La La Land 4K UHD (2016)

[Dubstar]

honestly I didn't realize 'La La Land' was an official Dolby Vision release - I thought it was odd, that for AMC Georgetown's debut of their new system, it was oh, let's just throw this movie on the new screen, because 'Rogue One' hasn't opened yet ... dang it, I would liked to have had a look see ... oh well.

secondly this movie isn't supposed to look all digital, spangly and new, it's supposed to look filmatic, even the Atmos mix which doesn't use the overhead ceiling speakers is supposed to sound like a cinemascope feature - "w--i--d--e" and wraps around you horizontally (not overhead)

[Geoff D]

Does the mix move the dialogue across the fronts as per the wide proscenium mixes of old? "Filmatic", that's my new favourite word.

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Does the mix move the dialogue across the fronts as per the wide proscenium mixes of old? "Filmatic", that's my new favourite word.

hee-hee ... ... i do that a lot.

the panning of dialog, and singing is heard from Mia's friend during the second musical number as the four of them leave the apartment to go to the party.

[Geoff D]

It's a perfectly cromulent word.

[imsounoriginal]

This is gonna be day one, no questions asked. Hopefully there'll be a Steelbook here in the States, too.

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Does the mix move the dialogue across the fronts as per the wide proscenium mixes of old? "Filmatic", that's my new favourite word.

You mean "directionalized dialog." I haven't heard the movie yet and I don't know how good an Atmos mix would be if they utilized the full five on-screen speakers as well as the wides to track dialog or singing across the sound scape.

[MisterXDTV]

Originally Posted by puddy77

Scott Wilkinson of AVS Forum has been reviewing Dolby Vision theatrical grades for awhile now. He recently posted his La La Land review. Unfortunately, it wasn't very positive.

I'll still buy this on UBD. Of course the theater and home grades are different. But I guess don't get your hopes up.

People expect every movie to look the same, that's the problem today! It doesn't pop, who cares??

Just respect creative intent for God's sake!

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by FilmFreakosaurus

You mean "directionalized dialog." I haven't heard the movie yet and I don't know how good an Atmos mix would be if they utilized the full five on-screen speakers as well as the wides to track dialog or singing across the sound scape.

there's directionalized singing in the second song that i didnt notice in the second time i saw the movie, also in Atmos but not five front channels

[Pieter V]

Release date according to Target/Best Buy: April 11th, 2017

[Ulises_CM]

Absolutely lovely movie, but I think is gonna make an amazing 4k disc at least video wise, I saw it a couple times theatrically and of course look beautiful but not eye popping, just hope the gran will be well resolved on the 4k upscale.

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I've read the AC article, guess I missed the 2K part.

They didn't use any particularly special process though, all they did was shoot regular 2x anamorphic using the full width of the aperture (Super 35, in modern parlance) instead of the usual Academy aperture which takes into account the soundtrack on the left. The full ratio of 4-perf is 1.33, so 2x that = 2.66, that's how it's always been.

I don't know if you recall the aspect ratio snafu on Criterion's Dressed to Kill Blu-ray, XDTV? They accidentally used the full width of the negative rather than the intended framing, as pretty much every movie shot anamorphic on 35mm has that extra information on the left, they just don't frame for it (using the appropriate ground glass in viewfinders etc).

Geoff, my friend, it seems every time you post I learn something. I was confused as to how one got a 2.55:1 aspect ratio using standard anamorphic lenses and how the CinemaScope AR changed from 2.55:1 to 2.35:1 over time.

Let's hope this release is a looker!

[Doctorossi]

For this kind of product (finished from a 6K source with minimal significant CGI elements), the studio really needs to go back and produce a 4K master. IMO, when the cost to do so is so low and you're going to sell a UHD release, there's really no excuse.

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

For this kind of product (finished from a 6K source with minimal significant CGI elements), the studio really needs to go back and produce a 4K master. IMO, when the cost to do so is so low and you're going to sell a UHD release, there's really no excuse.

It's Lionsgate. They don't have the budget of a 20th Century Fox or Disney.

It would be nice, however, don't bet on it.

[Geoff D]

He's not wrong though, for something which has very little CG tinkering and existing EDLs/CDLs to take care of the editing and grading it's not going to be horribly expensive to do. If they didn't archive the 6K scans e.g. the 2K was downscaled on the fly rather than outputting 6K raw then that needs to be redone but even so, this would be one of the easiest 4K rebuilds any studio would ever do and they wouldn't have to be Oprah-rich in order to do so.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by FilmFreakosaurus

It's Lionsgate. They don't have the budget of a 20th Century Fox or Disney.

Fair point. However, I have a strong inclination that if a distributor doesn't have the budget to do it "right", they really shouldn't be releasing a UHD product in the first place.

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

Fair point. However, I have a strong inclination that if a distributor doesn't have the budget to do it "right", they really shouldn't be releasing a UHD product in the first place.

True.

[MisterXDTV]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

Fair point. However, I have a strong inclination that if a distributor doesn't have the budget to do it "right", they really shouldn't be releasing a UHD product in the first place.

Again, the main selling point is HDR and this had a Dolby Vision theatrical release so a UHD release is standard in this case.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

Fair point. However, I have a strong inclination that if a distributor doesn't have the budget to do it "right", they really shouldn't be releasing a UHD product in the first place.

To that end, Lionsgate have put out more 4K finishes in recent years than most of the big boys which is what makes LLL's omission all the more puzzling. Then again, it only cost $30M and I doubt they had any inkling that it would blow up into this Oscar-baiting phenom so they went with the cheaper option (despite running it on a 6K scanner in the first place, though to be fair that's quite commonplace these days, depending on which post house is tasked with the job). "If they knew then what they knew now" springs to mind, but they can still do the right thing and rebuild it in 4K.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by MisterXDTV

Again, the main selling point is HDR and this had a Dolby Vision theatrical release so a UHD release is standard in this case.

I would call HDR a main selling point, not the main selling point. After all, it doesn't say "HDR" at the top of the box, it says "4K Ultra HD".

[joenostalgia23]

Considering the movie is the front runner for Best Picture at the Oscars, I think Lionsgate absolutely can afford to do a 4K finish for this film. If they can afford to finish movies like John Wick or Sicario in 4K, or put out numerous 2K movies on UHD, I think they can afford to remaster a movie that was already scanned in 6K. The sales are gonna be strong for this film regardless, but a proper UHD version will convince a lot of people on the fence between HD/4K.