That scene where Henry Fonda and his gang murder the family and just emerged from the desert out of nowhere like ghosts was one of the most beautiful scenes in film. With Morricone’s music giving you goosebumps. 🎥❤️
I'm told the Kalleidoscape version was bigger and it's how it should have looked on a 100gb disc. This was just paramount cutting corners to save money.
Haven’t seen it on 4K yet Once Upon a Time in the West is an absolute Masterpiece film. Top 25 motion picture of all time. The opening and ending sequences are Leone’s Magnum Opus. Charles Bronson, Jason Robards, Henry Fonda and Claudia Cardinale performances are impeccable. I wasn’t even alive when it was released.
In search of physical media has some good screen cap comparisons in his video. Glad to hear the 4K is a noticeable upgrade for one of the best westerns ever!
@@travisspazz1624 well first when you have both of the supposed source discs you can see how inaccurate they are. The blu-ray always looking far worse than the actual disc. Then how could they possibly be accurate as they are scaled down so much that the image becomes useless in actually determining any kind of quality. I can't see what possible actual purpose the images in those videos do other than being blatantly dishonest tbh. At best they are useless and at worst they are dishonest. There are plenty of accurate screen cap sites or actual full videos on TH-cam that are accurate. I know this because I do my own... Once you see actual image comparisons im sure you will see how the ones in those videos are purely for aesthetic purposes and not informational purposes.
@@tjdw5251 Agree, I noticed also in the OUATITW 'comparison' that he kept repeating the same shots, almost as if they were the only ones he had because they were actually supplied to him (or obtained somewhere other than the discs).
They put it on a 66GB disc because they compressed it down as much as possible to fit it on such a disc. Does it look like crap? No. Could it look better? Hell yes. This, sadly, is a cheap and lazy effort. I wish Studios would just stop releasing UHDs and just license them out to Boutique labels. At least they give a crap.
No! According to Jeff they authored the file as best they could and it just happened to fit on a cheaper 66GB disc. Which means that the master must also have had digital compression artifacts, cause there are a shit-ton on this 4k disc.
Pretty much every big movie that comes out on 4k someone on utube will say it’s a terrible transfer… and others will say it’s a reference disc.. happened with The Thing, Godfather, and the Cameron movies. It’s exhausting. If I like the movie I’ll get it. Screw it.
I never upgraded this from DVD and watched that endlessly. Ordered this and looking forward to seeing the crane shot where the main actress arrives in town and it pans up over station.
It was filmed on 35mm TWO PERF! So it's logical to think the 4k restoration end result is as good as possible. Also, consider this was filmed on color negative stock of the 60's, which is inferior to subsequent modern color negative films offering significant gains in sharpness, contrast, finer grain
True. Ron Howard calls this “poor man’s CinemaScope” as American Graffiti was shot the same way. So the fact that a 4k restoration is even possible with Dolby Vision included is very impressive.
Thanks for mentioning the lower bitrate. I’ve noticed this on many Paramount 4K discs that I have (mostly Star Trek movies and the 1976 King Kong) and, even though those discs look okay, I was always perplexed why the Paramount discs consistently maxed out at rates like 40 or 50 when my other 4Ks are regularly in the 80s or 90s. Like you said, bitrate isn’t everything, but I do wonder why Paramount’s rates seem to be consistently lower.
Well... calling it the 'best it has ever looked' might be a bit exaggerated, especially coming from someone who hadn't seen it before. But truthfully, it's my favorite film. I'll definitely grab it once the price drops. As for the folks who greenlit the project, I'm curious about what they were seeing. Was it in 4K? Or perhaps an uncompressed file playing back on a big screen somewhere?
Hey Jeff, Did you have issues with “screen pulsing” on some of the SD bonus featurettes? It made for a very annoying experience watching the bonus content. This was only an issue with the SD bonus content and nothing else so, I wanted to see if anyone else ran into the same issues. Thanks!
No one ever mentions that the movie was shot in Techniscope, which ironically is not scope (anamorphic) at all. It has about a third of the fame size of traditional 35mm anamorphic 2.35. So, you should compare it directly to the other spaghetti westerns that were also shot in Techniscope.
Techniscope definitly tends to have more grain. While Techniscope is not shot anamorphically, it was printed to film with an anamorphic squeeze and projected through an anamorphic lense. I find it interesting that while having a larger budget for Once Upon A Time In the West, Leone still opted for Techniscope over anamorphic Panavision but then again that grainier Techniscope is sort of a trademark look for the Leone westerns and many Spaghetti westerns in general.
@@howardbarbakoff4108 yeah, since it was easier to do deep staging with non anamorphics, and you could be more versatile while shooting, especially zoom lenses.
Excellent point. Generally the thought is that Techniscope was a cheaper option to shoot 2.35 to 1 than using anamorphic systems like Panavision and it most likely was chosen because of the lower cost given the budget restrictions of Spaghetti Westerns and other European films. However as you pointed out, there are Directors and DP's who dislike shooting anamorphic not so much because they dislike the wider aspect ratio (though some do) or the cost but because they do not like the "anamorphic look" (including "depth of field" issues and things like "lens flare"). Despite the extra grain, Techniscope enabled the flexibility to use spherical lenses and still compose for 2.35 to 1. I do not know the technical differences between the two but Super 35 appears to be the more modern and improved variation of Techniscope. Two films that I can think of off hand which were shot in Super 35 and look amazing are the first "Top Gun" and "Casino Royale" (2006). Neither of those films appear particularly grainy or have that "Techniscope look" but what film stock was used would also play a role in that. That all being said, my copy of the 4K Blu Ray of Once Upon A Time in the West is still sitting on my shelf waiting to be watched.....I really need to make the time to watch it.
I’m not concerned so much about the bitrate but I’m hearing there’s some scrubbing of the grain. Perhaps Scorsese and restoration team approved the scan but not everything that happened after, like DNR? Removing grain can remove detail in the image. For those that may say, if you don’t like it, watch the Blu-ray…no, I want a 4K version , I just want it not to be messed with too much. I will definitely buy the disc I hope it’s not as strange looking as the James Cameron stuff.
As westerns go this is one of the best! One of my all time favs for sure. Just upgraded to an OLED and a 4k player so might have to give this one a go.
Jeff, you don't seem to understand that the issue with this disc isn't the restoration, it's about how much picture information has been lost due to a combination of DNR and video compression. This movie has a lot of grain but you won't see that with this disc. The DNR has been somewhat tastefully applied and yes, this disc is watchable. But it does look waxy in parts; whether that bothers you or not is a totally different matter. The reason I'm commenting here is that you insinuate that there isn't a significant difference between the disc and the Kaleidescape version - which has a higher bit rate (roughly 20 GB more of information). I'm pretty sure you haven't seen the K version. I haven't either so I can't swear to it, but there is another reviewer who has (and who I believe) who has attested to the difference. Furthermore, there is another release of this disc in the pipeline and many of us are hoping that it will be authored with less compression and more picture information as a result.
Another release in the pipeline? Since when and by who then? The digital version is close to 110 GB and where not perfect (with the same odd color timing!) is way way better than this BD66.
Jeff literally said "these people know better than me". He refuses to think critically about what he is looking at because he blindly follows what the back of the box tells him.
Actually the dialog's natural clarity is important, hard to tell a story with missing syllables. Even with DTS-HD master audio some disc's sound rough. The video codec and supporting hardware need a massive upgrade. The more bits you have to work with, the more involving the experience.
I received my 4K copy of Once Upon a Time in the West this week and watched it, and this new release looks AMAZING! You won't be disappointed at all. Buy with confidence.
I think bitrate is highly variable when it comes to quality. It's not a linear thing as even UHD video has compression built in. I only know a little about compression, but I do know that if there is less movement in the scenes then you get a lower bitrate (as compression relies on how similar one frame is to the previous/next). It makes total sense to me that this film would have a slightly smaller file footprint and it doesn't at all mean that the quality is less - it just has a lot of long drawn out slow scenes. It still could possibly be of lower quality - all I'm saying is that the bitrate alone is not enough to make any judgement on quality. So if any nerds are getting angry over a bit-rate alone... then they're not being nerdy enough to know they might be mistaken.
This is the greatest motion picture of all time in my opinion, and I've loved it for so long that I can't imagine movies without Henry Fonda's cold stare or that terrifying harmonica.
I ordered the 4K disc from Amazon and am looking forward to watching it. I'm an old head and actually saw the film when it was first released back in '68 in a real movie theater and also own the previous Blu Ray. I appreciate Jeff explaining why the film did not need a 100GB disc as part of his review. Too many folks these days passing judgement on releases before actually seeing them. There were people who had not even seen the film on websites insisting that the new 4K Blu Ray is just an upscale from the same master as the old HD Blu Ray. I will let my eyes and ears pass judgement when I actually play the new 4K Blu Ray.
But then if the vast majority of disc masterers choose a larger disc for a longer movie then maybe the people that made this disc are wrong in doing a double layer disc? It is almost 3 hours ffs. A triple layer disc does cost noticeably more and Paramount just cheaped out (despite the fact that Paramount Presents UHDs are priced high and rarely drop in price or go on sale much - below $30). Instead of putting it on a proper sized disc, they instead chose to waste money on gimmicky slip covers which are nice to look at for maybe 5 seconds, but you can find those pictures (and more) in higher resolution on the internet anyway. I am not saying that the disc won't still look descent though, but if the bitrate isn't much better than normal digital (not Kaleidoscope) then there is no advantage to a much more expensive physical copy. If you are waiting for a good price then keep in mind that Blue Hawaii 4K came out 18 months ago and has never been below $30 (I checked the price trackers). I am not in the US so I imported the UK edition. Maybe if it gets re-released in a couple of years in a non-PP edition like The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance then you could get it cheap.
Paramount does 100 GB all the time. They did it for The Godfather, Pulp Fiction, Titanic, Forrest Gump, Chinatown for example. And for far less popular movies too. It’s not like they are opposed to it.
I wonder if this issue is more common and the cause of things not as good as everyone says and how do I know. I think the craft looks good but people complain about other specs that no one knows about
I find many many many 4k discs are indistinguishable from the blu ray (or worse like in the case of batman 89). The times 4k looks better in my opinion is when they improve the color grading or otherwise correct mistakes that were made on the bluray. If i ever see an 80 inch tv perhaps i could see the resolution difference but on a 50 inch tv i doubt people could identify the difference more often than not
Can't believe you haven't seen this before! You should do a review of your experience with it. For many this is the best western ever made and hugely influential.
This is why I’m glad you are doing these reviews. You give a great perspective when how much bad I have been hearing on this discussion when the reality isn’t so cut and dry.
I watched this on prime I think it was and I had to back out to see if this was a remake or something. It looked fantastic on stream. I have mine on order so I can’t wait to get it.
This is why I follow you. Honest review, yes when a film has been signed off by so many professionals this is the best it can be. It’s no Planes,Trains and Automobiles
I’ll take Bill Hunt’s review over yours. When he says the 86GB Kaleidoscape looks better than the 62GB that is on the disc, I believe him. I’ll be hanging onto the bluray until a remaster is released on a 100GB disc.
I often think there's a placebo effect when it comes to 4K films. Are you going to see a noticeable difference between 40 and 80 in terms of bit rate? No you're not. There's a lot of reviewers out there that will look into statistics way too much. I respect the straight up honesty from you Jeff, just calling it how you see it, that's a real review!
Indeed. And when a blu ray is good .. it is REALLY good. Sometimes I put some blu ray discs I would easily believe they're 4k. 4k cheats our perception and we like it.
@@qasimmir7117 If I'm paying $40 for a movie, I want the best they're able to deliver and not them compressing the movie to fit on a 66 GB dics to save pennies...
@qasimmir7117 the difference between a 4k and standard blu ray is day and night for many movies and every 4k when it's about dark levels. Hd blu ray never have those inky deep blacks and night scenes have no contrast whatsoever.
I haven't upgraded since my precious 2-disc dvd, but I think I'll pick up the 4K baesd on your review. Love the channel btw. I love how you actually preface your review by noting your'e seeing the film for the first time. Classy and professional
I have this movie and the soundtrack, which is hauntingly beautiful. Only time Peter Fonda played a villian this movie was a real look at a time when civilization was streaching its legs. An amazing movie at any bit rate
There's a region free collectors' edition of Once Upon a Time in The West with a second blu ray of special features available on May 13th in the U.K- not sure why the U.S have been given a one disc version.
The US is also a two disc edition. But the UK version is having a BD100 according to blu ray website specs but not sure if that's accurate. I am going to cancel my pre order for US release and will get the UK version because of the art cards and posters. Thanks for informing me about this release bro.
Once Upon a time in the West is possibly by all-time favourite Western, a film I've seen countless times. I have this on DVD and Blu-ray, several different releases of each, and will probably buy the 4K Ultra HD release as well
This movie has alot of Murky interior shots. Even the Blu-ray is murky. If this version adds subtlety to those interior shots it will be worth the price of purchase.
Let's see another opinion from: Reviewed by: Bill Hunt Review Date: May 06, 2024 [UPDATE: I’ve now compared the 4K disc to the Kaleidescape presentation. The larger file size and higher video data rate on the K-Scape download definitely makes the difference between the film’s grain structure looking natural and organic instead of like vague digital compression artifacting as it appears on the disc. Fine detail appears just a tad more refined and overall dimensionality is improved as well. Bottom line: I really wish this film had been released on a 100GB disc. If I were to grade the Kaleidescape video image, I’d give it an A- compared to the 4K UHD’s B grade on disc.]
Sounds similar to audiophile speak. I'm betting in isolation no-one will see any difference. If people are looking that hard they're not really watching the film.
I'm going to assume that you know this a Sergio Leone film and not one by Martin Scorcese although you do make it sound like because Scorcesse signed of on it, it is his film...
Thanks for the review. I appreciate the in-depth explanation on the bit rates and comparison to Kaleidoscape. P.S. The Crow 4K disc has been getting great reviews and it’s a 66GB disc as well and it has special features.
I heard there was a bit of DNR which I know some purists will hate but man I saw a side by side with the blu ray that came out in 2011 and I couldn't be more excited about this release. It looks incredible! Grew up watching this and the man with no name trilogy with my Dad so this is an instant buy for me!
If i enjoy the film and it looks good on my tv i do t care about the numbers. Some people need to go back and look at vhs tapes we all had to watch in the 80s/90s then try and come back an complaint about 4k specs lol That's the side by side we should all be seeing on TH-cam where we came from to where we are now is unbelievable.
I will be curious what the actual file size is though, because if they put features on the disc, or additional subtitles, then they would have needed 100 GB here too.
It is apparently 66gb as well. If you are basing that off the listing on the 'blu-ray' site then that is user submitted and some clown just guessed it when they created the listing in early March. Then people will use that incorrect listing to create another edition listing more quickly and just repeat the error. It can then sometimes takes the mods forever to approve the correction. Creating a different size disc would require re-authoring it and it isn't being released by a different movie studio, because it is a Paramount branded release in both countries.
There's a good amount of DNR applied just like with "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence" also by Paramount Presents, but it's not "AI enhanced" as far as I'm aware.
@@NinjaFaceGames Eagle Pictures (italian production company) is apparently releasing their own transfer later this year, maybe it will right the wrongs of this transfer. No subs though.
We need to be clear. Scorsese did not approve the disc authoring. He was involved with a prior photochemical restoration on film. This aint that. A 4k could not match that even if it was a great disc. This disc is ok. Not horrible, but if its your favourite movie I could see how you would be disappointed. There are compression artifacts and some dnr has been applied, but I would admit that most would not see these issues unless you have a large tv and a discerning eye. This definitely could have benefitted from a stronger encode. Paramount does cut corners. Its a mixed bag overall. Some shots look better than the last blu ray some dont. Some of the same music errors that have appeared for years are still not fixed. If you're fine with the disc, thats cool. But lets not pretend its reference quality. At the very least, it should cost a lot less. If Arrow had done this with FIM disc authoring, there would be no controversy. Sadly we cant always get what we want.
It's funny how people say they never saw this movie before or never owned the blu-ray, and yet they claim that the 4k blu-ray is the best looking version out there🤔
I'm looking forward to picking this one up this week, in addition to the Dune 4K 2-pack. Some people seem to get way too deep into the weeds on various disc specs. Makes me wonder if they ever have any time to enjoy the movies themselves.
This movie is one of my top western of all time. The thing with file size, many reference disk once you rip the movie, the file can be around 50 - 60 GB and that including Atmos tracks and other various languages tracks more the subtitles.
@@thischannelisdeleted In fact, it's 57.7 GB to be exact and that include the English Atmos + English Mono + French Mono audio tracks + English and French subs.
Thanks Jeff. It sounds like it’s an upgrade over my 13 year old Blu-ray, I don’t understand all the bit rate stuff. I’m gonna wait to see if it gets any cheaper.
It's really not an across-the-board upgrade. Most of the film grain has been scrubbed away if you care about that. Some shots on the 4k have more detail than the old bluray, some have less. Color is maybe improved.
I always laugh when I hear film preservation and George Lucas mentioned in the same breath. Dude has no credibility when it comes to preservation anymore since he sliced up his own originals for Star Wars and doesn’t want anyone to see or have access to the original theatre releases. Glad to hear your take on this one, though. A lot of complaints about this one have left me wavering on whether to buy it.
Well since we're all taking this "physical media thing" too seriously i guess ill squash my own expectations and standards for the 4k format. Jeff is in a unique position to hold the studios to a standard because of all his followers but i feel like he is very soft on his criticisms. I wouldnt even call them criticisms. I am not of the mind that we should just be happy with what we get. Paramount needs to do better when presenting movies to the upmost quality they deserve.
![BOWKYLION - วิงวอน (ex-change) [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/cLdnZWDaO-w/mqdefault.jpg)
Buy Once Upon A Time In The West 4K: amzn.to/4b8KxpV
BTW. Scorsese approved the 2007 restoration not this disc
I knew it. I knew I could trust Marty. His Mean Streets restoration is beautiful.
That scene where Henry Fonda and his gang murder the family and just emerged from the desert out of nowhere like ghosts was one of the most beautiful scenes in film. With Morricone’s music giving you goosebumps. 🎥❤️
I'm told the Kalleidoscape version was bigger and it's how it should have looked on a 100gb disc. This was just paramount cutting corners to save money.
Exactly! Cheap ass release of a classic.
A western that needs a 4k transfer is Tombstone, that movie would also sound amazing with a DTS X or Atmos mix
Yes please
Haven’t seen it on 4K yet
Once Upon a Time in the West is an absolute Masterpiece film. Top 25 motion picture of all time. The opening and ending sequences are Leone’s Magnum Opus.
Charles Bronson, Jason Robards, Henry Fonda and Claudia Cardinale performances are impeccable.
I wasn’t even alive when it was released.
I saw screenshot comparisons and yeah the 4K is a lot better. I don’t think these technical details will matter much in the long run.
In search of physical media has some good screen cap comparisons in his video.
Glad to hear the 4K is a noticeable upgrade for one of the best westerns ever!
His screen caps are always pointless and entirely inaccurate. Don't use those are your guide lmao
@@tjdw5251 how are they entirely inaccurate?
@@travisspazz1624 well first when you have both of the supposed source discs you can see how inaccurate they are. The blu-ray always looking far worse than the actual disc. Then how could they possibly be accurate as they are scaled down so much that the image becomes useless in actually determining any kind of quality. I can't see what possible actual purpose the images in those videos do other than being blatantly dishonest tbh. At best they are useless and at worst they are dishonest. There are plenty of accurate screen cap sites or actual full videos on TH-cam that are accurate. I know this because I do my own... Once you see actual image comparisons im sure you will see how the ones in those videos are purely for aesthetic purposes and not informational purposes.
@@tjdw5251 Agree, I noticed also in the OUATITW 'comparison' that he kept repeating the same shots, almost as if they were the only ones he had because they were actually supplied to him (or obtained somewhere other than the discs).
The same guy who said that new Cameron 4Ks have grain "if you put your face right up to the screen"
They put it on a 66GB disc because they compressed it down as much as possible to fit it on such a disc. Does it look like crap? No. Could it look better? Hell yes. This, sadly, is a cheap and lazy effort. I wish Studios would just stop releasing UHDs and just license them out to Boutique labels. At least they give a crap.
No! According to Jeff they authored the file as best they could and it just happened to fit on a cheaper 66GB disc. Which means that the master must also have had digital compression artifacts, cause there are a shit-ton on this 4k disc.
@@JoeBarrackyeah that is why the digital 4K file is 110GB to download……..
One of the best westerns ever! Soundtrack as always by anything by Ennio Morricone is phenomenal
Pretty much every big movie that comes out on 4k someone on utube will say it’s a terrible transfer… and others will say it’s a reference disc.. happened with The Thing, Godfather, and the Cameron movies. It’s exhausting. If I like the movie I’ll get it. Screw it.
That’s a good take
Totally agree, I usually see the points that people are making but it never takes away my enjoyment of the films. (Heat, Pirates, Planes, Trains...)
Good conclusion
By far my favourite western if it looks better than my standard blu ray I can safely upgrade. It already looked great on that too.
I never upgraded this from DVD and watched that endlessly. Ordered this and looking forward to seeing the crane shot where the main actress arrives in town and it pans up over station.
That soundtrack by Morricone, love it.
It was filmed on 35mm TWO PERF! So it's logical to think the 4k restoration end result is as good as possible. Also, consider this was filmed on color negative stock of the 60's, which is inferior to subsequent modern color negative films offering significant gains in sharpness, contrast, finer grain
True. Ron Howard calls this “poor man’s CinemaScope” as American Graffiti was shot the same way. So the fact that a 4k restoration is even possible with Dolby Vision included is very impressive.
Thanks for mentioning the lower bitrate. I’ve noticed this on many Paramount 4K discs that I have (mostly Star Trek movies and the 1976 King Kong) and, even though those discs look okay, I was always perplexed why the Paramount discs consistently maxed out at rates like 40 or 50 when my other 4Ks are regularly in the 80s or 90s. Like you said, bitrate isn’t everything, but I do wonder why Paramount’s rates seem to be consistently lower.
Well... calling it the 'best it has ever looked' might be a bit exaggerated, especially coming from someone who hadn't seen it before. But truthfully, it's my favorite film. I'll definitely grab it once the price drops. As for the folks who greenlit the project, I'm curious about what they were seeing. Was it in 4K? Or perhaps an uncompressed file playing back on a big screen somewhere?
@jeffrauseo Just curious: what did you think of the movie itself? (It's a favorite of mine, personally.)
Hey Jeff, Did you have issues with “screen pulsing” on some of the SD bonus featurettes? It made for a very annoying experience watching the bonus content. This was only an issue with the SD bonus content and nothing else so, I wanted to see if anyone else ran into the same issues. Thanks!
No one ever mentions that the movie was shot in Techniscope, which ironically is not scope (anamorphic) at all. It has about a third of the fame size of traditional 35mm anamorphic 2.35. So, you should compare it directly to the other spaghetti westerns that were also shot in Techniscope.
Techniscope definitly tends to have more grain. While Techniscope is not shot anamorphically, it was printed to film with an anamorphic squeeze and projected through an anamorphic lense. I find it interesting that while having a larger budget for Once Upon A Time In the West, Leone still opted for Techniscope over anamorphic Panavision but then again that grainier Techniscope is sort of a trademark look for the Leone westerns and many Spaghetti westerns in general.
@@howardbarbakoff4108 yeah, since it was easier to do deep staging with non anamorphics, and you could be more versatile while shooting, especially zoom lenses.
Excellent point. Generally the thought is that Techniscope was a cheaper option to shoot 2.35 to 1 than using anamorphic systems like Panavision and it most likely was chosen because of the lower cost given the budget restrictions of Spaghetti Westerns and other European films. However as you pointed out, there are Directors and DP's who dislike shooting anamorphic not so much because they dislike the wider aspect ratio (though some do) or the cost but because they do not like the "anamorphic look" (including "depth of field" issues and things like "lens flare"). Despite the extra grain, Techniscope enabled the flexibility to use spherical lenses and still compose for 2.35 to 1. I do not know the technical differences between the two but Super 35 appears to be the more modern and improved variation of Techniscope. Two films that I can think of off hand which were shot in Super 35 and look amazing are the first "Top Gun" and "Casino Royale" (2006). Neither of those films appear particularly grainy or have that "Techniscope look" but what film stock was used would also play a role in that. That all being said, my copy of the 4K Blu Ray of Once Upon A Time in the West is still sitting on my shelf waiting to be watched.....I really need to make the time to watch it.
I’m not concerned so much about the bitrate but I’m hearing there’s some scrubbing of the grain. Perhaps Scorsese and restoration team approved the scan but not everything that happened after, like DNR? Removing grain can remove detail in the image. For those that may say, if you don’t like it, watch the Blu-ray…no, I want a 4K version , I just want it not to be messed with too much. I will definitely buy the disc I hope it’s not as strange looking as the James Cameron stuff.
As westerns go this is one of the best! One of my all time favs for sure. Just upgraded to an OLED and a 4k player so might have to give this one a go.
Better skip this atrocity and stick to the cheaper (and better) 2012 blu ray release.
@@pieterbalk-ht7kq I’ll get the blu-ray for sure……because it comes with the 4k 😉
Jeff, you don't seem to understand that the issue with this disc isn't the restoration, it's about how much picture information has been lost due to a combination of DNR and video compression. This movie has a lot of grain but you won't see that with this disc. The DNR has been somewhat tastefully applied and yes, this disc is watchable. But it does look waxy in parts; whether that bothers you or not is a totally different matter.
The reason I'm commenting here is that you insinuate that there isn't a significant difference between the disc and the Kaleidescape version - which has a higher bit rate (roughly 20 GB more of information). I'm pretty sure you haven't seen the K version. I haven't either so I can't swear to it, but there is another reviewer who has (and who I believe) who has attested to the difference.
Furthermore, there is another release of this disc in the pipeline and many of us are hoping that it will be authored with less compression and more picture information as a result.
Get this comment to the top. The reviewer in the video has no clue what he's talking about.
Another release in the pipeline? Since when and by who then?
The digital version is close to 110 GB and where not perfect (with the same odd color timing!) is way way better than this BD66.
Jeff literally said "these people know better than me". He refuses to think critically about what he is looking at because he blindly follows what the back of the box tells him.
I can’t believe they didn’t include lossless mono. I’m grateful to have the track, but it should be in lossy DD. Ah, well.
Actually the dialog's natural clarity is important, hard to tell a story with missing syllables. Even with DTS-HD master audio some disc's sound rough.
The video codec and supporting hardware need a massive upgrade. The more bits you have to work with, the more involving the experience.
Do we know if the included Blu-ray is the same transfer as the previous Paramount release from 2011?
Bluray is the new transfer
I received my 4K copy of Once Upon a Time in the West this week and watched it, and this new release looks AMAZING! You won't be disappointed at all. Buy with confidence.
Thanks
Looking forward to this release such a classic flick - the only thing that annoys me is I pre-ordered at $37 then the price shifted to $30 at release
I think bitrate is highly variable when it comes to quality. It's not a linear thing as even UHD video has compression built in. I only know a little about compression, but I do know that if there is less movement in the scenes then you get a lower bitrate (as compression relies on how similar one frame is to the previous/next). It makes total sense to me that this film would have a slightly smaller file footprint and it doesn't at all mean that the quality is less - it just has a lot of long drawn out slow scenes. It still could possibly be of lower quality - all I'm saying is that the bitrate alone is not enough to make any judgement on quality. So if any nerds are getting angry over a bit-rate alone... then they're not being nerdy enough to know they might be mistaken.
This is the greatest motion picture of all time in my opinion, and I've loved it for so long that I can't imagine movies without Henry Fonda's cold stare or that terrifying harmonica.
Reviews are back!
Thank you Jeff.
I ordered the 4K disc from Amazon and am looking forward to watching it. I'm an old head and actually saw the film when it was first released back in '68 in a real movie theater and also own the previous Blu Ray. I appreciate Jeff explaining why the film did not need a 100GB disc as part of his review. Too many folks these days passing judgement on releases before actually seeing them. There were people who had not even seen the film on websites insisting that the new 4K Blu Ray is just an upscale from the same master as the old HD Blu Ray. I will let my eyes and ears pass judgement when I actually play the new 4K Blu Ray.
It looks amazing. I love it. Just be happy it is on 4k!
Definitely on my list of must have classics.
But then if the vast majority of disc masterers choose a larger disc for a longer movie then maybe the people that made this disc are wrong in doing a double layer disc? It is almost 3 hours ffs. A triple layer disc does cost noticeably more and Paramount just cheaped out (despite the fact that Paramount Presents UHDs are priced high and rarely drop in price or go on sale much - below $30). Instead of putting it on a proper sized disc, they instead chose to waste money on gimmicky slip covers which are nice to look at for maybe 5 seconds, but you can find those pictures (and more) in higher resolution on the internet anyway. I am not saying that the disc won't still look descent though, but if the bitrate isn't much better than normal digital (not Kaleidoscope) then there is no advantage to a much more expensive physical copy.
If you are waiting for a good price then keep in mind that Blue Hawaii 4K came out 18 months ago and has never been below $30 (I checked the price trackers). I am not in the US so I imported the UK edition. Maybe if it gets re-released in a couple of years in a non-PP edition like The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance then you could get it cheap.
Paramount does 100 GB all the time. They did it for The Godfather, Pulp Fiction, Titanic, Forrest Gump, Chinatown for example. And for far less popular movies too. It’s not like they are opposed to it.
I wonder if this issue is more common and the cause of things not as good as everyone says and how do I know. I think the craft looks good but people complain about other specs that no one knows about
It looks a bit smooth but good
I find many many many 4k discs are indistinguishable from the blu ray (or worse like in the case of batman 89). The times 4k looks better in my opinion is when they improve the color grading or otherwise correct mistakes that were made on the bluray. If i ever see an 80 inch tv perhaps i could see the resolution difference but on a 50 inch tv i doubt people could identify the difference more often than not
I have the dvd with extras and it looks great. I ran it in 70mm when I was a projectionist. Has a great score too.
Can't believe you haven't seen this before! You should do a review of your experience with it. For many this is the best western ever made and hugely influential.
This is why I’m glad you are doing these reviews. You give a great perspective when how much bad I have been hearing on this discussion when the reality isn’t so cut and dry.
I bought a Sony master series 83 inch TV OLED and a Panasonic UB 9000 4K THX certified Blu-ray DVD player!👍
I watched this on prime I think it was and I had to back out to see if this was a remake or something. It looked fantastic on stream. I have mine on order so I can’t wait to get it.
This is why I follow you. Honest review, yes when a film has been signed off by so many professionals this is the best it can be. It’s no Planes,Trains and Automobiles
I’ll take Bill Hunt’s review over yours. When he says the 86GB Kaleidoscape looks better than the 62GB that is on the disc, I believe him. I’ll be hanging onto the bluray until a remaster is released on a 100GB disc.
'fit for purpose'...use only then # of bits required to optimize the end product.
more bits does not necessarily give a better end result.
Jeff is back! Great review and summary and reminder about keeping collecting in perspective.
I don't agree, when they charge us $34 for a 66 gb disc instead of a 100 gb.
I often think there's a placebo effect when it comes to 4K films. Are you going to see a noticeable difference between 40 and 80 in terms of bit rate? No you're not. There's a lot of reviewers out there that will look into statistics way too much. I respect the straight up honesty from you Jeff, just calling it how you see it, that's a real review!
Indeed. And when a blu ray is good
.. it is REALLY good. Sometimes I put some blu ray discs I would easily believe they're 4k. 4k cheats our perception and we like it.
You would notice if you compared them side to side.
@@Tim._..
But who watches films side by side? If you have to do that just so you can notice a difference then really it is meaningless.
@@qasimmir7117 If I'm paying $40 for a movie, I want the best they're able to deliver and not them compressing the movie to fit on a 66 GB dics to save pennies...
@qasimmir7117 the difference between a 4k and standard blu ray is day and night for many movies and every 4k when it's about dark levels. Hd blu ray never have those inky deep blacks and night scenes have no contrast whatsoever.
I haven't upgraded since my precious 2-disc dvd, but I think I'll pick up the 4K baesd on your review. Love the channel btw. I love how you actually preface your review by noting your'e seeing the film for the first time. Classy and professional
The kaleidoscope version looks better I heard
As long as you have a Kaleidescape
?
I have not watched this movie, but most of the complaints I’ve seen are about grain scrubbing/DNR.
Yeah, that is what is RUINING 4k. These TH-camrs don't care. They want free stuff.
Hey GameStop as of May 14 selling physical media in their stores
I have this movie and the soundtrack, which is hauntingly beautiful.
Only time Peter Fonda played a villian this movie was a real look at a time when civilization was streaching its legs.
An amazing movie at any bit rate
Wish they released a standard 4k version that is $130
There's a region free collectors' edition of Once Upon a Time in The West with a second blu ray of special features available on May 13th in the U.K- not sure why the U.S have been given a one disc version.
The US is also a two disc edition. But the UK version is having a BD100 according to blu ray website specs but not sure if that's accurate. I am going to cancel my pre order for US release and will get the UK version because of the art cards and posters. Thanks for informing me about this release bro.
@@Kashif314 UK was also confirmed for 66 unfortunately
Once Upon a time in the West is possibly by all-time favourite Western, a film I've seen countless times. I have this on DVD and Blu-ray, several different releases of each, and will probably buy the 4K Ultra HD release as well
You can’t compare the visual quality of a film from 1968 to a film from this century dude.
The controversy is making the standard edition available after my limited edition has been released - I could have done without the art cards…
Hi Jeff ... but you know when Jaws 3 4k is coming out ?
If anything deserves a 4k, its this damn western!
Appreciate your take.
Need to see the facts that proves bit rates can not be increased from files. Like this file is < 50 avg.
Huh?
This movie has alot of Murky interior shots. Even the Blu-ray is murky. If this version adds subtlety to those interior shots it will be worth the price of purchase.
Fonda as Frank is one of the all-time great villains.
Does this movie have the old paramount logo or the 1970s one from the 80s restoration
It use the 1984 Reissue
Let's see another opinion from:
Reviewed by: Bill Hunt
Review Date: May 06, 2024
[UPDATE: I’ve now compared the 4K disc to the Kaleidescape presentation. The larger file size and higher video data rate on the K-Scape download definitely makes the difference between the film’s grain structure looking natural and organic instead of like vague digital compression artifacting as it appears on the disc. Fine detail appears just a tad more refined and overall dimensionality is improved as well. Bottom line: I really wish this film had been released on a 100GB disc. If I were to grade the Kaleidescape video image, I’d give it an A- compared to the 4K UHD’s B grade on disc.]
Sounds similar to audiophile speak. I'm betting in isolation no-one will see any difference. If people are looking that hard they're not really watching the film.
@@redrock425 What's stopping you from getting the blu-ray and saving a lot of money? Genuinely curious.
I'm going to assume that you know this a Sergio Leone film and not one by Martin Scorcese although you do make it sound like because Scorcesse signed of on it, it is his film...
So what do you think of the movie? I don't you said anything about it.
Thanks for the review. I appreciate the in-depth explanation on the bit rates and comparison to Kaleidoscape. P.S. The Crow 4K disc has been getting great reviews and it’s a 66GB disc as well and it has special features.
The Crow is over 1 hour shorter, that's why. The longer the movie = the larger the file size.
I didn’t think The Crow looked great either. Not a huge improvement
I hate it when a movie interrupts me watching the bitrate..
If it doesn't have Jill's theme over the final credits,I'm not interested.
66GB disc for a 3 hour movie in 4K. That is all you need to know about the care that went into this.😕
Never seen it! Wow. This one is a must!! It’s a masterpiece.
Wooo-Hooo! First review i have seen that talks about low bitrate!
Thanks for the full explanation--so comprehensive and helpful!
Reviews like this is why I love your channel! Thank you for this review! I’m going to pass this video on to a friend that LOVES this movie!!
I haven’t seen this movie in years! It’s a great film. I’m not a huge western fan, but I may have to pick this one up for the collection.
I heard there was a bit of DNR which I know some purists will hate but man I saw a side by side with the blu ray that came out in 2011 and I couldn't be more excited about this release. It looks incredible! Grew up watching this and the man with no name trilogy with my Dad so this is an instant buy for me!
If i enjoy the film and it looks good on my tv i do t care about the numbers. Some people need to go back and look at vhs tapes we all had to watch in the 80s/90s then try and come back an complaint about 4k specs lol
That's the side by side we should all be seeing on TH-cam where we came from to where we are now is unbelievable.
Can’t wait. Preordered mine. It’s a limited edition so I went ahead just in case.
While yes 66 GB is large enough to look very good I'm bothered because the UK, French, & Spanish editions ALL have 100 GB discs!
I will be curious what the actual file size is though, because if they put features on the disc, or additional subtitles, then they would have needed 100 GB here too.
It is apparently 66gb as well. If you are basing that off the listing on the 'blu-ray' site then that is user submitted and some clown just guessed it when they created the listing in early March. Then people will use that incorrect listing to create another edition listing more quickly and just repeat the error. It can then sometimes takes the mods forever to approve the correction. Creating a different size disc would require re-authoring it and it isn't being released by a different movie studio, because it is a Paramount branded release in both countries.
Def placebo effect its like when somebody tells you they can tell the difference between a 320k mp3 and a lossless flac file: im calling BS.
There’s defintely a noticeable diference
omg i thought it is Once Upon A Time In America
Need that in 4K
@@warrendchild same
As long as it doesn't have intense DNR or whatever you call that AI crap Cameron used recently, I'll probably be fine with it.
There's a good amount of DNR applied just like with "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence" also by Paramount Presents, but it's not "AI enhanced" as far as I'm aware.
@@ChrischlyM Oh that's unfortunate.
@@NinjaFaceGames Eagle Pictures (italian production company) is apparently releasing their own transfer later this year, maybe it will right the wrongs of this transfer. No subs though.
I dont understand the controversy for this transfer, I thought it looked fantastic
I'm a huge western fan and I love this movie I have the bluray it was good the 4k is amazing I hope they do once upon a time in America
We need to be clear. Scorsese did not approve the disc authoring. He was involved with a prior photochemical restoration on film. This aint that. A 4k could not match that even if it was a great disc. This disc is ok. Not horrible, but if its your favourite movie I could see how you would be disappointed. There are compression artifacts and some dnr has been applied, but I would admit that most would not see these issues unless you have a large tv and a discerning eye. This definitely could have benefitted from a stronger encode. Paramount does cut corners. Its a mixed bag overall. Some shots look better than the last blu ray some dont. Some of the same music errors that have appeared for years are still not fixed. If you're fine with the disc, thats cool. But lets not pretend its reference quality. At the very least, it should cost a lot less. If Arrow had done this with FIM disc authoring, there would be no controversy. Sadly we cant always get what we want.
Great review! Thanks for your perspective and for doing the homework and talking to people in the industry.
Any plans to review The Hunt For Red October?
I'm shocked Jeff had never seen OUaTitW!
It's funny how people say they never saw this movie before or never owned the blu-ray, and yet they claim that the 4k blu-ray is the best looking version out there🤔
As someone who has been in since the beginning watching Jeff, doesn’t seem like he enjoys this as much as he used to.
I'm looking forward to picking this one up this week, in addition to the Dune 4K 2-pack. Some people seem to get way too deep into the weeds on various disc specs. Makes me wonder if they ever have any time to enjoy the movies themselves.
This movie is one of my top western of all time.
The thing with file size, many reference disk once you rip the movie, the file can be around 50 - 60 GB and that including Atmos tracks and other various languages tracks more the subtitles.
And this release would probably be 40gb
@@thischannelisdeleted In fact, it's 57.7 GB to be exact and that include the English Atmos + English Mono + French Mono audio tracks + English and French subs.
@@SteviesCornerTH-camChannel I don’t include the audio tracks, an Atmos track is at least 3-4 Gb
Thanks Jeff. It sounds like it’s an upgrade over my 13 year old Blu-ray, I don’t understand all the bit rate stuff. I’m gonna wait to see if it gets any cheaper.
It's really not an across-the-board upgrade. Most of the film grain has been scrubbed away if you care about that. Some shots on the 4k have more detail than the old bluray, some have less. Color is maybe improved.
@@JoeBarrack thank you.
1:06 "I've never seen this movie ..." That's when I turned the video off. 😄
Yup. Just for clicks.
This is exactly why I cancelled my order like a month ago. Wanted to hear how it came out first. Glad I kept my Blu-ray.
I always laugh when I hear film preservation and George Lucas mentioned in the same breath. Dude has no credibility when it comes to preservation anymore since he sliced up his own originals for Star Wars and doesn’t want anyone to see or have access to the original theatre releases.
Glad to hear your take on this one, though. A lot of complaints about this one have left me wavering on whether to buy it.
Well since we're all taking this "physical media thing" too seriously i guess ill squash my own expectations and standards for the 4k format. Jeff is in a unique position to hold the studios to a standard because of all his followers but i feel like he is very soft on his criticisms. I wouldnt even call them criticisms. I am not of the mind that we should just be happy with what we get. Paramount needs to do better when presenting movies to the upmost quality they deserve.
Many thanks very well explained and when I get the chance and the price comes down I will upgrade this wonderful Movie.