Weird Science has 135,000 individual frames that were individually color timed when the film was made. Each reel of film was pushed or pulled as needed, and the lighting was different for each scene. Those are a lot of variables the filmmaker has been aware of for 40 years. Doing a 4k scan of the film should be no different, with differently lit scenes DNR’d independently as needed, and the color grading tweaked to account for time. The same goes for True Lies, I would hope that each scene/reel would be processed separately as the film calls for, and not some master DNR setting that over processes the daylight lit scenes to accommodate the night scene grain. Shooting at higher iso, pushing the film, and faster film stock all increase grain, so I think those 300k + frames should’ve been processed individually. I haven’t seen either film in 4k, so my comment is just a generic observation based on many years with still and film photography as well as processing and editing film and digital. I agree that changing the color grade is worse. I watched a side by side if what they did to The Mummy, and it is atrocious! Unless you like green… they removed the heart of the movie and made it look like bad tourist photography!
@@AV84USA there is a big difference between pushing or pulling something while it is being shot or developed at the source vs trying to change something that is already complete with all of that baked into it - I also said "Im just picking a for instance here" when talking about the blanket DNR - of course they didnt blanket DNR True Lies but if you run the DNR on a daylight scene, you are going to get a far more waxy and overly digital image because it had very little to clean up to begin with in comparison to scenes with less light
@@AVAPopCulture 100% agree. My push comment was in response to the varied grain you discussed at the beginning of Weird Science, and I was offering an opinion on why that could chance within the finished scene, e.g. different film rolls, multiple takes, etc. I’m assuming that grain is in the master and not introduced during the remaster 4k process, but like I said, I haven’t watched either films in 4k.
@AV84USA oh I got ya!! Yes I agree, it being in the master is what I am trying to kinda get across to the folks who just point out the flaws and shout "horrible transfer " lol
Not sure if this gets highlighted later on. But this might help anyone watching who can't quite visually get to grips with the limits of main use film stock in the 70's - early 90's. This video explains how the stock used affected colour temperatures, lighting needs and their limits within an SDR approach to film making, especially when in the 80's and early 90's some may have chosen to light around the 100nit SDR standards or the 14 Ft lambert of lamp projection even THX would hold to these th-cam.com/video/kQmIPWK8aXc/w-d-xo.htmlsi=rqU2bd7_cyf-_wMn
We're so spoiled with 4k. It's incredible. I remember recording lots of movies off VHs in 480i, pan and scan, and I thought it was awesome. We're so lucky to get the tech we have now.
You did an absolutely amazing job of explaining this. I’ve been looking for someone that can fully explain grain vs DNR. I don’t hate grain, but I don’t want an extreme level of it in my 4k’s. But how you explain why it’s there so prevalent at times from lighting to super 35 vs full frame, and even different cameras they use makes sense. I think the whole idea of “4k” in people’s minds is “clarity” and “looking the best ever.” So when you see a high level of grain, people are like…ewww…this looks horrible! Your explanation now makes me understand why that would happen. Now that all said - those doing the 4k restorations are truly in a rock and a hard place…when to use some DNR vs not. Great video!
Hey thanks brother! As I just came back to really full time collecting (that's what my wife calls it lol) I've noticed all of this talk about the 4ks and like you, I felt like people were just thinking "4k = the cleanest most perfect picture ever so if there is grain or DNR then it sucks" LOL when really, with the exception of purposeful overuse of DNR, the restoration is going to simply increase the visibility and clarity of what is inherent in the film ... so I thought maybe if I did a video from a filmmaker's point of view and kind of go over why the grain is there, why it fluctuates, why you can see more in some scenes or movies than others (if you see people talking about "very stable grain throughout" that movie was probably shot on full frame 35mm camera with less variances in light) then maybe we could get back to enjoying the films and appreciating the love and restoration and preservation they are getting! I just didnt want to sound like an arrogant know it all lol... BTW, I had just watched your Vinegar Syndrome halfway to black friday video yesterday while waiting on this video to upload to my channel and subbed lol -Im still waiting on my shipment!! Thanks for watching and the kind words!!
Yeah it took me a while to get used to just how much 4K exposes those filmstock differences. Filmmaking is a rather run-and-gun process to where they oftentimes have to make fast decisions to accomodate for whatever the lighting conditions of the day were
Thank you for your experienced perspective! It's so cool to hear from someone who has done work and editing with 35mm. I used to be a projectionist so I got to dabble and touch some 35mm film and occasionally splice reels together. I love when a 4K really looks and feels like a film.
I could not imagine having to edit a whole film on actual film but I love the way film looks- nothing will ever replace that look in my opinion - I agree with you on how you want a 4k to look! thank you so much for watching and the kind words!
Gee, when I look with my eyes, I do not see grain, just clear reality. Film is a look, so is digital. Neither is natural looking. It is art and art involves subjective opinions.
Hey thank you so much! Glad you enjoyed it, I am having a lot of fun doing this and living in the movies and the 80s my head a lot of the time LOL! I'll have another video this evening or tomorrow, depends on how long the encode and upload takes!
Thanks, appreciate the explanations of film development. I kind figured out naturally that light changes grain and also those 70mm films carry more information. I'd don't mind the grain, or some of the color upgrades as long as the final product is well represented.
Probably one of the most insightful videos I’ve seen in a long time on movietube. You broke it down so simply compared to some of the grain critics who like to complicate the subject when they likely have no idea what they’re talking about. Definitely will see film restorations in a different light after watching this.
@dandee546 hey I appreciate that! I just want to share what I know and have learned from making movies etc and hopefully it will give some new perspective on some of these restorations before we jump to attack and be negative or pick things apart!
I 100% agree as you mentioned with music and vinyl same goes for video games from the SD to HD jump (scan lines, dithering, etc.) Thanks for the content, I'm sure this channel will boom. Ps looking forward to your Red Dawn take one of my all time favorites
hey thank you! 80s babies rule lol... I hope people find the channel fun, interesting and entertaining, I am having an absolute blast! The Red Dawn video should be out in the next few days- I love that movie, Ive watched it twice since I got the 4k in my hand so I have a lot of thoughts!
the daytime smoothing part was so spot on, I didn't even think about that. They were probably shooting it on 250D film, & I don't really see 250D film stock on 35mm ini the daytime with a $100mil budget, getting grainy at all! the only thing I can think of is that the original negative was not in the best shape & they had to fix something that was broken that happened 30years of sitting around unmaintained.
I love this, lots of perspective and insight. Only thing I'll say is about bit rate. For a set desired quality, a particular shot will need a certain bit rate to be 100% quality, this wil be absed on many man things, how much motion is there, are we dealing with smooth paint colors on walls, or heavy complicated textures (and yes, grain is a texture), etc. The more complicated a scene ie less pixels that are the same color, the more detail, the more grain, the more bits you need to deliver that image. It will vary from scene to scene, sometimes drastically. If you have more bits then you need, they are wasted and wont give you anything new, if you have less than what you need, thats when you get artifacts, color banding, macro blocks, smearing etc. So your max bit rate is determined by your most complicated shot up to the limitations of the delivery mechanism, but you dont need that the whole time or you waste space, and you have a max size based on your disc and how many layers you go with (aka how much money do you want to spend in production) so if you have the space, you can go full quality on the hardest scene, and just use what you need as you go, and depending on the movie, that can be quite high overall or average rate. Where you run in to issues is say you have a long movie, or a lot of special features, or multiple versions on the same disc, where you actually run out of space if you were to use max quality on your bit rates, so then you have to use less bits than actually needed for some scenes and you lose quality potential. Reducing grain does reduce required bit rate, waxy is easy to encode, less space. It's better to degrade a scene to require less bits, then to keep it higher and let the encoder squash the scene to fit a bit rate target, that's where you get color banding, loss of detail in shadows, less color depth etc. So bitrate isn't nothing...but more bits than needed wont make it better, and less bits than needed does make the image worse, sometimes in perceivable ways, sometimes not.
this is of course all entirely codec dependant, the same scene to be a certain quality target will require differnt bit rates depending on if we're talking h.264, h.265, mpeg 2, av1, vp9 etc
Another thing people don't realize about bit rate is how it affects the size of the file on the disc. The disc may be 100gb, but that 90+min film film will be double that if that make the bit rate as high as possible. I have to lower bit rate all the time when delivering videos to clients just to fit a damn email lol
& here endeth the lesson. Amen brother. There are so many naysayers dissing 4k transfers that i wonder why they are collectors in the first place. Do they even watch a film without negatively examining every frame. 4K is the best we have these days which is why some of the older films look better than we originally remember seeing them . There are all of the above points you make as well as a lot of films had 2nd unit photography that didnt match the main photography but we never let it interfere with the overall enjoyment of the film. It's largely negativity of social media these days unfortunately.
I tried to not come off sounding like an arrogant know it all but just try to maybe give some new perspective and get people enjoying more rather than nit picking...if you understand the "why" maybe it changes how you watch the movie is my way of thinking!
Thank you so much! Maybe it has to do with my years as a teacher and then my many years as a film director but my pet peeve is when people try to show how intelligent they are y talking down to people and dropping jargon that anyone outside their area of expertise wouldn't know lol - like it gives them some extra level of authority when the truth is, if you are really adept in your knowledge, you should be able to have a discussion or share what you know with people in clear ways to help them understand without having the same background and experience as you!!! Just my thoughts! Thank you again so much!
Yeah, it's hard to find that happy medium with the consumer. We want the grain for that depth & detail but then sometimes we want it cleaned up. A great example is the 4K bootlegs of Star Wars trilogy. I know I rubbed people the wrong way with my review. I was pretty harsh. The Harmy blurays were incredible but then the 4Ks were done and I felt like I was watching VHS. We are spoiled with the new tech out there. We see restorations of older films and how great they can look. But then get upset when others do not get that same treatment. James Cameron has really done a great job with pissing people of with his comments though. He is catering to his Avatar crowd and wants all his movies to look that way. I wasn't as negative as others on Abyss, Aliens ad True Lies. Sure TL was heavily DNR'd but it is the best its ever looked. I'm not as critical as others since I don't have an elaborate high-end setup...just a basic 4K player and QLED tv. But it does show a great presentation. My biggest complaints with some releases are the dark scenes. Sometimes can be too dark and you cannot see anything going on. It;s like "what the point of having 4K if we can't see everything?". Three movies come to mind that have this issue: Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny (opening chase scene at night), The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare (nighttime scenes near end), and Twister. All three of these movies those scenes look better on the bluray. Some might say it's because I don't have a fancy OLED. But how can you try to sell the 4K format to people if it cannot be properly displayed on the average setup. Just my 2 cents.
yep...but 99% of people dont really understand "pushing the negative" and what that can do and 40 years later, the restoration people cant do anything about it
Genuine question, I’m glad you brought up the white “flashing grain”…. Why does this change when tweaking Tv settings? I’ve noticed this to be different when I turn down the sharpness or the “picture warmth” …. I’ve noticed this more with Arrow releases more so than others. I’m open to learn about this especially coming from someone who has experience with film. Btw, I’m a new viewer and I’ve been binging your videos! Keep it going brother!
Hey thanks so much!! So when you change color temperature or contrast or brightness (or all of them) it is essentially going to affect the grain in the picture much the same way the amount of light affected it when they were filming...the grain is inherently silver so when you make a Picture cooler and/or brighter (usually happens when turning down the warmth) it will highlight the brighter parts like the silver grain - if that makes sense...I always lean warmer when calibrating my Picture settings
@gregorpfueller6659 encoding is not likely to cause grain that wasn't there already but it can enhance it due to compression...a 4k master is likely going to be 200GB or more for most films - so they will have to compress it to fit it on a disc
@@AVAPopCulture It won't cause grain to be there that wasn't already there, but it can cause the grain to "flash" in and out. I'm also not really sure I know what you mean by "flashing grain" being caused by lighting. Either I'm not understanding you quite right, or you're attributing an encoding failure to something else. Could you explain that a little better? And would you happen to have a timestamp for the flashing grain seen in Crybaby?
@wright96d I never saw the flashing grain in crybaby - I said other reviewers talked about that...but I am not sure some folks really know the process of encoding - when they encode something it is going to be uncompressed and for a 90 minute movie the master could easily be over 200GB which is still twice the size of even a 100gb disc... so the encode isn't creating anything that wasn't already there...the compression down to fit it on a disc could however cause digital noise but again, that is only going to happen, in most cases, where there was already lack of information in the picture at the time it was filmed due to any of the reasons I went over or others such as film stock choice etc...
Me too! But even if it is cleaned up, it was shot with 35mm full frame so the grain was better to start with, so maybe it wont look waxy when it is cleaned
This right here is educational, I love, movies, love audio, I am a mute. I am a musician, so part of what makes a movie interesting to me is the development of how it was shot and the details of what cameras what tape what say Lloyd brand was used, I’m a nut for all that stuff love the juicy details. I think, your expertise in this field can educate a lot of people that do close to pro reviews. I myself try to give these TH-camrs with big channels some hints here in there, but I think it gets lost in the thousands of comments that are left. A lot of big reviewers do not understand how things were put on film For the past hundred years since we actually had sound in movies. Anything from the 40s on up I keep telling them, could be put in a vibe to 7.1 multi surround as the tracks that were recorded were done through re-dubbing in studios and recycled sound effects, especially in the 60s and 70s where every gunshot kind of sound at the same. So when we get to the 80s and 90s, they do not understand how easy I mean simply easy it would be to format these movies any proper 5.12 7.1 format, I will give them one thing. Atmos can be difficult for these types of movies but is not improbable. Even the original Superman movie from 79/78 had over 48 tracks of sound therefore was able to be put in a 5.1 or 7.1 L on DVD, might’ve had potential also for laser disk but I’m sure Warner Brothers did not get around to it, although I will say their twister on laser disk 5.1 is still pretty awesome today. But yeah I know I’m ranting here. I just want you to know that, this is a topic that needs to be taught to people I applied you for putting this information out there, hope this becomes a routine kind of course, I know every video won’t be like this and I do enjoy your content, but they’re truly is a learning curve when it comes to bigpodcast/reviewers TH-camr whatever have you, they What they are talking about more technically if they are going to give an educated review. 32:40
Thank you for the kind words and I am glad you enjoyed the video - when I came back into collecting and started watching TH-cam content, I realized a lot of the reviews of 4k films were kind of saying the same things with the same issues but I felt like if you really want to have a proper review and perspective, you need to know the technical aspects that create all of the situations you are discussing! So I wanted to do a video addressing those things without trying to sound like an insufferable know it all 🤣 I will do videos from time to time on different technical aspects of filmmaking that apply to the movies we love collecting!!
As a filmmaker I like grain. I want to shoot fields of grain on high speed super8. That's how much I like grain. ;) Ok maybe not that much, but I have noticed that while guys like Lucas and Cameron are trying to remove grain, many low budget filmmakers like myself sometimes add it in where it doesn't exist. Funny how that goes.
Interesting that you used weird science as an example because that opening scene really turn me off and got me to return it. I guess I really need to have more of an open mind that they're really restoring it to the best of what's available to them.
I don’t feel the need to get a 4k player, blu-ray is good enough quality usually without sacrificing the original atmosphere of the film, especially if it’s old. Some newer films with iffy digital effects look worse even on blu-ray. A good example I noticed recently is Ichi the Killer
I stopped reviewing them because I think most of the minor gripes look great. Some of the reviews saying a certain restoration is unwatchable and I still watch VHS almost daily. Film grain no film grain doesn’t matter to me as long as it looks great I’m good. Some 4ks do look like crap but I think restoring and saving the film is more important than anything else. I did a review of Barbarella 4k and explained in depth with examples that the special effects were noticeable on the Blu-ray and so the 4 made that even clearer but it’s the best the film ever looked, someone still left a comment saying basically it’s a bad transfer don’t buy it and basically I was wrong. The difference between camera switching and soft focus that was on present on the vhs was less noticeable on old tech and super noticeable on a 4k I can see that and I wear glasses 😂 I’m very happy with True Lies. The only thing I understand people complaining is the DNR waxy faces. Great video great topic and nice to hear from an expert on the matter 👍
Thanks my friend! I guess what I overall want people to understand is that there is some stuff that is inherent in the filming of the movie and it was ingrained in the film for all the reasons I mentioned and others, so you can basically (on most films) expect either grain and grain fluctuations OR DNR smoothing....so picking it to death is pointless! Even in these comments you have some people who say DNR it and give me a digital Picture and others saying leave the grain...lol
@@AVAPopCulture 😂 can’t please everyone I’m just happy these films are being restored and available. I remember early days of DVD and Blu-ray and there weren’t great transfers and sure there’s probably a few poor 4k transfers but to me it’s easy to see what is there is what was filmed 99% of the time.
Very interesting, and makes sense. In reality, if you're assessing in detail for performance and subjective quality, then you're likely not enjoying the film for what it is. I would imagine at your level or from a technical critics point of view, it is hard to switch this off...
Oddly, unless there is something egregious and frequent in what I'm watching, I watch to enjoy- I come from being a kid having to put tin foil on rabbit ears to get a clearer picture so HD and 4k is a revelation to me still lol... What is actually more difficult for me to ignore is when reviewers are commenting on things without working knowledge of the how's and why's and without experience...that would be like me watching and episode of House or Grey's Anatomy and then going to tell a real doctor all about how he is performing surgery incorrectly 🤣😂
Im actually not a fan of the way modern 4ks look. Way too clean for me. Its probably because i watch vhs and a bunch of old weird horror movies that were made for no budget. Also dude as someone who has way too many vs movies. Good luck sir! It will break your wallet. Great video sir. I just feel alot of people dont understand how film and the restoration process actually works. I also agree that no one could imagine that the low budget movies being made would ever get restored to the level of 4k. Im just glad we are getting some movies brought to both bluray and 4k. Because otherwise they would be lost or stuck on vhs.
I am so happy that these boutiques are saving and restoring these films!!!! It makes my heart happy lol... we need this movement to get bigger and continue, so I will do my part by buying way too much lol
@@AVAPopCulture haha. Yeah I love so of the bizarre films and more well known films getting restored. I wish some of the major distribution companies cared as much as arrow and vs.
I was thinking why J.Cameron wasnt just filming on 70mm wich would be future proof as its have way less visible grain as even anamorphic 35mm.Regarding superiority of camera negative,intersting fact that C.Nolan wasnt using camera negatives for his catalog titles 4k transfers but interpositives,apparently for the sake of deliver same colors as on original theatrical 35mm prints.And you are right that bitrates importance is misunderstood.Ive seen transfers with 45gb 4k file size of 2hr film wich looked refference and 90gb file size for 2hr film that looked average
yep, there are so many factors...Id say Cameron probably used Super 35 because it was the NEW THING in the early-mid 80s and because they could use spehirical lenses which allowed those cameras to get into tight places and get shots they never could before (like the cockpit filming in Top Gun)
@@AVAPopCulture Apparently the main reason J.Cameron done them on super35mm was that you get less cropped image on VHS and TV broadcast wich was 4:3 at that time,compared to anamorphic filming process
Yeah, I don’t think people get how basically clean and natural film can be. There is a reason why Michael Bay/Sam Raimi/even Spielberg to a point steel shot on analog even in the early 2000s. The first three Spider-Man movies from Rimi were all shot on film, the first two transformers movies were shot on film, I think the third one was as well, but I haven’t really looked into it too much, just love the first two so saw all the detail and special features when it came to how they shot the first two. Yeah I mean even the first two X-Men movies were shot on film. There is something to analog that just Can be seen more naturally then a pure digital image digital only works well when analog is at the foundation at least when it comes to video, to me as a musician, even sound to a point, sometimes I like to record my stuff on a track and then transfer some tracks to digital and then record other tracks straight digitally just to see what kind of saturated warm I can give some of my tracks. Another thing I also love to do is record a master on a VHS or super VHS for a higher resolution analog, sounds like people wouldn’t go to so much trouble, but sometimes he analog just gives it some thing that a clean digital sound straight through a TD converter won’t give you Without a process being involved at the foundation. I tried to find a one or 2 inch tape real to real recorder. They were just super rare and when I did find one really really, really expensive, so I figured if I could get some thing on a pure analog format it would either be VHS or super VHS half inch tape. 36:49 its beauty and glory. 35:18
the thing is, especially when they used Full frame cameras with mostly anamorphic lenses and the scenes are lit accordingly (even most of the times when they arent) that grain that people complain about is spread out over a huge field of view which smooths it and makes it look better to the digital lovers...I see a lot of filmmakers now moving back to shooting on film because the image it gives you is so much more natural, pleasing to the eye, and for lack of a better word, "filmic" - and of course Tarantino and Nolan never stopped using film that I know of!
Oh man, you said a mouthful right there, 100% they should release one or two versions of how they mastered these classics. A movie like aliens is a perfect example, I would have gladly I mean gladly put down $70-$80 if Cameron had released a digital cut and a pure analog 4K cut of the film, what is sight to see that would’ve been, by digital cut, I mean all the clean and restoration that he did, a purest cut is basically you know, the analogue real, and its beauty and glory. 35:18
You know your stuff brother and you got a new sub from me. I’ll be looking forward to checking out your stuff. Enjoy that VS goodness when it arrives 😉👍🏼
thanks my friend, I really appreciate that! Im looking forward to that VS - they hit me right in my soft spot with their art and packaging of films -I kinda feel the need to get everything they put out and that isnt normal for me, I usually only really collect and target my favorite stuff - but between them and Arrow, I might go broke LOL - you're unboxings set off my spending LOL
I recently watched Once Upon a Time in the West. Is the 4K perfect? No. Is it better than the old Blu-ray Disc? Yes! Some reviewers are acting like the disc is the worst disc that was ever released.
We need to watch movies first to enjoy, 2nd to be thankful that they are being restored and preserved, and 3rd to appreciate how great they look compared to the original quality we watched them in... not to nit pick things that often cannot be changed!
The Abyss 4K is pretty impressive especially towards the end. I think expectations were way too high for True Lies and Aliens, the 4K community treated those releases like they were going to be the second coming of Christ.... aaaand it didn't quite happen that way.
@@AVAPopCulture Nah man and if people did then they're missing your message. I personally like reviewing 4k's, but your message just gives me another perspective, which I appreciate.
Great video. My issue with JC is he using AI to perform the remasters and when it can't figure out the data, it fudges the image. There is a scene in Aliens when Vazquez lips are literally stuck to her cheek 😂
. . You're describing the look of most terrible low budget movies. The evidence that alerts me to the quality of the flick. Unless the movie uses the atmosphere to create a mood. Really touchy, but it's fun to see. . 😁😎
flashes in the background in dark areas sounds more like an encoding issue… it happens and i will blame the encoding which is part of making the transfer…
very unlikely that it is from the encode...the 4k resolution elevation is bringing up the noise and lack of detail in those areas...it likely always existed and you just couldnt see it before!
@gregorpfueller6659 afraid so... and there are a bunch of other reasons it could be doing it too...your HDMI cable may not be fast enough, your player may not sustain the bit rate and or drop frames in playback, your tv's refresh rate, the HDR settings on your TV, the color and brightness settings, so many things....to just say "it's the transfer" isn't going to cover it all
I would prefer digitally filmed movies to be processed to look more like film than to have film movies remastered to look like digital. Removing film grain from a movie shot on film feels as wrong as colorizing a black & white film.
@@AVAPopCulture Yes this is the only colorized movie I have in my collection only because they forced it on you when you buy the 4K “It a Wonderful Life”. I put it in out curiosity and I have to admit it somehow made me feel a little nauseous,lol. I remember feeling a bit sorry for the people that would want to watch it that way!
I don’t have the experience I’ve got stacks of 4K’s haven’t had time to watch any but I’m assuming I’m gonna like the smooth out look based on experience with game emulators
It should be simple. If You shoot on film, then it should look like film with nice grain. No dnr. And if You shoot film on digital, You shouldn't add filmic look filter to it. Only exception could be period pieces.
Seems to me that if you're going to actually spend the time (decades *cough* Cameron), you might as well do it right. Each scene should be evaluated for a DNR "proper" level and applied at that level. Then? You won't get that "wax", because the DNR should be LESS on those scenes with more light. You didn't bring it up, but (in my opinion) the people's problems revolve around "uncanny valley". When people start looking waxy or "overly processed", the "suspension of disbelief" can be broken. Just like TERRIBLE physics in CGI heavy movies. When you see Wonder Woman thrown against a truck and the physics are BLATENTLY wrong? Something clicks in your head that (IMHO) ruins the scene. You are pulled out of the suspension of disbelief. Same thing with Jurassic World - when the leaves move BEFORE the dinosaurs' feet touch it? Your brain clicks and says "Hey, something wasn't right". I'm not the biggest fan of grain (esp. when it is ridiculous like the scene in Labyrinth when Sarah is talking to her mom). The grain is horrifying. I've rebought that movie like 3x in 4k because I'm hoping they do SOMETHING about that. But they don't. This isn't nitpicking (IMHO); this isn't "grain fluctuation". It almost looks like the film was somehow damaged and this is the ONLY copy we're ever going to get. I truly dislike most modern films because they are TOO clean, too antiseptic, they don't FEEL REAL because, well - most of it isn't :) Grain establishes reality - that pristine look only works for concept movies (again, IMHO) where it works (see Barbie).
This is a good video for younger people and anyone new to the basic concepts of how movies were/are shot. But for anyone else… I don’t think I could be this patient lol. If you’re gonna watch a FILM, expect to see some FILM! 🤦♂️
I don’t care HOW grainy a film is, I’ll still take that over ugly artificially smoothed skin and weird AI artifacts. We need to appreciate films IN THEIR TIME. I grew up way after Black & White, but I don’t need artificial colorized versions to enjoy those older films. In the same way, you, person who grew up only watching digital, can appreciate analog films in their natural state. Grain and all. (A lot of movies aren’t even that grainy.) If it helps, pretend you’re running an old reel to reels projector instead of some high tech digital state of the art home theater 4K Blu-ray player.
Since I don't own a 4K tv or a 4K player, I have to question the importance of making 4k versions of movies that did not use 4K cameras. I'm glad that blu-ray allows a higher resolution (it looks fine to me), but overall putting out these 4K packages is just a money grab. Besides, a 4K of a bad movie is still a bad movie.
Well 4k camera really only applies to digital...anything shot on film has the capability of being delivered at 4k and greater resolutions...there was just no method for you to see it in that much resolution until the 4k tv, player and restorations came into the world!
Reviews like "too much grain', "the colours aren't quite right", "the encoding is terrible"....freakin hell...why don't these people just watch the bloody film and not scan every frame for something to moan about??
I always found it funny that the folks who do super critical 4k reviews will complain about DNR because it "doesn't keep the original intent of the film" but they never address HDR, which can be just as revisionist. I appreciate you for speaking about that from a filmmaker's POV.
Thank you! The HDR and the color etc is something I'm sensitive to from doing so much color work on films and music videos - that can change the tone so easily! So much goes into all of this that just nit picking and saying "bad transfer" or "bad encode" kinda doesn't make sense!
thank you! I was trying my best to kind of talk about it like Id talk about it to my friends without sounding like a complete pompas know it all a$$ LOL
Yes, yes, educate us, we all need to hear this kind of stuff from people that actually know what they’re doing, people like you that I have actually worked with film shot with different cameras, have experience in cinema photography, oh one more thing, I am not a mute, Siri is just an idiot, lol. 33:50
That's not mistaken for warmth....perfection is not a human condition...perfection is not reality...perfection is cold, sterile, digital and not representative of our senses....that's why vinyl is more pleasing to listen to
@@AVAPopCulture Yes, it is mistaken for warmth. I don't agree that burying the music under distortion is more pleasing. Any more than I fall for the absurdity that it's how to listen to the music "purely".
So many people complain about this crap I don’t even care if it has grain it has grain if it’s clean it’s clean who cares. Man people obsess over this.
I agree! That's why I was trying to point some of these things out- I thought maybe if people understand WHY some of these things are the way they are, they could just get back to enjoying the films!!!
People who complain about film grain do understand film how the image actually is actually created. I would say that I much prefer grain to digital noise. I hate digital noise. It looks like crap. I also despise DNR. James Cameron, quit ruining 4k restorations with DNR. As a film fan, I don't mind film grain. I do mind directors going back 20, 30, or more years later and adding film elements. Somebody needs keep George Lucas away from the editing room. ... 😒 Holding breath that David Fincher doesn't go overboard with Se7en. I trust him though. 🙏 Please don't Fck that up.
You are doing a really good job, but there is no way on earth 35mm film has 12k information. Some say it is 6K which is doubtful in itself. It estimated that 4k hdr is equivalent to somewhere between 4k - 5k. Didn't you mean to say 12 million pixels. Even the CEO from Paramont said eperts are discussing it, and is between 4k - 5k. Some eperts said 4k and some said closer to 5k
I said in theory it does - I didnt say these did - 35mm is 4-6k standard but film can go to 12k- hate to tell him but - this is from Kodak- "The average digital resolution of 35mm film is standardized to 4K, while that of 35mm Imax film is 6K-8k, and that of 70mm Imax is closer to 12K. Regardless of how they are shot."
@@robomnemonic3751 No worries my friend! I was on kind of a rant and I can change channels in my head lol... Im thinking in terms of "film" in general and it's capability - but older films like The Terminator and stuff like that were actually delivered in a cinema package in 2k to be distributed to the theaters, so they werent even using the standard film's full capabilities!
@@AVAPopCulture But you are totally right people bitch about the transfers and most of them does not even know what it is supposed to look like. They just jump on the hate as soon as someone says somethhing negative.
Some directors want to scrub grain, add more Ewoks, replace firearms with waki takis etc. what I want to see is a replication (as close as possible) to a pristine screening print on opening day. What I don’t want to see is a functional re-edit, or recrossing of the image. Grain to 4k in my mind is like the “black bars” on DVD. Those who understand what it is don’t want the movie changed to remove it.
James Cameron said you should "get out of your mother's basement" if you're complaining about his AI upscaling.....lol. He is one of the most successful filmmakers of all time, but I really think he is off base when it comes to the 4k foremat. I'm pretty sure The Terminator is not going to look right at all when that is completed.
maybe it will look great! while I dont really agree with JC's tone with what he said, I understand the sentiment - I mean, I can read a 100 books on heart surgery and watch it be done over and over again at a teaching hospital but I will still never know as much about it or how to do it as someone who has spent their lives studying it and actually doing it! - so I look it differently, especially being a filmmaker myself...I also dont tend to seek out everything negative every time I put in a new 4k movie LOL
I remember when I started collecting laser discs in the early 90s (T2 being the film that got me started), film reviewers praised the transfers because it showed the grain and every little flaw in the original negatives. Great show! Keep on keepin' it real.
Understanding why grain fluctuates doesn't make me enjoy it more. So some 4k reviewers may not fully understand why something is the way it is, but they're just reporting what they see and how they react to the transfer. I'm 46, but I am a digital convert. I like the look of old horror movies, but I think it's more nostalgia than that it actually looks better. I hope my comment isn't coming off negative. I just discovered your channel, and I'm really enjoying the content.
no negative offense taken - kinda more to my point is that there isnt a lot to be done about it because it is there inherently because of those reasons I discussed...so you will either have grain as it originally existed (you just see more of it because of the elevated clarity and dynamic range) or you DNR it and risk losing detail, dynamic range and making people waxy....pretty much pick your poison situation...so if we know that, then why complain and nit pick is my point...
I’m fine with the digital look, I mean I prefer film, but digital is fine. HOWEVER, let films be films. There are plenty of new productions for those who like digital. Movies shot on film should be preserved as they are. A very tiny amount of DNR in super grainy spots is tolerable, but the detail in these films should be preserved. We aren’t likely to get new physical releases for many of these for a very long time, if ever.
I was nearly 30 when movies started filming digitally and I still hate film grain especially with 4K. I want the movie to warrant that 4K bump up and don't want a sandstorm of film grain. I think James Cameron did a good job The Abyss and ALIENS but True Lies is a bit waxy but certainly not as bad as T2.
everyone has a preference but hopefully this video helps clarify why that grain is there and that 4k does not mean "super clear picture" it means an elevation of resolution of the original film...if that original film had a lot of grain for any of the reasons I mentioned (there are other reasons too) then the 4k is going to elevate it as well!
@randybradley4151 you're right, tons of people don't know! But if you know why, then ya gotta know that you probably won't get what you are wanting from 4k if ultra clear digital type clarity is what you're after!!
True lies has been in HD on DVHS for more than a decade. Comparing the Laserdisc to the 4K is insane how much they ruined the film from the color grade change to the reported A.I. upscaling. I personally never watch reviews after I was tricked into buying jaws in 4K and was blow away by how bad it was. The digital processing from removing wires/ ropes to the changing of backgrounds just ruins it. Lord of the rings is another that is just disgusting to watch. When Gandalf has a close up in fellowship computing the dvd to 4K is nonsensical. How are we releasing 4ks that have less definition and details than a dvd made decades ago. So many people that make videos know nothing about what they say but people sadly watch. Hopefully it gets better but seeing how I will not buy many titles due to quality it sadly seems like I will never get terminator or elm street or even 2001 due to lack of care.
@@JakeKaufmanFilmshave you heard and see the criterion or mgm laser discs? I think the visuals aren’t perfect but they are good. The audio is the main issue for 2001. Which is what all those films listed have in common. The 4K for 2001 strictly speaking about the image quality, I would put the transfer below paramounts 4K for the Addams family. Not the best encode or use of a very high resolution transfer
I prefer the noise reduction process, cause it makes the content look better, I want a nice clear smooth experience thats why I use my tvs noise reduction as well
to each their own! To me, that looks artificial because that is not how it was filmed and it is not how our eyes see the world! but art is subjective and film is art!
Thanks for the rant, but I do believe there is a case for some dnr, some movies look like they've over enhanced the grain and others completely removed it. Surely there must be a balanced approach, yes True Lies looked like it was filmed yesterday, to smooth in parts and then others for example Easy Rider now I saw this in the cinema, on VHS, dvd and the rest, but the 4K looks like they've enhanced the grain. If you look at the vast skies when they're on the road the sky looks alive, not just the clouds but everything akin to the old crt no signal screen. Looking closely at the image it almost looks like they've digitally overlayed the grain. I think grain retention is a good thing, but to much is distracting and there is a case to slightly reduce, not remove for some older movies.
@pauldavies7407 thanks for watching and taking the time to comment but I think you are kinda missing what I was getting at - they are not enhancing the grain! The grain that is already present due to any of the factors I went over is simply becoming more visible with the increase in clarity from the 4k restorations... if there was a lot of grain in the shot, then a lot of grain shows up in the restoration when the clarity is improved- think of the restoration as going into a dark room in your house and turning a flashlight on and then making it brighter and brighter - the brighter it gets, the more you see...in this case, the clearer the image and the more resolution they increase it to, the more you see the grain that was there that you couldn't see before....and in those scenes, the grain holds more texture and detail so the more DNR they use, the more that scene will look odd
Yes, most of the time, I feel like 4k restorations are reviewed incorrectly, pop that tape in, and find out why!
Weird Science has 135,000 individual frames that were individually color timed when the film was made. Each reel of film was pushed or pulled as needed, and the lighting was different for each scene. Those are a lot of variables the filmmaker has been aware of for 40 years. Doing a 4k scan of the film should be no different, with differently lit scenes DNR’d independently as needed, and the color grading tweaked to account for time.
The same goes for True Lies, I would hope that each scene/reel would be processed separately as the film calls for, and not some master DNR setting that over processes the daylight lit scenes to accommodate the night scene grain. Shooting at higher iso, pushing the film, and faster film stock all increase grain, so I think those 300k + frames should’ve been processed individually.
I haven’t seen either film in 4k, so my comment is just a generic observation based on many years with still and film photography as well as processing and editing film and digital.
I agree that changing the color grade is worse. I watched a side by side if what they did to The Mummy, and it is atrocious! Unless you like green… they removed the heart of the movie and made it look like bad tourist photography!
@@AV84USA there is a big difference between pushing or pulling something while it is being shot or developed at the source vs trying to change something that is already complete with all of that baked into it - I also said "Im just picking a for instance here" when talking about the blanket DNR - of course they didnt blanket DNR True Lies but if you run the DNR on a daylight scene, you are going to get a far more waxy and overly digital image because it had very little to clean up to begin with in comparison to scenes with less light
@@AVAPopCulture 100% agree. My push comment was in response to the varied grain you discussed at the beginning of Weird Science, and I was offering an opinion on why that could chance within the finished scene, e.g. different film rolls, multiple takes, etc. I’m assuming that grain is in the master and not introduced during the remaster 4k process, but like I said, I haven’t watched either films in 4k.
@AV84USA oh I got ya!! Yes I agree, it being in the master is what I am trying to kinda get across to the folks who just point out the flaws and shout "horrible transfer " lol
Not sure if this gets highlighted later on. But this might help anyone watching who can't quite visually get to grips with the limits of main use film stock in the 70's - early 90's. This video explains how the stock used affected colour temperatures, lighting needs and their limits within an SDR approach to film making, especially when in the 80's and early 90's some may have chosen to light around the 100nit SDR standards or the 14 Ft lambert of lamp projection even THX would hold to these
th-cam.com/video/kQmIPWK8aXc/w-d-xo.htmlsi=rqU2bd7_cyf-_wMn
We're so spoiled with 4k. It's incredible. I remember recording lots of movies off VHs in 480i, pan and scan, and I thought it was awesome. We're so lucky to get the tech we have now.
You did an absolutely amazing job of explaining this. I’ve been looking for someone that can fully explain grain vs DNR. I don’t hate grain, but I don’t want an extreme level of it in my 4k’s. But how you explain why it’s there so prevalent at times from lighting to super 35 vs full frame, and even different cameras they use makes sense.
I think the whole idea of “4k” in people’s minds is “clarity” and “looking the best ever.” So when you see a high level of grain, people are like…ewww…this looks horrible!
Your explanation now makes me understand why that would happen.
Now that all said - those doing the 4k restorations are truly in a rock and a hard place…when to use some DNR vs not.
Great video!
Hey thanks brother! As I just came back to really full time collecting (that's what my wife calls it lol) I've noticed all of this talk about the 4ks and like you, I felt like people were just thinking "4k = the cleanest most perfect picture ever so if there is grain or DNR then it sucks" LOL when really, with the exception of purposeful overuse of DNR, the restoration is going to simply increase the visibility and clarity of what is inherent in the film ...
so I thought maybe if I did a video from a filmmaker's point of view and kind of go over why the grain is there, why it fluctuates, why you can see more in some scenes or movies than others (if you see people talking about "very stable grain throughout" that movie was probably shot on full frame 35mm camera with less variances in light) then maybe we could get back to enjoying the films and appreciating the love and restoration and preservation they are getting!
I just didnt want to sound like an arrogant know it all lol...
BTW, I had just watched your Vinegar Syndrome halfway to black friday video yesterday while waiting on this video to upload to my channel and subbed lol -Im still waiting on my shipment!! Thanks for watching and the kind words!!
I generally don't mind 95% of releases. Had issues with True Lies, Aliens, T2 and Goodfellas basically. Main ones
Another reason for the grain fluctuation, just to be more specific, can be the use of different film stocks… faster film or slower, short ends etc.
Absolutely! The reasons I mentioned are only some of the reasons that grain and grain fluctuations occur! Film stock is definitely 1 of them
Yeah it took me a while to get used to just how much 4K exposes those filmstock differences. Filmmaking is a rather run-and-gun process to where they oftentimes have to make fast decisions to accomodate for whatever the lighting conditions of the day were
Thank you for your experienced perspective! It's so cool to hear from someone who has done work and editing with 35mm. I used to be a projectionist so I got to dabble and touch some 35mm film and occasionally splice reels together. I love when a 4K really looks and feels like a film.
I could not imagine having to edit a whole film on actual film but I love the way film looks- nothing will ever replace that look in my opinion - I agree with you on how you want a 4k to look! thank you so much for watching and the kind words!
Gee, when I look with my eyes, I do not see grain, just clear reality. Film is a look, so is digital. Neither is natural looking. It is art and art involves subjective opinions.
I love this video. It is very informative. I, too, am an 80s kid, and I enjoy and appreciate the grain. I can’t wait to see what video you have next.
Hey thank you so much! Glad you enjoyed it, I am having a lot of fun doing this and living in the movies and the 80s my head a lot of the time LOL! I'll have another video this evening or tomorrow, depends on how long the encode and upload takes!
Thanks, appreciate the explanations of film development. I kind figured out naturally that light changes grain and also those 70mm films carry more information. I'd don't mind the grain, or some of the color upgrades as long as the final product is well represented.
Probably one of the most insightful videos I’ve seen in a long time on movietube. You broke it down so simply compared to some of the grain critics who like to complicate the subject when they likely have no idea what they’re talking about.
Definitely will see film restorations in a different light after watching this.
@dandee546 hey I appreciate that! I just want to share what I know and have learned from making movies etc and hopefully it will give some new perspective on some of these restorations before we jump to attack and be negative or pick things apart!
I 100% agree as you mentioned with music and vinyl same goes for video games from the SD to HD jump (scan lines, dithering, etc.) Thanks for the content, I'm sure this channel will boom.
Ps looking forward to your Red Dawn take one of my all time favorites
hey thank you! 80s babies rule lol... I hope people find the channel fun, interesting and entertaining, I am having an absolute blast! The Red Dawn video should be out in the next few days- I love that movie, Ive watched it twice since I got the 4k in my hand so I have a lot of thoughts!
the daytime smoothing part was so spot on, I didn't even think about that. They were probably shooting it on 250D film, & I don't really see 250D film stock on 35mm ini the daytime with a $100mil budget, getting grainy at all! the only thing I can think of is that the original negative was not in the best shape & they had to fix something that was broken that happened 30years of sitting around unmaintained.
I love this, lots of perspective and insight. Only thing I'll say is about bit rate. For a set desired quality, a particular shot will need a certain bit rate to be 100% quality, this wil be absed on many man things, how much motion is there, are we dealing with smooth paint colors on walls, or heavy complicated textures (and yes, grain is a texture), etc. The more complicated a scene ie less pixels that are the same color, the more detail, the more grain, the more bits you need to deliver that image. It will vary from scene to scene, sometimes drastically. If you have more bits then you need, they are wasted and wont give you anything new, if you have less than what you need, thats when you get artifacts, color banding, macro blocks, smearing etc. So your max bit rate is determined by your most complicated shot up to the limitations of the delivery mechanism, but you dont need that the whole time or you waste space, and you have a max size based on your disc and how many layers you go with (aka how much money do you want to spend in production) so if you have the space, you can go full quality on the hardest scene, and just use what you need as you go, and depending on the movie, that can be quite high overall or average rate. Where you run in to issues is say you have a long movie, or a lot of special features, or multiple versions on the same disc, where you actually run out of space if you were to use max quality on your bit rates, so then you have to use less bits than actually needed for some scenes and you lose quality potential. Reducing grain does reduce required bit rate, waxy is easy to encode, less space. It's better to degrade a scene to require less bits, then to keep it higher and let the encoder squash the scene to fit a bit rate target, that's where you get color banding, loss of detail in shadows, less color depth etc. So bitrate isn't nothing...but more bits than needed wont make it better, and less bits than needed does make the image worse, sometimes in perceivable ways, sometimes not.
this is of course all entirely codec dependant, the same scene to be a certain quality target will require differnt bit rates depending on if we're talking h.264, h.265, mpeg 2, av1, vp9 etc
Loved it. Really learned a lot from your expertise.
Thanks man!
Hey thank you so much! That means alot !
Most welcome!
Another thing people don't realize about bit rate is how it affects the size of the file on the disc. The disc may be 100gb, but that 90+min film film will be double that if that make the bit rate as high as possible. I have to lower bit rate all the time when delivering videos to clients just to fit a damn email lol
Yep! When I deliver a master to the distribution company of one of my films it is often over 250 GB or more
@@AVAPopCulture yea my 84min feature when delivered to Amazon was around 110gb
Maybe they should deliver home media on SD cards, then. Make it a proprietary system or something.
& here endeth the lesson. Amen brother. There are so many naysayers dissing 4k transfers that i wonder why they are collectors in the first place. Do they even watch a film without negatively examining every frame. 4K is the best we have these days which is why some of the older films look better than we originally remember seeing them . There are all of the above points you make as well as a lot of films had 2nd unit photography that didnt match the main photography but we never let it interfere with the overall enjoyment of the film. It's largely negativity of social media these days unfortunately.
I tried to not come off sounding like an arrogant know it all but just try to maybe give some new perspective and get people enjoying more rather than nit picking...if you understand the "why" maybe it changes how you watch the movie is my way of thinking!
This is a great video. I learned a lot. You explained it all without using jargon. Excellent.
Thank you so much! Maybe it has to do with my years as a teacher and then my many years as a film director but my pet peeve is when people try to show how intelligent they are y talking down to people and dropping jargon that anyone outside their area of expertise wouldn't know lol - like it gives them some extra level of authority when the truth is, if you are really adept in your knowledge, you should be able to have a discussion or share what you know with people in clear ways to help them understand without having the same background and experience as you!!! Just my thoughts! Thank you again so much!
Yeah, it's hard to find that happy medium with the consumer. We want the grain for that depth & detail but then sometimes we want it cleaned up. A great example is the 4K bootlegs of Star Wars trilogy. I know I rubbed people the wrong way with my review. I was pretty harsh. The Harmy blurays were incredible but then the 4Ks were done and I felt like I was watching VHS. We are spoiled with the new tech out there. We see restorations of older films and how great they can look. But then get upset when others do not get that same treatment. James Cameron has really done a great job with pissing people of with his comments though. He is catering to his Avatar crowd and wants all his movies to look that way. I wasn't as negative as others on Abyss, Aliens ad True Lies. Sure TL was heavily DNR'd but it is the best its ever looked. I'm not as critical as others since I don't have an elaborate high-end setup...just a basic 4K player and QLED tv. But it does show a great presentation. My biggest complaints with some releases are the dark scenes. Sometimes can be too dark and you cannot see anything going on. It;s like "what the point of having 4K if we can't see everything?". Three movies come to mind that have this issue: Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny (opening chase scene at night), The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare (nighttime scenes near end), and Twister. All three of these movies those scenes look better on the bluray. Some might say it's because I don't have a fancy OLED. But how can you try to sell the 4K format to people if it cannot be properly displayed on the average setup. Just my 2 cents.
Great video. Learned a lot about 4k restoration
thank you so much! glad you enjoyed and found it at least, a little helpful!
Funny, I remember noticing things like pushing and just accepting it. We understood the medium was a chemical process.
yep...but 99% of people dont really understand "pushing the negative" and what that can do and 40 years later, the restoration people cant do anything about it
Genuine question, I’m glad you brought up the white “flashing grain”…. Why does this change when tweaking Tv settings? I’ve noticed this to be different when I turn down the sharpness or the “picture warmth” …. I’ve noticed this more with Arrow releases more so than others. I’m open to learn about this especially coming from someone who has experience with film.
Btw, I’m a new viewer and I’ve been binging your videos! Keep it going brother!
Hey thanks so much!! So when you change color temperature or contrast or brightness (or all of them) it is essentially going to affect the grain in the picture much the same way the amount of light affected it when they were filming...the grain is inherently silver so when you make a Picture cooler and/or brighter (usually happens when turning down the warmth) it will highlight the brighter parts like the silver grain - if that makes sense...I always lean warmer when calibrating my Picture settings
flashing grain can be an encoding anomaly… it happens on dark grainy scenes…
@gregorpfueller6659 encoding is not likely to cause grain that wasn't there already but it can enhance it due to compression...a 4k master is likely going to be 200GB or more for most films - so they will have to compress it to fit it on a disc
@@AVAPopCulture It won't cause grain to be there that wasn't already there, but it can cause the grain to "flash" in and out. I'm also not really sure I know what you mean by "flashing grain" being caused by lighting. Either I'm not understanding you quite right, or you're attributing an encoding failure to something else. Could you explain that a little better? And would you happen to have a timestamp for the flashing grain seen in Crybaby?
@wright96d I never saw the flashing grain in crybaby - I said other reviewers talked about that...but I am not sure some folks really know the process of encoding - when they encode something it is going to be uncompressed and for a 90 minute movie the master could easily be over 200GB which is still twice the size of even a 100gb disc... so the encode isn't creating anything that wasn't already there...the compression down to fit it on a disc could however cause digital noise but again, that is only going to happen, in most cases, where there was already lack of information in the picture at the time it was filmed due to any of the reasons I went over or others such as film stock choice etc...
I don’t have much hope, but I wish The Terminator would retain most or all of its grain.
Me too! But even if it is cleaned up, it was shot with 35mm full frame so the grain was better to start with, so maybe it wont look waxy when it is cleaned
Oh awesome! I wasn’t aware 🙂
@@mrhobs fingers crossed!!!!
My favorite film look is Panavision Anamorphic shot on film .
It is a beautiful thing!!
This right here is educational, I love, movies, love audio, I am a mute. I am a musician, so part of what makes a movie interesting to me is the development of how it was shot and the details of what cameras what tape what say Lloyd brand was used, I’m a nut for all that stuff love the juicy details. I think, your expertise in this field can educate a lot of people that do close to pro reviews. I myself try to give these TH-camrs with big channels some hints here in there, but I think it gets lost in the thousands of comments that are left. A lot of big reviewers do not understand how things were put on film For the past hundred years since we actually had sound in movies. Anything from the 40s on up I keep telling them, could be put in a vibe to 7.1 multi surround as the tracks that were recorded were done through re-dubbing in studios and recycled sound effects, especially in the 60s and 70s where every gunshot kind of sound at the same. So when we get to the 80s and 90s, they do not understand how easy I mean simply easy it would be to format these movies any proper 5.12 7.1 format, I will give them one thing. Atmos can be difficult for these types of movies but is not improbable. Even the original Superman movie from 79/78 had over 48 tracks of sound therefore was able to be put in a 5.1 or 7.1 L on DVD, might’ve had potential also for laser disk but I’m sure Warner Brothers did not get around to it, although I will say their twister on laser disk 5.1 is still pretty awesome today. But yeah I know I’m ranting here. I just want you to know that, this is a topic that needs to be taught to people I applied you for putting this information out there, hope this becomes a routine kind of course, I know every video won’t be like this and I do enjoy your content, but they’re truly is a learning curve when it comes to bigpodcast/reviewers TH-camr whatever have you, they What they are talking about more technically if they are going to give an educated review. 32:40
Thank you for the kind words and I am glad you enjoyed the video - when I came back into collecting and started watching TH-cam content, I realized a lot of the reviews of 4k films were kind of saying the same things with the same issues but I felt like if you really want to have a proper review and perspective, you need to know the technical aspects that create all of the situations you are discussing! So I wanted to do a video addressing those things without trying to sound like an insufferable know it all 🤣
I will do videos from time to time on different technical aspects of filmmaking that apply to the movies we
love collecting!!
As a filmmaker I like grain. I want to shoot fields of grain on high speed super8. That's how much I like grain. ;)
Ok maybe not that much, but I have noticed that while guys like Lucas and Cameron are trying to remove grain, many low budget filmmakers like myself sometimes add it in where it doesn't exist. Funny how that goes.
Interesting that you used weird science as an example because that opening scene really turn me off and got me to return it. I guess I really need to have more of an open mind that they're really restoring it to the best of what's available to them.
Interesting takes for sure! I would agree I dont mind film grain at all.
I'd recommend the Fool Idealistic Crusader. That guy knows exactly how to do reviews of what a film should be on Blu-Ray and 4K UHD.
I don’t feel the need to get a 4k player, blu-ray is good enough quality usually without sacrificing the original atmosphere of the film, especially if it’s old. Some newer films with iffy digital effects look worse even on blu-ray. A good example I noticed recently is Ichi the Killer
I stopped reviewing them because I think most of the minor gripes look great. Some of the reviews saying a certain restoration is unwatchable and I still watch VHS almost daily. Film grain no film grain doesn’t matter to me as long as it looks great I’m good. Some 4ks do look like crap but I think restoring and saving the film is more important than anything else. I did a review of Barbarella 4k and explained in depth with examples that the special effects were noticeable on the Blu-ray and so the 4 made that even clearer but it’s the best the film ever looked, someone still left a comment saying basically it’s a bad transfer don’t buy it and basically I was wrong.
The difference between camera switching and soft focus that was on present on the vhs was less noticeable on old tech and super noticeable on a 4k I can see that and I wear glasses 😂
I’m very happy with True Lies. The only thing I understand people complaining is the DNR waxy faces. Great video great topic and nice to hear from an expert on the matter 👍
Thanks my friend! I guess what I overall want people to understand is that there is some stuff that is inherent in the filming of the movie and it was ingrained in the film for all the reasons I mentioned and others, so you can basically (on most films) expect either grain and grain fluctuations OR DNR smoothing....so picking it to death is pointless! Even in these comments you have some people who say DNR it and give me a digital Picture and others saying leave the grain...lol
@@AVAPopCulture 😂 can’t please everyone I’m just happy these films are being restored and available. I remember early days of DVD and Blu-ray and there weren’t great transfers and sure there’s probably a few poor 4k transfers but to me it’s easy to see what is there is what was filmed 99% of the time.
Very interesting, and makes sense. In reality, if you're assessing in detail for performance and subjective quality, then you're likely not enjoying the film for what it is. I would imagine at your level or from a technical critics point of view, it is hard to switch this off...
Oddly, unless there is something egregious and frequent in what I'm watching, I watch to enjoy- I come from being a kid having to put tin foil on rabbit ears to get a clearer picture so HD and 4k is a revelation to me still lol...
What is actually more difficult for me to ignore is when reviewers are commenting on things without working knowledge of the how's and why's and without experience...that would be like me watching and episode of House or Grey's Anatomy and then going to tell a real doctor all about how he is performing surgery incorrectly 🤣😂
Im actually not a fan of the way modern 4ks look. Way too clean for me. Its probably because i watch vhs and a bunch of old weird horror movies that were made for no budget. Also dude as someone who has way too many vs movies. Good luck sir! It will break your wallet. Great video sir. I just feel alot of people dont understand how film and the restoration process actually works. I also agree that no one could imagine that the low budget movies being made would ever get restored to the level of 4k. Im just glad we are getting some movies brought to both bluray and 4k. Because otherwise they would be lost or stuck on vhs.
I am so happy that these boutiques are saving and restoring these films!!!! It makes my heart happy lol... we need this movement to get bigger and continue, so I will do my part by buying way too much lol
@@AVAPopCulture haha. Yeah I love so of the bizarre films and more well known films getting restored. I wish some of the major distribution companies cared as much as arrow and vs.
@@nightmarecollective me too! I cant figure out why they dont...they are missing out on so much money to be made if nothing else
I was thinking why J.Cameron wasnt just filming on 70mm wich would be future proof as its have way less visible grain as even anamorphic 35mm.Regarding superiority of camera negative,intersting fact that C.Nolan wasnt using camera negatives for his catalog titles 4k transfers but interpositives,apparently for the sake of deliver same colors as on original theatrical 35mm prints.And you are right that bitrates importance is misunderstood.Ive seen transfers with 45gb 4k file size of 2hr film wich looked refference and 90gb file size for 2hr film that looked average
yep, there are so many factors...Id say Cameron probably used Super 35 because it was the NEW THING in the early-mid 80s and because they could use spehirical lenses which allowed those cameras to get into tight places and get shots they never could before (like the cockpit filming in Top Gun)
@@AVAPopCulture Apparently the main reason J.Cameron done them on super35mm was that you get less cropped image on VHS and TV broadcast wich was 4:3 at that time,compared to anamorphic filming process
The DVD of the Gerry Anderson series The Protectors is deliciously grainy as it was shot on 16mm film.
Love that 16mm grainy look - it adds to certain films!
Yeah, I don’t think people get how basically clean and natural film can be. There is a reason why Michael Bay/Sam Raimi/even Spielberg to a point steel shot on analog even in the early 2000s. The first three Spider-Man movies from Rimi were all shot on film, the first two transformers movies were shot on film, I think the third one was as well, but I haven’t really looked into it too much, just love the first two so saw all the detail and special features when it came to how they shot the first two. Yeah I mean even the first two X-Men movies were shot on film. There is something to analog that just Can be seen more naturally then a pure digital image digital only works well when analog is at the foundation at least when it comes to video, to me as a musician, even sound to a point, sometimes I like to record my stuff on a track and then transfer some tracks to digital and then record other tracks straight digitally just to see what kind of saturated warm I can give some of my tracks. Another thing I also love to do is record a master on a VHS or super VHS for a higher resolution analog, sounds like people wouldn’t go to so much trouble, but sometimes he analog just gives it some thing that a clean digital sound straight through a TD converter won’t give you Without a process being involved at the foundation. I tried to find a one or 2 inch tape real to real recorder. They were just super rare and when I did find one really really, really expensive, so I figured if I could get some thing on a pure analog format it would either be VHS or super VHS half inch tape. 36:49 its beauty and glory. 35:18
the thing is, especially when they used Full frame cameras with mostly anamorphic lenses and the scenes are lit accordingly (even most of the times when they arent) that grain that people complain about is spread out over a huge field of view which smooths it and makes it look better to the digital lovers...I see a lot of filmmakers now moving back to shooting on film because the image it gives you is so much more natural, pleasing to the eye, and for lack of a better word, "filmic" - and of course Tarantino and Nolan never stopped using film that I know of!
Oh man, you said a mouthful right there, 100% they should release one or two versions of how they mastered these classics. A movie like aliens is a perfect example, I would have gladly I mean gladly put down $70-$80 if Cameron had released a digital cut and a pure analog 4K cut of the film, what is sight to see that would’ve been, by digital cut, I mean all the clean and restoration that he did, a purest cut is basically you know, the analogue real, and its beauty and glory. 35:18
You know your stuff brother and you got a new sub from me. I’ll be looking forward to checking out your stuff.
Enjoy that VS goodness when it arrives 😉👍🏼
thanks my friend, I really appreciate that! Im looking forward to that VS - they hit me right in my soft spot with their art and packaging of films -I kinda feel the need to get everything they put out and that isnt normal for me, I usually only really collect and target my favorite stuff - but between them and Arrow, I might go broke LOL - you're unboxings set off my spending LOL
I feel ya…the sickness with VS and arrow is real lol…sorry for the hurt on your wallet 😉
I recently watched Once Upon a Time in the West. Is the 4K perfect? No. Is it better than the old Blu-ray Disc? Yes!
Some reviewers are acting like the disc is the worst disc that was ever released.
We need to watch movies first to enjoy, 2nd to be thankful that they are being restored and preserved, and 3rd to appreciate how great they look compared to the original quality we watched them in... not to nit pick things that often cannot be changed!
Damn, what did they expect. I thought the 4k for Once upon a Time was great.
The Abyss 4K is pretty impressive especially towards the end. I think expectations were way too high for True Lies and Aliens, the 4K community treated those releases like they were going to be the second coming of Christ.... aaaand it didn't quite happen that way.
Great detailed and articulated video, my friend!
thanks brother! hopefully I didnt come off sounding like too much of an arrogant know it all LOL
@@AVAPopCulture Nah man and if people did then they're missing your message. I personally like reviewing 4k's, but your message just gives me another perspective, which I appreciate.
Great video.
My issue with JC is he using AI to perform the remasters and when it can't figure out the data, it fudges the image.
There is a scene in Aliens when Vazquez lips are literally stuck to her cheek 😂
. . You're describing the look of most terrible low budget movies. The evidence that alerts me to the quality of the flick. Unless the movie uses the atmosphere to create a mood. Really touchy, but it's fun to see. . 😁😎
flashes in the background in dark areas sounds more like an encoding issue… it happens and i will blame the encoding which is part of making the transfer…
very unlikely that it is from the encode...the 4k resolution elevation is bringing up the noise and lack of detail in those areas...it likely always existed and you just couldnt see it before!
noise yes but no flashing…
@gregorpfueller6659 afraid so... and there are a bunch of other reasons it could be doing it too...your HDMI cable may not be fast enough, your player may not sustain the bit rate and or drop frames in playback, your tv's refresh rate, the HDR settings on your TV, the color and brightness settings, so many things....to just say "it's the transfer" isn't going to cover it all
I would prefer digitally filmed movies to be processed to look more like film than to have film movies remastered to look like digital. Removing film grain from a movie shot on film feels as wrong as colorizing a black & white film.
100% agree!!! To this day I refuse to watch It's a Wonderful Life in color lol
@@AVAPopCulture Yes this is the only colorized movie I have in my collection only because they forced it on you when you buy the 4K “It a Wonderful Life”. I put it in out curiosity and I have to admit it somehow made me feel a little nauseous,lol. I remember feeling a bit sorry for the people that would want to watch it that way!
I don’t have the experience I’ve got stacks of 4K’s haven’t had time to watch any but I’m assuming I’m gonna like the smooth out look based on experience with game emulators
Maybe but there is a difference in grain that occurs naturally and grain that is added digitally to simulate texture and detail!!
It should be simple. If You shoot on film, then it should look like film with nice grain. No dnr.
And if You shoot film on digital, You shouldn't add filmic look filter to it. Only exception could be period pieces.
I pretty much agree with all of that! spot on!
Seems to me that if you're going to actually spend the time (decades *cough* Cameron), you might as well do it right. Each scene should be evaluated for a DNR "proper" level and applied at that level. Then? You won't get that "wax", because the DNR should be LESS on those scenes with more light.
You didn't bring it up, but (in my opinion) the people's problems revolve around "uncanny valley". When people start looking waxy or "overly processed", the "suspension of disbelief" can be broken. Just like TERRIBLE physics in CGI heavy movies. When you see Wonder Woman thrown against a truck and the physics are BLATENTLY wrong? Something clicks in your head that (IMHO) ruins the scene. You are pulled out of the suspension of disbelief. Same thing with Jurassic World - when the leaves move BEFORE the dinosaurs' feet touch it? Your brain clicks and says "Hey, something wasn't right".
I'm not the biggest fan of grain (esp. when it is ridiculous like the scene in Labyrinth when Sarah is talking to her mom). The grain is horrifying. I've rebought that movie like 3x in 4k because I'm hoping they do SOMETHING about that. But they don't. This isn't nitpicking (IMHO); this isn't "grain fluctuation". It almost looks like the film was somehow damaged and this is the ONLY copy we're ever going to get. I truly dislike most modern films because they are TOO clean, too antiseptic, they don't FEEL REAL because, well - most of it isn't :) Grain establishes reality - that pristine look only works for concept movies (again, IMHO) where it works (see Barbie).
This is a good video for younger people and anyone new to the basic concepts of how movies were/are shot.
But for anyone else… I don’t think I could be this patient lol. If you’re gonna watch a FILM, expect to see some FILM! 🤦♂️
I don’t care HOW grainy a film is, I’ll still take that over ugly artificially smoothed skin and weird AI artifacts. We need to appreciate films IN THEIR TIME. I grew up way after Black & White, but I don’t need artificial colorized versions to enjoy those older films. In the same way, you, person who grew up only watching digital, can appreciate analog films in their natural state. Grain and all. (A lot of movies aren’t even that grainy.)
If it helps, pretend you’re running an old reel to reels projector instead of some high tech digital state of the art home theater 4K Blu-ray player.
give me the original grain any day!!!! it is part of the "filmic" experience!
YES!
Since I don't own a 4K tv or a 4K player, I have to question the importance of making 4k versions of movies that did not use 4K cameras. I'm glad that blu-ray allows a higher resolution (it looks fine to me), but overall putting out these 4K packages is just a money grab. Besides, a 4K of a bad movie is still a bad movie.
Well 4k camera really only applies to digital...anything shot on film has the capability of being delivered at 4k and greater resolutions...there was just no method for you to see it in that much resolution until the 4k tv, player and restorations came into the world!
Reviews like "too much grain', "the colours aren't quite right", "the encoding is terrible"....freakin hell...why don't these people just watch the bloody film and not scan every frame for something to moan about??
Agreed!!!
I just watch a movie on dvd log it on letterboxd and tell my op on it i dont go though it in depth
@@MrTosh120 Im trying to get into the Letterboxd world and log my stuff but I keep forgetting to do it and Im still feeling my way around it LOL
I always found it funny that the folks who do super critical 4k reviews will complain about DNR because it "doesn't keep the original intent of the film" but they never address HDR, which can be just as revisionist. I appreciate you for speaking about that from a filmmaker's POV.
Thank you! The HDR and the color etc is something I'm sensitive to from doing so much color work on films and music videos - that can change the tone so easily! So much goes into all of this that just nit picking and saying "bad transfer" or "bad encode" kinda doesn't make sense!
Great explanation of the process and why. Finally, a dude explaining things like a dude 👍.
thank you! I was trying my best to kind of talk about it like Id talk about it to my friends without sounding like a complete pompas know it all a$$ LOL
@@AVAPopCulture You did great. Fingers crossed for the Terminator transfer 🤞🤨
@@calidude4211 thanks lol! I have my fingers crossed on The Terminator release too! One of my favorite all time films!
The only problem I have with Cry Baby is seeing those 20 polio shots in a row in the first scene 0__o gives me the heebie jeebies
LOL yeah, Im not big on needles either haha
Yes, yes, educate us, we all need to hear this kind of stuff from people that actually know what they’re doing, people like you that I have actually worked with film shot with different cameras, have experience in cinema photography, oh one more thing, I am not a mute, Siri is just an idiot, lol. 33:50
Lol!! The old speak to text will get ya every time 🤣
Vinyl adds distortion -- mistaken for "warmth".
That's not mistaken for warmth....perfection is not a human condition...perfection is not reality...perfection is cold, sterile, digital and not representative of our senses....that's why vinyl is more pleasing to listen to
@@AVAPopCulture Yes, it is mistaken for warmth.
I don't agree that burying the music under distortion is more pleasing. Any more than I fall for the absurdity that it's how to listen to the music "purely".
Lets go!
So many people complain about this crap I don’t even care if it has grain it has grain if it’s clean it’s clean who cares. Man people obsess over this.
I agree! That's why I was trying to point some of these things out- I thought maybe if people understand WHY some of these things are the way they are, they could just get back to enjoying the films!!!
People who complain about film grain do understand film how the image actually is actually created.
I would say that I much prefer grain to digital noise. I hate digital noise. It looks like crap. I also despise DNR.
James Cameron, quit ruining 4k restorations with DNR. As a film fan, I don't mind film grain. I do mind directors going back 20, 30, or more years later and adding film elements.
Somebody needs keep George Lucas away from the editing room.
... 😒 Holding breath that David Fincher doesn't go overboard with Se7en. I trust him though. 🙏 Please don't Fck that up.
Great video
Thank you so much! I appreciate that, glad you enjoyed it!
You are doing a really good job, but there is no way on earth 35mm film has 12k information. Some say it is 6K which is doubtful in itself. It estimated that 4k hdr is equivalent to somewhere between 4k - 5k. Didn't you mean to say 12 million pixels. Even the CEO from Paramont said eperts are discussing it, and is between 4k - 5k. Some eperts said 4k and some said closer to 5k
I said in theory it does - I didnt say these did - 35mm is 4-6k standard but film can go to 12k- hate to tell him but - this is from Kodak- "The average digital resolution of 35mm film is standardized to 4K, while that of 35mm Imax film is 6K-8k, and that of 70mm Imax is closer to 12K. Regardless of how they are shot."
and thank you for the kind words!!!
@@AVAPopCulture Ohh okay I understand. I misunderstood you then, thought you were referring to a standard 35mm. My bad.
@@robomnemonic3751 No worries my friend! I was on kind of a rant and I can change channels in my head lol... Im thinking in terms of "film" in general and it's capability - but older films like The Terminator and stuff like that were actually delivered in a cinema package in 2k to be distributed to the theaters, so they werent even using the standard film's full capabilities!
@@AVAPopCulture But you are totally right people bitch about the transfers and most of them does not even know what it is supposed to look like. They just jump on the hate as soon as someone says somethhing negative.
Some directors want to scrub grain, add more Ewoks, replace firearms with waki takis etc. what I want to see is a replication (as close as possible) to a pristine screening print on opening day. What I don’t want to see is a functional re-edit, or recrossing of the image. Grain to 4k in my mind is like the “black bars” on DVD. Those who understand what it is don’t want the movie changed to remove it.
1000000% agree!!!
Your explanation of key and fill was a little awkward 😂
well, try to free flow all of your thoughts and condense everything you know into terms everyone can understand in a short period of time...lol
James Cameron said you should "get out of your mother's basement" if you're complaining about his AI upscaling.....lol. He is one of the most successful filmmakers of all time, but I really think he is off base when it comes to the 4k foremat. I'm pretty sure The Terminator is not going to look right at all when that is completed.
maybe it will look great! while I dont really agree with JC's tone with what he said, I understand the sentiment - I mean, I can read a 100 books on heart surgery and watch it be done over and over again at a teaching hospital but I will still never know as much about it or how to do it as someone who has spent their lives studying it and actually doing it! - so I look it differently, especially being a filmmaker myself...I also dont tend to seek out everything negative every time I put in a new 4k movie LOL
I remember when I started collecting laser discs in the early 90s (T2 being the film that got me started), film reviewers praised the transfers because it showed the grain and every little flaw in the original negatives. Great show! Keep on keepin' it real.
Thank you so much! I'll always call it like I see it based on what I know lol and you're right, funny how attitudes change
Understanding why grain fluctuates doesn't make me enjoy it more. So some 4k reviewers may not fully understand why something is the way it is, but they're just reporting what they see and how they react to the transfer. I'm 46, but I am a digital convert. I like the look of old horror movies, but I think it's more nostalgia than that it actually looks better. I hope my comment isn't coming off negative. I just discovered your channel, and I'm really enjoying the content.
no negative offense taken - kinda more to my point is that there isnt a lot to be done about it because it is there inherently because of those reasons I discussed...so you will either have grain as it originally existed (you just see more of it because of the elevated clarity and dynamic range) or you DNR it and risk losing detail, dynamic range and making people waxy....pretty much pick your poison situation...so if we know that, then why complain and nit pick is my point...
I’m fine with the digital look, I mean I prefer film, but digital is fine. HOWEVER, let films be films. There are plenty of new productions for those who like digital. Movies shot on film should be preserved as they are. A very tiny amount of DNR in super grainy spots is tolerable, but the detail in these films should be preserved. We aren’t likely to get new physical releases for many of these for a very long time, if ever.
@@mrhobs agreed!
I was nearly 30 when movies started filming digitally and I still hate film grain especially with 4K. I want the movie to warrant that 4K bump up and don't want a sandstorm of film grain. I think James Cameron did a good job The Abyss and ALIENS but True Lies is a bit waxy but certainly not as bad as T2.
everyone has a preference but hopefully this video helps clarify why that grain is there and that 4k does not mean "super clear picture" it means an elevation of resolution of the original film...if that original film had a lot of grain for any of the reasons I mentioned (there are other reasons too) then the 4k is going to elevate it as well!
@@AVAPopCulture I already knew why but I know many do not.
@randybradley4151 you're right, tons of people don't know! But if you know why, then ya gotta know that you probably won't get what you are wanting from 4k if ultra clear digital type clarity is what you're after!!
True lies has been in HD on DVHS for more than a decade. Comparing the Laserdisc to the 4K is insane how much they ruined the film from the color grade change to the reported A.I. upscaling.
I personally never watch reviews after I was tricked into buying jaws in 4K and was blow away by how bad it was. The digital processing from removing wires/ ropes to the changing of backgrounds just ruins it. Lord of the rings is another that is just disgusting to watch. When Gandalf has a close up in fellowship computing the dvd to 4K is nonsensical. How are we releasing 4ks that have less definition and details than a dvd made decades ago.
So many people that make videos know nothing about what they say but people sadly watch. Hopefully it gets better but seeing how I will not buy many titles due to quality it sadly seems like I will never get terminator or elm street or even 2001 due to lack of care.
You're insane if you think the 2001 4k isn't perfect. I think you might need new eyes bud.
@@JakeKaufmanFilmshave you heard and see the criterion or mgm laser discs? I think the visuals aren’t perfect but they are good. The audio is the main issue for 2001. Which is what all those films listed have in common.
The 4K for 2001 strictly speaking about the image quality, I would put the transfer below paramounts 4K for the Addams family. Not the best encode or use of a very high resolution transfer
I prefer the noise reduction process, cause it makes the content look better, I want a nice clear smooth experience thats why I use my tvs noise reduction as well
to each their own! To me, that looks artificial because that is not how it was filmed and it is not how our eyes see the world! but art is subjective and film is art!
Thanks for the rant, but I do believe there is a case for some dnr, some movies look like they've over enhanced the grain and others completely removed it. Surely there must be a balanced approach, yes True Lies looked like it was filmed yesterday, to smooth in parts and then others for example Easy Rider now I saw this in the cinema, on VHS, dvd and the rest, but the 4K looks like they've enhanced the grain. If you look at the vast skies when they're on the road the sky looks alive, not just the clouds but everything akin to the old crt no signal screen. Looking closely at the image it almost looks like they've digitally overlayed the grain. I think grain retention is a good thing, but to much is distracting and there is a case to slightly reduce, not remove for some older movies.
@pauldavies7407 thanks for watching and taking the time to comment but I think you are kinda missing what I was getting at - they are not enhancing the grain! The grain that is already present due to any of the factors I went over is simply becoming more visible with the increase in clarity from the 4k restorations... if there was a lot of grain in the shot, then a lot of grain shows up in the restoration when the clarity is improved- think of the restoration as going into a dark room in your house and turning a flashlight on and then making it brighter and brighter - the brighter it gets, the more you see...in this case, the clearer the image and the more resolution they increase it to, the more you see the grain that was there that you couldn't see before....and in those scenes, the grain holds more texture and detail so the more DNR they use, the more that scene will look odd