GoodFellas 4K UHD (1990)

[Teazle]

One more thought on this and I'll be happy to be corrected by all those (& there are lots on this forum) w/ more film smarts than I have.

Seems to me that for films shot on 35 (which is like 99.5% of all movies), all of a sudden UHD BD opens up the prospect to "watch the negative".

Couldn't be done before since of course each intermediate & print optically kills some resolution, and the projector bulbs in movie houses and especially drive-ins (ambient light!) couldn't possibly display all the contrast captured by the cameras.

So does purism lie with what's on the negative (where it survives) or what we're typically expected to be able to see? I'll enjoy digging into test cases as the display technology improves and as we get more UHD remasters of 35mm films.

(For films shot on 65 I take it as given that UHD is essential.)

[bruceames]

Originally Posted by Teazle

One more thought on this and I'll be happy to be corrected by all those (& there are lots on this forum) w/ more film smarts than I have.

Seems to me that for films shot on 35 (which is like 99.5% of all movies), all of a sudden UHD BD opens up the prospect to "watch the negative".

Couldn't be done before since of course each intermediate & print optically kills some resolution, and the projector bulbs in movie houses and especially drive-ins (ambient light!) couldn't possibly display all the contrast captured by the cameras.

So does purism lie with what's on the negative (where it survives) or what we're typically expected to be able to see? I'll enjoy digging into test cases as the display technology improves and as we get more UHD remasters of 35mm films.

(For films shot on 65 I take it as given that UHD is essential.)

Yes the purists seem to believe that how it was shown in the theaters (which is a shadow of the PQ available on the negative) is how it should be seen forever, but I don't subscribe to that view. If they want to see it that way, then they should stick with Blu-ray or DVD, because even Blu-ray quality is better than what was seen in theaters and offers resolution improvements that were not "intended" at the time of theatrical exibition.

But as long as the filmmaker is involved, then I would like to see the negative as well, or at least as close as possible to what's on it. Why can't it be better than what was shown theatrically? What's the point of releasing on UHD if it's not going to be better than how it was seen then? Blu-ray already does this.

[BenjaminG]

Had a look at the AUS release this morning (identical master as the US release) and thought I'd pass on my initial thoughts.

As we all know, the 4K remaster as presented on the most recent 1080p disc is very decent indeed and I suspect this 4K disc wrings every last drop of detail from the new D.I. While it doesn't offer a massive increase in visible resolution over the BD, it does render the grain extremely well. I can't tell if this is a 100GB disc from physical inspection, but based off the lack of artifacting I wouldn't be surprised at all if it is. Those worried about the HDR pass shouldn't - it's very subtle and barely noticeably different, however the WCG does make the whites pop a little more.

This is a fantastic presentation which makes me feel like I'm watching 35mm in my home cinema. If you've already got the previous BD release, know that it's not a massive upgrade but Warner's comitment to the format should be rewarded with your $$.

Of note is that the 4K disc includes the 2x audio commentaries mastered on the disc (a first for Warner, I believe) and definitely includes both BD discs from the previous set. Interestingly for Aussies, the set comes on a standard US style thin UHD pack, unlike the normal 'fat' case style.

If you have any questions, happy to answer.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by bruceames

Yes the purists seem to believe that how it was shown in the theaters (which is a shadow of the PQ available on the negative) is how it should be seen forever, but I don't subscribe to that view. If they want to see it that way, then they should stick with Blu-ray or DVD, because even Blu-ray quality is better than what was seen in theaters and offers resolution improvements that were not "intended" at the time of theatrical exibition.

But as long as the filmmaker is involved, then I would like to see the negative as well, or at least as close as possible to what's on it. Why can't it be better than what was shown theatrically? What's the point of releasing on UHD if it's not going to be better than how it was seen then? Blu-ray already does this.

This was to teazle but you'll do : Filmmakers knew full well that what went on a negative was never going to be seen 'as is', that it would be refracted through the IP, the IN, then the final release prints, inclusive of the photochemical timing process. They specifically lit and exposed the film to be exhibited in this way and I recall a remark from Steve Withers at AVF about how the studios had approached HDR remasters and apparently some content providers outright declined an HDR makeover because they were intended only for SDR.

You're quite right that people are electing to "pick and choose" what aspects of this originally intended presentation are held to be sacrosanct - e.g. wanting the extra resolution but not the grain - and then some wags would also argue as to how accurate you REALLY want it, meaning reel markers, dirt, scratches, yellow-stained screens, mis-framed projection and so on, so I think we're all "picking and choosing" to a certain degree.

[edit] You're also quite right that plenty of films have essentially been rebuilt from scratch in terms of colour, contrast in the digital age so we're already through the looking glass with regards to how closely (or not) the original intent has been respected, but I simply don't think it's wrong of people to want a film to look like how it looked (in one respect or another) for however many years, just as I don't think it's wrong to want the mono audio track for a film originally mixed in that format. As with the dreadful - and fully filmmaker approved, FWIW - 5.1 remix for The Terminator, I've clearly reached a similar limit as to how far my visual sensibilities can be stretched re: older films, i.e. the distracting HDR 'enhancements' are purely in service of the new format rather than serving to showcase the original as best as it can be.

[Cevolution]

Originally Posted by BenjaminG

Had a look at the AUS release this morning (identical master as the US release) and thought I'd pass on my initial thoughts.

As we all know, the 4K remaster as presented on the most recent 1080p disc is very decent indeed and I suspect this 4K disc wrings every last drop of detail from the new D.I. While it doesn't offer a massive increase in visible resolution over the BD, it does render the grain extremely well. I can't tell if this is a 100GB disc from physical inspection, but based off the lack of artifacting I wouldn't be surprised at all if it is. Those worried about the HDR pass shouldn't - it's very subtle and barely noticeably different, however the WCG does make the whites pop a little more.

This is a fantastic presentation which makes me feel like I'm watching 35mm in my home cinema. If you've already got the previous BD release, know that it's not a massive upgrade but Warner's comitment to the format should be rewarded with your $$.

Of note is that the 4K disc includes the 2x audio commentaries mastered on the disc (a first for Warner, I believe) and definitely includes both BD discs from the previous set. Interestingly for Aussies, the set comes on a standard US style thin UHD pack, unlike the normal 'fat' case style.

How did you get it early? I have noticed that you sell a lot of new releases on DTVforum, do you get given them from the Australian distributors for free, for doing YouTube videos, or writing reviews for something?

[BenjaminG]

Originally Posted by Cevolution

How did you get it early? I have noticed that you sell a lot of new releases on DTVforum, do you get given them from the Australian distributors for free, for doing YouTube videos, or writing reviews for something?

Sent you a PM, Cev.

[DJJez]

Originally Posted by BenjaminG

Had a look at the AUS release this morning (identical master as the US release) and thought I'd pass on my initial thoughts.

As we all know, the 4K remaster as presented on the most recent 1080p disc is very decent indeed and I suspect this 4K disc wrings every last drop of detail from the new D.I. While it doesn't offer a massive increase in visible resolution over the BD, it does render the grain extremely well. I can't tell if this is a 100GB disc from physical inspection, but based off the lack of artifacting I wouldn't be surprised at all if it is. Those worried about the HDR pass shouldn't - it's very subtle and barely noticeably different, however the WCG does make the whites pop a little more.

This is a fantastic presentation which makes me feel like I'm watching 35mm in my home cinema. If you've already got the previous BD release, know that it's not a massive upgrade but Warner's comitment to the format should be rewarded with your $$.

Of note is that the 4K disc includes the 2x audio commentaries mastered on the disc (a first for Warner, I believe) and definitely includes both BD discs from the previous set. Interestingly for Aussies, the set comes on a standard US style thin UHD pack, unlike the normal 'fat' case style.

If you have any questions, happy to answer.

thanks for your thoughts. according to the bluray.com listing it is a 100gb disc

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/GoodF...lu-ray/161258/

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by bruceames

If Warner's Goodfellas is comparable to Sony's Ghostbusters (1984) and Fox's ID4, then the UHD will certainly be the best "all around" version. I guess the purist can take solace though by the fact that at the BD is certainly not contaminated with HDR.

Speaking of which, HDR is an option, not something that has to be "dealt with". Blu-ray's technical limitations are what has to be "dealt with".

HDR is not an option when it's on the movie like Goodfellas unless you tonal map to strip it away. But Geoff has articulated the grain issue on these UHD BD 35mm sourced discs.

Either way, I plan on checking this disc out for myself projected onto a large screen.

[bruceames]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

HDR is not an option when it's on the movie like Goodfellas unless you tonal map to strip it away. But Geoff has articulated the grain issue on these UHD BD 35mm sourced discs.

Either way, I plan on checking this disc out for myself projected onto a large screen.

HDR is always an option with UHD. Whether it's a viable option depends on the movie. Apparently Goodfellas does have some HDR (although used sparingly) so the option was exercised to use it.

[StingingVelvet]

I remember when BD was first launching the popular words to throw around were "home video finally looks like a theatrical screening!" 1080p resolution and 50GB of disc space was supposed to finally allow a theatrical quality experience in the home. When I watch a new remaster of a film movie, like say Arrow's recent To Live and Die in LA, it really looks like I am watching a film print, which is the coolest thing in the world. Are there examples of revisionism? Sure, especially with color, but also theatrical experiences could vary depending on bulbs and whatnot.

Anyway, my point is people have always (in my experience) had a "closer to theatrical experience" goal in mind with home video advancements. Other than wide color gamut, this is the first format where I feel like the goal is to improve on the theatrical experience, like we've been (supposedly) doing with soundtracks for decades. That's obviously going to worry some purists, a camp which I am mostly a part of.

[bruceames]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

I remember when BD was first launching the popular words to throw around were "home video finally looks like a theatrical screening!" 1080p resolution and 50GB of disc space was supposed to finally allow a theatrical quality experience in the home. When I watch a new remaster of a film movie, like say Arrow's recent To Live and Die in LA, it really looks like I am watching a film print, which is the coolest thing in the world. Are there examples of revisionism? Sure, especially with color, but also theatrical experiences could vary depending on bulbs and whatnot.

Anyway, my point is people have always (in my experience) had a "closer to theatrical experience" goal in mind with home video advancements. Other than wide color gamut, this is the first format where I feel like the goal is to improve on the theatrical experience, like we've been (supposedly) doing with soundtracks for decades. That's obviously going to worry some purists, a camp which I am mostly a part of.

Personally I'd rather watch the negative than the film print. UHD is probably somewhere in between. Anyway if purists worry about improving the theatrical experience then they should also be worried about adding resolution that was never there on the print. Not just pick and choose the elements they want to improve on. In that case the decision would be easy, just stick with Blu-ray for older movies.

Anyway if a movie you really like looks better than ever I'm sure you'd be curious to at least check it out and make up your own mind if they went too far with the revisionist crap.

[Geoff D]

But the irony there is that the negative is NOT colour timed which a lot of people don't realise, so you couldn't "watch" it by any conventional means and expect it to in any way resemble the intended look. So even there it still needs outside intervention to dial in density, colour, contrast and so on, it just depends whether the people doing it have any interest in having it look as it did, or what it should look like according to current tastes (which applies just as much to teal and orange revisionism in SDR just as it does to HDR's box of tricks). For the new Heat remaster they screened a reference print (shock horror) from which the colourists took notes, so one would hope that the new transfer is as respectful as possible.

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

But the irony there is that the negative is NOT colour timed which a lot of people don't realise, so you couldn't "watch" it by any conventional means and expect it to in any way resemble the intended look. So even there it still needs outside intervention to dial in density, colour, contrast and so on, it just depends whether the people doing it have any interest in having it look as it did, or what it should look like according to current tastes (which applies just as much to teal and orange revisionism in SDR just as it does to HDR's box of tricks). For the new Heat remaster they screened a reference print (shock horror) from which the colourists took notes, so one would hope that the new transfer is as respectful as possible.

I would imagine that Marty Scorsese had some part to play in this transfer. I'm hopeful.

[Geoff D]

I'm quite sure he did, and from the sounds of it it's not some insane HDR reimagining and even the almighty powers of 4K can only do so much when it comes to resolving more detail from a movie of this vintage. Can't wait to hear some more thoughts on this by our regulars.

[Adamantus]

So looking forward to this.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by bruceames

HDR is always an option with UHD. Whether it's a viable option depends on the movie. Apparently Goodfellas does have some HDR (although used sparingly) so the option was exercised to use it.

Just curious, Bruce: why do you keep saying "it's always an option" when it's been released on nearly every title at this point? Obviously, this is the way it's going from now on out as they see this as a marketing point. Exception might be more non mainstream or more indie titles.

With that said, there are ways to strip away the HDR and map rec 2020 to SDR (which is said to happen well with the Panasonic player and using HD Futy as a necessary device in some set-ups) but it's not a science yet so the tonal mapping might be a bit questionable - BUT - this is the way I am going to do it on my JVC. The upcoming Oppo player should be able to do this on its own.

[MisterXDTV]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

Just curious, Bruce: why do you keep saying "it's always an option" when it's been released on nearly every title at this point? Obviously, this is the way it's going from now on out as they see this as a marketing point. Exception might be more non mainstream or more indie titles.

With that said, there are ways to strip away the HDR and map rec 2020 to SDR (which is said to happen well with the Panasonic player and using HD Futy as a necessary device in some set-ups) but it's not a science yet so the tonal mapping might be a bit questionable - BUT - this is the way I am going to do it on my JVC. The upcoming Oppo player should be able to do this on its own.

I would go so far as to say that HDR is THE main selling point of this format as the majority of titles are upscaled from 2K masters... Not in this case though.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by MisterXDTV

I would go so far as to say that HDR is THE main selling point of this format as the majority of titles are upscaled from 2K masters... Not in this case though.

Not in this case exactly, but from what we've been seeing and reading 35mm might as well be a 2k master. There might be a very modest detail boost but the same is said for 2k DIs on UHD. So it sounds about the same. 4k DIs and 65mm movies will be the real showcase of the resolution part of UHD. Wider color gamut is actually the thing that most excites me about UHD, but it seems to be a pretty subtle improvement as well.

But yes, the real sales pitch seems to be HDR, and that's an accuracy and calibration battle that is still raging.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

Just curious, Bruce: why do you keep saying "it's always an option" when it's been released on nearly every title at this point? Obviously, this is the way it's going from now on out as they see this as a marketing point. Exception might be more non mainstream or more indie titles.

With that said, there are ways to strip away the HDR and map rec 2020 to SDR (which is said to happen well with the Panasonic player and using HD Futy as a necessary device in some set-ups) but it's not a science yet so the tonal mapping might be a bit questionable - BUT - this is the way I am going to do it on my JVC. The upcoming Oppo player should be able to do this on its own.

FWIW I did a greyscale calibration on my UB700 the other day thanks to Ryan Mascior's HDR test patterns. With the Panasonic converting to SDR 2020 and using my current calibrated SDR settings the colour temperature was virtually identical to my last proper SDR calibration (so it was on or about 6500K across the board), and in terms of greyscale dE's (when referencing the normal HD gamma EOTF) I got an average of 0.41 with the highest error being 1.3. Nice.

[MisterXDTV]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

Not in this case exactly, but from what we've been seeing and reading 35mm might as well be a 2k master. There might be a very modest detail boost but the same is said for 2k DIs on UHD. So it sounds about the same. 4k DIs and 65mm movies will be the real showcase of the resolution part of UHD. Wider color gamut is actually the thing that most excites me about UHD, but it seems to be a pretty subtle improvement as well.

But yes, the real sales pitch seems to be HDR, and that's an accuracy and calibration battle that is still raging.

Yeah, the master is 4K no doubt for Goodfellas but the question is always the same: how much difference is there between a 4K master downscaled to 1080p and a native 2160p presentation in terms of true detail gained?

Not much, because with 4K scans you get very close to the physical limit of 35mm film at its best. That physical limit is expressed by grain itself.

Once it becomes very obtrusive without showing more detail it means that limit was reached