Lawrence of Arabia 4K UHD (1962)

[Noremac Mij]

Originally Posted by David M

Very unlikely. It's more likely they just lowpassed it to reduce compression artefacts. Ingest to streaming platforms works in a much more automated way so doesn't get that kind of manual intervention.

To my eye, it looks like they lowpassed a moderately sharpened master.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by lgans316

Looking at your post which has quite a bit of tweaking to get LoA look better than intended.

But this kind of intervention is only needed (YMMV) on a tiny clutch of UHDs, I do it only when I know there's been some kind of filtering going on e.g. Lawrence, Oblivion, and several of the Lionsgate filmout UHDs (which haven't been outwardly filtered, Yuma aside, it's the softness from using an IP that's been printed from a filmout that's been recorded from a DI where the loss of resolution is occuring). So equating a bit of tinkering with Filmmaker Mode being useless is quite a stretch.

Originally Posted by slimjean

If you prefer a digitally sharpened look then you are going to see magic where it didn't really exist.

There are all kinds of UHD's that people have complained about being softer and somehow equating that to not as accurate.

The second picture looks very harsh and proof is when you zoom in. I dislike the harsh screen door look. At this point it is hard to trust anything because all kinds of people do the aha! I caught you thing (not that I am saying Geoff would do that) and switch sources.

Regardless I don't see this as "fine detail". It is very much like Halloween III sharpening effect. Pleasing to some, obvious false information to others.

In the case of the stream it wasn't just poor compression it was literally computer error that created information where non existed. The compression error in my screen shot if the stream took out detail in black areas. The digital sharpening brought weird artifacts because not only did it over do it from the beginning it also brought forth junk trying to squeeze blood from the turnip that is the original restoration.

There is nothing "better" about either Geoffs IMHO look or the stream but thats ok just fiddle about. I appreciate the work put into it.

I literally said NOT to embiggen it too much because you'll see the panel structure, it's the equivalent of watching the TV from about 6 inches away. Do people not actually read things any more? But then I also said that people would take that post and run with it in whichever way suits their own personal narrative (you, Mij, lgans, everyone's got a hang-up) so yay for people being predictable I guess.

[slimjean]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I literally said NOT to embiggen it too much because you'll see the panel structure, it's the equivalent of watching the TV from about 6 inches away. Do people not actually read things any more? But then I also said that people would take that post and run with it in whichever way suits their own personal narrative (you, Mij, lgans, everyone's got a hang-up) so yay for people being predictable I guess.

I read your post and that has nothing to do with what I said. A screen door is a mask of "details" that take away from the original structure.

Much like the post earlier about the grain being magnified and what I said about prints often having a more realistic experience. Sometimes more blurry is preferable. I like how lots of film prints look over negative actually. Shoot me.

If running with it is duscussing it, well that is what I did.

A zoomed out pic tells me nothing. I judge by motion first but that is obviously not possible with your example.

I am thinking you need tp lighten up a little. Not eveyone is going to feel the same way you do or take commands. I read what you wrote you just didn't pike my summation.

The "panels" are obviously on both pics. That is pretty hard to miss.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by slimjean

I read your post and that has nothing to do with what I said. A screen door is a mask of "details" that take away from the original structure.

Much like the post earlier about the grain being magnified and what I said about prints often having a more realistic experience. Sometimes more blurry is preferable. I like how lots of film prints look over negative actually. Shoot me.

If running with it is duscussing it, well that is what I did.

A zoomed out pic tells me nothing. I judge by motion first but that is obviously not possible with your example.

I am thinking you need tp lighten up a little. Not eveyone is going to feel the same way you do or take commands. I read what you wrote you just didn't pike my summation.

The "panels" are obviously on both pics. That is pretty hard to miss.

If you're zooming in enough to see the panel/line structure then you're doing it wrong, or perhaps you're using some huge 4K monitor? But yeah, I never pike summations that miss the point. Seems to be a recurring theme here, but then we've established that people are just talking past each other at this point and carrying on with their own parallel arguments.

[Noremac Mij]

Geoff’s images don’t even have to be zoomed in or embiggened to see that they’re unnatural and not film like. I own the disc and it’s already sharpened as it is. Not very pleasant on a 65” TV at 8 foot viewing distance. And further sharpening is just wrong to my eyes.

I actually saw this restoration on 70mm film. Print out to actual film has its magic. It looked much better and more natural at the theater than it does on the UHD.

[Geoff D]

Case in point.

[slimjean]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

If you're zooming in enough to see the panel/line structure then you're doing it wrong, or perhaps you're using some huge 4K monitor? But yeah, I never pike summations that miss the point. Seems to be a recurring theme here, but then we've established that people are just talking past each other at this point and carrying on with their own parallel arguments.

I don't think you are immune to this. I feel that you have missed most of my points and keep repeating the same thing as if I didn't understand it. The difference is that I defend myself and don't choose to accuse about something which could just be a disconnect. I have quoted you and added my thoughts. This does not equate to missing your point at all if you read what I have written.

Example. Fine details are present on a flawed compression. Yeah I get that and it is a weak base. Do you understand by definition if one has a flawed base that can and does equal to LESS details in the parts that are flawed. Kind of circular logic and as empty as manual sharpening where none is needed.

Sony may have (and I believe does) the best presentation and the "fine detail" came from hideous sharpening such as what I think you did. That is not against you but what I feel is even more digital recreation of an obvious analog source. This moves away not closer to the intended presentation IMHO.

I zoomed in because I wasn't pleased with the second pic. It diesn't take much to do this. Not a whole lot to explain there. It verifies what I visualized.

Originally Posted by Noremac Mij

Geoff’s images don’t even have to be zoomed in or embiggened to see that they’re unnatural and not film like. I own the disc and it’s already sharpened as it is. Not very pleasant on a 65” TV at 8 foot viewing distance. And further sharpening is just wrong to my eyes.

I actually saw this restoration on 70mm film. Print out to actual film has its magic. It looked much better and more natural at the theater than it does on the UHD.

It may not "need" to be but what does it matter? It is verification of the presentation. Zoomed in isn't going to change the facts. Why would it?

I disagree about it not being pleasant. It looks great to me!

I have no doubt about what you say for anslog prints. 2001 projected still beats the UHD for me. Warts and all. Unfortunately I do not have the means to continue to see it that way.

[Noremac Mij]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Case in point.

The only way I can enjoy these new Sony DIs is via printout to actual film. It makes everything so much better. Even color!

[slimjean]

Originally Posted by Noremac Mij

The only way I can enjoy these new Sony DIs is via printout to actual film. It makes everything so much better. Even color!

It isn't the film it us the fact that it isn't a negative. When done right a scan from a film print can give very pleasing results.

Case in point The Thing Shout Factory (first version from interpositive) vs Arrow, as I remember but there are other examples.

[SuperFlyHighGuy]

Originally Posted by Noremac Mij

The only way I can enjoy these new Sony DIs is via printout to actual film. It makes everything so much better. Even color!

Thank you, this is what I'm going to start doing.

[Kakihara]

It never ceases to amaze me. "Professional reviewers" rave about a release, pretty much everywhere online, and then you go to the forums, and that same release is an abomination to mankind. Not saying you guys are wrong but both extremes aren't helpful. Is this release really as bad as you guys are making it out?

[Fendergopher]

Originally Posted by Kakihara

It never ceases to amaze me. "Professional reviewers" rave about a release, pretty much everywhere online, and then you go to the forums, and that same release is an abomination to mankind. Not saying you guys are wrong but both extremes aren't helpful. Is this release really as bad as you guys are making it out?

No one in this thread who owns the disc has classed it as "an abomination", some of them have expressed slight disappointment that the disc falls short of the potential of the source, while most of them seem to love the HDR and color implementation.

[lgans316]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

(you, Mij, lgans, everyone's got a hang-up) so yay for people being predictable I guess.

Actually I was curious and I don't like debating on these fronts as I have got other things to do.

Was just saying FILMMAKER mode will be useless if we all try to tweak the picture settings. It has got nothing to do with your assessment of picture quality which most of us like.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Kakihara

It never ceases to amaze me. "Professional reviewers" rave about a release, pretty much everywhere online, and then you go to the forums, and that same release is an abomination to mankind. Not saying you guys are wrong but both extremes aren't helpful. Is this release really as bad as you guys are making it out?

No-one in this thread has presented it as an "abomination to mankind", and it's lazy hyperbole like that which perpetuates the negativity towards people who are trying to relay what they feel is a shortcoming with the UHD. The main people reacting with outrage and typically shrill incredulity are the ones who can't believe that others could possibly find fault with this UHD.

Originally Posted by lgans316

Actually I was curious and I don't like debating on these fronts as I have got other things to do.

Was just saying FILMMAKER mode will be useless if we all try to tweak the picture settings. It has got nothing to do with your assessment of picture quality which most of us like.

We're not talking about me but if we were, I'll again reiterate that I feel this sort of thing is necessary only for the tiniest clutch of discs, discs that are demonstrably filtered compared to other iterations, which is what frees me up to experiment. I'd never dream of doing this to 99.9% of discs, but the thing about Filmmaker Mode in general is that people don't give a shit about intent anyway. They don't want contrast reduced, luminance curtailed, motion interpolation turned off, grain a-go-go, colour temp on warm and the proper aspect ratio. They'll check it out for all of five minutes and then switch back to Torch Mode and crop out the nasty old black bars. And anyone who actually cares about transparency to intent will have made these adjustments already as FM mode isn't some special sauce witchcraft, it just turns all the crap off.

[ROSS.T.G.]

Originally Posted by Noremac Mij

To my eye, it looks like they lowpassed a moderately sharpened master.

Try and get somewhat creative with your posts. Must get tired repeating yourself all the time.

[hoejunter]

I'll never understand why people get so wound up over the opinion of others. There's a ton of 4K transfers that I don't see an issue with whereas others tear it apart, it doesn't take my personal enjoyment away A discussion or debate is fine but there's no need to take everything so personal. Everybody needs to chill out.

[RBBrittain]

How much data is on disc 1 of the 4K? I wonder if the constraint was fitting everything before the intermission, which is past halfway of the film, onto a BD-100. Otherwise the disc split might have been before the intermission, raising cackles from some purists for that reason alone.

[Kakihara]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

No-one in this thread has presented it as an "abomination to mankind", and it's lazy hyperbole like that which perpetuates the negativity towards people who are trying to relay what they feel is a shortcoming with the UHD. The main people reacting with outrage and typically shrill incredulity are the ones who can't believe that others could possibly find fault with this UHD.

Lazy hyperbole? So ironic that you would make that claim. Like I pointed out, I'm not saying anyone is wrong other than the desire to find some kind of balance. You tend to be overly-sensitive and quick to attack others here.

[Kakihara]

Originally Posted by Fendergopher

No one in this thread who owns the disc has classed it as "an abomination", some of them have expressed slight disappointment that the disc falls short of the potential of the source, while most of them seem to love the HDR and color implementation.

My main point is that oftentimes, there is a completely different take on a disc's quality from the "Professional Reviewers" and Forum Members. It just seems like a case of extremes much of the time. As I mentioned earlier, I'm not saying anyone is wrong but it's unfortunate to see this trend, IMO.

[Kakihara]

Originally Posted by hoejunter

I'll never understand why people get so wound up over the opinion of others. There's a ton of 4K transfers that I don't see an issue with whereas others tear it apart, it doesn't take my personal enjoyment away A discussion or debate is fine but there's no need to take everything so personal. Everybody needs to chill out.

I agree that people need to chill out and I'm not taking opposing views personally at all. I like a healthy debate. I just think that in a time when people are trying to be careful in how they spend their money, it would be nice to find balanced reviews on discs.