Scum 4K UHD (1980) (88 Films) (UK)

[Darren75]

I prefer the Indicator too.

Carlin's cheeks are way too rosey on the 88 films release. 4k and Blu-ray.

[Yosef Quilty]

Originally Posted by Darren75

I prefer the Indicator too.

Carlin's cheeks are way too rosey on the 88 films release. 4k and Blu-ray.

Is this based on any caps that were posted that I might have missed? Or do you have both discs.

[Darren75]

Originally Posted by Yosef Quilty

Is this based on any caps that were posted that I might have missed? Or do you have both discs.

I have both discs. I took some screenshots but it's difficult to see what's wrong in a still image.

I'll try to explain.

On the 88 4k the window between Carlin and Mr Sands looks like it has a neon blue light outside of it. It's nowhere
near as bad on the 88 blu-ray and on the Indicator disc it just looks like natural light.






The exact same problem with the patch of sky over Archer's right shoulder.






A few scenes have a weird blue tinge to them. here's a good example.





Please bear in mind that I did take these photos hastily to answer your question.I'm guessing most people have the blu-ray
and are wondering if they should upgrade to the 4k. But, the 88 blu-ray is nowhere near as bad as the 4k and it has a nice
grain structure to it.

After double checking these scenes and few others I would not recommend this 4k at all.

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by nicwood

This is one of the bigger disappointments as of late because this label isn’t usually known for potato-grade encoding. The new master is fine and the HDR is solid but it’s very poorly encoded with strong blocking artifacts in normal areas and clipped highlights that bring Criterion’s Walkabout to mind. As the pixel patterns look quite similar, I think that comparison is wholly justified.

I’m not sure how much detail is in the negative and what was captured by the scanner but I suspect a touch of filtering on top as the grain / detail isn’t as crisp and "tight" as I imagine it could look in 4K. Their BD is slightly "better" as it’s not that noisy but then again still not as good as FiM’s encode for Indicator as it breaks down in the highlights and darker areas are a blocky mess.

The Indicator master is 2K and shows its age by now in terms of dynamic range (clipped highlights in particular) but it’s less buzzy, noisy and ultimately more film-like than both of the 88 discs.

I’ll part with the 88 again and will wait for reviews in the future unless Fidelity in Motion’s involvement is confirmed. A real shame that this release had to be messed up at the last step. I know that 88 used this authoring house for several titles as they always use the same type of menu layout but they’ve unquestionably dropped the ball here. The difference from American Pie to Scum can be taken literally.

whaaaaaaaat

So basically the oily looking cover art infected the image too?

[Keoma]

Originally Posted by Darren75

I have both discs. I took some screenshots but it's difficult to see what's wrong in a still image.

I'll try to explain.

On the 88 4k the window between Carlin and Mr Sands looks like it has a neon blue light outside of it. It's nowhere
near as bad on the 88 blu-ray and on the Indicator disc it just looks like natural light.






The exact same problem with the patch of sky over Archer's right shoulder.






A few scenes have a weird blue tinge to them. here's a good example.





Please bear in mind that I did take these photos hastily to answer your question.I'm guessing most people have the blu-ray
and are wondering if they should upgrade to the 4k. But, the 88 blu-ray is nowhere near as bad as the 4k and it has a nice
grain structure to it.

After double checking these scenes and few others I would not recommend this 4k at all.

I am afraid I am not seeing what you are seeing. 88's disc looks solid to me on an LG oled. Could the compression have been handled better? Maybe, but I do not believe this is as problematic as it sounds.

Also, your screen-grabs are all excessively blue, and the colours are completely off, but I am sure you are aware of this and it's just the way your camera interacted with your specific environment. It would be interesting to see a comparison of actual screen-grabs.

I do not see any blocking artifacting as Nic reported, but I am open to be proven wrong and would love it if an example could be shared.

Also, the 88 transfer offers significantly more picture info. Indicator's is cropped by comparison, severely so in some shots, at least judging by your screen-grabs (full disclosure: I do not own the Indicator disc). That in itself makes the 88 disc a winner in my view.

[TooOldToDieYoung]

This is not helpful at all but thanks for the effort. Waiting for real screengrabs.

[Darren75]

Originally Posted by TooOldToDieYoung

This is not helpful at all but thanks for the effort. Waiting for real screengrabs.

touché

[Loftus]

Originally Posted by Darren75

touché

Don't worry Daz. Your efforts were appreciated.

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by Darren75

touché

So what you are basically saying is you feel the highlights are too hot, and it results in an unrealistic picture?

Originally Posted by nicwood

The Indicator master is 2K and shows its age by now in terms of dynamic range (clipped highlights in particular)

Clipped highlights are not necessarily a bad thing in all cases. Some films, highlights are intended to be clipped because the area behind the highlight is distracting and not intended to be the point of focus.

For example, take this scene from Possession:
https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?go=1&...=29297&i=0&l=0

In this case, this scene on the original 35mm theatrical print analyzed (per LCQF) had clipped highlights, and all home video versions prior to the 1080p HD master had clipped highlights in this scene. LCQF restored the clipped highlights in their 4K master to preserve accuracy to the original print.

But the clipped portion was revised for the 1080p HD master likely because this type of revision is expected by the consumer in a modern presentation - and I would argue it fundamentally damaged the artistic composition of the scene.

In the "clipped" version, your eye is drawn to the protagonist, because the protagonist is fairly bright and the massive window behind him is mostly blown out - the lighting balance of the room also looks quite natural. But in the non-clipped version, the protagonist appears dark now and thus your eye is instead drawn to the both bright and highly detailed irrelevant building in the background rather than the protagonist. In other word, as a result of this change the background is now seemingly the most easily focused on thing in the scene.

"Unclipping" highlights is similar to undoing bokeh in photography, which is possible with modern cameras and formats. It may improve clarity of the clipped area, but its not necessarily true that doing so improves the artistic composition of the scene.

[dallywhitty]

Not even the Scum thread is safe from Ruined's Possession hyperfixation.

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by dallywhitty

Not even the Scum thread is safe from Ruined's Possession hyperfixation.

Just trying to point out that things we sometimes focus on as bad, are not necessarily bad, and sometimes good even. And thus dinging the Indicator for clipped highlights might not necessarily be a valid criticism.

[dallywhitty]

Originally Posted by Ruined

Just trying to point out that things we sometimes focus on as bad, are not necessarily bad, and sometimes good even.

Yes.

[nicwood]

Hipped Clighlights.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by nicwood

This is one of the bigger disappointments as of late because this label isn’t usually known for potato-grade encoding. The new master is fine and the HDR is solid but it’s very poorly encoded with strong blocking artifacts in normal areas and clipped highlights that bring Criterion’s Walkabout to mind. As the pixel patterns look quite similar, I think that comparison is wholly justified.

I’m not sure how much detail is in the negative and what was captured by the scanner but I suspect a touch of filtering on top as the grain / detail isn’t as crisp and "tight" as I imagine it could look in 4K. Their BD is slightly "better" as it’s not that noisy but then again still not as good as FiM’s encode for Indicator as it breaks down in the highlights and darker areas are a blocky mess.

The Indicator master is 2K and shows its age by now in terms of dynamic range (clipped highlights in particular) but it’s less buzzy, noisy and ultimately more film-like than both of the 88 discs.

I’ll part with the 88 again and will wait for reviews in the future unless Fidelity in Motion’s involvement is confirmed. A real shame that this release had to be messed up at the last step. I know that 88 used this authoring house for several titles as they always use the same type of menu layout but they’ve unquestionably dropped the ball here. The difference from American Pie to Scum can be taken literally.

I didn't rush to pre-order this as I'm verr happy with the Indicator. Usually I'm not one to turn down a 4K of whatever movie but this is one of those times I thought 'do I really need a 4K HDR version of this?', and now I'm doubly glad to have swerved it. Be a shame if 88's encoding started to go downhill.

[nicwood]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I didn't rush to pre-order this as I'm verr happy with the Indicator. Usually I'm not one to turn down a 4K of whatever movie but this is one of those times I thought 'do I really need a 4K HDR version of this?', and now I'm doubly glad to have swerved it. Be a shame if 88's encoding started to go downhill.

Yep, same over here but in this case I put my money where my mouth is (was). I’m always happy for more 4K releases of dramas and less genre-driven films but if they look like this and are in some ways worse than the BD, I’m not the right crowd either.

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by nicwood

Yep, same over here but in this case I put my money where my mouth is (was). I’m always happy for more 4K releases of dramas and less genre-driven films but if they look like this and are in some ways worse than the BD, I’m not the right crowd either.

I think in a case like this is, the question is did the new restoration improve the overall master enough to the point where it exceeds the reported problems introduced by the encoding. But as people are complaining about the HDR grade also making the highlights look off, it sounds like the answer is no.

[Keoma]

Originally Posted by Ruined

I think in a case like this is, the question is did the new restoration improve the overall master enough to the point where it exceeds the reported problems introduced by the encoding. But as people are complaining about the HDR grade also making the highlights look off, it sounds like the answer is no.

Could someone post an example of the compression issues? I do not see them.

Also, the framing is significantly different between Indicator's and 88's discs. The former looks severely cropped in comparison. So, to me, yes, that in itself makes the 88 disc a worthwhile upgrade. You can always just get the BD if you do not feel a film like this merits a 4K release (I can see that as a valid point).

[nicwood]

Originally Posted by Keoma

Could someone post an example of the compression issues? I do not see them.

I’ll upload screenshots once it’s possible

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by Keoma

Could someone post an example of the compression issues? I do not see them.

Also, the framing is significantly different between Indicator's and 88's discs. The former looks severely cropped in comparison. So, to me, yes, that in itself makes the 88 disc a worthwhile upgrade. You can always just get the BD if you do not feel a film like this merits a 4K release (I can see that as a valid point).

Those framing differences are likely the result of the images you are looking at being photos with a cell phone instead of a screen capture

[Keoma]

Originally Posted by Ruined

Those framing differences are likely the result of the images you are looking at being photos with a cell phone instead of a screen capture

I thought of that, but they all seem to share the exact same problem and you can also see what looks like the display's frame/bezel, too. 88's was scanned from the original negative.