra bits can make all the difference. Their original UHDs were good efforts, compressed as well as they could be given the constraints placed upon them (66GB disc with lotttttts of audio tracks), but their re-issued UHDs have a good 10-20 Mb/s added on in most scenes and they just resolve the grain more coherently from shot to shot.

[WhiskeyGnome]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I thought it might not. But bitrate is not 9/10ths of compression law. I'm not saying it doesn't matter at all, otherwise David M could just encode everything at 10 Mb/s and be done with it (tho he'd still do a great job of it!!), but more goes into interframe compression than just bitrate bitrate bitrate. It's also about how temporally manageable the source material actually is, whether there's lots of grain, high frequency detail and/or movement, and how skilled the compressionist is at managing these things.

I could show you two competing Blu-ray encodes of the same source, each with an almost identical average bitrate https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?d1=17926&d2=17927&c=6588 and yet one is demonstrably betterer than the other in caps, in motion, zoomed in to silly levels, you name it. How can this be? Is it sorcery? No, it's competence: one encode has been properly managed to allow for lower lows but higher highs, to allocate the bits in the right areas at the right times, the other is a virtual CBR encode that's just been shat out with a single button press and pays almost no attention to what the imagery is actually doing. I could also refer to a UHD that's got an average bitrate of 71 Mb/s and somehow managed to be one of the worst encodes I've yet seen on UHD, the grain blocks and pulses and contorts this way and that, and it's even more hideous in motion: https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?go=1&...176165&i=2&l=0

And that's the point: bits do matter, of coursh they do, but equally important if not more so is how those bits are managed. Key to that is recognising the source material's strengths and weaknesses, and if something has been shot very crisply and cleanly then it will compress a heck of a lot betterer than something dark and murky and riddled with grain. I've got 4K HDR rips of [random modern digitally-shot movie] that would literally fit onto a single layer DVD and yet if you told me afterwards it was the full fat UHD disc encode that was 10 or 20 times biggerer I'd usually have no reason to quibble, aside from maybe a little more banding in the rip.

It's kinda ridiculous how returns start to diminish so quickly re: bitrate for content like that, which brings us back to Ten Commandments. You know, the 8/35 VistaVision shot, 6K scanned and 4K remastered (with some extra grain removal) Ten Commandments, which is why I said what I said. The source is so clean and so tidy visually, and edited in that classically stodgy way, that it doesn't offer up too many compression challenges apart from its length (oo-er) so I contend that an average - bearing in mind it can and does go higher throughout the movie - bitrate of 48 Mb/s is plenty for this kind of material. Would doubling the bitrate make you feel betterer when zooming in 400%? Sure it would. Would it make a huge amount of difference in motion? Probably not.

But on something like Ghostbusters or Labyrinth, shot on regular anamorphic 35mm to the uber-grainy high-speed stocks of the '80s, then a few extra bits can make all the difference. Their original UHDs were good efforts, compressed as well as they could be given the constraints placed upon them (66GB disc with lotttttts of audio tracks), but their re-issued UHDs have a good 10-20 Mb/s added on in most scenes and they just resolve the grain more coherently from shot to shot.

I mean I generally agree with this, but what has been done to this film? The actual restored foundation master has baked in DNR so they can't even go back and leave the grain in unless they redo it? Surely they don't have to scan it again do they?

I would agree if the thing has a lot of grain removed bitrate definitely isn't going to do all that much. We have proof of that for sure in various releases.

I too would vastly prefer an eagle-eyed compressionist at 50Mbps than a CBR 80Mbps with nobody looking and all kinds of issues. I just feel personally films start to struggle in the 40 range no matter what if they are grainy, and 50 too at times, and it sucks we have to go so low when we have the tech to make it better.

For me I still want to see if they can somehow get better color compression on films like Blade Runner with almost a doubling in bitrate. I'm still not quite sure why some films exhibit that kind of color wheel effect in the grain and others don't. Not quite sure if bitrate matters too much there or not, or if the color compression is just too much on some films and their stock...

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by WhiskeyGnome

I mean I generally agree with this, but what has been done to this film? The actual restored foundation master has baked in DNR so they can't even go back and leave the grain in unless they redo it? Surely they don't have to scan it again do they?

I would agree if the thing has a lot of grain removed bitrate definitely isn't going to do all that much. We have proof of that for sure in various releases.

I too would vastly prefer an eagle-eyed compressionist at 50Mbps than a CBR 80Mbps with nobody looking and all kinds of issues. I just feel personally films start to struggle in the 40 range no matter what if they are grainy, and 50 too at times, and it sucks we have to go so low when we have the tech to make it better.

For me I still want to see if they can somehow get better color compression on films like Blade Runner with almost a doubling in bitrate. I'm still not quite sure why some films exhibit that kind of color wheel effect in the grain and others don't. Not quite sure if bitrate matters too much there or not, or if the color compression is just too much on some films and their stock...

I've seen plenty of film-based movies on UHD in that range which look fine, but something's just off with Blade Runner throughout, been moaning about that one from the moment I saw it. Terrible chroma containment, outright blocking when bright patches appear, it's terrible. Warners' compression standards aren't amazing but even for them Blade Runner's encode is consistently poor and it's not simply the bitrate itself IMO, it's just not been optimised properly for such grainy content. Coming as it did quite early in UHD's lifespan is working against it in several respects. I think even a modern attempt with the same bitrate has a good chance of looking more competent, and someone like David M would squeeze every last drop from it. But as Warners ain't Sony then it's not gonna happen

[thebarnman]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

but their re-issued UHDs have a good 10-20 Mb/s added on in most scenes and they just resolve the grain more coherently from shot to shot.

Not to mention the newer format uses a higher quality encode/decode format. That extra 10-20 Mb/s goes even further because of it.

[thebarnman]

Originally Posted by WhiskeyGnome

I mean I generally agree with this, but what has been done to this film? The actual restored foundation master has baked in DNR so they can't even go back and leave the grain in unless they redo it? Surely they don't have to scan it again do they?

Not the expert here but from what I understand, the scan contains everything it originally captured. It's what they do after that scan while encoding it for the disc release. Therefore, if lots of grain was removed for the disc release, using the same original scan for another release could result with having more grain/detail if that's how they want to do it for a newer release.

[WhiskeyGnome]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I've seen plenty of film-based movies on UHD in that range which look fine, but something's just off with Blade Runner throughout, been moaning about that one from the moment I saw it. Terrible chroma containment, outright blocking when bright patches appear, it's terrible. Warners' compression standards aren't amazing but even for them Blade Runner's encode is consistently poor and it's not simply the bitrate itself IMO, it's just not been optimised properly for such grainy content. Coming as it did quite early in UHD's lifespan is working against it in several respects. I think even a modern attempt with the same bitrate has a good chance of looking more competent, and someone like David M would squeeze every last drop from it. But as Warners ain't Sony then it's not gonna happen

I definitely am all on board for somebody to do a max bitrate, fully professional encode for that masterpiece. I'd love to see it honestly. On bluray that thing was awful too, just kinda covered up by how dark it was I guess. They didn't even bother doing another encode after the HDDVD version lol.

I guess the wait is on for another boutique label to maybe see a point? Kinda sucks it will be a long time then I presume.

[HeavyHitter]

Ordered this today. I haven't seen this since a kid on TV. I'll probably split it up over two nights.

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

Ordered this today. I haven't seen this since a kid on TV. I'll probably split it up over two nights.

The only thing that knocks this restoration down a notch or two are the motion smearing artifacts due to the overly aggressive noise reduction applied during the cleanup process (dirt, scratches, tears, etc. removal). They are noticeable and extra weird looking because this issue is UNDER the fake grain layer added back to the image.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by FilmFreakosaurus

The only thing that knocks this restoration down a notch or two are the motion smearing artifacts due to the overly aggressive noise reduction applied during the cleanup process (dirt, scratches, tears, etc. removal). They are noticeable and extra weird looking because this issue is UNDER the fake grain layer added back to the image.

So this is like a Lowry situation?

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

So this is like a Lowry situation?

That sounds about right. If the motion smearing wasn't there, this would be a top tier restoration. You can especially see it when people's arms are in motion. How that got past QC, god or Moses only knows.

[2112rushfan]

No Longer Available

I still have the 4K digital code if anyone wants it. It says may not be valid after 3/30/23 but my brother said they are sometimes still work. I usually pass the codes to him but he wasn't interested.
On the other hand this is one of my favorites, we watch it every year around Easter & Passover.
Just PM if you want to give it a try.

[Midnight_Hour]

Originally Posted by 2112rushfan

No Longer Available

I still have the 4K digital code if anyone wants it. It says may not be valid after 3/30/23 but my brother said they are sometimes still work. I usually pass the codes to him but he wasn't interested.
On the other hand this is one of my favorites, we watch it every year around Easter & Passover.
Just PM if you want to give it a try.

Willing to give it a shot, so sent you a PM. I like to watch this every Easter with my family, but I only have the standard bluray.

[BigShotCritic]

Hi there. My understanding is that the true native aspect ratio of VistaVision is 1.5:1, but that Paramount recommended theaters display them in 1.85:1. This release is in 1.78:1 and I don't quite understand why. I am considering this as my first 4k disc ever now that I have a 4k setup, but I'm always put off when discs don't display the original theatrical aspect ratio. But if there's a good reason for it, I don't mind. So is there a good reason for it? Thank you for your help.

[COBill]

That's not accurate.

VistaVision was designed to be shown in any aspect ratio from 1.66:1 to 2.00:1, but is most often shown at 1.85:1.

The Blu-ray is 16:9 because most studios release 1.85:1 content in 16:9 to avoid complaints about "thin black bars" - most customers understand the wider ones for 2.35:1 content but people really do complain about the thinner black bars on 1.85:1 content because they bought a "widescreen TV."

The Ten Commandments "full frame" would be 1.66:1, but that would leave thin black side bars on a 16:9 TV, so a compromise between 1.65:1 and 1.85:1 is 16:9.

[UHDLoverForever]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I thought it might not. But bitrate is not 9/10ths of compression law. I'm not saying it doesn't matter at all, otherwise David M could just encode everything at 10 Mb/s and be done with it (tho he'd still do a great job of it!!), but more goes into interframe compression than just bitrate bitrate bitrate. It's also about how temporally manageable the source material actually is, whether there's lots of grain, high frequency detail and/or movement, and how skilled the compressionist is at managing these things.

I could show you two competing Blu-ray encodes of the same source, each with an almost identical average bitrate https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?d1=17926&d2=17927&c=6588 and yet one is demonstrably betterer than the other in caps, in motion, zoomed in to silly levels, you name it. How can this be? Is it sorcery? No, it's competence: one encode has been properly managed to allow for lower lows but higher highs, to allocate the bits in the right areas at the right times, the other is a virtual CBR encode that's just been shat out with a single button press and pays almost no attention to what the imagery is actually doing. I could also refer to a UHD that's got an average bitrate of 71 Mb/s and somehow managed to be one of the worst encodes I've yet seen on UHD, the grain blocks and pulses and contorts this way and that, and it's even more hideous in motion: https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?go=1&...176165&i=2&l=0

And that's the point: bits do matter, of coursh they do, but equally important if not more so is how those bits are managed. Key to that is recognising the source material's strengths and weaknesses, and if something has been shot very crisply and cleanly then it will compress a heck of a lot betterer than something dark and murky and riddled with grain. I've got 4K HDR rips of [random modern digitally-shot movie] that would literally fit onto a single layer DVD and yet if you told me afterwards it was the full fat UHD disc encode that was 10 or 20 times biggerer I'd usually have no reason to quibble, aside from maybe a little more banding in the rip.

It's kinda ridiculous how returns start to diminish so quickly re: bitrate for content like that, which brings us back to Ten Commandments. You know, the 8/35 VistaVision shot, 6K scanned and 4K remastered (with some extra grain removal) Ten Commandments, which is why I said what I said. The source is so clean and so tidy visually, and edited in that classically stodgy way, that it doesn't offer up too many compression challenges apart from its length (oo-er) so I contend that an average - bearing in mind it can and does go higher throughout the movie - bitrate of 48 Mb/s is plenty for this kind of material. Would doubling the bitrate make you feel betterer when zooming in 400%? Sure it would. Would it make a huge amount of difference in motion? Probably not.

But on something like Ghostbusters or Labyrinth, shot on regular anamorphic 35mm to the uber-grainy high-speed stocks of the '80s, then a few extra bits can make all the difference. Their original UHDs were good efforts, compressed as well as they could be given the constraints placed upon them (66GB disc with lotttttts of audio tracks), but their re-issued UHDs have a good 10-20 Mb/s added on in most scenes and they just resolve the grain more coherently from shot to shot.

You are completely right from start to finish. I'll just say that when you wrote:

"Would doubling the bitrate make you feel betterer when zooming in 400%? Sure it would. Would it make a huge amount of difference in motion? Probably not."

You just described me, I would feel more at ease even in a placebo level. I'm the type of person that can imagine flaws even if they don't exist. I can fool myself into being paranoid about any kind of flaw in the image even if it's not there at all (I talk about these issues I have in more detail in my post below). I think I can even trick my brain into seeing banding that doesn't exist just by looking really, really hard with a focused stare. I easily get paranoid about all of this.

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...9&postcount=30

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by BigShotCritic

Hi there. My understanding is that the true native aspect ratio of VistaVision is 1.5:1, but that Paramount recommended theaters display them in 1.85:1. This release is in 1.78:1 and I don't quite understand why. I am considering this as my first 4k disc ever now that I have a 4k setup, but I'm always put off when discs don't display the original theatrical aspect ratio. But if there's a good reason for it, I don't mind. So is there a good reason for it? Thank you for your help.

Don't use this film or its restoration as a guide for your initial impression of 4k discs. There are a few issues with this release, mainly in the underlying restoration. It's pretty good, but not a top tier title for the format.

[UHDLoverForever]

Originally Posted by FilmFreakosaurus

Don't use this film or its restoration as a guide for your initial impression of 4k discs. There are a few issues with this release, mainly in the underlying restoration. It's pretty good, but not a top tier title for the format.

To stay in the realm of historical epics (I hope everyone gets what I mean, please let's not discuss the historicity of Exodus, that's not the point), he could get the UHD of Spartacus. That's a top tier UHD if there ever was one.

[Caprica_U-87]

This has to be the most beautiful 4k movie I've ever seen. I highly recommend it.

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by Caprica_U-87

This has to be the most beautiful 4k movie I've ever seen. I highly recommend it.

Sadly, it has noticeable motion smearing due to aggressive grain management.

[regeyer]

Originally Posted by Caprica_U-87

This has to be the most beautiful 4k movie I've ever seen. I highly recommend it.

I agree that it looks amazing for a 1956 movie. Absolutely amazing. But I don't think it's the most beautiful 4K movie.