I usually don't have enough time to see the entire complete interviews so i like when you do this snippets of "key notes" on the interview that are really informative!
great stuff. I do think it's important that we have an open and honest discussion about things like grain and DNR. These are professionals and they surely have perspectives and viewpoints that we don't, and the inverse is true as well.
Hopefully this cut-down version gets some traction in the algorithm. A lot of people won't watch a 41-minute interview, but they'll watch something that's under 10. I'd love as many people as possible to see this.
@@CerealAtMidnight That's a good point. The good news is I found the 41 minutes interview, I am watching it right now and it is something that everyone that enjoy this and want more, should watch. Great job!
So it comes down the the technician's personal taste? They use different tools to achieve what they think "looks best". You should interview the folks at warner archive or the UCLA film institute about restoration and film preservation. Also its interesting you put the cap of the Godfather, which was basically restored twice lol
What we're seeing on Blu-ray and 4K actually looks BETTER than opening day prints. By scanning the OCN we're removing half the grain content of images audiences would see when viewing a print.
Generally it means they scan at 4k or higher and then did the restoration at 4k. You can scan at 4k but do the restoration at 2k like said in the video. Aside from actual film a lot of movies in the digital age were never done at 4k whether it was the camera or inside the computer. Some new movies might film at 4k but they finished the film in 2k. This is why people, me included, are so specs hungry. There’s a million different ways to do it.
I mean if you’re dropping a hundred dollars on something and it looks bad, I think you can complain. Or if it’s like Cameron’s work and it looks insane after.
Not naming the films that have had artificial grain is exactly why we care so much. You want us to not care but prove exactly why we should when we’re spending money on a product. Sounds like false advertising is a known thing in the industry. Disgusting to not be transparent, if it “doesn’t matter”
I usually don't have enough time to see the entire complete interviews so i like when you do this snippets of "key notes" on the interview that are really informative!
great stuff. I do think it's important that we have an open and honest discussion about things like grain and DNR. These are professionals and they surely have perspectives and viewpoints that we don't, and the inverse is true as well.
Excellent interview!I discovered this through her podcast/channel,and I'll watch the full video later tonight!
Found this really interesting, thanks for uploading!
Super interesting interview! I wanna see the rest and feels strange is not in one video. Greetings from Sweden!!
Hopefully this cut-down version gets some traction in the algorithm. A lot of people won't watch a 41-minute interview, but they'll watch something that's under 10. I'd love as many people as possible to see this.
@@CerealAtMidnight That's a good point. The good news is I found the 41 minutes interview, I am watching it right now and it is something that everyone that enjoy this and want more, should watch. Great job!
This is great. Thanks for bringing her channel to our attention. Interesting stuff.
So it comes down the the technician's personal taste? They use different tools to achieve what they think "looks best". You should interview the folks at warner archive or the UCLA film institute about restoration and film preservation. Also its interesting you put the cap of the Godfather, which was basically restored twice lol
I'd love to talk to someone at Warner and ULCA. Frankly, I've tried.
Very interesting, but I really would have appreciated if she had mentioned those films with grain replacement that got great reviews. 😁
What we're seeing on Blu-ray and 4K actually looks BETTER than opening day prints. By scanning the OCN we're removing half the grain content of images audiences would see when viewing a print.
yes!
What does "native 4k" mean when it's a scan? It's not native 4k, it's native 35mm (or whatever the film is). What is native about a digital transfer?
Generally it means they scan at 4k or higher and then did the restoration at 4k. You can scan at 4k but do the restoration at 2k like said in the video. Aside from actual film a lot of movies in the digital age were never done at 4k whether it was the camera or inside the computer. Some new movies might film at 4k but they finished the film in 2k. This is why people, me included, are so specs hungry. There’s a million different ways to do it.
This should be essential viewing for all the Cinema Phil's out there critiquing transfers from their couch.
I mean if you’re dropping a hundred dollars on something and it looks bad, I think you can complain.
Or if it’s like Cameron’s work and it looks insane after.
Most of these UA-camrs reviewers just copy one another & say what they think they are supposed to say, anyway.
how about a 9k?
Not naming the films that have had artificial grain is exactly why we care so much. You want us to not care but prove exactly why we should when we’re spending money on a product. Sounds like false advertising is a known thing in the industry. Disgusting to not be transparent, if it “doesn’t matter”