Possession 4K UHD (1981) (Second Sight)

[Lutz]

Originally Posted by kmhofmann

I won't call them liars outright

Possession (Zulawski): 10 minutes of LIES! - YouTube

[DaylightsEnd]

Regardless of one’s take on the sordid pedigree of the film’s appearance, I can’t wait to see what Second Sight has in store for us on this title.

[Crispy Noodle]

Originally Posted by Ruined

Zulawski could have outlined what a director-approved transfer would look like prior to his death.

This is one of the funniest things I've read in some time. Made my morning. Thanks.

(Full disclosure: I don't have any 4k version, just the original Arrow and the limited Mondo.)

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by Crispy Noodle

This is one of the funniest things I've read in some time. Made my morning. Thanks.

(Full disclosure: I don't have any 4k version, just the original Arrow and the limited Mondo.)

Likewise, it's one of the funniest things when people will bend over backwards for original theatrical presentations, and now that they are offered one verbatim via LCQF/Umbrella they are gonna potentially go for some home video label's spin on the title instead. An observation, not a judgment

For this title in particular, its been presented differently in a similar time period by Mondo, Second Sight, and others in the past, on regular Blu-ray, all claiming some level of "director approval" despite the different looks.

At least with the LCQF/Umbrella 4K you can say it is representative of an original theatrical exhibition instead of trying to go down the "most approved" rabbit hole or just going by pure subjective qualities. Seems like the safest bet for purists at least.

[Crispy Noodle]

Originally Posted by Ruined

Likewise, it's one of the funniest things when people will bend over backwards for original theatrical presentations, and now that they are offered one verbatim via LCQF/Umbrella they are gonna potentially go for some home video label's spin on the title instead. An observation, not a judgment

For this title in particular, its been presented differently in a similar time period by Mondo, Second Sight, and others in the past, on regular Blu-ray, all claiming some level of "director approval" despite the different looks.

At least with the LCQF/Umbrella 4K you can say it is representative of an original theatrical exhibition instead of trying to go down the "most approved" rabbit hole or just going by pure subjective qualities. Seems like the safest bet for purists at least.

BTW my memory failed; I have the original Second Sight blu-ray; no Arrow at all. I dug it out to check for any transfer info, and there's none. I found it at Half Price for $3 as it was region B; that was my introduction to the film so I have no history as far as how it looks. (I did see TCM at the theater in the 70's but I have no clue how it looked. )

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by Crispy Noodle

BTW my memory failed; I have the original Second Sight blu-ray; no Arrow at all. I dug it out to check for any transfer info, and there's none. I found it at Half Price for $3 as it was region B; that was my introduction to the film so I have no history as far as how it looks. (I did see TCM at the theater in the 70's but I have no clue how it looked. )

You can get a good idea of how your SS Blu looks vs the LCQF/Umbrella 4K (and other editions) on CAH:
https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?d1=15476&d2=3182&c=1332
The LCQF resto was SDR, so its pretty much gonna look like the cap. We don't know how the SS 4K is gonna look, but i assume somewhere in the park of their blu since they insinuated they were gonna use some of the info for that for a reference.

The irony of this movie is every edition generally claims "director approved," filmmaker involvement, or some variation of this, and every edition looks notably different in some way or several ways, even ones released a year or two apart.

I think the LCQF/Umbrella 4K is the only transfer of the lot that received an official theatrical release, though, so IMO that kind of makes it stand out.

[George.P]

Originally Posted by Ruined

Likewise, it's one of the funniest things when people will bend over backwards for original theatrical presentations, and now that they are offered one verbatim via LCQF/Umbrella they are gonna potentially go for some home video label's spin on the title instead. An observation, not a judgment

....

At least with the LCQF/Umbrella 4K you can say it is representative of an original theatrical exhibition instead of trying to go down the "most approved" rabbit hole or just going by pure subjective qualities. Seems like the safest bet for purists at least.

But the LCQF cannot be described as the original theatrical if the film played in theatres before the LCQF version existed, unless I am missing something. And I am not saying the two are different or the same (I have no clue), but I am having trouble following the logic of describing it as "original theatrical" just because it is being shown in theatres in it's updated form (much like BFI is showing the newest version of The Exorcist, for example).

[Brian81]

Originally Posted by Ruined

Zulawski could have outlined what a director-approved transfer would look like prior to his death. As you stated, you have no idea about the rights holders nor the situation itself, thus your assessment is the most "worthless" of all. I'll take Umbrella's and the rights holder's statement over random Second Sight fan on the internet, who has already admitted they have no idea about the circumstances surrounding the transfer.

And, it is undisputable that the LCQF/Umbrella transfer is an original theatrical presentation, while the Second Sight transfer is just another home video iteration.



Nope, I think people were razzle-dazzled by the Second Sight's encoding and lack of damage and didn't stop to consider that the way they got there resulted in wrong colors and lighting. It is not hard to see at all, with even the slightest of investigation, as the Second Sight's colors are radically different than any of the previous Tobe Hooper-approved masters, and on top of that in numerous scenes the color artifacting results in physically impossible lighting scenarios that could only be achieved by digital color manipulation. I am more sensitive to those things though due to my experience in post processing, and its easily provable to someone with similar knowledge.

Also, no I'm not the only one. Several have moved on from the Second Sight due to its wrong color.

He did outline a reference, and that was the Mondo Vision / Second Sight, which he approved before his death.


Which is likely what Second Sight will use as a reference.

So what you are saying is that the Zulawski approved presentation is now wrong? And because this newer master was shown theatrically, it counts as an original theatrical presentation, yet the prior restoration which surely made rounds theatrically as well does not count as an original theatrical presentation - and is merely a home video presentation now?

Is this some kind of way to justify to yourself a purchase?

Originally Posted by Ruined

I know, humor can often help with discomfort. But thems the facts.

LCQF/Umbrella = Official 4K theatrical release transfer, director & rights-holder approved
Second Sight = Tweaked 4K home video release transfer, cameraman approved

You may end up liking one or the other better, but these are the base characteristics of each release.

Did Zulawski approve it from beyond the grave?


That nasty ass lobster skin Suspiria master also did theatrical rounds - I guess that one is correct as well.

[kmhofmann]

Originally Posted by Brian81

He did outline a reference, and that was the Mondo Vision / Second Sight, which he approved before his death.


Which is likely what Second Sight will use as a reference.

Yes. And that's exactly what they should be doing.

Ruined has also previously dismissed any input that Andrzej Jaroszewicz gave with the "pah, what does the camera operator know" argument, when in fact Jaroszewicz was a very close collaborator (mainly as DoP) with Zulawski over many films, much closer than Bruno Nuytten ever was. If I have to trust only one living person how the film is supposed to look, it's Jaroszewicz. Or Daniel Bird!

Originally Posted by Brian81

So what you are saying is that the Zulawski approved presentation is now wrong? And because this newer master was shown theatrically, it counts as an original theatrical presentation, yet the prior restoration which surely made rounds theatrically as well does not count as an original theatrical presentation - and is merely a home video presentation now?

Is this some kind of way to justify to yourself a purchase?

I think everyone has issues with following that logic.

That said, I don't think Possession was in wider theatrical release after its initial release and before this most recent LCQF-commissioned restoration. Which makes it even sadder that LCQF went for a "**** it, let's look at but ignore all other references we've had before, ignore contacts that could provide some reference, and start from scratch and do whatever the heck we want". Which is what they've said on some social media, mildly paraphrased.

Originally Posted by Brian81

That nasty ass lobster skin Suspiria master also did theatrical rounds - I guess that one is correct as well.

Yeah, I've seen that one in theaters (with some incarnation of Goblin playing live in front of it, nonetheless!), so it must be the "original theatrical presentation"

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by Brian81

He did outline a reference, and that was the Mondo Vision / Second Sight, which he approved before his death.

Which is likely what Second Sight will use as a reference.

So what you are saying is that the Zulawski approved presentation is now wrong? And because this newer master was shown theatrically, it counts as an original theatrical presentation, yet the prior restoration which surely made rounds theatrically as well does not count as an original theatrical presentation - and is merely a home video presentation now?

Is this some kind of way to justify to yourself a purchase?

Did Zulawski approve it from beyond the grave?

That nasty ass lobster skin Suspiria master also did theatrical rounds - I guess that one is correct as well.

Originally Posted by kmhofmann

Yes. And that's exactly what they should be doing.

Ruined has also previously dismissed any input that Andrzej Jaroszewicz gave with the "pah, what does the camera operator know" argument, when in fact Jaroszewicz was a very close collaborator (mainly as DoP) with Zulawski over many films, much closer than Bruno Nuytten ever was. If I have to trust only one living person how the film is supposed to look, it's Jaroszewicz. Or Daniel Bird!

I think everyone has issues with following that logic.

That said, I don't think Possession was in wider theatrical release after its initial release and before this most recent LCQF-commissioned restoration. Which makes it even sadder that LCQF went for a "**** it, let's look at but ignore all other references we've had before, ignore contacts that could provide some reference, and start from scratch and do whatever the heck we want". Which is what they've said on some social media, mildly paraphrased.

Yeah, I've seen that one in theaters (with some incarnation of Goblin playing live in front of it, nonetheless!), so it must be the "original theatrical presentation"

I greatly appreciate both of these responses, as they perfectly illustrate the insanity of this hobby so well.

A transfer being theatrically presented, does make it a theatrical presentation, yes. I though this was a fairly obvious conclusion, personally. Regarding whether a theatrical presentation is "correct," it appears the argument above is because you don't like something or it looks different than you expect, then that means it is "incorrect." That is of course, false. But, this is mostly what I read about the LCQF; "oh it looks too tinted blue," "oh the highlights are too blown," "therefore it must be incorrect". Lol. You can say you subjectively dislike something, but with no real evidence to support your case other than your preference, then what you are expressing is your preference and not what is "correct." By the way, an interesting side note: prior to the Blu-ray HD master, the level of brightness/blown look was congruent with the LCQF 4K master - so this is not something new on the LCQF, it is just reverting to a pre-HD master presentation in this aspect; my assumption is LCQF found with their historical research on how the film was originally presented that the dialing down the highlights approach (again, new for the HD master) was "incorrect".

Speaking of correctness, both posts seem to mention both the Mondo Vision and Second Sight as being "approved," and that Second Sight going back to their old release is "correct." The only problem is, these two, "approved," "correct," transfers look very different. So which is "correct"? The one that isn't "correct" is incorrect by logic right, so which is the incorrect one of these two approved transfers?

Ah, and then the expertise of the cameraman argument, yes. Talk to me about the expertise of William Friedkin when he gives his input on the color and saturation of his films, such as the recent Exorcist 4K, I am sure you appreciate his input there right? Or is it that we just prefer input of filmmakers we subjectively agree with?

It's pretty funny how simultaneously, people are right now on the Exorcist 4K thread writing pages and pages on how Warner Brothers should have taken the historical from "scratch" approach LCQF did for Possession instead of going back and primarily relying on Friedkin's recent input, while in this thread people are writing pages on how labels should hinge on recent input (the Friedkin approach) instead - perhaps an even a more bizarre argument as the filmmaker has passed and can't give input. And yeah, for the LCQF 4K resto being the only "director approved," its possible Zulawski could have given new input after those two releases, but prior to his death - maybe he did say "start from scratch and take XYZ approach, the Blu-rays look wrong". You simply don't know.

But, as I noted on the previous page, the LCQF/Umbrella is the only official director-approved 4K restoration and is the only 4K restoration that featured on an original theatrical release. The Second Sight 4k restoration is a home video transfer that is cameraman approved and probably based on their Blu-ray for visual reference as they have stated. These are the simple facts of each release as described by each label. It is okay to like one or the other better, but arguments on "correctness" are a bit silly when there have been at least 3 very different looking versions released in the past decade that all are "director approved". However, if you do really want to go that route, the LCQF/Umbrella 4K is the only 4K release that has achieved the official "director approved" banner and is the only restoration that is an original theatrical presentation in 4K.

In the end, I think the arguments about "correctness" for this film (and many others) actually has nothing to do with true "correctness" as defined by the filmmakers vision/intention, but rather are ways of mentally justifying to oneself how the release one subjectively prefers the look of align with the "most correct" version, even said release truly doesn't.

[kmhofmann]

Originally Posted by Ruined

I greatly appreciate both of these responses, as they perfectly illustrate the insanity of this hobby so well.

A transfer being theatrically presented, does make it a theatrical presentation, yes. I though this was a fairly obvious conclusion, personally. Regarding whether a theatrical presentation is "correct," it appears the argument above is because you don't like something or it looks different than you expect, then that means it is "incorrect." That is of course, false. But, this is mostly what I read about the LCQF; "oh it looks too tinted blue," "oh the highlights are too blown," "therefore it must be incorrect". Lol. You can say you subjectively dislike something, but with no real evidence to support your case other than your preference, then what you are expressing is your preference and not what is "correct."

Speaking of correctness, both posts seem to mention both the Mondo Vision and Second Sight as being "approved," and that Second Sight going back to their old release is "correct." The only problem is, these two, "approved," "correct," transfers look very different. So which is "correct"? The one that isn't "correct" is incorrect by logic right, so which is the incorrect one of these two approved transfers?

Ah, and then the expertise of the cameraman argument, yes. Talk to me about the expertise of William Friedkin when he gives his input on the color and saturation of his films, such as the recent Exorcist 4K, I am sure you appreciate his input there right? Or is it that we just prefer input of filmmakers we subjectively agree with?

It's pretty funny how simultaneously, people are right now on the Exorcist 4K thread writing pages and pages on how Warner Brothers should have taken the historical from "scratch" approach LCQF did for Possession instead of going back and primarily relying on Friedkin's recent input, while in this thread people are writing pages on how labels should hinge on recent input (the Friedkin approach) instead - perhaps an even a more bizarre argument as the filmmaker has passed and can't give input. And yeah, for the LCQF 4K resto being the only "director approved," its possible Zulawski could have given new input after those two releases, but prior to his death - maybe he did say "start from scratch and take XYZ approach, the Blu-rays look wrong". You simply don't know.

But, as I noted on the previous page, the LCQF/Umbrella is the only official director-approved 4K restoration and is the only 4K restoration that featured on an original theatrical release. The Second Sight 4k restoration is a home video transfer that is cameraman approved and probably based on their Blu-ray for visual reference as they have stated. These are the simple facts of each release as described by each label. It is okay to like one or the other better, but arguments on "correctness" are a bit silly when there have been at least 3 very different looking versions released in the past decade that all are "director approved". However, if you do really want to go that route, the LCQF/Umbrella 4K is the only 4K release that has achieved the official "director approved" banner and is the only restoration that is an original theatrical presentation in 4K.

In the end, I think the arguments about "correctness" for this film (and many others) actually has nothing to do with true "correctness" as defined by the filmmakers vision/intention, but rather are ways of mentally justifying to oneself how the release one subjectively prefers the look of align with the "most correct" version, even said release truly doesn't.

I have used the word "correct" a bit sloppily before but am actually apprehensive to use it decisively in the context of film grading. Especially for older works where there is no answer print in good condition, it will become very difficult to establish what is within some bounds of "correctness" and what isn't. And release prints could look wildly different from one to the next.

I believe there is in many cases a wide boundary of "correct" that we just have to accept, as true references may not exist anymore. (That likely includes TCM, too, despite your bias.)
For other works, these references exist and are trustworthy, so the range of what's "correct" or not is much smaller.
Film grading should be as much science as possible and as much art as necessary.

That said, we have seen many home video releases that can confidently be described as "incorrect" w.r.t. emulating a theatrical release print look, including many if not most telecined home video releases from VHS or DVD-era. In the last 5-10 years, we have been entering an era where a lot of mistakes (or oversights, or technical insufficies) of the past can be corrected - and it might be one of the last chances to do so, for many films.

And yes, some filmmakers have been complicit in exacerbating mistakes as of recent (cough, Friedkin, WKW, cough) but I don't think that is the norm. Others, like some Blu-ray reviewers call everything incorrect that doesn't look like old DVD masters, which is a capital mistake as well.

In that context, note that at this point, I would never claim either restoration of Possession to be provably "incorrect". It might be fairly difficult to establish the original theatrical look, e.g., at its premiere. In this case, it's really about closely looking at which restoration effort (Mondo Vision or LCQF) used which references - and I think I have clear hints which one to trust more, personally. The Mondo Vision release had input from Zulawski as well as Jaroszewicz. The LCQF, for all we know, did not. I'm assuming both looked at release prints.
And we don't even know what the pending Second Sight release will look like. Maybe it'll be closer to one or the other... let's wait and find out, shall we?

What I do object to is some kind of notion that a restoration is the "original theatrical release" presentation, just because it was recently released in theaters. That doesn't mean anything.
Same for calling a restoration "director approved", even if it was started after the filmmaker's death and nothing (repeat: nothing) points toward Zulawski himself having given input there. You said it yourself: "you simply don't know" - and yet, you keep calling it something which it is clearly not, or it's at least utterly unsubstantiated.

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by kmhofmann

I have used the word "correct" a bit sloppily before but am actually apprehensive to use it decisively in the context of film grading. Especially for older works where there is no answer print in good condition, it will become very difficult to establish what is within some bounds of "correctness" and what isn't. And release prints could look wildly different from one to the next.

I agree with this, though it gets fuzzier when filmmakers change their mind about intention over time - which happens frequently.

I believe there is in many cases a wide boundary of "correct" that we just have to accept, as true references may not exist anymore. (That likely includes TCM, too, despite your bias.)

Not biased against Second Sight, I have many of their releases and think they do a great job like Vinegar Syndrome. I think they made a good attempt with TCM and I wanted it to be the best release cause it had the best packaging and I actually got in on the LE, but there was too much wrong lighting and colorwise (even within the same frame) that indicated there was no way they could have achieved the result on screen without extensive digital color boosting/reduction, and I found this extremely distracting especially with all the color artifacts throughout. So like any great label, IMO they are not "the best" for every single release.

I remember way back when people accused my of being biased against Arrow because I said they made The Thing too bright with flat contrast, and of course all of that changed when the much punchier looking 4K came out (although even previous HD releases were far punchier than the Arrow transfer). I was able to tell this with similar in-frame anomalies as SS TCM has, like in the above shot where a desk lamp is on but the arrow contrast so low you can't even see it's light. I simply call it like it is, and dont worry too much if it ruffles feathers.

For other works, these references exist and are trustworthy, so the range of what's "correct" or not is much smaller.
Film grading should be as much science as possible and as much art as necessary.

I don't think you can unlink the art from the science, TBH.

That said, we have seen many home video releases that can confidently be described as "incorrect" w.r.t. emulating a theatrical release print look, including many if not most telecined home video releases from VHS or DVD-era. In the last 5-10 years, we have been entering an era where a lot of mistakes (or oversights, or technical insufficies) of the past can be corrected - and it might be one of the last chances to do so, for many films.

And yes, some filmmakers have been complicit in exacerbating mistakes as of recent (cough, Friedkin, WKW, cough)

Problem is its kind of hard to call it a mistake when it is their work in the first place. If they don't want the look of the theatrical release, then you can't really say the way they made it look is wrong, it is just an alternate presentation that is most aligned with the filmmakers intention. If it was as simple as every release looking like the theatrical release, then there would be no need for filmmaker input at all in most cases.

but I don't think that is the norm. Others, like some Blu-ray reviewers call everything incorrect that doesn't look like old DVD masters, which is a capital mistake as well.

In that context, note that at this point, I would never claim either restoration of Possession to be provably "incorrect". It might be fairly difficult to establish the original theatrical look, e.g., at its premiere. In this case, it's really about closely looking at which restoration effort (Mondo Vision or LCQF) used which references - and I think I have clear hints which one to trust more, personally. The Mondo Vision release had input from Zulawski as well as Jaroszewicz. The LCQF, for all we know, did not. I'm assuming both looked at release prints.
And we don't even know what the pending Second Sight release will look like. Maybe it'll be closer to one or the other... let's wait and find out, shall we?

LCQF was quite verbose in their methodology. They essentially went back to all the original materials (OCN analysis, 35mm print analysis, past release analysis) and all historical materials that could be found, interviews, etc and used that to generate what they best approximated as the look of the original theatrical release. IMO, this is actually a more reliable way of scientifically determining how it originally looked. When you involve 80-year old people on a 50-year old film, the odds of them knowing better how it originally looked versus a survey of all archival materials available is probably pretty slim, and is more likely to introduce changes from the original look, either intentionally or unintentionally through acquiescence to changes made at the label's preference.

What I do object to is some kind of notion that a restoration is the "original theatrical release" presentation, just because it was recently released in theaters. That doesn't mean anything.
Same for calling a restoration "director approved", even if it was started after the filmmaker's death and nothing (repeat: nothing) points toward Zulawski himself having given input there. You said it yourself: "you simply don't know" - and yet, you keep calling it something which it is clearly not, or it's at least utterly unsubstantiated.

I am calling it "director approved" because that is what the label called it, and it was cleared by the rights holders. If you don't want to take that at face value, you really can't take anything at face value. Arrow recently claimed one of their releases was "director approved," and the master they used as well as their final release included an entire erroneously duplicated scene on one disc, and another disc very obviously in the wrong color space; one has to wonder, how the director could have actually watched either the master (which had the duplicated scene also) or the discs themselves and not picked up on this? So, maybe the answer is to attribute not much weight at all to such statements.

However, there should be no problem to referring to LCQF's transfer as a "theatrical release" or "original theatrical release". Is it the very first on opening night aka THE original? No, but it is indeed one. Again, I think the resistance towards this may be again a sort of discomfort if someone doesn't want to buy both releases, maybe usually prefers second sight, but now they are confronted with having to skip out on the "only director approved 4K theatrical release restoration," which is exactly what the LCQF/Umbrella is, as far as such labels are applied in home video release context.

[Geoff D]

[By_His_Strypes]

Now we are getting into color timing complaints before we even see the final product? color me confused...

[Brian81]

I don't get how this new one is the theatrical presentation yet the prior restoration also did its rounds in theaters and it no longer gets counted as one as well. It's only now a home video presentation. Then this insistence on director approved when the guy died not too long after the 2K one. Rights owners might as well call it supervised by Pope John Paul II. Why keep touting it when it's obviously bullshit claim.

[JohnCarpenterFan]

I would assume that the new remaster is being referred to as the "theatrical" presentation because the grading was based on actual theatrical prints. There have been many showings of Possession on 35mm over the years since its release and those prints do seem to have a cooler and muted look. I don't think the SS/Mondo Blu-rays were based on any sort of reference print so it could be a situation where one release is more accurate to the original prints and the other better represents the director's wishes at the time it was approved.

I'm very curious to see what SS come up with for their new edition. I was never as wowed by the previous Blu-rays as others. I know the newer remaster gets flak for having "blown whites" compared to the other editions but the "blown whites" roll off in such a way that it doesn't exactly look digital. On the Mondo/SS releases, there's some completely clipped and digital-looking highlights:

https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?a=2&x...1&l=0&i=4&go=1

[stigdu]

Is this the live action Hentai one with all the tentacle sex?

[George.P]

Originally Posted by stigdu

Is this the live action Hentai one with all the tentacle sex?

No, that was the original theatrical, which is different from the original theatrical, which could be different from the various posthumous director approvals, which could be different from some other theatrical, which for sure will be different and better than the Second Sight 4K that hasn’t been released yet. Or at least that’s my takeaway.

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by JohnCarpenterFan

I know the newer remaster gets flak for having "blown whites" compared to the other editions but the "blown whites" roll off in such a way that it doesn't exactly look digital. On the Mondo/SS releases, there's some completely clipped and digital-looking highlights:

Also worth noting, if you compare the LCQF 4K to the pre-HD releases (aka DVDs), the highlights are basically identical in terms of strength. So LCQF did not do anything new with the highlights, they simply reverted the highlights to how they were prior to the HD masters.

What I see more likely is that for the HD master they used digital video editing software to scale back the highlights because that look is more "modern," but as a result it creates images that don't quite make sense from a lighting/physics perspective as you note.

I would assume that the new remaster is being referred to as the "theatrical" presentation because the grading was based on actual theatrical prints. There have been many showings of Possession on 35mm over the years since its release and those prints do seem to have a cooler and muted look.

It does appear that LCQF did a more comprehensive look at old archival material instead of primarily relying on filmmaker input. So, I think from a perspective of wanting what looks most like the original presentation, LCQF is probably more likely to have achieved that as OCN, 35mm print, and archival materials was their primary reference point rather than a person.


Note, my input in this thread is not to discount the SS before it is released. Instead, it is to prevent the LCQF/Umbrella 4K from being discounted, as I believe it offers some unique qualities as described regardless of how the SS looks.

[kmhofmann]

Originally Posted by Ruined

I think the resistance towards this may be again a sort of discomfort if someone doesn't want to buy both releases, maybe usually prefers second sight, but now they are confronted with having to skip out on the "only director approved 4K theatrical release restoration," which is exactly what the LCQF/Umbrella is, as far as such labels are applied in home video release context.

Not for me, at least! I have the Second Sight and Mondo Vision (and Bildstoerung) Blu-rays, the LCQF 4K UHD, the Umbrella UHD on pre-order, and I will pre-order the Second Sight UHD as soon as it's possible to do so