The Official Indicator (Powerhouse Films) Thread

[darrellmaclaine]

Originally Posted by Number 28

That is my experience as well with 4K. IMO, the players are working very hard with the 4K discs with little or nothing to spare.

It's laser/lens obsolescence that bothers me. Modern CD players have weaker, just-enough-to-work hardware than pre-2010s ones used to, and they skip, click and fail all the time unless you get top-whack hi-fi separates, and it seems as if 4K players are maxing out their capabilities in the same way (see also some of the earliest DVD players which hated layer changes and high bitrates which hit a certain level). The best hardware seems to be overspecced, which is why these days a cheap DVD player is a better CD player than a mid range hifi, and why Blu-ray players are so great with DVDs even if they are scratched or burned. The hardware needed to read a 4K disc seems so high spec that there's no room for manoeuvre if the laser or lens deteriorates, gets dirty or is dealing with scratches, centre hole misalignment, or chemical problems. And I remain very, very wary of the actual quality of those 4K discs, the BD100s in particular. With all the vulnerabilities we've seen occur over time with older and poorly manufactured DVD9s and BD50s, even if the players are in tip-top condition, the discs are as vulnerable as the playback equipment.

Every time I ponder getting a 4K player as a path of least resistance when I next need a player, all of this bothers me. I just think it's fundamentally flawed technology that is hugely vulnerable to too many different elements, and the more I see its marketing shift from long-term catalogue to limited collector's editions, the more I suspect some in the industry have the same niggling fears. Fact is, physical's in its twilight years now, so *if* and when a 4K obsolescence does happen, it will be a few years down the line when some of these labels and boutiques and retailers are out of the market entirely. For the sake of friends and people I respect who love their 4Ks I hope this never happens, but it's way, way too possible an eventuality for me to gamble on it. I'm already assuming I will outlive a lot of my Blu-rays, never mind anything more fragile.

[Colonel Blimp]

Originally Posted by darrellmaclaine

Every time I ponder getting a 4K player as a path of least resistance when I next need a player, all of this bothers me. I just think it's fundamentally flawed technology that is hugely vulnerable to too many different elements, and the more I see its marketing shift from long-term catalogue to limited collector's editions, the more I suspect some in the industry have the same niggling fears. Fact is, physical's in its twilight years now, so *if* and when a 4K obsolescence does happen, it will be a few years down the line when some of these labels and boutiques and retailers are out of the market entirely. For the sake of friends and people I respect who love their 4Ks I hope this never happens, but it's way, way too possible an eventuality for me to gamble on it. I'm already assuming I will outlive a lot of my Blu-rays, never mind anything more fragile.

Yeah, this sums up a lot of my concerns too. The PROBLEM with 4K is not the quality, like you're saying. Of course it's better than Blu. if the disk and player work to full potential.

Like you say, the problem is the future. We don't know if the 4K player will hold up, what firmware updates will cause unknown problems, if the disks won't have conflicts, if the manufacturer stands by the product, if the label still exists, etc etc etc.

With Blu, you can generally be assured at that middle-line tech, it will hang around indefinitley, same with DVDs really. But with 4K, it's not clear if it's a growing format or a boutique format or what. In 5 years or whatever, we'll have the answer, but right now I'm just not sure I want to get into it beyond geting combo Blu/4K sets now and then.

Nevermind that the TV and audio upgrade is also keeping me away from it. Of course I want to upgrade, and I could upgrade - but I don't trust the market well enough to even know what I'm buying.

So you are speaking for the percentage of collectors/movie fans who DO see the benefit of 4K and I think it's obviously a better format, but that unknown is keeping me away from it.

The quality of a typical Blu on Indicator has been so good (as with other labels) I just don't feel I've been missing out.

[darlo16]

Originally Posted by darrellmaclaine

It's laser/lens obsolescence that bothers me. Modern CD players have weaker, just-enough-to-work hardware than pre-2010s ones used to, and they skip, click and fail all the time unless you get top-whack hi-fi separates, and it seems as if 4K players are maxing out their capabilities in the same way (see also some of the earliest DVD players which hated layer changes and high bitrates which hit a certain level). The best hardware seems to be overspecced, which is why these days a cheap DVD player is a better CD player than a mid range hifi, and why Blu-ray players are so great with DVDs even if they are scratched or burned. The hardware needed to read a 4K disc seems so high spec that there's no room for manoeuvre if the laser or lens deteriorates, gets dirty or is dealing with scratches, centre hole misalignment, or chemical problems. And I remain very, very wary of the actual quality of those 4K discs, the BD100s in particular. With all the vulnerabilities we've seen occur over time with older and poorly manufactured DVD9s and BD50s, even if the players are in tip-top condition, the discs are as vulnerable as the playback equipment.

Every time I ponder getting a 4K player as a path of least resistance when I next need a player, all of this bothers me. I just think it's fundamentally flawed technology that is hugely vulnerable to too many different elements, and the more I see its marketing shift from long-term catalogue to limited collector's editions, the more I suspect some in the industry have the same niggling fears. Fact is, physical's in its twilight years now, so *if* and when a 4K obsolescence does happen, it will be a few years down the line when some of these labels and boutiques and retailers are out of the market entirely. For the sake of friends and people I respect who love their 4Ks I hope this never happens, but it's way, way too possible an eventuality for me to gamble on it. I'm already assuming I will outlive a lot of my Blu-rays, never mind anything more fragile.

My experience with one of my region-free Sony UBP-X800M2 is that it struggles most with R1 DVDs. 4Ks and BRs are not an issue, so much so that my Inglourious Basterds Arrow 4K will play extras fine whereas my Panasonic DP-UB9000 will struggle here. I am banking on strength in numbers here. Unfortunately jumped on the 4K game too late to secure an OPPO and am unwilling to pay a grand on a used model. Fortunately I don't have a single disc that I haven't been able to play on any of my players.

The Tascam looks like a solid option. If Amazon IT hadn't offered the UB9000 at €780, I would have gone for that one. The Panasonic is currently €828, which is the second-best offer I've seen for it. There are aparently some players from that line where the laser unit caves early but you can get replacement drives at a decent price provided it hits you out of warranty and they seem easy enough to change even without much experience.

[darrellmaclaine]

Originally Posted by Colonel Blimp

So you are speaking for the percentage of collectors/movie fans who DO see the benefit of 4K and I think it's obviously a better format, but that unknown is keeping me away from it.

If the hardware aspect wasn't worrying me I might - MIGHT - have jumped on a couple of years ago. I've always been a late adopter - got CD in 1995, DVD in 2002, Blu-ray in 2013. All massive upheavals and all involving replacing libraries at great cost. I don't switch easily anyway, but I usually do switch when it makes obvious sense. There's been no such moment with 4K.

And - not the main point but relevant - the culture around the format really puts me off. Entitled, toxic and zealous. Ruined these forums for a start.

[neonde]

If any Canucks are interested in The Man Who Had Power Over Women, it's at a good price on Amazon right now: https://www.amazon.ca/Power-Women-Limited-Blu-ray-Blu-Ray/dp/B0DD8GTYYF

[SkinnyTwist]

Originally Posted by darrellmaclaine

If the hardware aspect wasn't worrying me I might - MIGHT - have jumped on a couple of years ago. I've always been a late adopter - got CD in 1995, DVD in 2002, Blu-ray in 2013. All massive upheavals and all involving replacing libraries at great cost. I don't switch easily anyway, but I usually do switch when it makes obvious sense. There's been no such moment with 4K.

And - not the main point but relevant - the culture around the format really puts me off. Entitled, toxic and zealous. Ruined these forums for a start.

[grahams76]

Originally Posted by darrellmaclaine

And - not the main point but relevant - the culture around the format really puts me off. Entitled, toxic and zealous. Ruined these forums for a start.

You never fail to come out with the most insane take.

And, you've been here since 2022 so how would you know what the culture here was like pre-4K a decade or so ago? It's always been a shit show!

[darrellmaclaine]

Originally Posted by grahams76

You never fail to come out with the most insane take.

And, you've been here since 2022 so how would you know what the culture here was like pre-4K a decade or so ago? It's always been a shit show!

Acting like I have blasphemed is not debunking my argument. There are plenty of posters around here who agree with me on what '4K brain' has done to these boards.

(And I have been around a lot longer than I've been posting. People used to actually watch movies on here, for a start.)

[RossyG]

What do you mean by 4k brain?

(A genuine question not asked in bad faith)

[T4ffer]

I think I get what is meant by '4K brain' - tendency (especially in the US) to demand everything on 4K without considering whether it even provides an improvement big enough to justify the additional costs over HD. Or at least I think I've noticed something like that myself.

I am personally still in the stupid position where I don't have a 4K display so I can't really quantify what it means to me compared to HD, but I now have probably over 200 4K UHD discs. Most of the time with dual format releases, I'll play the HD Blu-Ray to get a more appropriate luminance curve for my SDR projector.

[CouncilSpectre]

You only have to go to the news articles for BD releases and see the number of "4K or GTFO" comments....

4K is preferable, to me, in a lot of cases, but given the choice between something on 4K or nothing at all it's a ridiculous take. The jump from SD to HD is far more obvious than the jump from HD to UHD.

Companies like Arrow have not helped the situation with their strategy of releasing a BD and then a 4K a year or two later that's exactly the same but omits the BD disc.

[darrellmaclaine]

Wot they sed.

There is also a lot of pushback for:
(a) the idea that a significant number of titles either don't have that much unlockable resolution in their best elements or were made/finished digitally in 2K so have to be faked up
(b) the idea that HDR is an artificial imposition designed to flatter technology rather than a process to preserve authenticity
(c) accusations that most 4Ks don't get watched anyway, just 'collected'

When a thread relating to a movie gets bumped you can almost guarantee it will say "when 4K?"

[Indicator]

Our friends and former colleagues at the BFI have a very sensible official policy of only releasing something in 4K UHD if they feel that it offers a significant improvement over a normal Blu-ray.

Despite 4K masters being made available to them, they didn't feel that this was the case with La Règle du Jeu or Ikiru, whose original negatives no longer survive, and much of the Renoir film was reconstructed from footage that wasn't even second-generation.

In other words, a UHD release will look pretty much identical to a normal BD, but would unavoidably cost more thanks to increased per-unit mastering and manufacturing charges - and therefore it's literally not worth doing.

And that's very much our attitude too. Not that we can invariably get the UHD rights anyway, but it's not hard to envisage a scenario whereby we can get those rights but decide that a UHD release isn't the best course of action. We're mad keen on UHD as a format, but only if it's actually justified by the source materials.

[Colonel Blimp]

Originally Posted by T4ffer

I think I get what is meant by '4K brain' - tendency (especially in the US) to demand everything on 4K without considering whether it even provides an improvement big enough to justify the additional costs over HD. Or at least I think I've noticed something like that myself..

Yeah, like I watched the Tod Slaughter set, which is Blu only. Yes, OBVIOUSLY a 4K would make it crisper, brighter, etc etc - but it's already very very good for 80-year-old movies. So what would the extra cost actually buy?

I think when it comes to the "4K brain" it's how it sort of shuts down conversation. If a person says "Yes, XYZ Movie is on Blu, but it needs to be on 4K" where does someone go next with that? It's not talking about the movie anymore, but about a hypothetical for some future event that may or may not be better. It's just not an interesting conversation.

(And then of course when labels release 4K upgrades of movies already on Blu, then people complain about wasted resources and that they should prioritize new-to-disk releases....so nobody's ever happy. Haha)

[Indicator]

Originally Posted by Colonel Blimp

Yeah, like I watched the Tod Slaughter set, which is Blu only. Yes, OBVIOUSLY a 4K would make it crisper, brighter, etc etc - but it's already very very good for 80-year-old movies. So what would the extra cost actually buy?

With something like the Slaughter set, you have to be realistic. Thanks to their public-domain status in the US, these films are very, very easy to see - obviously in really drastically inferior quality to what we put out, but it's always a financial risk restoring titles like that, and of course releasing them in UHD would compound said risk because the RRP would inevitably and unavoidably have had to be substantially higher.

And, as you say, what would UHD actually achieve with these films? They're showcases for Slaughter's barnstorming talent as an entertainer, not masterclasses in cinematography. They were made as "quota quickies", i.e. cheap, cheerful and on such a low budget that it's very evident that one take was the norm (in one of the films someone even has a visible nosebleed, but that wasn't considered a good enough reason for a retake).

Granted, you could argue that the same is true of Jean Rollin's films, but Rollin had a really extraordinary eye that George King, bless him, simply didn't.

[Colonel Blimp]

Originally Posted by Indicator

With something like the Slaughter set, you have to be realistic. Thanks to their public-domain status in the US, these films are very, very easy to see - obviously in really drastically inferior quality to what we put out, but it's always a financial risk restoring titles like that, and of course releasing them in UHD would compound said risk because the RRP would inevitably and unavoidably have had to be substantially higher.

And, as you say, what would UHD actually achieve with these films? They're showcases for Slaughter's barnstorming talent as an entertainer, not masterclasses in cinematography. They were made as "quota quickies", i.e. cheap, cheerful and on such a low budget that it's very evident that one take was the norm (in one of the films someone even has a visible nosebleed, but that wasn't considered a good enough reason for a retake).

Granted, you could argue that the same is true of Jean Rollin's films, but Rollin had a really extraordinary eye that George King, bless him, simply didn't.

Exactly - it would be bizarre to invest the resources in a 4K Slaughter set (granted, I'm using a straw man argument because nobody was asking for that).

Rollin makes more sense because, even though I'm not a fan, the colors seem like they would lend itself to 4K in a measurable way. And they were simultaneous Blu/4K releases for the most part, so it's not like either audience is missing out.

But for a movie like - I dunno, "And Justice For All" - as a Blu-only release. Does it really matter that it's "only" Blu? Is 4K going to appreciably change the experience of the movie enough to justify extra production and purchase costs? To certain specific individual fans? Yes, of course. But at large scale to earn profit and make sales to a wide audience? That's a less sentimental argument.

[the13thman]

Originally Posted by Colonel Blimp

But for a movie like - I dunno, "And Justice For All" - as a Blu-only release. Does it really matter that it's "only" Blu? Is 4K going to appreciably change the experience of the movie enough to justify extra production and purchase costs? To certain specific individual fans? Yes, of course. But at large scale to earn profit and make sales to a wide audience? That's a less sentimental argument.

I have And Justice For All on DVD. I noted that it was coming out on Blu-ray so intend to upgrade at some point. However, if it was coming out on Blu-ray and 4K separately I would probably just stick with the DVD because I find it impossible to choose between competing HD formats and see them as poor value even at sale prices.

[neonde]

Speaking of 4k and Blu-ray, why Indicator chose to separate their releases into two formats and not do dual packs instead?

[Gacivory]

Originally Posted by neonde

Speaking of 4k and Blu-ray, why Indicator chose to separate their releases into two formats and not do dual packs instead?

Because people scream bloody murder about dual format. There’s people in the Warner Archive thread refusing to buy Get Carter because it’s Dual Format.

[SkinnyTwist]

Originally Posted by neonde

Speaking of 4k and Blu-ray, why Indicator chose to separate their releases into two formats and not do dual packs instead?

Because people not equipped to do 4k (or people that have 4k, but want the option to only buy specific titles in their preferred format) don't want to have to pay the added cost of that UHD disc being added.