Why do OLDER movies look BETTER in 4K? | The Movie Vault

[@themovievault]

I hope you all enjoyed this new, *_informative type of video_* I made for the channel, let me know in the comments if you learned something new from this video!

[@RPRsChannel]

The irony that your video is only 720p in 2021 is....heavy.

[@themovievault]

Incorrect, this is a 1080p video from 2020.

[@JasonCapistranoBarrera]

What kind of Computer that can support Topaz?

[@anthonymerchant2597]

Very informative and as a collector myself I appreciate your time in making this for others like me. I find it interesting that Blade was your first as Matrix was mine. Several of them I purchased while deployed while in the US Army. Mine's far smaller now than yours but it's great when I show someone and it's something they haven't seen before. I just subbed to your channel btw. I enjoy seeing other collections of people especially when I know they grew up around the same time as me. I turn 42 in 12 days and live in the US and I'm hooked on seeing your collection continue to grow. It makes it more interesting that you are an experienced projectionist with a full grasp of film to digital conversion. Good video that shows your understanding of films.

[@themovievault]

Thank you Anthony 👍🏻

[@jerrycheah7516]

Awesome Video and Explaining All you need to know!!! New Subscriber!!!

[@themovievault]

Thank you 🙏🏻

[@WolfgangLunar]

In short. It's because we can view these old films with high-quality imagery and colors. We were so used to seeing them in their original edited form from the period that once we clean it up with enhancements, we appreciate the films more because we are watching it as if it was filmed today. Our eyes adapt to the new look which triggers something in our brain that the 4K version is the definitive version.

[@BirdArvid]

I LOVE the developments for especially home cinema enthusiasts; first 1080p Blu-ray and then 4k and the HD and UltraHD tv's. And of all these things, I am happiest about the wave of HiDef film-restoration we've seen; not all are great, but it is exciting that these older treasures finally have a format worthy of their artistic merit. I'm slowly working towards a full 4k-setup, and am future-proofing my collection; the things I really want and love I get on 4k; Apocalypse Now, The Deer Hunter, Alien, Blade Runner (both!) Hitchcock, Kubrick, Del Toro, Lean.. and often, if you stay cool, and wait for sales, they can be had for no more than regular 1080p's (which I buy as well; Criterion Collection, etc!)!! It's a good time to be a collector!!

[@FilmBloggerSam]

Dude, this is one of the best videos on this subject I've ever seen. The production quality is spot on and the content is so informative. Great stuff 👍😎

[@themovievault]

Thanks Sam, really appreciate it 👍🏻🎞️

[@alexandreraymond5813]

I'm surprised this channel isn't bigger. Keep up the great content man!

[@themovievault]

Thanks for watching 👍🏻🙏🏻💿

[@FilmCollectorArchive]

Wonderful, VERY informative video, Rob! I had a very general idea of how scans worked, but this really shed some more light on the subject for me. I love the work being done on older films. That is where my heart is. I am very happy with the Blu Ray format for the most part, and haven't seen a really big need to go 4K, although I do have a few titles, namely The Blade Runner films, 2001, Jaws and E.T.. I'm certain I will invest more in some 4K titles in the future. Thanks for the great content! I vote for more videos of this nature. :)

[@themovievault]

Thanks so much for watching, really appreciate it 🙏🏻👍🏻

[@MonkeyPowerkey]

I am slowly starting to build up my 4K UHD Blu-ray collection. But i've for sure started to do more research before investing as i know some movies aren't really worth the extra money. I mean, when it comes to a Nolan film i feel pretty safe going with the 4K option as he does shoot on film like they used to back in the day wich tends to lead to better looking movies overall. And his use of IMAX is just wonderful. But naturally there's more to it than just that. It's also about who did a propper job at restoring these movies and what movies actually look much better in 4K. Like, The Lord of the Rings is something i've put on my list of movies to upgrade simply because seemingly the upgrade is noteworthy. No matter, chances are for the time being i won't go for a pure 4K collection. It has to be worth it. But older movies are higher on the list for the upgrade as i've kind fealt like they tend to look better. Or at the very least 4K tends to help bring out what the film was supposed to look like rather than change it up to look more modern. Again, film. It's timeless. It's beautiful to watch a film shot in 4K or higher that has been proberly dealt with before release no doubt. The crips clear and clear footage that is just so full of life. But there is more soul to movies shot on film. That bit of grain helps set the mood. But slowly i'm starting to build up a propper 4K collection. And i have a LG CX wich is no joke when it comes to TV. I know this year is starting to offer slight upgrades. But ey, probably won't see a big leap at a semi resonable price in a few years anyways. + with the release of PS5 last year i finaly got me a 4K Player. One thing is for sure, if i ever get to follow my dream and become a film maker... I will shoot on film.

[@thecluckingassassin]

Get yourself a dedicated 4k player

[@GringoXalapeno]

Or if you can’t afford shooting on film you can shoot at 4K or 8k

[@Mik.Kholodkov]

Don't forget about Sony Mastered in 4K blu ray before UHD era

[@themovievault]

Sure! I think those are the same as Blu Ray releases today that have "4K Restoration" but it's still on a 1080p Blu Ray disc! We need those 4K releases!!!

[@tompoynton]

Steven Soderberg finished Oceans 13 in 4K thirteen years ago! Ahead of the curve

[@jrdhenderson]

I feel like we're missing discussing the digital negatives, while being 2k, 2.6k, 3.4k, 4k and so on, are shot in formats like Arriraw, ProRes, Cinema DNG, RedCode RAW which have ridiculously high bitrates, bit depth, dynamic range. There's so much more to it than the physical number of active pixels. All of the formats we view at home are compressed using algorithms, that while good, take 12, 14, 16 bit down to 8 bit, 1.34Gigabit/s+ to a *maximum* of 25mbps, and so forth. That 1.34gb/s example is the now small 2.4k Arriraw. I guess what I'm saying is that resolution numbers don't convert directly from source capture to home viewing.

[@MondoChelloveckMovies]

This is a great video Rob! Very detailed and informative 👌 I thought had a bit of "knowledge" in this topic but this has helped me to understand more fully about the 4K medium 👌 when explained this way it makes perfect sense to research the original shooting specs and then see how the restoration was done, this could save you some money on films you would expect to be great but might not be able to look that good on 4k! I agree as well that older films can generally look much better if done correctly.....Great video 🤩🤩👍👍

[@themovievault]

Thanks! Really appreciate it! 👍💿

[@MondoChelloveckMovies]

@@themovievault 🤩👌

[@roberthipolito1351]

So film + always improving scanning tech & on top of that the way film captures color, overall it sounds like film IS better

[@garypranzo9334]

I learned so much here. Thank you.. This is amazing. This is why I did not sweat the resolution when looking for a projector. Before this video my only understanding was that many of my favorite recent movies were finished at 2K due to the cost of CGI if finished at 4k or more so I settled on an epson 5050 as the best under $3000 projector at that time. It had the colors, black level and brightness at cinema settings I liked and the Lens memory for my scope screen. I know it is not really a 4k projector. It is a 1080p projector that can pixel shift to about 3K at best. (2k when I zoom it to fill my scope screen) My friend has a native 4K Sony and I did not see any difference from 9ft viewing distance 120" screens. I am aware moving forward more movies will be true 4K and beyond but when I feel I am missing something I will then upgrade. One more thing to mention is frame rate can fool you into thinking the picture is higher res. If you have the ability to watch Gemini man at 60FPS HDR then you will see what I mean. My wife thought I bought a new projector as it looked like it was way more than 4K. I hated the look for movies. Some call it soap opera look . I am good with 24fps and my Faux K projector at 2.35:1 or 1:78 for now, For now ;-)

[@themovievault]

Thank you for watching!

[@domcoke]

Decent explanation... a useful primer for digital intermediates. There's a next level of complication when it comes to pre digital era intermediates... i.e., intermediates made from the original negative that are then combined with optical effects - which is why some films that were shot of film still look kinda soft - A good example of this is Jurassic Park. I don't believe Jurassic Park was remastered from its original negative, but rather, and intermediate duplicate negative that was used to incorporate all the effects. Truly the best 4k scans are those that involve no optical work at all - which is obviously in itself quite rare, because any optical effect requires a duplicate - for example shots that precede and follow a dissolve are duplicates from the negative, and so when you watch a 4k version of a film, the eagle-eyed will notice that there's a slight softening on these specific shots. When I was a child, even what watching films on TV in Standard Def, I would play a game with myself in predicting when a dissolve was about to happen - not psychic ability, but being able to spot the slight change in quality/colour on the preceding shot.

[@Nuria86gn]

This is soo brilliant. Your knowledge is truly priceless and it is even more amazing that you get to share it with mere mortals like myself! Hats off! :)

[@themovievault]

🙂❤️👍🏻

[@highdefnews]

Great vid. It also made me realize that some of my fav films are 35mm films.

[@themovievault]

Thanks for watching, appreciate it 👍🏻

[@raeshaker2126]

Great discussion. The 4k hype is very misleading-- there is relatively little content actually created yet in 4k format, so even on a 4k set, very little of what is seen is actually in 4k format. Film, however, is a very different animal and the original source equipment and other factors go into determining the potential quality of the conversion to digital format. Just as important as the source camera is the Digital intermediate (DI) conversion, which is little know for those outside the film industry. MV does a great job of explaining these factors in the conversion process and actual final format. The point is, you cannot obtain true 4k quality from source material created and converted to DI in anything less than 4k. For someone like myself who owns a television primarily to view movies, this is a good overview of what we may actually be seeing.

[@themovievault]

Thank you 🙏🏻

[@edwinarvelo2739]

Love this video. Finally a educated/experienced explanation about this.

[@themovievault]

Thank you 🙏🏻

[@craiggiles3620]

I'm not too bothered with 2k upscaled UHD's because at least you get better compression.

[@getmarco548]

Wanted to know how a great visual film "Deliver Us From Eviel" 2020 yr was shot. So I really appreciate your in-depth explanation of films shown as video and where to find the film source..

[@CormacSeanObrien]

Hey Rob what did you make of the New BvS remastered? Specifically the IMAX scenes ?

[@themovievault]

I haven't watched it yet Cormac, I did pick it up, just haven't gotten around to it... Might do a review on the channel at some point 💿👍🏻

[@jordanmoran1983]

Great video, I just watched Jaws in 4k last night and the shining the day before. I was thinking these look waaaay better than the more modern movies I've picked up.

[@PUPWATCHRAILWAYS]

My Setup LG 8600 55” 120Hz 240 Motion Rate. LG UBK 80 4K Player with Hi Resolution audio with My BOSE SOLO 5) Looking forward to seeing TREMORS 4K UHD January 5, 2021) Tonight I am watching For the First Time Ever on 4K UHD 11:00 PM Beverly Hills Cop 4K

[@MrCREWCRUSHIN95]

Of course! 35mm film resolve at 4-6K. Modern movies shot on video are finished at 2k 95% of the time. So - older films are true 4K, while movies shot on video are upscaled 2K.

[@sorenpx]

Good video. Thanks, brother! My fear is that we're headed toward a future where if you want to own a movie on a physical format you can get fucked. As a film fan, that is terrifying to me.

[@Spidey-ny1do]

Would a 4k Blu-ray movie that was shot on 35mm scanned from the negative look better than the 35mm print since the release print is already a 4th generation copy ?

[@themovievault]

I guess it depends on what condition the negative was in, and if a restoration was involved or if it just a direct scan and released

[@dansmith7194]

Your information is extensive but easily understood. Great work! Thanks also for the IMDB advice. Did not know IMDB provided all that technical filming info! Awesome reference.

[@themovievault]

Thanks for watching Dan, much appreciated 🙏🏻👍🏻

[@73ocampo]

Thank you for the review, I was actually a little disappointed in Collateral in 4K not sharp at all? With that said, I was shocked to see The KIngsman, it's amazing so clear and the film pops in 4K.

[@TheFbiFilesRepeat]

Come and see really looks amazing

Great Video man! i really enjoyed it !! :) But hey, i hope it is okay to tell you this, i had to turn my subwoofer off because the mic popped, so maybe a lowcut on the mic would be cool :)

[@sportstackeroctober2531]

I really enjoyed it! Really informative!

[@themovievault]

Thanks for watching 👍🏻💿

[@sportstackeroctober2531]

@@themovievault No problem ;))

[@MovieChatter01]

This is a brilliant source of information. I really appreciate your explanation of how each of these bits affects the end product. You're going to be saving me money in the future because I better understand what to look for, and I thank you for that. I shared your channel link on my Community tab because I really believe you share such valuable information for collectors. Well done, my friend. 👍👍👍

[@themovievault]

Oh thank you so much Stephanie, I really appreciate it 🙏🏻☺️

[@InfamyOrDeath-__-]

Really great video & answered a question I had, I always wondered how they got old movies looking so good in HD. I thought it was all to do with the camera, but using better digital cameras is actually worse, as they can’t be upscaled. These guys know this, so why aren’t they future proofing their movies by shooting them on regular film? In 30 years when we’re at 40k haha, their movies are stuck at 3k because they’re using digital cameras. Why do that?

[@themovievault]

Thanks for watching! 👍🏻🙂

[@CinemaDaveMedia]

Hi Rob. Thanks for a very informative video. It's good to understand how these film scans work to better appreciate all the work involved and the final product. Thanks for sharing your detailed expertise with us. Hope you are doing well.

[@themovievault]

Thank you Dave, really appreciate it! 👍🏻

[@jammydmedia4131]

Very VERY informative thank you for this. Sub earned

[@themovievault]

Thanks for watching 🙏🏻

[@samsscaledmodels1872]

This is so interesting and useful. Thank you.

[@themovievault]

Thanks for watching!

[@edbeasant9494]

I assume its because older films were shot on 35mm film and a lot of newer movies are shot 2k digital especially cgi effects in movies are rendered at 2k. So in short movies/cgi effects rendered at 2k are upscaled to 4k not native 4k.

[@NeikoTejeda]

Using Birds of Prey as an example. Watching it in 4k, assuming you have proper devices to do it, it has potencial to look better than the 1080p version because if the source material was in 3.4k, you're not goint to see those details on a downscaled version. With that said, the 4k upscale needs to be done correctly and not using some cheap ai upscale which will ruin the picture completely. In fact, the upscale needs to be done prior to editing and post-production, ON the source material which i don't believe they did so... i still prefer the 1080p version not because it's the same but to avoid those cheap solutions for upscaling. That and because i don't have any 4k display

[@andrewstagg4395]

I noticed when I got The Thing on 4k last month that the picture quality wasn't as good as the Arrow Video Blu-ray but the picture quality is much better than the universal blu ray plus I checked The Matrix from the ultimate collection on 10 disc dvd and the picture quality is better now than when I had my Sony 1080 TV a few years ago and I ended up buying the Blu-ray trilogy and then the 4k trilogy 2 years ago but I've noticed some Blu-ray's look better than newer movies that have been released eg the Marvel Movies.

[@mutcholokoW]

Fantastic content!

[@LeonXfilm]

Great work

[@themovievault]

Thank you 🙏🏻

[@brucedeshetler2252]

I noticed you didn't talk about the master of digital, David Fincher. Lets look at Zodiac or The Social Network and tell me it doesn't look as beautiful as Hateful 8. When it comes to digital its all about how talented the director is. Also, good content. I'll look for more.

[@themovievault]

Only watched Zodiac a few nights ago!

[@philbrown102]

Bruce, I don't think that they look the same at all. It is in many ways a false comparison to say that a 2k digital anything stands up to a native 4k digital file, or a good 4k scan of a film print. I like the film look and do notice incredibly clear 4k scanned, restorations of movies shot on film, that is unmatched by any movies with a digital 2k intermediate. Even very old film.

[@johnprudent3216]

Great video. You seem to know your stuff. That's more tp think about when I buy and collect a movie.

[@themovievault]

Thanks for watching 👍🏻🙏🏻

[@qtip4747]

So since Black Swan was shot on film, but it has a 2k intermediate, 4k would be underwhelming? Rather just regular blu ray then? Great video by the way, thanks!

[@themovievault]

Thanks for watching 👍🏻 So technically it's a 2k blow up to a 4k disc, unless there was a new 4k Scan and DI done since the previous 2k one. Hard to say if it would look bad on 4k disc, I find 2k blow ups do look better on 4k with HDR there's much more colour range / depth, compared to blu ray.

[@qtip4747]

@@themovievault Ok great, thank you very much! Cheers

[@benjmiester]

Well now I need to get myself a 4k Bluray player for my 65" Sony X900h I've mostly been just enjoying high end PC games and streaming. Would be nice to see the best of the best on it! I don't imagine there's anything that can take advantage of the 4k @ 120hz ability? I know everybody flips out over HFR content, but I don't care. You're all wrong, and it looks amazing lol

[@trevorbartram5473]

I believe all films containing heavy digital special effects (CGI) are rendered at 2K 1080P (or even 720p) because rendering at 4K takes far too long. I seem to remember 4K rendering takes eight times longer than 2K.

[@jj_1edzep]

Great video. Subbed :)

[@themovievault]

Thank you 👍🏻

[@TheThirdDaySH]

Interesting stuff.

[@VinylEldred]

I love your KZbin channel it's awesome

[@themovievault]

Thanks for watching, appreciate it!

[@Austingipsy101]

Scanning an older release though doesn't always guarantee good results. If you can get a neg or first rate release print it's fine, if you have to scan a print that's been projected or a reprint then the grain and dirt is overemphasized. Then it needs post processing and noise reduction and you've softened the image again. Sometimes stuff is only shot on 8 , or even 4k to allow the option of later reframing and adjusting of the composition for a 2k release. Often it's not about quality it's about giving yourself options.

[@obibear123]

Love your channel Rob 🌸👍😎

[@themovievault]

Thanks for watching 👍🏻💿

[@gunstargizmo]

Depends on the film. If it has lots of film grain, it's not going to benefit and the video file is going to huge because grainy films don't compress that well. Older films weren't shot with 4K in mind so using equipment which produces the sharpest image, wasn't a priority. It's like converting an MP3 to a wav file and expecting lost data to return. I don't even bother with 4K in regards to old films unless it was a big budget production.

[@Rilumai]

It a film has a lot of grain, it's still going to benefit from a 4K upgrade, lol. Grain is going to be more noticeable on 4K releases because we're seeing it more clearly.

[@gunstargizmo]

@@Rilumai The grain obscures most of the detail, and unless you're a purist who likes static pops on an LP, a 4K conversion is pointless, especially if you're storing them on drives. Also old lenses weren't exactly the best at capturing 4K imagery, and in most instances, all you're seeing is a higher resolution of a blurred shot. Movies such as 'Jaws' or 'Superman' aren't exactly crisp on closeups. Why do you think filmmakers such as Peter Jackson, James Cameron, or Steven Spielberg now use digital capture? It's sharper, especially for movies filled with a lot of digital effects.

[@Rilumai]

@@gunstargizmo The grain _is_ the detail. It's exactly what gives the image its quality and texture. And old lenses were absolutely fantastic at capturing 4K (or higher) imagery (not technically 4K back in the day but you get it). A lot of filmmakers shoot digitally now because it's cheaper, quieter, smaller, and allows them to film much more. Both have their pros and cons but older films, whether they have fine grain or a lot of grain, are absolutely worth scanning and releasing in 4K. We're still getting an image that is closer to how the film originally looked. It's not pointless in the slightest.

[@gunstargizmo]

@@Rilumai So you’re the type who considers vinyl static to be a characteristic of the music. Not all films have grain, especially digitally shot films. A lot of the older films that were once plagued with grain, are being digitally restored without it. I remember Star Wars having plenty when it was first released. Converting many of these old films to 4K is like blowing up the famed photo of Bigfoot and expecting to see the costume.

[@Rilumai]

@@gunstargizmo Static from vinyls is not a part of the music. It doesn't exist in a song naturally. Grain, on the other hand, _is_ a part of film and _is_ there naturally. They're different things and yes, every single movie shot on film will have grain. Some more than others, but film will always have grain. Digitally shot movies won't have any grain because it doesn't exist in digital cameras, but they can have noise, or have grain added in post. Older films aren't "plagued" with grain, it's not a bad thing, and any film being digitally restored should _never_ have the grain scrubbed away. Using DNR to get rid of grain will lower the image quality and things will look flat, people will look waxy, and texture will be lost. Lastly, they're not "blowing up the photo" so to speak when scanning old films in 4K. 35 mm film is very much capable of 4K quality; 70 mm film even more so. They're able to get 4K scans out of older films _because_ that's how high quality film can be.

[@rutgersplague7989]

Iv been buying classic movies in 4k to get the best picture possible, for modern movies I buy the 3d versions as I think it certainly adds a bit more to it, pacific rim is amazing in 3d

[@themovievault]

I did have a 3D set-up until last year, when I upgraded to 4K - 3D wasn't for me - but that's a good idea!

[@tompoynton]

All Marvel digital intermediates are 2K

[@JMoviesMedia]

Movie Chatter sent me.

[@themovievault]

Oh thank you! 🙏🏻🎞️

[@4k_Aficionado]

Nicely researched video. I would argue that your point at 12:45 that Blu-ray is fine because the resolution is close enough overlooks the HDR and WCG enhancements 4K discs offer. HDTVTest used to do HDR analysis of movies which highlighted these HDR/WCG qualities, like this one: kzbin.info/www/bejne/g2fImJ-iqdqDoKc

[@SuperSy99]

No contest.just watch video clip of Lawrence of Arabia.No digicam can near close with that glorious quality of film.Digital is hd but looks vlog and tv series

[@SuperSy99]

Because movies shot in film with digital intermidiate is superior to pure digital

[@ToddPalms]

Terty Fiouve mil Filem

[@UnchainedEruption]

They don't and I wish these companies would stop whitewashing history when the re-releases are often inferior to the originals. Like the new Michael Jackson videos...who gives a flying fuck about 4K? First of all, 4K isn't even really "4K," that was a marketing term. 4K is actually 3840 x 2160p, which is clearly less than 4000, and also it chooses to look at the horizontal width rather than the height, which conventionally used to be more common. By that logic, 1080p ought to be "2K" which it isn't. So that's all bullshit designed to make tvs sound better than they really are. Then I have to ask, why are people obsessed with trivial amounts of detail? At a certain point, is there such a thing as too much visual detail? Especially some older movies or tv shows have sets that don't hold up to HD levels of scrutiny because they were never designed to be looked at up super close in high detail. What about the innate look that tv and films had then? Especially since streaming is the de facto method of watching movies/tv nowadays, and streaming services will often only have available the HD re-releases, what this means that the original true vision and look is being erased, white-washed, and lost to time. Does anybody else miss and even prefer the look of VHS tapes and CRT tvs? Yes it's not as high resolution, but so fucking what? It also had deeper colors, it had cool artifacting that you will never see on modern stuff shot with digital cameras. TV and movies used to be larger than life. Making them look identical to life is not necessarily an upgrade.

[@RPRsChannel]

Joker was not shot in 65mm? I saw it in 70mm thinking his looks amazing.

[@dinkyvision]

Filum? TertieFoive mill negative to a yew hetch dee desk.

[@ReachForTheSkyVideo]

Rob Zombie’s “Tree From Hell”