Interpositives and Intermediates vs. Negatives

[MichaelB]

I remember the original BD of 2001 was so sharp that you could clearly make out the texture of the front projection screen in the opening scenes, which was so unambiguously wrong that I'm amazed it got through QC. If I remember rightly, the UHD does a rather better job on that score.

And yes, I mentioned make-up earlier as a perennial headache with OCN scans—you're not supposed to be able to see the joins, and rather too often you can. Which is why it's so important to be sensitive towards the film, and not obsess about achieving a level of technical perfection that might actively undermine the restoration.

[Zot!]

On the other hand, having seen 2001: A Space Odyssey in 70mm in a cinema, I wouldn’t say the UHD is “too sharp or eye popping” to be true.

70mm negatives are a bit a of a different consideration probably, as the picture information is already so detailed. I'll go on the record that I would NOT want the 2001 UHD to be made from a 35mm reduction print. Even if it presents a legitimate theatrical experience that's just a little too dogmatic.

I am just wondering why 4K is needed for Boogie Nights if they want something to look like a film print without the sharper and granier look and HDR that 4K can do? Could a Blu-ray remaster not do just as good a job and not create false expectations?

The current BD for Boogie Nights is digitally sharpened (this being one of the reasons people are wrongly disappointed). Could BD do a serviceable job with the Boogie Nights IP? Yeah, probably pretty good, but why gatekeep and not take advantage of the additional bandwidth of UHD? The 4K and the BD are both currently 24.99 on Amazon. When 4K is not adding a huge premium, it is the best platform we have for any kind of historical video and film footage, and not ONLY 4K demo reels showcases.

[rrenault]

In general, it seems cinephiles are somewhat divided on whether or not OCN-sourced 4K HDR is overkill for shot-on-film material(trying to avoid using the word ‘content’).

I’ve encountered knowledgeable folks on both sides of this debate.

Dave Kehr, for instance, seems to be in the “it’s overkill because it’s not what the filmmakers intended to actually be seen by audiences” camp, but someone like Glenn Kenny is quite pro-UHD.

[tenia]

To be fair, the fact is 4k HDR from OCN simply goes beyond what many 35mm exhibitions were providing. In this respect, the industry basically just went too far compared to theatrical elements. In a more technologically direct aspect, the same logic applies to early digital movies, whether shot on digital or post-produced digitally : the industry created a home video format where the sources are the bottlenecks.

But for shot-on-film material, there is the bypass that is not limiting oneself with prints and exhibitions as a reference, but going upstream, to the OCN. And it is legitimate to realise that if it was such an almost ethical issue to do that, 95% of the restorations done that past 10-15 years would have been ranted against... but the opposite happened.

And I guess, that's where the status quo lies : we're (viewers, reviewers, pros, industry) now used to the level of precision and texture the 4k / 35mm OCN combination brings, and this has become an implicit PQ standard. If this is wrong, then this standard has to go, and everyone needs to re-learn everything all over again.

And no one is going to do so when it'll arguably :
* be to get obtain a picture that's less detailed, less sharp, etc, thus be perceived as a step back, especially when the industry actually moved away from using IPs and started using OCNs instead;
* lower the technical added value of the current most premium video format.

[rrenault]

To be fair, the fact is 4k HDR from OCN simply goes beyond what many 35mm exhibitions were providing. In this respect, the industry basically just went too far compared to theatrical elements. In a more technologically direct aspect, the same logic applies to early digital movies, whether shot on digital or post-produced digitally : the industry created a home video format where the sources are the bottlenecks.

But for shot-on-film material, there is the bypass that is not limiting oneself with prints and exhibitions as a reference, but going upstream, to the OCN. And it is legitimate to realise that if it was such an almost ethical issue to do that, 95% of the restorations done that past 10-15 years would have been ranted against... but the opposite happened.

And I guess, that's where the status quo lies : we're (viewers, reviewers, pros, industry) now used to the level of precision and texture the 4k / 35mm OCN combination brings, and this has become an implicit PQ standard. If this is wrong, then this standard has to go, and everyone needs to re-learn everything all over again.

And no one is going to do so when it'll arguably :
* be to get obtain a picture that's less detailed, less sharp, etc, thus be perceived as a step back, especially when the industry actually moved away from using IPs and started using OCNs instead;
* lower the technical added value of the current most premium video format.

True, although only a niche within a niche seems to actually care about said PQ standard. I’ve discovered that even a lot of working film professionals aren’t too hung up on Blu-ray, 4K etc when it comes to home viewing, which isn’t to say some of them won’t happily go see Paris, Texas or The 400 Blows because it happens to be playing in a local cinema and it just happens to be a DCP of a new OCN-sourced 4K restoration.

[rrenault]

One thing to add: In the early days, OCN-sourced 4K restorations were often reaching the public in down-rezzed form via either a 2K DCP or a 1080p Blu-ray, so the issue of the perceivable quality being superior to an exhibition print was perhaps less present

[tenia]

It's indeed possible, though even just at 2k, it is visible when a restoration is 4k and when it's 2k, and when it's from the OCN or an IP. But you're right, 2k will dumb down the difference / 4k will make the difference more "obvious".

[Matt]

I think there's always been a tension since the DVD era of restoring a film to the way it would have appeared in theaters and going beyond restoration to make the film appear as it might have if technical conditions had been perfect and filmmakers would have had complete control. Hence directors like Friedkin totally revising the color timing and grain structure of their films from their theatrical release. Or Masters of Cinema's philosophy (in the DVD era) of mastering Japanese films to resemble the low-contrast look of original theatrical prints vs. Criterion's philosophy of boosting the contrast to range from a pure white point to a pure black point—neither of which could be considered "wrong."

This tension now continues and has perhaps been exacerbated as 4K scans from original negatives have become the norm, and it has led to issues like being able to see stunt wires or obvious makeup that would not have been evident in theatrical prints. Do you now correct them digitally to respect the theatrical experience? Or do you leave things as they are because you don't want to be revisionist, even if you are already being revisionist by providing a level of clarity that no real audience would ever have seen? And you also now have a large segment of the home video audience (and some filmmakers!) that can't abide even the tiniest bit of film grain and want everything to look like 4K video.

I can see why film-oriented filmmakers like PT Anderson or Nolan would say a 2K digital intermediate IS the film because it represents most closely what might have been seen in theaters upon release. Going back to the OCN and doing even minimal work like recreating fadeouts digitally might be anathema to them.