Unforgiven 4K UHD (1992)

[Arch Stanton]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Dafuq is going on in them pictures? I know we joking call EE 'force fields' but that literally looks like a cloaking device is playing up on the wind vane thingy:

Maybe they remastered Cowboys vs. Aliens instead?

[MisterXDTV]

Originally Posted by philochs

Dynamic range is measured in stops. Film negatives naturally have about twice the dynamic range as what a 1080p Blu-ray can show. UHD Blu-ray is the first home format that can show the full dynamic range of film, as it can go up to 21 stops. Of course the color gamut of a film negative is also wider than on a Blu-ray, and potential color bit-depth. HDR was absolutely meant for movies shot on film. If some of the first catalog titles are iffy, it's something they will improve upon later. I seem to remember some iffy disks in the first couple years of 1080p Blu-ray too.

This again? Theoretical dynamic range of film doesn't mean a thing if the director of photography decided not to use it when he made the film

You are re-grading the movie to show something that was never meant to be seen.

[philochs]

Originally Posted by Filmmaker

No mixed signals at all. My first set of photos was a series of daytime shots, which are less saturated, more naturalistic in color on the UHD. The shot I updated later was an example of how the discs handle deep, dark nighttime photography and the UHD clearly trounces the BD with not nearly as many crushed blacks and substantially sharper details.

EDIT: In fact, if you go back and look at the wall that says "saloon" in that last photo, even in the comparative murk and crush of the BD, you can see that it's more color saturated than the UHD.

But in your first set, you said the UHD version wasn't darker, then the screen caps of the UHD were actually darker, included in that same comment. The UHD does look substantially sharper in all the caps. In the next two photos of the dark nighttime photography you included, the UHD did clearly trounce the BD. Between you and your screen caps, and on top of it, all the other wildly differing opinions about this UHD thus far, I'm still pretty confused what to believe. I think screen shot comparisons of the VUDU Dolby vision version will help.

[smackrabbit]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

Don't take this as an attack please, but it looks like that because the KU6290 doesn't have the color or nits to properly display Warner discs. I went though this myself with the pretty much same TV, the KU6300, before I upgraded. Warner discs were all notoriously rough for that TV, because they are mastered at a higher nits level and whatnot.

This is the biggest issue with HDR, and is a problem the TV vendors created for themselves. The KU6300 (and many other TVs) come labeled as HDR because they can read HDR metadata, but they can't display it. They aren't wide gamut, they don't have local dimming, and they don't have the ability to show a true HDR highlight because of this. The UHD discs will show better resolution, but the other benefits can't be displayed by the KU6300 and lots of other "HDR" TVs. Drives me crazy with how they're marketing it.

[philochs]

Originally Posted by MisterXDTV

This again? Theoretical dynamic range of film doesn't mean a thing if the director of photography decided not to use it when he made the film

You are re-grading the movie to show something that was never meant to be seen.

It's not 'theoretical dynamic range of film', it's the actual dynamic range of the film's negative and it has a genuine meaning. Nothing theoretical or meaningless about it. It's not that the director of photography or anyone else decided not to use the full dynamic range of the film negative, it's just that a film print naturally has far less dynamic range than a film's negative. Catalog films on 35mm prints were limited by the technological limitations of the time. They're grading the movie now to show extra stops of dynamic range that never had a way to be seen before. There's nothing wrong with it as far as I'm concerned, as long as they do a good job. Respecting the source content is of the utmost importance.

[ncraft]

The only other time I noticed ringing was when Clint and Morgan were on their horses talking,walking in front of a side of the hill, when the kids starts to shoot at them. It's very slight,lasting maybe 3-4 seconds but certainly not a deal breaker.
After watching the whole movie last night I was very happy with PQ. Perfect amount of grain, sharp picture, minimal but effective use of HDR, great shadow detail. We all want this to be perfect, but as long as you don't expect a Revenant or Lawrence of Arabia quality transfer, people should enjoy this.

[Filmmaker]

Originally Posted by philochs

But in your first set, you said the UHD version wasn't darker, then the screen caps of the UHD were actually darker, included in that same comment.

Huh?! The UHD is certainly less color-saturated than the BD (a trend I'm seeing commonly with UHDs that I personally love but others seem to have a viscerally negative reaction to--an emphasis on providing accurate, nuanced colors, rather than neon eye-popping ones), but show me one screenshot I provided where the UHD is actually darker? I think you're confusing the comparative "dimness" of the UHD's color grading with a lack of light, which is not a concern with the UHD in comparison to the BD.

[acua]

I thought this was out already, wasn't the release date 5/16? Not available in stores yet...

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by philochs

It's not that the director of photography or anyone else decided not to use the full dynamic range of the film negative, it's just that a film print naturally has far less dynamic range than a film's negative. Catalog films on 35mm prints were limited by the technological limitations of the time. They're grading the movie now to show extra stops of dynamic range that never had a way to be seen before.

Good DPs understood the difference between dynamic of the negative and what a release print could do and they designed their exposures and color-timing around that difference. They aimed for what could be presented in the theater and going beyond that has the potential to present the material incorrectly.

Have you ever seen a matte painting "in the flesh"? They don't capture realism with the naked eye because they're designed to be filtered through the lighting and emulsion of film. If you accurately scan a matte painting using modern equipment, the resulting image will appear completely incorrect to what was designed to be in the film.

[philochs]

Originally Posted by Filmmaker

From Tulsa, ok but don't hold it against me.

Why would anyone? I live in Tulsa, it is a great place to be. I'm not from here, from just outside of Chi-town originally, but lived here most of my life. I know I' quoting your profile, and not a comment but please forgive me for that, and if you don't mind calling the AMC 20 Southroads, could you tell them you want Dolby Cinema brought to Tulsa? I already called, but if people start hounding them, maybe they'll tell their bosses. The worst thing about T-Town is the movie theaters. No Laser Imax, no Dolby Cinema yet. At least we have Warren Wednesdays. Oh, and I'd like an NFL team. We have everything else. Not too crowded either. I still might move to the east coast someday. Perhaps the Lake Tahoe, Reno area. Tulsa has lots of spirit though, and very few riots.

[MisterXDTV]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

Good DPs understood the difference between dynamic of the negative and what a release print could do and they designed their exposures and color-timing around that difference. They aimed for what could be presented in the theater and going beyond that has the potential to present the material incorrectly.

Have you ever seen a matte painting "in the flesh"? They don't capture realism with the naked eye because they're designed to be filtered through the lighting and emulsion of film. If you accurately scan a matte painting using modern equipment, the resulting image will appear completely incorrect to what was designed to be in the film.

This is a great post, well written

[Filmmaker]

Originally Posted by philochs

Why would anyone? I live in Tulsa, it is a great place to be. I'm not from here, from just outside of Chi-town originally, but lived here most of my life. I know I' quoting your profile, and not a comment but please forgive me for that, and if you don't mind calling the AMC 20 Southroads, could you tell them you want Dolby Cinema brought to Tulsa? I already called, but if people start hounding them, maybe they'll tell their bosses. The worst thing about T-Town is the movie theaters. No Laser Imax, no Dolby Cinema yet. At least we have Warren Wednesdays. Oh, and I'd like an NFL team. We have everything else. Not too crowded either. I still might move to the east coast someday. Perhaps the Lake Tahoe, Reno area. Tulsa has lots of spirit though, and very few riots.

Eh. I know America offers worse but I've lived here my whole life and just never felt connected to it. It's too boring, too country-western, too college football obsessed, too religious and too conservative for me. I've always told everyone my body belongs to Oklahoma but my heart belongs to Southern California. Objectively, there's probably a lot about Tulsa that deserves accolades, but subjectively, it's not a good fit for my sensibilities.

[philochs]

Originally Posted by Filmmaker

show me one screenshot I provided where the UHD is actually darker? I think you're confusing the comparative "dimness" of the UHD's color grading with a lack of light, which is not a concern with the UHD in comparison to the BD.

Oops, originally I was viewing your screen caps on my laptop. Even though it set to full brightness, this laptop still is just an HP 1080p laptop and the brightest it goes is fairly dim. I looked at your screenshots again on a brighter display and it was completely different. So on my laptop screen, that is low nit, like a projector maybe, it had the effect of making the UHD screenshots appear darker than the Blu-ray shots. When I looked at them on an old LCD monitor that gets fairly bright, suddenly the UHD wasn't any darker. So it wasn't the color grade that confused me, it was the dim laptop screen. Still looks like the UHD is muted compared to the BD that appears over saturated. To me, it also looks like the remastered blu-ray skews pink, while the UHD HDR grading seems to skew teal.

[philochs]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

Good DPs understood the difference between dynamic of the negative and what a release print could do and they designed their exposures and color-timing around that difference. They aimed for what could be presented in the theater and going beyond that has the potential to present the material incorrectly.

Have you ever seen a matte painting "in the flesh"? They don't capture realism with the naked eye because they're designed to be filtered through the lighting and emulsion of film. If you accurately scan a matte painting using modern equipment, the resulting image will appear completely incorrect to what was designed to be in the film.

I was simply pointing out that if a 35mm film print had 14 stops of dynamic range, than they would have worked around that. Is your opinion that HDR should never be used on catalog films? Let's say the original people are there to advise, what then? What if it doesn't present the material incorrectly? There are cases of UHD Blu-rays that used masters taken from 35mm film negatives that have received positive reviews. La La Land for instance. I don't think HDR was the primary thing on the mind of the DP, but I could be wrong. I think they were just concerned about making it look dreamy. Do you think they should only do 4K w/ wcg and without added extra dynamic range from the negative? What about black & white films, I really don't see how they could be hurt by high dynamic range. Also, a 35mm film print only has about 4-5 stops of dynamic range, while a 1080p Blu-ray has 6 stops. So doesn't a 1080p Blu-ray have just as much potential to present the material incorrectly? You can botch a transfer on any format.

[elwaylite]

Originally Posted by smackrabbit

This is the biggest issue with HDR, and is a problem the TV vendors created for themselves. The KU6300 (and many other TVs) come labeled as HDR because they can read HDR metadata, but they can't display it. They aren't wide gamut, they don't have local dimming, and they don't have the ability to show a true HDR highlight because of this. The UHD discs will show better resolution, but the other benefits can't be displayed by the KU6300 and lots of other "HDR" TVs. Drives me crazy with how they're marketing it.

Yep. It took me buying a display that can be properly calibrated for HDR10 to actually enjoy HDR.

So now, when I read complaints about PQ I did not see, I try and get people to realize what could be the issue, hell some disc reviewers don't even use good gear.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by philochs

I was simply pointing out that if a 35mm film print had 14 stops of dynamic range, than they would have worked around that. Is your opinion that HDR should never be used on catalog films? Let's say the original people are there to advise, what then? What if it doesn't present the material incorrectly? There are cases of UHD Blu-rays that used masters taken from 35mm film negatives that have received positive reviews. La La Land for instance. I don't think HDR was the primary thing on the mind of the DP, but I could be wrong. I think they were just concerned about making it look dreamy. Do you think they should only do 4K w/ wcg and without added extra dynamic range from the negative? What about black & white films, I really don't see how they could be hurt by high dynamic range.

I think films from the era in which theatrical exhibition was the highest fidelity option should be presented as closely to the look of a theatrical print as possible- we can't second-guess decisions that were made when that theatrical print was the target destination. In the same way, a black-and-white film could be colorized, but we don't know what the filmmakers would have done had they actually shot in color.

When participants who were responsible for the look of the film are available to provide input, their discretion can help guide the approach to any differences the modern formats necessitate.

Originally Posted by philochs

Also, a 35mm film print only has about 4-5 stops of dynamic range, while a 1080p Blu-ray has 6 stops. So doesn't a 1080p Blu-ray have just as much potential to present the material incorrectly? You can botch a transfer on any format.

Of course- any time you have more latitude available, something can be put where it never was before. And don't get me wrong: more latitude available in the format is a good thing; the concern is the discretion required to use that additional latitude only when it's appropriate to the material.

In the same way, a Blu-ray disc can hold a 4-hour feature. Having this space available on the disc is a great thing- it means you don't have to change discs when you watch Lawrence of Arabia. However, it does not mean that all films should be re-cut to a 4-hour running time just because there's more space available to be filled on the disc.

[ArnoldLayne56]

Originally Posted by elwaylite

Yep. It took me buying a display that can be properly calibrated for HDR10 to actually enjoy HDR.

So now, when I read complaints about PQ I did not see, I try and get people to realize what could be the issue, hell some disc reviewers don't even use good gear.

Thanks for the info and heads-up on these issues. I just Googled my way from KU6300 back to CTA-CEA, SMPTE and IEEE docs. It looks like the CEA dropped ball by, well first, it's guidelines are voluntary, and then "Applies an appropriate Electro-Optical Transfer Function (EOTF), before rendering the image." - 'appropriate' isn't really an engineering term ;-)
It's unfortunate and sometimes almost criminal the way new consumer technology is introduced.

[bruceames]

Originally Posted by Khronikos

Are we sure this is not just due to camera effects with the lighting?

What are you referring to, the halos?

[philochs]

Originally Posted by Filmmaker

Eh. I know America offers worse but I've lived here my whole life and just never felt connected to it. It's too boring, too country-western, too college football obsessed, too religious and too conservative for me. I've always told everyone my body belongs to Oklahoma but my heart belongs to Southern California. Objectively, there's probably a lot about Tulsa that deserves accolades, but subjectively, it's not a good fit for my sensibilities.

I feel like I have to defend Oklahoma, lol. You ever go to Cain's ballroom? Rocklahoma? Brookside, Cherry Street, Village Movies 8 and the Admiral Twin drive-in that is featured in The Outsiders. Trips to the OKC Zoo Amphitheater The Warren Theater in Broken Arrow? That is one of the nicest theaters in America, just no Dolby Cinema or Laser Imax.

Most country music is goofy, but there is great country music. Hank Williams, Patsy Cline great old school, and what about Reba or Toby Keith, both fine Oklahomans. Dude, I can't get enough of 'Cole Swindell - Middle Of A Memory', that song is real nice. I like NFL the most, and don't really watch much College but it's okay. This whole country loves college football, and most of it is very religious too. Tulsa is 75% conservative, but the 25% who are liberal are quite radical, far left Berkeley types. I mean, they went nuts for Bernie. I'm sure they must all gather somewhere. Bill Maher comes to Tulsa at least once a year, so how right-wing could Tulsa be in 2017? lol, I know what you mean though, it's a one horse town with 400,000 people, less so with the BOK center. Downtown has come a long way.

But in Tulsa, strangers would help someone if they were in trouble. In LA, you can't ask a stranger for help. Majority of people there are seedy, and it's overflowing with them. Everywhere you go, you're with thousands of strangers just pouring out of places. The traffic, my god, and the price gouging, jeez. LA is kind of the place to be. I love the old so-cal punk era '78-'83 or so, but Darby Crash died a long time ago. They have the holy trinity of movie theaters in LA though... an Imax that shows true 70mm, another location with a laser Imax, and they have a boatload of Dolby Cinema screens. So that covers all your bases.

I love to go to the Hollywood studios for tours and live tapings of shows, but you know many locals have never done that? I don't know why, my first time I went to a sit-com taping I met Chuck Lorre and Allison Janney. Allison Janney is very down to earth and approachable, we had a nice little extended chat. Chuck Lorre sat down at the piano one day and wrote the theme song for Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, so the dude is a living legend. I barely missed Jerry Seinfeld driving down the street on that same trip. I like Conan a lot, it's great that he's in LA now. If movies and tv are your thing, then LA makes sense for that. Movies and tv are my thing, so I could see moving there some day.

There's not a better place to watch an old Western like Unforgiven, than Tulsa Oklahoma, though. It feels like it's still the old west out here. There is a lot of scenic beauty, where the trail of tears ends. You gotta find the spirit of Oklahoma. I think I'm the only one here without any native blood. When I do get a 4K HDR projector, maybe I'll be watching this UHD disk on an inflatable outdoor screen, just chilling under the stars at sundown. The weather in Tulsa is very nice, even if somewhat erratic.

Who else watched Unforgiven with their dad when it came out when they were little kids? VHS counts, even taped off HBO. I was 8 when this movie came out, that was the same year we moved to Oklahoma. I remember being impacted by this film at the time, being gripped by the story, and a little shocked by some of it. Sorry to anyone if your dad didn't let you watch rated R movies in your formative years, there was a lot of those types of overprotected kids.

[philochs]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

I think films from the era in which theatrical exhibition was the highest fidelity option should be presented as closely to the look of a theatrical print as possible- we can't second-guess decisions that were made when that theatrical print was the target destination. In the same way, a black-and-white film could be colorized, but we don't know what the filmmakers would have done had they actually shot in color.

When participants who were responsible for the look of the film are available to provide input, their discretion can help guide the approach to any differences the modern formats necessitate.

Of course- any time you have more latitude available, something can be put where it never was before. And don't get me wrong: more latitude available in the format is a good thing; the concern is the discretion required to use that additional latitude only when it's appropriate to the material

I want a look that's close to the theatrical print as far as color grading, but I want them to take advantage of the HDR potential that exists within the negative. I would never support colorizing black&white films. I think using the film's negative to extend the dynamic range of a film on UHD is quite a different thing. I am not a fan of tints and revisionist color schemes. I'm anti-tint. I want a level of authenticity to be met. The original people who could inform the decisions on old films are often no longer around. I'm sure the people who do the work on the transfers of these old catalog films try to have respect for the source material. I don't think our opinions are so far apart.