Why Do Older Movies Look Better in 4K?

[@JeffRauseo]

Check out my new version of this video updated for 2023: kzbin.info/www/bejne/hqHTfImGp5qreNE

[@afrolund80]

Movie theaters only get a 2k file? Is that because it's compressed?

[@JeremyJahns]

This is one of my favorite videos on KZbin.

[@ashersmart5837]

Sup

[@samuraivader3814]

Same here

[@JeffRauseo]

Jeremy Jahns I cant believe I’m just seeing this. THANK YOU! Means a lot coming from you. Your channel is incredible

[@Justadrie44]

Films At Home 4 real it’s not everyday a big youtuber comments on videos

[@snowwhite7677]

It's not about the Look these days bro, it about what films have the best Social Justice! Besides, talking about colors is Racist.

[@doogerw2675]

My favorite thing about 4K is that there's no region lock on the disc. Makes collecting steelbooks from other regions so much nicer when you know it is guaranteed to play

[@gamerrap23]

Are regular 1080p blurays region locked? :(

[@khangphamchannel016]

@@gamerrap23Yep unfortunately :((

[@Yetaxa]

@@gamerrap23 officially yes but a large number of blu-rays are ABC region aka, region free

[@applepitz]

*friggin A dude... You just made the best argument why they should just bring back film... There is nothing like it... Film forever...*

[@andrewbarnum5040]

Sorry, they only let me like your comment once but I want to give it a million likes. YES we need film back in theaters!!!!!!!!! Film is totally Forever!!

[@andrewperkin7192]

As a film maker I'm afraid film is just harder to work with ... Digital offers on the shoot day look at what you just filmed Again some 4k shot movies look so stunning look at blade 2049 shot on 3.4 k sharp and stunning lenses play a huge part and lenses now are 10x better

[@jessegarrett388]

Film is more expensive to work with versus digital. Processing, printing, and scanning adds up really quick.

[@andrewperkin7192]

@ReturnoftheBrotha that is true but when you want to see the footage you captured on the day is harder to view accurately

[@jessegarrett388]

ReturnoftheBrotha even for high budget movies. You can pour more money into effects, sets, practical effects, and quality actors if you aren’t shooting, processing, and scanning 200,000 feet of 35mm film.

[@gregorypempleton269]

As a movie/home theater hobbyist, your explanation was outstanding!! Very clear and concise. Thanks.

[@JeffRauseo]

Thanks for the feedback. I’m happy to hear it came across easy to understand.

[@carletonlegrant5605]

@@JeffRauseo So glad you mentioned Jaws I had no idea it was coming out in 4k. That is a day one buy. I just discovered your channel really love your content

[@MoviesNGames007uk]

I can't wait for the older Bond movies to come out in 4K

[@chrismeder2376]

Watched Dr. No in 4k the other day, WOW! I could not believe how good it looked. It was a stream, so I am sure the disc version will even be better.

[@dantasticmania8728]

Goldfinger looked insane on original Blu-ray , I'm sure the 4k would look ridiculously gorgeous and that film was shot in the 60s.

[@maximea4135]

@@dantasticmania8728 it's in fact avaible

[@emanuelrivera8048]

It’s on iTunes on 4K, but I’m waiting to see if they will update the audio track,

[@findJLF]

While it's available with the in-PC parts left in.

[@ixnine]

- “How many pixels are in 70mm film?” - “All of them”

[@stanlee5465]

Exactly, film doesn't have 'pixels'... Like, how many megapixels is your vision? lol

[@aolson1111]

@@stanlee5465 It does, even if we don't call it that. Pixel stands for picture element, which is the smallest individual piece of information that makes up an image. It's the silver halide grain that makes up the image on a film strip. The more grain there is, the sharper and clearer the image will be. The human eye can see about 570 megapixels max, which is a function of the rods and cones in the eye. The brain's signal processing will reduce that, but that's a subjective experience.

[@iSleepDoc]

@@aolson1111 very correct .... grains of 35/70 mm in other words are pixels.... but very high resolution.

[@adminx-pro7873]

​​@@stanlee5465 Movies are composed of millions of pictures combined with sound

[@sage11x]

I’ve been singing this for the last year or two. 4K is a an absolute must for classic film buffs and fans. We just need more releases!

[@hxhdfjifzirstc894]

Yeah, wouldn't it be logical to begin by releasing all of the masterpieces of the past, before bringing out 4K releases of crap that was never good in the first place?

[@gblatt8472]

Good video, a lot of it is basically correct, but as a cinematographer I want to nit pick a few smaller points. The resolution of film is more amorphous than digital like you say, but we can generally quantify 35mm as between 4-5k, and it's 70mm that's closer to 8-9k. You also incorrectly state that Blade Runner is a 70mm film. While the model shots were indeed shot in 70mm, anything you see with an actor is a traditional 35mm element. What made the Blade Runner restoration special is that the 70mm elements were scanned in 8k and composited, but all the 35mm elements are from a 4k scan.

[@UtubeEric12345]

Hi Loren. This is something I have been wondering, and since you seem to know what you are talking about maybe you can help me out? I often see the megapixel comparison between 35 and 70 mm film being that 70mm would have about twice the MP-count of the 35mm. But since MP is dependent on the surface area and *if* the same actual film quality is used the 70mm should have 4 times the MP of the 35mm. Does perhaps 70mm film have bigger grain compared to the 35mm, negating the increase in available area? To me that sounds odd. Back in the days where the cost of the film reels was something to take into account, why would anybody pay a premium to shoot on 70 mm film if they lost some of that extra quality because to increased grain size in the bigger film?

[@MichaelWeizenfeld]

@@UtubeEric12345 grain doesn't enlarge with the frame size, it is depends on sensitivity (ISO) of the film.

[@MichaelWeizenfeld]

More than that, vintage lenses often are a little soft. The steps of film processing (interpositive, positive and so on) don't improve the image quality of a source.

[@batman313rd]

I didn't know that movies with a lot of visual effects are typically upscaled from 2k. Good video.

[@kingkongballz1774]

you dont see the difference? thats why i sometimes dont like watching 4k, it breaks the illusion of realism

[@TyrannoFan]

It's super obvious in Jurassic World Fallen Kingdom. They actually have vfx free shots in native 4k but as soon as any vfx is on screen, you can see the resolution downgrade to 2k upscaled.

[@mosesjones5376]

@@TyrannoFan Kinda weird seeing how it used to be that they used to use higher resolution for special/visual effects when they were shooting on film. For instance, with movies like Star Wars and Blade Runner, the visual effects shots were finished in 70MM (Post Production) while the film was shot on 35MM. This was to preserve the quality of the image.

[@dsr0116]

@@mosesjones5376 It was because VFX was optically printed. Studios had to film on larger film stocks, because they would have to layer successive mat passes on a print: which would degrade image quality with each generation. I've seen an interview with Dennis Muren in which he was highlighting how many shortcuts and that they were really pushing the limits of film with the composites in Return of the Jedi (often hiding compositing issues by crushing the blacks). With digital, you don't have problems with adding as many layers as you want: the only limitation is processing time. The biggest Hollywood movies, now though, are starting to have 4K intermediates.

[@ferociousmullet9287]

@@dsr0116 The optical degradation is why so many of these older movies doing optical FX used 65mm film for the FX shots. The greater amount of captured picture information lead to less loss when combining elements. Star Wars FX shots were shot on Vista vision for example as it was a much finer grain stock.

[@movieswithdaniel342]

They really need to release There Will Be Blood in 4K. That was shot on 35mm film and I’m sure it would look incredible in 4K!

[@arthousecouch]

That, and Paul Thomas Anderson's follow up film: The Master. That movie was shot in 70mm. Watching the 1080p Blu-ray upscaled by UHD player is one of the best looking movies I have. Can't even imagine what a proper 4k transfer could look like.

[@MichaelJMacIsaac]

@@arthousecouch Agreed, the Master looks f ing fantastic! The Dunkirk 4k is also quite great, especially the dlight sequences

[@mightyrobot42]

@@arthousecouch It would look identical, since the movie was made to be shown on digital projectors. Even if the original footage was shot on film, the movie itself is digital and so all copies will be identical aside from resolution.

[@thecinemaster2.05]

Maybe Criterion would do it!

[@zimtron9589]

There will be blood definitely needs a 4k version, the vc1 bluray version is kind of crap in my opinion.

[@amonk32]

One thing to remember as well is that 4K discs can hold a lot more data, so the Mbps is going to be much higher. That does make a significant difference. I could have a 1080p film upscaled to a 4K disc with a H.265 compression instead of the standard H.264, and it will look better. For example, Avengers: Endgame's standard blu ray is 23.35 Mbps, while the 4K is 36.53 Mbps. That's an increase of more than 50%. So a better compression is a factor to take into consideration.

[@Quantum_Noir]

Just watched the original Blade Runner in 4k and that was a masterpiece!!

[@SB0780]

Nice work, I do this for a living in LA for one of the studios. This is a great breakdown. And yeah older movies, when done properly, look fantastic in 4K.

[@VideoArchiveGuy]

Not JUST movies; many older TV shows were shot on 35mm or 16mm film so would look even better in 4K than on Blu-ray.

[@SB0780]

@@VideoArchiveGuy 100% Basically anything shot on film will look better with a 4K re-scan than your standard DVD. Unfortunately, there's lesser interest in preservation and older content by younger consumers today.

[@chris25801]

A lot of the so-called experts need to watch this. There's so much crap information around relating to 4K. "But it's on 4K ,it must be better than the blu-ray" NO , not necessarily. Anyway, you've got a new subscriber.

[@halfvader8015]

Even that's wrong. What do people generally agree is the big leap for UHD? Not the resolution but the colour depth/HDR. Even a film upscaled from 2k will have much much less compression and much better colour gamut.

[@ManChild1980]

Yes the experts need to listen tou a KZbinr as they no way know better than him on what is best to be used for their vision.

[@splotch5]

Predator 1 and 2 look AMAZING in 4k! The HEVC allows for great image compression, the film grain is retained, the color palette is extended, and the HDR is very well implemented! I used to be skeptical about the format, but those 2 transfers opened my eyes about the possibilities of the format.

[@calarahilbaggins1928]

I'm waiting for a Indiana Jones trilogy 4k release. The older movies seemed to have more practical effects so perhaps a movie that would transfer better.

[@slckb0y65]

The Thing in 4K

[@joddo1991]

Calarahil Baggins fr. Temple of Doom in 4K ;)

[@travisspazz1624]

Seriously though! Indiana Jones blu-ray is already clean af, 4k would look insane!!

[@1luiszepol]

Its funny how many people refer to Indiana Jones' Trilogy when is 4. Many of us don't include the 4th lol.

[@1luiszepol]

@@slckb0y65 I waiting that too. I can't have my collection full if The Thing in not included no matter if it is 1080 or 4k.

[@KillahMate]

Point of fact: the original Blade Runner is not a 70mm film. The visual effects shots were done on 65mm film which was a common technique to avoid generational degradation, but the final negative was 35mm, ie a standard movie negative. 70mm/65mm movies were _very_ rare, in fact about as rare as modern films delivered in 4K are, or more. It's just that Scott and his DP Jordan Cronenweth were masters of the craft who knew how to utilize the format, and also the 4K release went through extensive restoration. And as a followup to that point, it's worth keeping in mind that the figures quoted in the video of the roughly equivalent resolutions for each film format are _the theoretical maximum signal frequency a film negative of that size could hold_ - ie how much pixels you'd need to _perfectly reproduce_ all information on that piece of celluloid, down to the grain. In practice, countless technical and practical limitations of old techology and just the moviemaking process as such mean no actual old movie comes even close to those numbers in the actual sharpness of its filmed detail. What that means is that a modern movie shot, mastered and released in 4K _will_ look sharper than any old movie shot on 35mm even though _theoretically_ a good 35mm negative could hold more detail if you were to, say, etch it onto the grain with a nanolaser. This doesn't really detract from the main point of the video though.

[@truthseeker1995]

Another point: lenses. Most of a film's sharpness or lack thereof is determined by the lenses used and the stylistic choices regarding aperture and filters. For example, the Jabba's Palace scenes in _Return_ _of_ _the_ _Jedi_ were shot on 35mm film, but do to certain lens filters they have a somewhat soft look with blooming highlights. kzbin.info/www/bejne/pZCtfZyngKaaeck

[@halfvader8015]

I think the confusion (besides laziness in not doing a simple search to fact check) is that many roadshow releases were done with 70mm "blow ups" or there was a 70mm master made for better quality 35mm dupes. Even though the original film was shot in 35mm. Not the same thing as a real film shot on 65mm. But you can see why it was done. Also it can get a little confusing in other ways. There was a specific sound mix for 70mm. And the fx were shot in 65 not Vistavision.

[@williamreid6255]

Well, unlike a lot of movies, the entire original _Die Hard_ trilogy was all shot on 70mm film, hence the 2.39:1 aspect ratio, even on the 4K disc & digital stream

[@jheiden2]

@@williamreid6255 not true. Die Hard films were shot on 35mm film. Richard Edlund used 65mm for visual effects compositing only. To be honest, some of the shots in the film couldn't possibly be shot on 65mm film, simply due to the size the 65mm cameras. Have you ever seen just the magazine (reel holder) for 65mm film up close?

[@bradypowell2326]

I'm hyped for the potential future 4k releases of the original Star Wars trilogy and Jaws

[@nikrattlehead9285]

Supposedly Disney plans to release them! Without the extra cgi crap that Lucas added in the Blu rays as well

[@dastiffmeisterman]

There is probably a downside to the extra resolution in that the effects will probably look less realistic, the higher resolution you go the more obvious it looks.

[@Strugen.]

@Nik Rattlehead where did you get that info from. George wouldn't be happy about that

[@streamingjunkie4397]

@@Strugen. Lucas opinion is probably irrelevant since he sold his IP to Disney.

[@Strugen.]

@Streaming Junkie pretty sure he owns the first one still. There was a special screening recently of a original 70mm print and they had to get his permission

[@Marginwalker1972]

So happy to hear Leon Vitali and Spielberg worked on The Shining mastering. Can't wait to see it. Great video!

[@M3LTUP]

The standard Blu Ray of The Shining is very good.

[@Slask7]

@@M3LTUP good, but there was a lot of room for improvement.

[@hairyguitarist]

@@M3LTUP the tennis ball is the wrong colour on the standard blu ray. Always annoys me. Hopefully 4k release fixes this.

[@machina101]

watched that recently. so great!

[@Slask7]

hairyguitarist fixed. 4K is excellent

[@astrosjer822]

I would love to see classics like Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, The Sting, the Clint Eastwood spaghetti westerns, the Bond movies, the Beatles movies etc. on 4K bring them on!

[@KRAFTWERK2K6]

The Bond movies are gonna be interesting. Because the HD remasters back then for the DVDs and Blu-rays were botched by Lowry Digital… the worst place to go…

[@davidrowe7967]

The Wild Bunch and Once Upon a Time In The West would be nice additions.

[@patrickadams7120]

Back To The Future trilogy in 4K... The Star Trek movies in 4K.....KHAAAAAAAAAAN!!!

[@thegrimyeaper]

Back to the Future Trilogy has always looked trash on all physical media. Would be fun to see it looking good one day.

[@Chrisratata]

@@thegrimyeaper guess we'll have to see how the upcoming October release looks

[@badreality2]

@@thegrimyeaper Buy the CED version. It has the uncut aspect ratio, for Back to the Future 1.

[@KRAFTWERK2K6]

Yeah a 4K remaster of the BTTF trilogy is desperately needed. They even cheated their way out for the 30th anniversary Blu-ray, which used the same ancient old upscale and DNR and edge enhancement master... The Star Trek movies in 4K would be a godsent because holy shit are the Blu-rays utter garbage (with the exception of Star Trek II - the directors cut and Star Trek Nemesis) because Paramount felt it was necessary to turn the DNR filter all the way to the max and remove every single bit of details, making everyone look like wax... I hope Universal acquires the rights for the Star Trek movies and does proper 4K releases because THEY can. Paramount simply sucks at it. Not just blu-ray but also their UHDs are garbage.

[@BooshmanLee]

@@thegrimyeaper You can find the DCP for part 1 online. Looks miles better than the bluray.

[@CaptTrips_19]

I will totally buy a 2kDI 4k movie IF the audio for the Blu-ray was say 5.1 but the 4k is Dolby Atmos. I feel like sound is 50% of the reason to buy a disc. And so far Dolby Atmos is so much better than any other audio format. What boggles my mind is Hollywood is really failing right now by not bringing more older movies to 4k. Raiders of the Lost Ark, Back To The Future, Jaws, Pulp Fiction, ALL of those movies should already be out on 4k! And I keep hoping that maybe, just maybe, Disney will release the Original THEATRICAL Trilogy of Star Wars on 4k with a new Dolby Atmos track along with the original 2 channel stereo track.

[@thelifeandtimesofcharles]

It's because Disney rejected 4k and HDR for years which set back the industry.

[@tennyis28]

Black hawk down 4k hdr dolby atmos is my favorite movie to show off my theater. The sound coming overheard is unreal

[@chance3771]

All of these comments are very interesting and detailed and informative. I do find it interesting though that while people are bemoaning the fact that a lot of 4K blu-rays are only upscaled from 2K DI, no-one is mentioning the fact when 8K TV becomes more affordable and accessible, that pretty much everything on them will be upscaled.

[@KRAFTWERK2K6]

It depends on the content. Some films were scanned in 8K. I think "the wizard of Oz" and "2001 - a space odyssey" for example. And I think Universal scans most of their films in 8K as well. However 4K is the current standard for Digital Intermediate editing. Took them long enough though. But it makes sense since there's not much 8K material curently being shot. With the exception of some movies like "Prometheus", which was shot in 5K with a RED Epic. And that was in 2012. Most projects are shot at 4K or 4.5K ARRI Raw since the Alexa has become the most dominant digital film camera for most projects. Including "The Mandalorian".

[@Spiderman7Bob7]

I am a retired man of a certain age who cannot send a lot of money on 4k DVD's , so I am very careful not to throw my dough away . But in listening to your excellent talks on 4k's and such it helps me a lot . Like I am going to buy the 4k version of "GREASE" because you recommended it so much. Thanks a lot . Your doing a great job .

[@justinkey9164]

Great explanation - I'm pointing less experienced people at this great video! I think the main 2 problems are: 1) 35mm+ has lots more *potential* but 4K transfers of them depends *so* much more on studios paying *experts* to do the work rather than the simple "shot (OK or released), but preferably shot pure in 4K and put it on 4K" 1:1 easy peasy work and *SO* often studios don't pay out and are lazy with idiots applying way too much DNR which leads onto point two as they use that DNR to counter critcisms of 'too much grain' 2) I'm almost sorry to raise it (because it's silly) but modern (not to tar eveyonewith the same brush as I know I'm generalising) younger film audiences all too often are so used to digital images of digitally shot movies, without any grain obviously, that they see any grain on even amazing transfers of older movies as 'errors' and 'lack of detail' and it's hard to explain to them why this isn't the case (more because it's down to what you have been used to - especially if you're not a film 'buff', than the facts)

[@JohnSmith-qn3ob]

FYI: Blade Runner wasn't shot on 70mm. It was shot on 35mm like most other movies. Only the special effects were shot on 70mm. Some movies shot on 65mm aka "70mm" Oklahoma! (1955) Ben-Hur (1959) West Side Story (1961) It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World (1963) Cleopatra (1963) The Sound of Music (1965) 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) Tron (1982) The Hateful Eight (2015) Here's a bigger list: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_70_mm_films#American_65/70_mm_films

[@cdscissor]

Excuse me what. The *special effects* were the ones shot on the higher resolution?

[@JohnSmith-qn3ob]

@@cdscissor Yes. They did that starting with Star Wars in 1977. To do special effects back then you had to make a lot of copies. Evey time you copy film the image gets worse. You start with a very high quality image (65 mm for Blade Runner, Vista-Vision for Star Wars) so by the time you're done making a copy of a copy the image still looks good.

[@cdscissor]

@@JohnSmith-qn3ob Ah! Well, that's something new to me. Thanks for the info!

[@armandsrevelins1624]

great detailed explanation - your enthusiasm is coming through!

[@alex_montoya]

35mm films, like grease, are greatly limited by the resolution the lenses were capable of capturing. I agree grease 4K looks much better than the bluray but it simply looks like the latter was a poor transfer.

[@campkira]

digital 4k are sharp as fuck.. hurt my eye like hell.... 8k... i don't play game that level so why would i watch moive like that?

[@originalmossman]

Yeah I agree. I think a lot of what he says is actually not right, or sort-of right to a layman - but he really lost me with that Grease comparison! The biggest difference I could see was that the 4K colour saturation looked too high... The hill in the background is blue! So the basic idea is okay - good film stock used, good lighting, good focus etc. and you can get a better result than upscaling a non-4K digital copy. But I disagree with a lot of the details in the discussion (e.g. film grain size and ISO not even mentioned before I stopped watching at 13 minutes). So as a counter argument, of course there can be 35mm films where the stock was not great or it wasn't shot well and all you'll get are high-resolution film grains. And there are probably movies out there where they did shoot in higher resolution and did spend the money on high res effects, so those will still look as good as or better than 35mm.

[@randmiller88]

You should really capitalize Grease, LOL.

[@GregConquest]

@@originalmossman @11:57, the Grease clip, look at the light green shingles in front of her face, above the dark doorway. You can see the texture in the version restored from film. In the other, it becomes one slab of green. Some of the tree limb tips in the background, and maybe the tip of her cigarette are also of noticeably higher resolution in the restored film version.

[@carlosoliveira-rc2xt]

@@originalmossman You're confused.

I had a coworker who was SO EXCITED that Guardians of the Galaxy 2 was being shot in 8K. He was super giddy and had a spring in his step for a whole shift. This is a funny memory to me now knowing that the film got crunched down to 2K anyway.

[@h4tch3tt74]

Too be fair shooting a movie in a higher resolution can produce a cleaner picture when it's scaled down due to having more info to scale. Linus Tech Tips have an old video explaining why they shoot in 8k and downscale. You are right though in that the movie wasn't going to be 8k at the theater.

[@computerkid1416]

I could be proven wrong in a few years, but I don't see 8K kicking off like 4K did. To the human eye, we can't really tell much of a difference between 4K and 8K, and beyond that you literally can't.

[@stevenrotherforth8332]

Excellent video. Very informative. I did wonder why certain modern movies didn't blow me away in 4k and a older movie like Saving Private Ryan looks awesome.

[@Valkonnen]

Thanks for this! I have been trying to explain this to people for years and most of the time they just don't get it. This is put in such a concise manner that I can now just direct them to your explanation.

[@stevewhittaker3934]

Thanks Jeff, i found that really interesting. just got myself into 4K and home theatre and its opened my eyes to the differences between formats and up-scaling

[@TimTV83]

Not to mention that the grain structure in film is organic material reacting to light. Film, like analog audio, is rich in natural quality.

[@leifstrong]

Thank you for this very informative video. I am very happy that Christopher Nolan loves 70 mm!

[@touchofdumb]

The most i’ve ever learned about a technical aspect of films in one sitting, so good! Thank you

[@gregcranston3994]

Great explanation. I would just add that for those with a 7.1 Dolby Atmos setup etc with all discrete speakers the audio upgrade is also an important consideration. For those without discreet home theatre setups it makes little difference

[@williamking8033]

Your presentation was very clear and relatable to the non-technical viewer.

[@Geronimo_Jehoshaphat]

Steven Spielberg, Quentin Tarantino, Christopher Nolan, Paul Thomas Anderson, JJ Abrams, Wes Anderson, Darren Aronofsky, and Judd Apatow ONLY shoot on FILM. And The Coen Brothers, Martin Scorsese, Sam Mendes, and Micheal Bay still prefer to return to film as much as possible, even though they have shot digital.

[@honzagomela5800]

octagonproplex Damien Chazzele, Steve Mcqueen, Edgar Wright, James Grey, Cary Fukunaga, Luca Guadagnino, Yorgos Lanthimos are other notable directors who still prefer film. There is probably more yet they shoot on digital because it's cheaper.

[@andrewbarnum5040]

Long live kodak so all those people can keep shooting film!!

[@Thespeedrap]

Where's all the brothers at? We need more than lame Tyler Perry and horror ripoff Jordan Peele.

[@Alienadin]

Yet Christoper Nolan only lets Warner use the interpositives, uses horrible DNR and EE on the transfers. That guy, while certainly smart, really doesn't know how to make film beautiful. His sound design is awful too. Way too compressed, with limited dynamic range. All show, little substance. Someone else should oversee his movie transfers.

[@Geronimo_Jehoshaphat]

@@Alienadin I do agree, Nolan has issues.

[@hgwells1899]

The Lawrence of Arabia 50th Anniversary restoration is available to stream in 4K UHD with 5.1 sound on Amazon prime video right now. Restored from original 65mm film to 8K, reduced to 4K for this release. This is not an ad, btw, just a friendly heads up: I own the standard HD bluray version and that disc already kicks sand in the face of any cut I've ever seen; so I can only imagine (for now;) what the 4K edition must be like... To misquote the real El Lawrence, "All men stream, but not equally"

[@halfvader8015]

Don't forget it's further reduced (ironically enough) back to about 2k/HD quality levels because it's streaming.

[@AcesHighStudios]

@@halfvader8015 The 4K Blu-ray is available now, and is an enormous upgrade over the streaming. I've never seen a better looking film than Lawrence of Arabia on 4K Blu-ray. Spartacus is a close second.

[@halfvader8015]

@@AcesHighStudios Thanks, that's fantastic. I've heard it's amazing from others too. Unfortunately with Covid I can;t get it shipped to my country atm - might have to wait for either separate releases or see if they do more of that first volume box set. Very happy about Spartacus too considering the sometimes dodgy quality of previous releases.

[@AcesHighStudios]

@@halfvader8015 They finally got Spartacus right, and it's a marvel.

[@halfvader8015]

@@AcesHighStudios 👍👍

[@SweetLouieBello]

Blade Runner was actually shot in 35mm and up converted to 70mm for the original release.

[@andrewbarnum5040]

Thank you! I am not sure where this guy got his tech info but like you said, shot in 35mm.

[@SweetLouieBello]

@@andrewbarnum5040 I didn't find any other problems with his info. 35mm film resolution is really much higher then HD video resolution

[@AtomicAgePictures]

The visual effects for Blade Runner were shot in 65 mm. When they did the restoration of Blade Runner for the final cut the visual effects shots were actually scanned at 8K resolution. The final work was done in 4K resolution.

[@SweetLouieBello]

Did they take the visual effects original raw footage from the 65mm when they remastered. Because when the film was first done; they shot the visual effects in 65mm and then down-converted it to edit it into the film. Then when the film was done they made up-converted copies of the final 35mm version to 70mm for the limited 70mm film showing in selected cities.

[@andrewbarnum5040]

@@SweetLouieBello Absolutely film (35mm / 70mm) is much higher resolution than digital 2k or 4k but just not as high as he claimed. He referenced megea pixels which is used to measure still images not video. He got 35mm right till he converted that to video resolution. Super8 is generally 1 to 2 k max however pro8mm will scan it up to 5k. 16mm tops out at 2-3k which was the issue when they converted The Shield to 4k, 35mm is 5-6k max and 70mm is around 10k while IMAX 70mm is 18k. If 35mm was 8k like he claims there would have been a major resolution drop when 99% of theaters switched to digital. And yes, some movies, about a dozen each year get very limited film releases.

[@SymptomaticF1end]

dude, this is exactly what i've been saying for ages just way more detailed and well articulated. just shows why film should always be the way most movies that should be shot. you just got a new subscriber.

[@B.B.Digital_Forest]

2011's Samsara was shot on 70mm film. I watched that in the theater and I have it on blu-ray. The quality beats anything shot by today's mainstream films.

[@DerekPower]

Technically, it was shot in 65mm. 70mm is the exhibition print: 65mm for the image + 5mm for the optical soundtrack

[@Poraqui]

Let's not forget that Samsara and Baraka were shot on that film format but they were scanned in 8k. What you're getting on Blu-ray is a high quality dowscalling to 1080p. Both have the best picture quality that I've ever seen on their respective Blu-rays even compared to modern 4k titles.

[@B.B.Digital_Forest]

@@Poraqui The theater experience was also remarkable.

[@mikewright9547]

Wow, I learned so much from this thanks. Makes me feel better about jumping on some older upgrades. Thanks Jeff

[@jinzo3159]

Batman 1989 looks insane it blows my mind how it was filmed almost 40 years ago

[@rexraidenx4741]

AMAZING EXPLANATION!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thank you for this video, I feel like I can make a better judgement when buying 4k movies even though most of my favorites are from my childhood (pre 2000). Also knowing the whys and reasons for differing image quality is great, will bring it up in the next family meeting.

[@exiles_dot_tv]

Have to keep in mind that's best case scenario for 35mm, you're not always going to achieve that sort of relative resolution due to it being an analog format and it depending on many steps in the analog process all being optimum (how they shot the negative, how they developed the negative, how they processed the print, and handling all of those processes perfectly so that they don't get any scratches, dirt, increased grain, etc, etc..) Comparing digital to film involves a bit of guesswork, as they're completely different mediums, but at its best 35mm will be comparable to around a 4k-6k digital image. At its worse it could be comparable to something like a 2k digital image, and with a lot of distracting artifacts.

[@caligulathegod]

This was what I was coming in to say. He way exaggerated the resolution of film vs digital. Release prints were several generations down and were therefore much softer. Most Blu-rays and now 4K Blus go back to the original negative and are actually sharper than you would have seen in the theater on 35mm film prints. Otherwise I agree with his appraisal of older films on 4K vs post 2000 films.

[@Spiderman7Bob7]

You are the only one who can explain any of this 4k business to me . None of my friends could care less about about 4k ! None of them has ivested in a 4k DVD player . I have already learned ( thanks to you ) that I've got to get a better DVD player . Then I can see "The Wizard of OZ" in real 4k . I have it on 4k and many other movies on 4k, and many Avengers , but I realize I need a decent 4k DVD player thanks to listening to one of your explaining all of this to us .

[@montyhilburn]

Absolutely one of the most helpful explanations on 4K that I’ve seen. Makes me even more annoyed now that Disney isn’t putting their back catalogue on 4K

[@SpontaneousWeasel]

Thanks for taking the time to make this video films at home! Its a great discussion you've opened with this video. What I have noticed for the majority of releases I have watched on my 55 inch hdr 4k tv is that the older 'analogue' upscales of 35/70mm stand out with impressive details and as you mentioned colour information (so great bit rate overall). However I will say some digital productions excel and even when using a 2k digital intermediate look very impressive and really offer a different visual experience overall. In a lot of ways it is the quality of these lesser numbered 'digital pixels' vs the noisier larger number of 'analogue pixels' that can stand out more (in some cases!). In a lot of ways it is quite subjective to the viewers taste, but I do tend to get far more excited for older movies being re-released in the UhD format (although I always gulp at the thought of OTT noise reduction being implemented!)

[@johneygd]

I can’t believe that back in 2000 we still watched our movies on a 240p VHS tape while professionals were already shooting stuff in 8K at the time,whooaah, they could lough at us by thinking”hahaha we have better technology then you”

[@danieldaniels7571]

johneygd what’s this “we all” crap? I’ve had LaserDisc since 1992, and DVD came out in 1997. Also, VHS is not progressive scan, it’s interlaced

[@jeffkardosjr.3825]

VHS isn't 240p.

[@johneygd]

@@jeffkardosjr.3825 according to wiki vhs is 240p ,now i only don’t know how a vhs records 480i into 240p ,maybe it ignoires the odd or even fields or it blurs the 480i signal down to 240p,, Now what if vhs is not 240p and nor progressive, could it be that it is only 240i and that it blurs 480i down to 240i??? Someone could explain how.

[@jeffkardosjr.3825]

@@johneygd When capturing, you want to keep the roughly 30 and 30 fields, almost 60 fields for NTSC. Anymore for NTSC, I capture at 720x480, and I deinterlace with the yadif method. Field order, doubling the frame rate. Making sure I have the output file at about 60 frames per second, I think it is 59.975. A file at the full 720x480. Afterwards in an editor I can adjust aspect and cropping. KZbin, last I checked, will save the video with poor blocky quality if it isn't upconverted to 1440p.

[@jeffkardosjr.3825]

@@johneygd With TVs, a regular analog CRT TV with composite or S-Video will paint it's lines on the screen properly using both fields. A modern LCD/LED, it depends. My one LCD using composite video throws away half the information, half the fields. Not the proper way. I have a DVD VCR combo with HDMI output that with it's internal VCR or the inputs, will properly display the fields out the HDMI. Interestingly the DVDs are recorded interlaced using that recorder. There are stand alone HDMI converters sold. The methods they use may vary. But there are ones marketed to retro gamers that are pretty good with showing things the way they should. Like old games use the nature of composite video and dithering to show effects like semi transparent waterfalls. These converters make sure those waterfalls look transparent and right.

[@jeremiahpowell3028]

I just got the shining last weekend and it looked and sounded awesome!!

[@eddy2229]

I'm desperate for some Tarantino and PTA films to get a 4K release. Imagine how stunning There Will Be Blood will look.

[@Chrisratata]

Exactly. Boogie Nights too. Yet I'd be fine with Punch Drunk Love and Phantom Thread not getting the 4k treatment.

[@miz4535]

@@Chrisratata Phantom Thread got the 4k treatment.

[@Chrisratata]

@@miz4535 i dont care as much about Phantom Thread. In fact, the fact that his most revered work hasnt but that did is unfortunate to me.

[@zenquantum1246]

IMHO, this angle is really more visually interesting for your reviews. It focuses the image on you more. When you sit square to the shelf, I find that they take over and I start reading your titles.

[@notuptome]

A good amount of films today shoot at higher than 4K resolution no filmmaker films at the native resolution in which the media will be put on like red cameras and the arrie cameras and other ones Most of them now have 8K censors and can shoot native 8K or any resolution under that but what ends up happening as he stated above they can downscale the image so even a movie shot in 8K or 35 mm especially 35 mm films when they scan them at such resolution as 4K you are still getting a very crisp quality image compared to what we had before .

[@edwardbarr1533]

excellent video,your exposition of traditional film technology was clear and instructive

[@dreaux88]

You HAVE to watch "The Big Parade" blu-ray. 1920 and it looks like it was shot yesterday in 70mm. The restoration project was a major undertaking. It was the highest grossing movie of the silent era. It's one of the first anti-war movie and is now preserved.

[@jeremydrew1227]

Speaking of silent films. There was a huge difference between DVD and Blu Ray of Phantom of the Opera(1925 and 1929). The colored ball room scene looked as I expected for silent films very watered down and color barely visible on DVD. The restoration for Blu Ray is STUNNING. The color scene matches the look of color films of the 50s and 60s AND looks pristine.

[@odders_uk3852]

Great video dude! I have The Shining 4k preordered and can't wait for others like Poltergeist, Terminator, Robocop, fingers crossed they're given the love they deserve to ensure a decent transfer.

[@ImmortalRimas]

It definitely sounds like keeping 35mm & 70mm Film around seems to be still worth it to future proof the quality of future home media releases

[@olliehopnoodle4628]

This was a really helpful explanation of why older movies are better in 4K. Take the time to watch this. It really makes sense. Basically there is a period of time where digital has ruled original filming but it is at a lower resolution than 4K. Conversely, movies originally shot on film have a much higher resolution than 4K so the transfer 'can' be better. The devil is in the details and they are really well explained in this video along with the basics. Thanks for publishing.

[@JeffRauseo]

Thank you for watching!

[@nshea3286]

The negative for film(s35mm) has about 4k of resolution. But the projected film image, after transfers, only has about 1000 lines of resolution. The thing is, cinema s35mm lenses from the 60s, 70s and 80s were not sharp like today's master primes. They were not resolving 4k of detail. Scanning an old film doesn't bring in new detail, just more sharply defined film grain. Only projects shot on 65mm film would benefit from the resolution bump. The main benefit of 4k is 10bit and greater color space of rec2020. 10bit allows for greater latitude or real contrast between dark and bright. The wider color space makes for better images.

[@TheHellboy1980]

I really enjoyed your video. thank you. I am really hoping for more 70s and 80s films like jaws, day of the dead, the shinning , original star wars trilogy , and hopefully many more horror films

[@Slask7]

The Shining will be released on 4K this September.

[@Patrick_AUBRY]

This megapixel thing you talk about... It does not work like this, learn about DI, colorspace and film/digital resolution equivalencies. As for the benefits of UHD Blu-ray, it's to convey more color, contrasts etc. (HDR) available in film and the vertical res. This, with a good transfer, Technicolor does that I think. Moreover, the resolution is needed for the CinemaScope type aspect ratio and 70mm digital resolution equivalent. The lack of vertical resolution is becoming obvious when scanning to 16/9 from CinemaScope when keeping a pixel ratio of 1:1. There's a point where you won't need more pixel as it only define the film emulsion, grain or speed. This is pointless and bandwidth consuming in the Intraframe ( full image of a temporal compression scheme ) part of compression. You end-up needing more bandwidth to retain the grain definition. Thus making the video artifacting like crazy and having bad result anyways. I think your mega pixel stuffs is for that, deffining grain, NOT RESOLUTION !

[@muteroberto]

It's good to have this out there, but (if you'll forgive me) it's a little simplistic (and possibly a touch misleading) and doesn't really take into account some important factors. That a perfect 35mm film frame can capture the theoretical numbers you reference is one thing (by definition you're comparing analogue to digital, there is no 1:1 here), the perceived detail resolvable from those frames varies massively depending on factors such as lenses used, quality of the film stock used, how well it was shot etc. (not to mention how well older film negatives have been taken care of - and lets not forget that beeloved film grain - all of them take a toll on that theoretical figure. There is a reason why films shot on digital 4k and transferred to home at close to 'native' (well, as near as damn it) resolution that they'll often look far sharper than transfers taken from older 35mm based movies. And if you blind tested people with native digital 4k and 35mm - I'd wager the native 4k would 'win' in terms of what a typical person perceives as 'high resolution' - i.e. sharpness etc. - additionally pure digital have less grain to content with depending on the sensors used too. This doesn't account for dynamic range though - which has only relatively recently been something cameras have captured (and / or shows have been graded to) - celluloid will likely win here by default - but again it depends on how the film was shot and cared for. Aside from all that, contrast is by far the most important aspect of an image as far as your receptors are concerned (this has been measured). This is why the resolution of the medium is often far less important than the width of the colour gamut and the depth of the dynamic range (that lovely contrast ratio). Which is why I love UHD Blu-rays - happy to have that fine detail (and especially accurate grain) - but the real impact for an image comes from those bright specular details and the contrast and depth of the colour information within. Thanks for doing what you do by the way - there's sadly not enough enthusiast reviews of 4k media out there so I appreciate you greatly.

[@JeffRauseo]

It’s definitely a simplified version. I agree - and yeah digital native 4K looks amazing. Problem is too many movies now are only 2K, but what 4K does for film is really incredible.

[@RobotPorter]

You suggested that 8mm and Super 8 were just different names for the same thing. They weren't. Standard 8mm was simply double perforated (sprocket holes on both sides) 16mm cut in half. Super 8 had much smaller sprocket holes allowing for a larger image area. Hence, the "Super" in Super 8. There's also a "Super 16" which is similar. It's single perf (i.e. sprocket holes only on one side) allowing for a larger image area. Super 35, on the other hand, gets a larger image by using the area normally taken up by the optical track. Super 35 was used a lot in television where that optical track wasn't needed. The TV series "Lost" was shot in Super 35.

[@roxics]

Yeah this guy has a pretty rudimentary understanding of film. He's also giving its resolving power way too much credit.

[@RobotPorter]

@@roxics Yup.

[@danielc8883]

Great review! I would also add a consideration to upgrading from blu ray to 4k blu ray is while you may not always get the big jump in picture quality, you do sometimes upgrade to the ATMOS audio version of the movie. That may make it worthwhile for some. Subscribed!

[@BirdArvid]

Out of interest I just waded through most of the 4k movies available on Amazon, and it's the same crap they've been foisting on us through several format-changes and newer stuff in the same class. Where are the quality movies?!

[@juliemiles2834]

I'm glad you're educating the movie watching public about the technical side of of things. It helps to know this stuff when deciding on what films to purchase.

[@JS-po9yt]

Thanks for explaining everything i haven't moved up to 4k yet but if I do i know what to look for

[@davidgray2845]

I’ve always thought older movies looked better on blu-ray and 4K . I thought I was letting my nostalgia get the better of me. Thanks for explaining this in a way that lets me know I’m not crazy.

[@spencernew8829]

Really informative, brought Grease 4k a few weeks ago in a sale. And just wow the colour and vibrantsy were amazing, I think you answered the reason's why. Really like your video's 👍

[@joakim3976]

This was a real eye opener. Great info, now I know how to navigate in the 4k world. 👍 I am a new greatful subscriber!!!

[@TechHustler]

I always wanted to know how they did this. Good video.

[@johntips3622]

Very in depth Analyzation for real time 4K movie buyers , now a days it requires a lot to want to purchase a movie on physical disc and you really help make sense of what’s worth purchasing. It’s all about visuals and sound when making a purchase .If it is a movie like Glen Gary Glen Ross visuals and sound upgrades won’t move you to buy it again .When is comes to purchasing a 4K disc now this it’s all that matters .

[@timonsteup2877]

I just gotta say this to not confuse people: Blade Runner is NOT shot on 70mm. 70mm is actually pretty rare because it is ridiculously expensive.

[@h4tch3tt74]

Someone else don't he comments stated the model effect shots were 70mm but any acting scenes used 35mm.

[@o.l4890]

IMAX is expensive. 70mm is 1.5x to double the cost of 35mm .... so it's not ridiculously expensive

[@ZigUncut]

A thing to note. What a lot of people get wrong when comparing 35mm SLR film to movie or projected 35mm film is that in an SLR the film runs sideways and in a movie camera runs vertically. This almost halves the available space to record or project an image. Add a anamorphic squeeze/desqueeze and you get more distortion. That's why VistaVision with its side loading mechanism was so amazing and why ILM grabbed a whole bunch for their optical printing work. Also factor in the degradation of film when transferring to a theatrical print and the quality of the original film, how much it was pushed etc. Where film is particularly good is in its lattitude or dynamic range. It's so rare these days to see true blacks. Side fact most Disney animations aren't even 2k they come to the theatres at HD res.

[@ThaBEN_NL]

Really informative! This makes me second guess to upgrade my MCU blu-ray collection to 4K anytime soon.

[@crapstermcduck6593]

Are you a nut

[@MichelleAlexandria-EM]

Disney generally and the MCU specifically 4k releases are usually very disappointing

[@MoviesNGames007uk]

They are all 2K movies.

[@Horsey45]

Fantastic explanation. Never knew that older movies looked better on 4k I always thought it was the other way around. Guess I’m gonna have to stick to buying 4ks of Old movies from now on.

[@Murdersville]

I have over 2000 movies on Blu-ray most from the 1980s or before, I'm sure that 4K can enhance the experience of watching older movies, however, the economics mean I won't be upgrading the majority of my movies.

[@millabasset1710]

1080p still feels like a standard even in 2019. There are CRTV gaming enthusiasts for fucks sake. People clearly don't value the latest tech trends as much.

[@finocaraco3723]

Seriously great and informative video!!!!! I have the original Blade Runner and The Matrix at home on 4K and I was wondering why these older movies look SO much better than my newer ones. Now I know! Thank you!!! keep these great videos coming!

[@amead78]

I read that Big Hero 6 took 180 days to render. I’m very picky with the 4K movies movies I buy. If there’s no major difference, then I’ll pass until the price goes way down.

[@danieldaniels7571]

Andrew M the only way to watch Big Hero 6 is 3D Blu-ray

[@Shikmusik]

Brilliant explanation.. 👍 Very informative.. So we can look forward to companies re releasing yet again 8k stuff in the future and just use the 35mm /70mm source film again to make tons more money off the same source files 😂

[@scotthedges3232]

Great video, thank you! You cleared up so many questions I had!

[@MapexMiata]

Thank you so much for the video, man! You really helped make sense of this. I was just discussing my confusion of the process with my brother, and you have the best description out there

[@JeffRauseo]

I really appreciate that!

[@4delosh]

Excellent info! Thanks for the explanation, it will give a good guideline for negotiating the ever and rapidly changing tech and how to decide what movies are worth upgrading!

[@ehermo]

Only certain FX shots for Blade Runner were shot on 70mm, the live action shots were shot on 35mm. It was then blown up to 70mm for some showings. But most of it was shot, and then projected as 35mm.

[@leto1178]

Look at that, I can see the difference between the Grease releases clearly in 360p on a TN display. Something tells me that the blu-ray limitations were not at fault but it's just a different (in my view better) color grading on the 4K release, or they severely messed up the analog to digital transfer for the old blu-ray. If they don't mess up the transfer then a blu-ray release of an "old movie" will look quite on par with a 4K release. Sure there is more "information" to be retrieved from an analog reel but that information is partly noise as well. If you want to chase that last couple of percentage points of ever increasingly elusive perfection then you have to do what you have to do and throw more money at it. What I took from this video, rather than buying high end equipment and media, I better spend some time on looking at comparison shots and judge by eye if it looks better and in what way before getting a version of a movie.

[@interdimensionalsteve8172]

As somebody getting into 4k stuff after getting a proper set up for it, this was fascinating and very helpful. Thanks.

[@GAMMAsaugher]

i just made my mind about what to get on 4k, im getting the 4k only if the movie was shot on film. but also taking in mind the sound options.

[@ramonrodriguez4372]

i think Hero would be a fantastic upgrade to 4k. One of many films il be waiting many years for probably

[@thejohnperryshow1156]

Extremely well put! Both for the casual viewer and also a seasoned blu ray collector 👍 I kind of half new some of this explanation from websites, but I found out much more from this video, if anyone wants to know these details I'll show them this (go to) video 🤟🤟😁

[@M3LTUP]

My question is why do some DVDs look better than the Blu Ray ? Some BR transfers look very grainy to me. The DVD is not as sharp but not grainy either.

[@ActionJackson1982]

DYNAMO ME for me I think the DVDs look the same as Blu Ray. and Blu Ray looks the same as 4K. I don't notice much difference that wows me

[@Slask7]

grain is a distinctive element of film. If a blu-ray transfer is excellent you should notice grain, thin or thick. In many cases, if there's no grain something's wrong. That said, it is true that many BR transfers back in the day were done poorly, almost making the dvd look superior, but tell me what are the titles that made you think that.

[@Slask7]

@@ActionJackson1982 I'm sorry but that's impossible. On which screen do you watch these discs?

[@ActionJackson1982]

Rick Burton 75 inch 4K TV

[@Slask7]

@@ActionJackson1982 you serious? What distance are you watching from the screen?

[@MichelleAlexandria-EM]

good video. Ironically enough I don’t want to rebuy my collection to 4k but the older stuff is where you really see the improvements where the newer stuff tends to be disappointing.

[@arios1977]

Before I watch, I’d say because of today’s CGI. They have to do each frame in 4K for it to look good and that just takes a lot of time. Let’s see what the video says

[@jiggygino2855]

Very informative video! Actually learned something today. 👍 Haven't jumped in to 4k collecting yet...but know more now thanks to you. Keep the knowledge coming!!

[@keanueraine]

Thank you for this. I would imagine the original Star Wars Trilogy would be a fantastic 4 upgrade. glad I waited on the blu-ray for that one.

[@cross612]

Thats if they use the unaltered versions.

[@MrStevegibb]

Look for project 4k77 closest your going to get to 4k original trillogy. Official release is 1997 edition trillogy with stupid changes.

[@johnfabris5398]

Dude, brilliant, thanks for this magnificent insight. I have been buying all content as 4k as a default position and stressed about the cost, this will save me money.

[@TheIgnoredGender]

It's good you know this, just favorited. This is the type of video Zaranyzerak would cover.

[@trixstermillion2190]

Please make a video explaining the ordering system you use for your movie collection.