Yes, most of the time, I feel like 4k restorations are reviewed incorrectly, pop that tape in, and find out why!

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.

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.

I generally don't mind 95% of releases. Had issues with True Lies, Aliens, T2 and Goodfellas basically. Main ones

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.

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.

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!

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.

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

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.

Loved it. Really learned a lot from your expertise. Thanks man!

Excellent explanation. Was talking to a buddy the other day about exactly this subject and came to the same conclusion (we were talking about the merits of VHS vs HD/UHD, can you believe it?). Great explanation of how filming conditions and planning for format were not taking into account current tech when they shot these movies!

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.

This is a great video. I learned a lot. You explained it all without using jargon. Excellent.

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.

Cameron isn't making it look digital for modern audiences. He's been using dnr for decades on his films

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.

Interesting takes for sure! I would agree I dont mind film grain at all.

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 😉👍🏼

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

The DVD of the Gerry Anderson series The Protectors is deliciously grainy as it was shot on 16mm film.

Great detailed and articulated video, my friend!

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!

& 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 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

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 KZfaqrs 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 KZfaqr whatever have you, they What they are talking about more technically if they are going to give an educated review. 32:40

I don’t have much hope, but I wish The Terminator would retain most or all of its grain.

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??

My favorite film look is Panavision Anamorphic shot on film .

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 😂

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...

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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…

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

Great video

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.

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 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.

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).

Lets go!

Great explanation of the process and why. Finally, a dude explaining things like a dude 👍.

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 👍

Vinyl adds distortion -- mistaken for "warmth".

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

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.

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.

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! 🤦‍♂️

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

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.

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.

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

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

Your explanation of key and fill was a little awkward 😂

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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