Reservoir Dogs 4K UHD (1992)

[Mierzwiak]

Originally Posted by Jonathan McLeod

Anyone seen any indication of this getting a standard amaray 4K release in the UK, or anywhere outside of the US really?

Someday, probably? I got tired of waiting and got the US amaray edition from WOW HD.

[DeadDogsEye]

Originally Posted by Jonathan McLeod

Anyone seen any indication of this getting a standard amaray 4K release in the UK, or anywhere outside of the US really? Was hoping when the steelbook sold out and/or on the anniversary of the initial release there might be something but I've not come across any listings for a standard edition yet.

I'm also interested in this. The steelbook is expensive and I find the artwork pretty off-putting.

[Hedrox]

Originally Posted by jonathan mcleod

anyone seen any indication of this getting a standard amaray 4k release in the uk, or anywhere outside of the us really? Was hoping when the steelbook sold out and/or on the anniversary of the initial release there might be something but i've not come across any listings for a standard edition yet.

Steelbook sold out in Italy, so it got replaced with a keepcase edition.

[DawnShadow]

Anyone compared the Italian 4K to the Lionsgate?

[mfan1986]

Can anyone here explain exactly why they needed to initially squash the image in the conversion process to make it anamorphic? They initially shot it in 2.39:1 with spherical lenses, but then converted it to anamorphic when making the 35mm cinema prints, which made it loose detail. What would have happened if they didn’t convert it to anamorphic in the conversion process? Isn’t that what this current 4K BluRay is? Since they went back to the original negative for the conversion? Thus skipping the anamorphic process?

Here’s the source article if anyone else is interested.

https://theasc.com/articles/flashback-reservoir-dogs

Cheers.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by mfan1986

Can anyone here explain exactly why they needed to initially squash the image in the conversion process to make it anamorphic? They initially shot it in 2.39:1 with spherical lenses, but then converted it to anamorphic when making the 35mm cinema prints, which made it loose detail. What would have happened if they didn’t convert it to anamorphic in the conversion process? Isn’t that what this current 4K BluRay is? Since they went back to the original negative for the conversion? Thus skipping the anamorphic process?

Here’s the source article if anyone else is interested.

https://theasc.com/articles/flashback-reservoir-dogs

Cheers.

If you wanted to show a 2.35 widescreen movie on a 35mm print in any commercial venue then it had to be 4-perf anamorphic, simple as that. If you were shooting with anamorphic lenses then you’d get anamorphic prints, but movies shot spherical Techniscope or Super 35 for a 2.35 output had to be optically converted to anamorphic - though in the DI era (while 35mm projektion was still a thing) they could just do the squeeze digitally and record it out to a printing negative from there.

To answer the question: yes, when they do home video transfers they always use the ‘flat’ negative or IP, they do not use any of the converted anamorphic elements.

[mfan1986]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

If you wanted to show a 2.35 widescreen movie on a 35mm print in any commercial venue then it had to be 4-perf anamorphic, simple as that. If you were shooting with anamorphic lenses then you’d get anamorphic prints, but movies shot spherical Techniscope or Super 35 for a 2.35 output had to be optically converted to anamorphic - though in the DI era (while 35mm projektion was still a thing) they could just do the squeeze digitally and record it out to a printing negative from there.

To answer the question: yes, when they do home video transfers they always use the ‘flat’ negative or IP, they do not use any of the converted anamorphic elements.

Wow, so technically the current 4K is what they initially wanted the movie to look like, but didn’t have the budget? I wonder if the DVD versions were sourced from the OCN or if they were also versions of the already converted anamorphic prints? It’d be amazing if this current 4K was the first version of the movie that they initially wanted back during pre-production in 1992.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by mfan1986

Wow, so technically the current 4K is what they initially wanted the movie to look like, but didn’t have the budget? I wonder if the DVD versions were sourced from the OCN or if they were also versions of the already converted anamorphic prints? It’d be amazing if this current 4K was the first version of the movie that they initially wanted back during pre-production in 1992.

What does budget have to do with it? The movie would never have looked as good as the 4K does in cinemas, even if they could projekt a flat print, because it’d be at least one generation removed from the negative anyway. Again: movies are not transferred from anamorphic INs or prints but the flat neg or IP. Even the VHS transfers were routinely derived from flat elements.

[mfan1986]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

What does budget have to do with it? The movie would never have looked as good as the 4K does in cinemas, even if they could projekt a flat print, because it’d be at least one generation removed from the negative anyway. Again: movies are not transferred from anamorphic INs or prints but the flat neg or IP. Even the VHS transfers were routinely derived from flat elements.

I think in the article they say they wanted to shoot in anamorphic but couldn’t afford it, so they shot in spherical. They say it would have looked better if they were allowed to shoot in anamorphic to begin with. Unless I have misunderstood it.

“With Super 35, the anamorphic squeeze is done in postproduction,” he continues. “We went from the original print to an interpositive and internegative [at Foto-Kem] for release, and then we did the anamorphic squeeze at Deluxe. The whole film was one big optical, and one aspect of that was heartbreaking: the loss of quality [in the squeezing process] was apparent. That’s just the nature of the process. The original print was so clear that you could see the structure of the actor’s eyes. You could still see some of that detail after the squeeze, but a bit of the magic was gone. If I could have chosen, I would have gone with anamorphic in the first place, but it was impossible on our budget.”

I do however agree with your point, because even if they were, it still wouldn’t look as good as the current 4K which is struck directly from the OCN.

[Geoff D]

A scan from the OG neg won’t make it look like it was shot anamorphic is the overriding point I think..

[mfan1986]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

A scan from the OG neg won’t make it look like it was shot anamorphic is the overriding point I think..

Are they using incorrect terminology for what they’re trying to say? By “anamorphic squeeze” it sounds like they’re trying to say “2.39:1 widescreen” , but they’re also discussing “anamorphic lenses” in the same paragraph, which is technically a seperate thing altogether. I think the budget comment is referring to the film stock itself, in that they wanted to shoot on cienemascope and not on super 35mm, but I’m not entirely sure.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by mfan1986

Are they using incorrect terminology for what they’re trying to say? By “anamorphic squeeze” it sounds like they’re trying to say “2.39:1 widescreen” , but they’re also discussing “anamorphic lenses” in the same paragraph, which is technically a seperate thing altogether. I think the budget comment is referring to the film stock itself, in that they wanted to shoot on cienemascope and not on super 35mm, but I’m not entirely sure.

You can shoot a film with spherical or anamorphic lenses. They did not have the budget for the latter, so shot spherical. They did not apply the "anamorphic squeeze" to the movie out of some aesthetic need to replicate the look of anamorphic lenses, as one is not the other. The "squeeze" they're referring to is simply the process needed to make 2.35 release prints of a spherical/flat negative because if you want to release a movie in 2.35 format on a film print then it has to be in 4-perf anamorphic format because that's all conventional cinemas were geared up to play re: 2.35.

Film stock is not "CinemaScope" or "super 35mm" in itself, you simply get a reel of it and you can shoot whatever format you want on it. They used primo Kodak negative stock on Reservoir Dogs, which is true of virtually every major and minor American production for many, many decades. The notion of "cheap film stock" is itself something of a myth.

[Dr. T]

Originally Posted by mfan1986

The whole film was one big optical

I remember about 30 years ago James Cameron took exception to that comment about Super 35. I think he was quoting from a piece where John Badham was against filming in the format. It was in "The Perfect Vision" magazine.

[Geoff D]

Cameron's recipe was to shoot as thick (well exposed) a negative as possible and do a 'bake off' by sending a piece of negative (not picture negative but a trim) to various post houses to see how well they'd process it. He also dug the 70mm prints more than the 35s because although you're still copying the image you're going from flat to flat, there's no anamorphic squeeze so you're not at the mercy of whatever grotty optics gave S35 such a bad name - tho it didn't help that S35 started gaining traction at a time when Kodak's fastest motion picture negatives were hellishly grainy.

[SpacemanDoug]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

You can shoot a film with spherical or anamorphic lenses. They did not have the budget for the latter, so shot spherical. They did not apply the "anamorphic squeeze" to the movie out of some aesthetic need to replicate the look of anamorphic lenses, as one is not the other. The "squeeze" they're referring to is simply the process needed to make 2.35 release prints of a spherical/flat negative because if you want to release a movie in 2.35 format on a film print then it has to be in 4-perf anamorphic format because that's all conventional cinemas were geared up to play re: 2.35.

Film stock is not "CinemaScope" or "super 35mm" in itself, you simply get a reel of it and you can shoot whatever format you want on it. They used primo Kodak negative stock on Reservoir Dogs, which is true of virtually every major and minor American production for many, many decades. The notion of "cheap film stock" is itself something of a myth.

It's funny because I've seen many older BD reviews, especially on this site, say that a transfer looks bad because of "cheap film stock" (the review for the disastrous BD of the OG Willy Wonka comes to mind)

While film stock can affect how detailed/grainy something is to an extent, using that excuse to give a blu-ray or even 4K a mediocre to bad review is ludicrous and gets tiring after a while. Especially considering in a lot of those instances the reviewers use the "cheap film stock" as a reason for a bad transfer, when in reality they were problematic due to bad mastering they failed to mention.

[dorian]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

The notion of "cheap film stock" is itself something of a myth.

What would've been considered cheap historically? The non-Kodak stocks like Fuji & Agfa? I'm not sure of the prices but it couldn't have been drastically different. The choice of what film stock to use on a project seems much more based on the aesthetic differences as opposed to the cost.

[mfan1986]

“They did not have the budget for the latter, so shot spherical”.

Yes, this is the info I was after after researching it more:

“The added complexity and larger glass elements almost always mean that anamorphic lenses will be more expensive and heavier than standard spherical lenses. Since spherical lenses are more common, the available combinations of focal length, T-stop, quality and cost are also more diverse”.

So yeah, they wanted to shoot with anamorphic lenses, didn’t have the extra budget for them, went with spherical instead.

I’m guessing if they went with anamorphic, there would be less squeeze/compression/loss of detail when it was eventually converted for theatres? Also, did Cameron’s T2 go through the exact same process? (spherical to squeeze etc)

[Dr. T]

Originally Posted by mfan1986

Also, did Cameron’s T2 go through the exact same process? (spherical to squeeze etc)

Yes. The Abyss, Terminator 2: Judgment Day, True Lies and Titanic were all shot in Super 35.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by mfan1986

“They did not have the budget for the latter, so shot spherical”.

Yes, this is the info I was after after researching it more:

“The added complexity and larger glass elements almost always mean that anamorphic lenses will be more expensive and heavier than standard spherical lenses. Since spherical lenses are more common, the available combinations of focal length, T-stop, quality and cost are also more diverse”.

So yeah, they wanted to shoot with anamorphic lenses, didn’t have the extra budget for them, went with spherical instead.

I’m guessing if they went with anamorphic, there would be less squeeze/compression/loss of detail when it was eventually converted for theatres? Also, did Cameron’s T2 go through the exact same process? (spherical to squeeze etc)

Yes, with anamorphic 2.35 capture the image is already ‘squeezed’ in-camera by the lenses and is contact printed from element to element (neg - IP - IN - theatrical print), so detail loss is minimised vs an optical step like what has to happen with making prints from a 2.35 S35 show.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by mfan1986

“They did not have the budget for the latter, so shot spherical”.

Yes, this is the info I was after after researching it more:

“The added complexity and larger glass elements almost always mean that anamorphic lenses will be more expensive and heavier than standard spherical lenses. Since spherical lenses are more common, the available combinations of focal length, T-stop, quality and cost are also more diverse”.

So yeah, they wanted to shoot with anamorphic lenses, didn’t have the extra budget for them, went with spherical instead.

I’m guessing if they went with anamorphic, there would be less squeeze/compression/loss of detail when it was eventually converted for theatres? Also, did Cameron’s T2 go through the exact same process? (spherical to squeeze etc)

Except they weren't buying the lenses & cameras, they were renting them - typical Hollywood.

Halloween was shot on a shoestring budget and was anamorphic.

Also the extra processing to print it would cost money.