Are BLU-RAY UPSCALES worth it?
Vložit
- čas přidán 3. 07. 2024
- Let's talk about upscaling films from a 2K DI to a 4K DI. Is it a cheap alternative to sell more units or popular films? Can it be constructive and actually improve the experience of watching a film?
Thanks for watching! Like, Share and Subscribe for more!
Links:
Letterboxd: letterboxd.com/Julian234/
Serializd: www.serializd.com/user/Julian...
Facebook: / collectorcreations
Instragram: / collectorcreations
Twitter: / collector_jjyt
#physicalmedia #uhd #bluray - Zábava
The key issue is the whole notion of a Digital Intermediate. The films that are being scanned in 4k that are pre 2000 are also before Digital Intermediates were even a thing. So those films had a "neg cut" - i.e., the entire film's camera negative is assembled into a complete film. I.e., the shots used are cemented together. That's the process that existed before DIs. And then the various copies of the film are struck from that original camera negative assembly. But then Digital Intermediates came along, mostly in order to grade the film, and these were output from the DI, to film. So the original master copies of those films are limited by whatever resolution the original camera negative were scanned in at for the edit. And in those days, 2k. So there is no "neg cut" for Shaun of the Dead. So in order to remaster that in 4k, they would need to assemble an assembled negative from the various original camera reels - each shot found, and cemented to the following shot. And they've not gonna do that, cos of the cost. So, that's why Shaun of the Dead is an upscale, because they're using the original "master" of the film, which is a 2k intermediate. Which is why films pre 2000 often look a lot crisper, because there's negative to scan. Also, Shaun of the Dead did have FX shots, which were also rendered at 2k.
That makes a lot of sense
Great summary! Thanks for this. People tend to jump to thinking labels are lazy or greedy for taking "shortcuts" but the hard reality is that some remasters/restorations take a lot of time and money that isn't always worth the anticipated demand.
@@chrisjfox8715 people don’t really have any understanding of what “scanned from the original camera negative” means. It means that the there exists a completed version of the film [however many reels] which was assembled from the camera negative. I think some people think that it means that for the restoration they dug out every shot roll of negative film, and scanned them all in, and then assembled them in sequence. Which would be hours and hours worth of film. As opposed to the assembled negative which is the duration of the film. And the former is exactly what they’d have to do in order to master Shaun of the Dead in 4k. Because when they originally edited it, they had the original camera rolls scanned at 2k. And when the film was finished, it was output from the Avid at 2k. And thus, will always only ever be 2k. whereas Pulp Fiction wasn’t edited digitally, but on film. And “finished” with the aforementioned “neg cut”. So for the recent 4k it’s easy. They just scan the finished and assembled 2 hour original negative in at 4k, do a colour grade, fix any aging or blemishes on the negative, and job done. It’s relatively low cost compared with having to scan in every single shot that was used. The cost and hassle of this would be astronomical. And it’s also likely that they don’t properly archive all the original rushes, and so that’s another reason why it’s unlikely to happen. Cos in the case of a cut negative, all they have to do is archive that completes version.
The upscales that seem to be pretty good looking 4k upscales are the films that were shot on with digital cameras with a higher resolution like 2.5, 3.4, or even higher but finished on a 2k DI, then upscaled to 4k.
I upscaled from VHS to DVD. That was good enough for me.
Upscaled or upgraded?
I have been watching things lately on a projector and have some thoughts on the same subject and with movies from dvd upscaled in HD and blu ray to 4K
Is it more noticeable on a projection? Better or worse when upscaled?
@@CollectorCreations depends on what era it was made in and how they used old film stock or digital versions from 35 to 70mm and upscaled in 4K or from a standard dvd more grain less and dnr waxy figures hair gates and other problems with lighting in scenes darker or more lighted
Its insufferable listening to people born in 1998 discussing film (his overuse of "high horse" in particular). How can he say "If you don't like something don't buy it" when most people buy these online - not knowing the number of tweaks that have been done because they've never seen the original? So many films now are having their color grading/saturation/grain messed with. I can't imagine watching The French Connection made pristine and smooth and perfect. Its why we're stuck today with everything shot on digital, sharp definition, and boring as hell. Believe it or not, your brain actually works to assemble the images running through a projector onto the screen. It connects the images sent from your eyes. Digital is just a cluster of pixels.
Thank you for your response.
I love physical media, and am I huge champion for its preservation. I’m a lover of film, both the medium and the format, especially over digital.
The thing about my being younger is that I still have a lot to learn about film and its medium. It’s something that I’m passionate about. “If you don’t like it don’t buy it” is an opinion I stick by. Most physical media buyers don’t do the research before buying and are more prone to complaining that ‘it didn’t look like it did when I saw it in the cinema 30+ years ago’. Respecting physical media means respecting those who produce it, who remaster it, who encode it. Hence why I think there is value in my discussion of whether I think something like an upscale is an important way to keep physical media alive.
Sure, I don’t know everything and I get things wrong but I’m always open to learn and to grow. I’ve benefited a lot from the comments on this channel, as they’ve taught me about a lot of aspects of physical media and of collectors themselves. If a format like DVD is still so prized to some yet hated by others I choose to discuss it. And it surprises people that don’t know these certain things. Some people like watching films in a certain way, whether that being on an older format or projected. They love film but hate digital, sometimes it’s the other way around and sometimes it’s both.
Physical media is an art form, a way to preserve tv and film and entertainment/art in general. We love this and I love to talk about it. For that reason I appreciate you considering me to be insufferable, an opinion I imagine others have. I respect constructive criticism, despite your lack of any actual criticism, constructive or otherwise.
Nevertheless you can continue to enjoy the films and shows you love in which ever way you choose to interact with them. If you don’t want to watch my videos then that’s also a valid option. Thanks for taking your time to respond to my video.
You prefer to see a movie as filmmakers intended? Then why you do have the problematic 4k of FURY ROAD when George Miller has stated that the definitive way to view it is in 3D as intended. Is that in your collection? There's a reason so many filmmakers dislike HDR...its a gimmick that reveals that many collectors are format freaks over filmmakers intent.
Actually Miller’s preferred version is the Black and Chrome version. I have both the 4K and B&C and I usually watch the 4K but I do like the B&C. But again that’s the choice I have as the audience and consumer, I can choose either but I own both. If anything 3D is a gimmick that was forced into popularity at the time Fury Road was released, so I’d prefer the HDR gimmick over the 3D gimmick given it looks better and is actually watchable (cause 3D is not a popular format anymore so you can’t really watch it unless you have VR or an old 3D TV).
@@CollectorCreations George Miller at Cannes: "OK, I love 3D stereo!
In fact, when we were going to shoot this back in 2001, I was dumb enough to try to do it classic analglyph and just have a few scenes with the green and red as it were.
In this film, if I had a choice, I'd see it in 3D."
@CollectorCreations 50 million 3d sets were sold when they stopped making those sets. How unpopular. Something can't continue to grow when it's not offered to consumers to even see it for 8 years. At its height, some 3d titles had equal/higher market share to 4k. When Kong v Godzilla 3D was released, it hit #1 on Amazon sales charts. Even when it dropped down, still outsold the 4k. In fact, if 3d had continued to be offered along with 4k, physical media might not be in as much trouble, especially since 3d isnt available on streaming. Let even one mfgr put out a consumer 3d set and see how long they can keep it in stock. 4k didn't connect with mainstream because most see no or negligible diff to BD...and it's sometimes even worse. If you think adding depth to height and width, without altering the look...is a gimmick while the image-altering HDR so disliked by filmmakers (and even Joe Bob Briggs!) isnt, or that 3D isnt watchable(!) well then, nothing left to say. I'll take DR STRANGE 1&2, GRAVITY, AVATARS, etc etc etc in immersive 3D over the flat 4k any day. You are happy to settle for otherwise. To each their own. Me, I'm glad Deadpool 3 is in 3D.