American Movie 4K UHD (1999) (Sony Pictures Classics)

[marty7044]

I got my copy yesterday, and I don't know what I was expecting. The colors seem to pop a little more, but that's about it. It looks as good as it's ever going to look.

I bought this when it came out on DVD and I bought the Blu-ray a few months ago. I'm just glad it didn't fade into obscurity. Everyone should watch this movie at least once. It should be on Netflix.

This is my favorite documentary. It almost seems like it isn't completely real, because the storyline is executed perfectly. The fact that they include the movie they were making with the disc is just so cool. I do feel kinda bad for Mark because he became famous for this documentary, and not his movies. The Siskel & Ebert review (on Youtube) kinda made that clear.

I'm super bummed it didn't come with a digital copy

[RevolverOcelScott]

^
But it did come with a slipcover, which I was actually pretty shocked by.

[happydood]

Originally Posted by marty7044

I got my copy yesterday, and I don't know what I was expecting. The colors seem to pop a little more, but that's about it. It looks as good as it's ever going to look.

I bought this when it came out on DVD and I bought the Blu-ray a few months ago. I'm just glad it didn't fade into obscurity. Everyone should watch this movie at least once. It should be on Netflix.

This is my favorite documentary. It almost seems like it isn't completely real, because the storyline is executed perfectly. The fact that they include the movie they were making with the disc is just so cool. I do feel kinda bad for Mark because he became famous for this documentary, and not his movies. The Siskel & Ebert review (on Youtube) kinda made that clear.

I'm super bummed it didn't come with a digital copy

Thanks for the take. This is one of my favorite comfort food movies and I'm tempted, but the blu looks great and i don't think I need more depth to the image.

[marty7044]

Originally Posted by RevolverOcelScott

^
But it did come with a slipcover, which I was actually pretty shocked by.

Agreed. That was a pleasant surprise!

[ko8ebryant24]

BD vs UHD HDR10

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...postcount=2092

[professorwho]

Yikes at the compression on the Blu-ray. The UHD looks so much nicer.

[ko8ebryant24]

WCG

Greyscale BT.709
Yellow DCI-P3
Blue BT.2020

https://imgur.com/ysZNNej
https://imgur.com/KcmIVL3

[bradnoyes]

Just finished watching this. Might even watch it again tonight with the commentary track. Very happy to have this on UHD. It's a really beautiful, melancholy film. Not just thematically, but also visually. It's one of my Top 5 films and it's lovely to feel it come to life on the format.

[marty7044]

I went back and watched the Blu-ray and wow. The UHD really does look nicer. I didn't think it was going to be a noticeable difference, but the Blu-ray is closer to DVD quality whereas the UHD is just a nice clean picture.

[wright96d]

The extras are all in the wrong aspect ratio. They're 3:2 (720x480 square pixels) instead of the proper 4:3.

[RWZMJL]

The review doesn't even talk about the UHD master/encode, just complaining about the inherent properties of 16mm. Kauffman really should not be doing any reviews for movies shot on film. Every time it is like, "The 4K makes the grain more prominent." Well, no duh! More grain (and finer grain) is resolved because it was scanned at a higher resolution, pretty obvious! And it's the intent of the filmmakers for the grain to be present.

And yellow grain, which he points out specifically, is also normal and just an inherent property of the negative. I've shot about 15k feet of s16 in the past two years (new refrigerated Vision3, processed at Kodak NY), and I've seen plenty of yellow grain.

Are we reviewing the incredibly subjective elements of the negative itself, or are we reviewing the actual UHD release? Because I think we should stick to the latter, but the reviews on this site often go to the former. And it's pretty obvious from the screencaps that the UHD is far superior to the blu-ray. The only reason I'm complaining is because these tendencies result in studios and boutique labels not releasing supposedly "lo-fi" (his words, not mine) movies on the newest formats. It also encourages things like DNR.

[yougottaguys]

Originally Posted by RWZMJL

The review doesn't even talk about the UHD master/encode, just complaining about the inherent properties of 16mm. Kauffman really should not be doing any reviews for movies shot on film. Every time it is like, "The 4K makes the grain more prominent." Well, no duh! More grain (and finer grain) is resolved because it was scanned at a higher resolution, pretty obvious! And it's the intent of the filmmakers for the grain to be present.

And yellow grain, which he points out specifically, is also normal and just an inherent property of the negative. I've shot about 15k feet of s16 in the past two years (new refrigerated Vision3, processed at Kodak NY), and I've seen plenty of yellow grain.

Are we reviewing the incredibly subjective elements of the negative itself, or are we reviewing the actual UHD release? Because I think we should stick to the latter, but the reviews on this site often go to the former. And it's pretty obvious from the screencaps that the UHD is far superior than the blu-ray. The only reason I'm complaining is because these tendencies result in studios and boutique labels not releasing supposedly "lo-fi" (his words, not mine) movies on the newest formats. It also encourages things like DNR.

Similar review to the one he did for the Arrow 4K UHD of Basket Case, this dude really has it in for 16mm apparently.
Most official reviews on this site are to be taken with a huge pinch of salt or just outright ignored imo

[Nitroes]

Thanks to Jeffrey Kauffman for his review https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Ameri...367986/#Review



A beautifully human film that gives me a bit of hope. My 4K is on the way to me.

R.I.P. Mike Schank


eBay

[marty7044]

I was really excited to see the review was posted. Such a disappointment. I wish someone else had reviewed it. What a waste.

[maverick22]

$18.49 on Amz now.

Thinking about blind buying.

Anyone else?

[HorrorBlu]

Originally Posted by maverick22

Thinking about blind buying.

Anyone else?

I had this on DVD and ended up selling it after watching it. One-time watch for me.

That said, people love it, so I wouldn't want to deter anyone from seeing it.

[Telemachus]

Originally Posted by maverick22

$18.49 on Amz now.

Thinking about blind buying.

Anyone else?

I've watched it every 7 years or so since it came out. It's an intense experience, might be one and done or maybe you'll see it again. $18 is a good price, I paid as much for the DVD.

[hYPE]

One of my favorite films, I watch it a handful of times a year!

[Charlie Hall]

Originally Posted by wright96d

The extras are all in the wrong aspect ratio. They're 3:2 (720x480 square pixels) instead of the proper 4:3.

I just compared the 4K UHD release to my old DVD and indeed the new release has the same extras but they are in a different aspect ratio -- wider -- are they stretched and messed up? Should I hold onto the DVD for viewing the extras correctly?

[jtarvainen]

Yeah, sounds like they didn’t flag the NTSC footage as having non-square pixels, so it’s not shown in the correct AR. What a shame.