Death Wish 4K UHD (1974)

[lilboyblu]

Originally Posted by Christian Muth

He amended his review to add a lot more details when directly comparing it to the Blu-ray.

Chris

The guy still rates the 4K image quality 4 out of 5, and then recommends the Blu-ray. That's the inconsistency.

To echo others, I'm waiting for caps and other reviews before making any final decisions

[El Sleezo]

I guess it could be he thought the 4K did little but enhance the flaws and limitations he already perceived in the transfer.

[BluProofie]

RAH has done amazing things for film preservation but his reviews are extremely vague and inconsistent. He said that Escape From Alcatraz was amazing and filmic even though the opticals were hit with tons of DNR. I still think that was a solid disc overall, but he claimed that it had “zero downside” with grain completely intact and that’s just incorrect.

[OgamiittoMcJ]

disappointing to read that review, will wait for more reviews & caps
well his review may be accurate (or maybe more for his set-up)

sounds like he's pretty biased against 2k upscales (calling them fake 4k)
and he only upgrades 4k if huge increase compared to BD

yet he still gives some pretty high scores for this
and later he says this is more like 2k UHD
yet Kino said it was 4k

[Fjodor2000]

From hometheaterforum review:

Image - 4 (Dolby Vision)

Pass / Fail – Pass

Makes use of and works well in 4k - 2

Upgrade from Blu-ray - No

Does not compute. Make up your mind.

[BluProofie]

Originally Posted by Fjodor2000

From hometheaterforum review:



Does not compute. Make up your mind.

“Brand new 2022 scan of the OCN” and he says it’s an older scan of the IP. His comments are just really confusing. I’d wait for more reviews and caps.

[grahams76]

That review is bizarre - 4/5 for picture quality but stick with the old blu-ray?!

[dallywhitty]

Originally Posted by BluProofie

RAH has done amazing things for film preservation but his reviews are extremely vague and inconsistent.

This. I never take his reviews seriously.

[Matt89]

Yeah, I respect what he's done for film preservation with regard to films like Vertigo, Spartacus and My Fair Lady, etc. but I really don't think he "gets" 4K, if you know what I mean.

He had that one long rambling post a while back about how Arrow does great work but he's not sure there's benefit to releasing certain films on UHD, when said films had 4K scans performed from their OCNs. Really, it made no sense and that was enough for me to take his opinion of 4K with a grain of salt.

But yes, "vague and inconsistent" is a good way of describing his reviews.

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by Matt89

Yeah, I respect what he's done for film preservation with regard to films like Vertigo, Spartacus and My Fair Lady, etc. but I really don't think he "gets" 4K, if you know what I mean.

He had that one long rambling post a while back about how Arrow does great work but he's not sure there's benefit to releasing certain films on UHD, when said films had 4K scans performed from their OCNs. Really, it made no sense and that was enough for me to take his opinion of 4K with a grain of salt.

But yes, "vague and inconsistent" is a good way of describing his reviews.

You did a good job summarizing the things I respect and get frustrated by with RAH. It is like Chris Nolan in a way- love his films, his overall passion and his devotion to film and large format IMAX/70mm in particular but when it comes to home video he doesn't quite seem to understand the technical aspects like he does with film. There's no color benefit to using an IP over the OCN for scanning because both have to be put into digital color space anyway. Use a timed IP for a LUT reference if you want (which makes sense), but why use a lower quality element for no good reason?

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by singhcr

You did a good job summarizing the things I respect and get frustrated by with RAH. It is like Chris Nolan in a way- love his films, his overall passion and his devotion to film and large format IMAX/70mm in particular but when it comes to home video he doesn't quite seem to understand the technical aspects like he does with film. There's no color benefit to using an IP over the OCN for scanning because both have to be put into digital color space anyway. Use a timed IP for a LUT reference if you want (which makes sense), but why use a lower quality element for no good reason?

Yep, and despite the old and new Nolan transfers both coming from IPs there are some glaring colour differences between them. Funny that.

[tama]

RAHs latest observations now:

I may have misspoken or misreported some information in my Death Wish comments, and desire to make amends.

I've taken a longer look, and here's what I'm seeing.

It appears that the film may partially be derived from IP or dupe, but in deference to the studio techs, it's extremely difficult to tell the difference between the three, especially if at some point rolls may have been mis-canned.

A dupe neg in an OCN can? No real way to tell the difference.

An IP in an OCN can? Ditto. Orange-based Kodak stock is all the same. Even if one looks at the perforations for a clue. They're all the same.

Set up an IP on the scanner rather than a negative? No real difference.

It's also possible that mis-canned rolls were sent to a scanning facility which also could not tell the difference between an OCN, a dupe and an IP.

If you recall, I noted that it's extremely difficult to tell the difference.

Without checking timing, I'd say that the first two or three reels are derived from some element other than an OCN, as they have a different appearance on screen, with more movement. It's possible that DP Arthur Ornitz or camera operator Lou Barlia may have been consuming too much caffeine, which affected the stability of the image - but these gentlemen knew their way around a camera, so it's doubtful.

It may be that the scanning facility had an extremely loose transport. Who knows?

Or all of the reels could be from OCN. If that's the case we'll go with the problematic scanner, second rate scanning facility, or caffeine induced camera crew.

As far as grain, it's entirely possible that parts of the film were shot with Kodak's (new at the time - and experimental) "Living Grain" stock, which allowed grain to move around and take different positions on the film, joining friends in granular peace and love.

From a nominal seating distance, everything is fine, and that fact that there is no 4k information is irrelevant to most viewers, who can't tell the difference anyway.

But 4k does come with bragging rights.

So is the release safe to view?

Sure. And it comes with a free set of HDR.

[Geoff D]

He still can't resist taking the piss re: "living grain"

[LeDroitDeTuer]

What an amazingly irritating writing style to say nothing of substance. He could have just posted screen caps. "Was it an OCN or an IP? Was the cameraman my uncle's best friend? Where are my shoes? Why is the faucet so loud? Have you seen my dog, I think I left him here?"

[Geoff D]

That's RAH for you. Love the guy, but he's in a league of his own.

[Steel76]

Hope we get a proper review soon.

[John Earls Umbrella]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

That's RAH for you. Love the guy, but he's in a league of his own.

Problem is he’s in the relegation zone.

[Matt89]

"It's possible that DP Arthur Ornitz or camera operator Lou Barlia may have been consuming too much caffeine, which affected the stability of the image - but these gentlemen knew their way around a camera, so it's doubtful."

LMFAO. Was he serious when he typed this?

I'm f*cking screaming.

[Christian Muth]

He's obviously joking.

Chris

[Matt89]

Arthur Ornitz and Lou Barlia on the set of Death Wish: