No more news? This is starting to look a bit suspicious, just saying…
Unfortunately, he hasn’t replied to my private message either anymore.
[…]and quite frankly I’m surprised it hasn’t been officially released on 4K.
Well, your surprise might be supported by many other titles, such as:
Se7en (announced and allegedly scanned in 8K, but beware of also Fincher’s remastering fetishes so who knows if it will really be any better than what we already have. I highly doubt it)
The Game (two Blu-rays available, but either with a dated master or ugly orange & teal color grading)
American Beauty (the Blu-ray also is rather mediocre)
Panic Room (not even an official Blu-ray release, just some bootleg and HDTV/Web-DL rips floating around)
8mm (even the BD-release took ages)
Girl with a pearl earring
The list is long, actually …
I promise you every DP you would ever talk to would say that both the grain from film stock and the noise from a digital sensor are an intentional part of the look.
That might be true in a lot of cases and since I cannot slip into their minds to verify it myself, I better give them the reasonable doubt.
However “every” and “ever” are strong words, ruling out possible cases where what was chosen simply used to be the “best” (again, in technical terms) what was available at that time, eventually limited by the technical possibilities. Same is true for other quickly changing fields such as computer games.
On a professional non-documentary production, ISO (or gain in post) is picked for aesthetics. If that weren’t the case, cine cameras would have a permanently fixed ISO wherever the dynamic range is maximized.
Here, one of my favorite movies “Collateral” comes to mind. Partly shot on video, it has a relatively high noise floor compared to newer productions with Red or Arri Alexa cameras. Does it have a distinctive look? Yes! Should that be preserved? Yes! Would the makers have chosen technically even better cameras if they had them at that time (for instance to shoot with even less additional lights, have it less grainy, etc.)? I honestly don’t know. Part of the question could be answered by checking how many movies shot on video nowadays still use that Thompson Viper FilmStream.
You are confusing delivery formats and acquisition formats.
Nice “tit-for-tat response”, but actually I don’t, although vinyl records as an example are indeed not ideal in this context. I only used them because it’s by far the most glorified end user format. Although there have been more or less direct cuts on vinyl, you’re right. Tape recordings are the better example for the acquisition context.
Even as record collector myself, I’ll admit that CD/flac replicates the master version of an album more accurately than a vinyl record; of course it does.
I wonder where the dissent is, then.
That doesn’t have anything to do with an artist’s intent.
Never claimed otherwise.
The only remark I did made was that there are technical differences of acquisition formats where one may be objectively superior than the other, making no judgement of the artistic value or intend.
However, I also see some relation between technical limitations and artistic choices as they aren’t entirely independent and also the tendency for retrospective glorification which used to be a limitation.
To a big part, I’m playing the devil’s advocate here as I myself still collect LaserDiscs or adore old video games for their style.
These records you’re referring to were most likely recorded on multitrack tape which is similar to film–any artifacts that arise from recording to this format are absolutely the intent of the sound engineer.
I remember those Warner CDs (some of them with their now quite collectible “Target” design) and their disclaimer which almost sounded like an excuse that they attempted to replicate the original master tapes as closely as possible, however due to the CD’s (actually PCM’s at 16 bit) resolution, certain shortcomings of the source might be revealed. Compared to nowdays products, they often are of excellent quality and great to collect.
@blakninja
Hope you don’t mind my little distute here with rwzmjl. Coming back to The Mask, could you kindly provide an update of what of course hasn’t been filtered or altered otherwise (in best harmony with rwzmjl)? 😋
Hope this single sentence quotation isn’t too long for you:
Taken the duly noted sarcasm aside …
Are brush strokes in a painting not a “part of an image” according to this imaginary “classical definition”?
Besides that you apparently still confuse the technical with the artistic aspect, I don’t think that “brush strokes” are a good example as they hardly resemble random patterns but are rather part of the signal also from a technical point of view.
Also, picking up the claim of using “imaginary” definitions, some counter question for you:
Video systems, but also film stock reproductions have a quality attribute such as the signal-to-noise ratio. How does that measurement preserve any meaning whatsoever if one defines the noise as being part of the image as well in technical terms (not artistic ones)? In the same way, any higher noise floors of photo cameras could retrospectively redefined as their noise being intended art. One can, but it is important to neither neglect the truely intended “artefacts” (to be preserved) nor to romanticize the real artefacts to be art (ideally not to be introduced/recorded in the first place, but if so, rather preserved as well instead of damaging the intended signal by trying to remove the artefacts).
Film isn’t just a means of capturing what is in front of you. The celluloid itself is the art piece.
That depends on the definition. From a technical perspective, it would in fact ideally just capture the source with as little alteration as possible. From an artistic perspective, the material itself may be treated as part of the art piece, yes.
You may say you are on the side of preserving supposed “artifacts,” but this faulty reasoning is what leads to James Cameron/Peter Jackson’s ridiculous DNR[…]
Not necessarily, as myself as an example intended to demonatrate, and by differentiating between the technical and the artistic aspect.
I certainly wouldn’t have filtered it so my way of thinking is certainly not what leads to those highly questionable releases nowadays.
Neither am I sure whether I would deprecate film stock as an option for new productions, on the other hand, again from a technical point of view, film is pretty flawed when used for analog information (which virtually always is the case except maybe AC3 and SDDS back in the days for audio) and at least some of the preference towards it shows quite some similarity to the preference for vinyl records which against all audiophile claims aren’t better, but worse than any halfway decent PCM recording.
The sentiment I was disagreeing with was[…]
Well, it would be a lot easier to understand if you would refrain from using full quotes (which are especially unnecessary whenever replying directly to someone’s message by the way) and instead selectively only start to quote the parts you are actually referring to.
This is plainly false.
This claim you also make after again quoting a bunch of my text including different elements such as the premise of intention, technical limitations and the noise being technically (!) an artefact nominally (!) to be undesired. Instead of precisely picking that up, you throw around a generic “plainly false” while being wrong yourself when it comes to my last statement. Great way of arguing - not.
[…] might learn something about authorial intent.
While I would never dare to claim that such intentions don’t righteously exist, I wouldn’t oversell the concept of such authorial intent either though if I see what questionable decisions directors make nowdays and how many are drowning their movies with the same ugly color grading (especially orange & teal) or AI, just because it’s hip now to do so.
This question also demonstrates a lack of understanding when it comes to moviemaking as an art form
It seems to me like you try to willingly misinterpet me. At no point I say that certain elements or effects shall not be used in movies if it serves the stilistic purpose. Although much of it could nowdays be created mathematically, if one likes to use technically inferior methods for this to create the maximum authenticity, so be it.
On the other hand, in my opinion, one should also be open to technical progress such as higher frame rates and lower noise floors as technically (!) they are superior, whether one likes the style or not. Vice versa for instance one could also criticize that today it seems to be chic to add artifical noise to purely rendered movies (such as “Migration”) instead of appreciating the clean look of the CGI. The same way, old movies shouldn’t be scrubbed up, new ones shouldn’t necessarily be made to look like a classical movie if they aren’t.
My core argument however and also how that discussion started, only was that noise isn’t part of the image by classical definition (independent on whether one wants to preserve it or not), but an artefact. Philosophically, I have to add though that one could also count the noise as being in fact part of the image to be preserved as it cannot be reliably distinguished from the carried information anyway.
Seems my purely technical / information theoretical remark triggered your protection program in terms of artistic intent and archival, which is unnecessary as when it comes to that, we actually share the same opinion.
TL;DR:
Should we preserve old movies as closely to their original presentation? YES, absolutely!
Should we continue to make movies the same way despite better techniques being available today? NO, if it’s only for the nostalgia and unwillingness to adjust for the technically better.
I think there is still quite some misunderstanding. Taking the risk to essentially repeat myself:
Very much disagree with this sentiment, as a DP myself who shoots film (s16 for the most part).
With what sentiment exactly?
And it’s not noise (which is a digital artifact); it’s grain.
Noise isn’t (only) a “digital” artifact per se as you can have that in the analog realm as well (actually only there, as quantisation noise from numbers manifests only there during the D/A stage), and in fact plenty of it. “Grain” is just a term used in conjunction with film - grain is a variant of noise.
You are also forgetting that filmmakers had plenty of low grain options available to them if they wanted it, pre-digital-revolution.
Throwing artistic decisions together with my purely technical (call it puristic) argument, is missing the point I was trying to make.
And is it the right philosophy when it comes to preservation to scrub supposed artifacts that stem from limitations of the production?
As I stated, it should be left as it is.
No person seriously in favor of film preservation (i.e. not Lucas or Cameron) would opt for that.
Exactly.
Obviously this has nothing to do with shooting a new production. Shoot noiseless footage with an Alexa LF at 60fps if you want; that is no issue (though you might nauseate some audience members).
That is finally halfway picking up the point I was trying to make. I probably would do that with as little grain/noise/whatever as possible as this is what techncially is preferable (and I tend to adjust the aesthetics to that, granted), but at the same time, I would archive everything else with as little post-processing as possible, shall it be as noisy as it wants to be.
In other, concrete words based on an example: the re-releases of Aliens, especially the UHD BD, suck and I way prefer the grainy, halfway unaltered old Blu-ray versions. However, is all that noise technically desirable? No, the same way the noise and crackles on a vinyl record aren’t. Even if one prefers the look or sound, it could artificially be added afterwards while having the advantage of still possessing an original with a higher SNR. Should grain be filtered which - for whatever reason - has already been part of the original recording? No, not at all, as history shows that it isn’t possible without sacrificing part of the original information (and change the artistic intend from that time if you want which I disapprove as well).
Hence in the case of “The Mask”: of course, no filtering please, “let it grain”.
@blakninja: I’m also looking forward a lot to see your release soon.
Some directors have intentionally increased the effect of the film grain during scanning. Stanley Kubrick famously did this with Eyes Wide Shut.
If so, then entirely legit and shall be preserved, bar none.
And if it’s part of the technology, it’s intended.
Not necessarily when considering the entire history and not just today. Sure, if done so today, it most likely is an artistic choice. But back in the days, many flaws were accepted because it simply wasn’t possible in a better way.
And nowadays, you have to intentionally choose to use film.
I see that you’re arguing from today’s point of view. Just to halfway stay on topic, that is already questionable in the case of “The Mask” as video cameras were still quite flawed at that time compared to film cameras. So one may raise the question how much here was really an intentional choice or simply dictated by circumstances.
As for 24fps, pretty much every person who’s not Peter Jackson, Ang Lee and James Cameron knows why making every single movie ever into a higher frame rate movie isn’t going to work.
Which can only be a subjective reaction as technically, taken details such as the different limit for exposure times out of the equation, the higher the frame rate, the better the result will be in the sense of higher time resolution (higher nyquist frequency before aliasing occurs). Even for the subjective part, one shall differentiate between the unchangeable preference of people, which also is entirely legit, and the simple lack of being used to it (which I conjecture, is by far the main reason). With film, people simply expect a stuttery reconstruction although higher frame or field rates aren’t anything new if one considers PAL/NTSC standards since decades.
Either the amount of movies released is going to have to be cut drastically(studios would not be able to do this), or the quality is going to have to drop significantly. And the latter would defeat the purpose of doing a higher frame rate.
Well, that is something concerning company politics, willingness for change, budgets, etc.
My approach here was purely from a technical / information theoretical viewpoint. Hence we certainly can agree on that The Mask shall be decently scanned with, please, as little “adjustments” as possible and definitely no stupid grain filtering.
rwzmjl said: […]believe it or not, that’s an intended part of the image![…]
I read that argument often lately, but the word “intended” is a crucial premise here as in many cases, it isn’t really but rather a side-effect of technical limitations (which includes our visual system introducing retinal noise as well). Same goes for the stone age low rate of 24 fps only, causing tremendous amounts of temporal aliasing and making a subjectively stutter-free reconstruction difficult.
So while I can understand the sentiment for artistic reasons and preservation, technically, noise isn’t part of the original image which one tried to capture. Noise also limits — or rather defines — measurements such as the SNR.
I’m also entirely up to “preserve” it in terms of not filtering it out, as not only it isn’t possible to do so without losing information from the actual image anyway, but also because it may fit a certain desired look. However, so do noise and crackles on vinyl records which may be preferred emotionally, but shouldn’t be rationally.
One technical advantage of noise in the source shall not go unmentioned though: (self)dithering, enabling a theoretically smooth reconstruction of an unlimited number of shades (and not just 50 of grey) without ugly banding. However, dithering can be artificially added later during the A/D conversion as well in an mathematically optimised way even so even that is a rather far fetched argument.
BoingoBanshee said: Actually, this IS real 4K. 4K isn’t strictly “the camera negative”; you can do 4K scans for any film element.
Well, the same way one can record any audio material at any given sample rate of choice, but that doesn’t mean the original carries that resolution in the first place.
For example, I’m well aware of those “Fake 4K or not” websites where, in the case of, let’s say, a 2K digital intermediate, they rightly criticize that no “Real 4K” performance may be achieved and thus the 4K (actually “UHD”) release is “fake.” However, that view is also a bit misleading and incomplete, as the assumption that film material automatically delivers 4K or whatever resolution just because it was scanned as such technically isn’t correct either.
In practice, some 2K-only productions (at least in parts, such as “Collateral”) may be categorized as “Fake 4K,” whereas some fuzzy “as good as it gets” film source, scanned in 4K, is called “Real 4K,” despite the fact that it may never reach that resolution either and never has. Many may be above 2K level, no question, just to make a point here.
One would actually have to measure the real spatial resolution of such sources (in MHz), and then one could derive the required or equivalent resolution in “pixels” (which theoretically is twice the analog bandwidth according to Nyquist/Shannon) to preserve the original without quality loss.
Back to “The Mask” - I admittedly have no idea what spatial resolution your exemplar comes with, and a 4K/UHD (and maybe even HDR) scan certainly won’t harm. So excitement is justified as the official BD release definitely is mediocre at best by today’s standards.
This won’t be a real 4K as we are not scanning from the original camera negatives.
Yep, and even then, it isn’t guaranteed that what has been originally shot back in the days reaches the spatial resolution equivalent.
Scanning at 2K would be borderline and we might miss some details[…]
Most probably exceeding the official Blu-ray release though which certainly doesn’t reach decent HD level (which is the whole point of the project besides the open matte aspect so to say of course). Guess they took some mediocre HD master which was good for the DVD release and reused that. However, at least they refrained from ruining it with orange & teal color grading, heavy DNR and other sins.
[…] and scanning 8K would be overkill and we just get a bigger image with not necessarily more details.
Definitely. 96kHz/24Bit vinyl rips are greeting as analogy.
It will definitely have more resolution (details) than HD (1080p), at least for the non SFX scenes.
If so, even better and more exciting.
On top of this, the grading should be closer to what you’d see in theatres (not that the Blu-ray grading was too much messed with) and we get to see it in open matte.
Great indeed. And I guess you intend to also refrain from any filtering, DNR, sharpening or other fuss, right?
Definetly interested too, i’ll wait for some preview pictures too but i’d love seeing this movie in 4K. Thank you in advance 😃
No intention of spoiling this great project, but you won’t see it “in 4K” with this either, as the film print will be far from that resolution level. It’s already questionable whether 2K/HD will be reached, as it’s usually a copy of a copy of a copy (which reminds me of “Fight Club,” which could also benefit from a long-overdue UHD release, but I’m drifting …).
Thanks a lot, MJBenito. Yes, I’ve noticed that your nice project video file doesn’t contain the DTS version so I’m happy to contribute here. I also have the CinemaDTS (and the LD audio as mentioned before) at hand, but I yet again will have to investigate how that is properly decoded now level-wise as there used to be quite some confusion about that (at FanRes), especially regarding the level of the part below 80Hz which is embedded into the surround channels as that format came without a LFE back in the days.
Anyway, on a quick run, I want to spend a few words on The Mask and hope that you don’t mind a critic review of your upscale/remaster. All that is meant to be constructive feedback.
It is clear that the used source in the unfortunate lack of a fresh 4K scan is pretty dated and most probably comes from a time where it was just “good enough” for a SD release on DVD. As the comparison at caps-a-holic shows, the BD release is barely any sharper that the DVD, but at least they didn’t fuck it up (yes, James Cameron, I mean you!):
https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?go=1&a=0&d1=3438&d2=3437&s1=31680&s2=31672&i=0&l=1
Now your release, and this is entirely my honest, humble and at the end subjective opinion, introduces a different kind of issues, similar to Titanic: What at first looks sharper, isn’t really and if something may irritate on your releases, despite the way better (in terms of more neutral) colors without any doubt, then it’s that typical “oh, quite sharp … but where are the details?” kind of impression. Technically this makes perfect sense as one cannot create information out of nowhere (overly hyped AI-processing nowadays or not).
Let me undergird the argument with some screenshots:
https://ibb.co/XW0VqtN
https://ibb.co/7493nmT
Yes, your version appears sharper at first, but when paying attention to the pedestrians, they really start to look very artificial. Not that they looked great to begin with, but not as waxy and “Playmobil”-manikin-like.
In this shot, when looking at the grill/ventilation part to his right, one can witness a small (!) amount of lost detail on your release which is still present in the original (which would also support my observations with Titanic). So while your used AI program adds (perceived) sharpness by boosting the contrast and other techniques (without the usual sharpening artefacts, I have to say, no ringing, no halos), it slightly (!) reduces the spatial resolution of the original as well:
https://ibb.co/9nRM8Fw
https://ibb.co/94YN6Mk
I hate to say it, but for me, that without any doubt too fuzzy original BD has a more consistent look despite its many flaws. On your release, although I want to love it for the effort alone, I cannot get rid of the feeling that something is wrong as one has the conflicting impression of sharpness and at the same time lack of real details which the added noise (for me at least) can’t really mask (no pun intended here).
If not too much trouble, as with Titanic, I would also appreciate a version which is only color adjusted and nothing else. However, it remains to be wished that “The Mask” finally gets a decent UHD release as the not so great BD even for its time, doesn’t give that still nice movie its justice.
Thanks for your reply, MJBenito.
MJBenito said: As mentioned in the original post, the 3D bluray is the source used for this 4K Filmized remaster.
Yes, that was my understanding, however thorough comparison of that original and your version raised doubts about that so thanks for the confirmation.
MJBenito said: I used my own Topaz Video AI settings after many tests to get the most natural look. That means that compression has been fixed and details may have a been recovered during the process. I made sure that no sharpening was added in the process because it was the main goal of the project : get rid of the oversharpened look of the official 4K remaster.
While entirely appreciating your great project and also approach when it comes to the color grading, from a critical point of view, one has to state that by trying to recover details, some are also lost (minor, but still). Also, as my screenshots show, in fact there is artificial sharpening in your release which isn’t present in the original, a fact that actually led to doubting which source you had used again.
Thus, if your time allows it, I personally would highly welcome a version with only color adjustment applied but nothing else. No upscale, no AI processing. Same goes with “The Mask” where I intend to comment on separately in the respective thread.
Project is ready guys.
In terms of you’re finding the time to start it or that you’ve already finished it?
Also, how about the inclusion of the CinemaDTS as I suggested?
@MJBenito: if you find the time, it would be great if you could answer the questions I raised about the source and the sharpening differences, thanks.
After I had mentioned a “V3” to be even more preferable (combining the 2D version which has less DNR to begin with and the open matte 3D one), I was contacted by a member who suggested some Indian release of Titanic which was supposed to have no DNR and being open matte as well. Once I got a copy of that, it quickly turned out however to be exactly the same H.264 stream (just on one disc instead of two) from the left eye of the 3D version. Same size, same artefacts.
Taken the messed up UHD BD and older DVD or LD releases aside, there seem to be only two official HD variants: the less noise filtered cinema scope one provided by the US 2D BD, Spanish 2D BD, etc. and the more noise filtered open matte one provided by the US 3D BD, Indian 2D BD and some scene releases like the usual suspects such as “KRaLiMaRKo”, etc.
When I compared all that, I’ve noticed differences in sharpness though between the official open matte and Benito’s regrade.
In this scene, the carpet appears significantly sharper:
https://i.ibb.co/MVHSsGT/Titanic-Indian-2-D-OM-US-3-D-OM.png
https://i.ibb.co/R4FDGS8/Titanic-MJBenito-Regarde-V2-OM-2.png
Here Rose’ chain also looks a lot sharper. At the same time, some original detail is lost though, apparent on her dress as I mentioned before, but not only compared to the cropped 2D version, but also between the 3D original and Benito’s regrade:
https://i.ibb.co/y60v2mv/Caledon-Rose-Original.png
https://i.ibb.co/5GKc8hk/Caledon-Rose-Benito-Regrade.png
A zoomed part of her dress to emphasize the difference; parts of the dress’ strikes are masked by the noise:
https://i.ibb.co/SnSzsqV/Rose-Dress-Original.png
https://i.ibb.co/dDhXmtQ/Rose-Dress-Benito-Regrade.png
Which raises the following questions for me:
What’s the source? Is it indeed the official 3D one? Then the subjective sharpness increase is impressive but would also mean that you applied artificial sharpening and not only upscaling.
Overall, comparing the two, the data reduction, JPEG-like artefacts are somehow entirely replaced by some “error diffusion”-like dither. If my assumption is correct, I would be interested in a V3 with only upscaling and color correction and no filtering as at some point the detail of the dress has to go lost.
But maybe you had a different source after all and I happen to have a 3D BD which coincidently shares the “magic” Indian source.
In short, I have been successfully confused.
@davicroquette, @justArobo
PMs sent.
I’d also be interested in that and could not only throw the DTS-rip from the US-Laserdisc onto the pile for that special release, but even the Cinema DTS one. Doesn’t get more truthful than that. 😃
However, both would have to be synced to the video and in case of the Cinema DTS, it would be technically (not necessarily audibly) be better to reflag the BD video stream which most probably comes in 24/1.001 fps to 24 fps so one doesn’t have to resample the audio at all and maybe just use that or make several variants.
PMs sent. If anyone else hasn’t gotten it yet, let me know.
Hold your horses, rescue is coming very soon …
I recommend using MPC-BE
Thanks for the hint, I’ll check it as VLC also seems to be terrible at displaying Dolby Vision content properly as well (totally wrong colorspace mapping).
Can you also share it with me ?
Sure, just give me a poke once returned and I’ll send you links.
Now that Cameron missed the mark on the new 4K transfer[…]
A nice way of saying that he and his crew idiotically messed things up after they had about three damn decades to get things right. Just pathetic.
Theatrical trailer 35mm 4k Scan (TOP) Theatrical release print scan v1.0 (Bottom)
Judging by the screenshots though, the one above seems to have even more black crush than the original scan which already has severe loss of details compared to the video variants.
We’d need the negative as cinema copies probably all have low shadow detail which overall makes me think that the HDTV open matte and the D-Theater one remain being the best versions available.
While the whites appear a hint more neutral to me in V1, at least on my computer screen via VLC (will check in on the A95L later on), the noise distribution I find nicer on V2 as it masks the fuzziness and better takes away the “wax effect” caused by the filtering in the original. An interesting psychological effect that it appears sharper although there isn’t more detail (sharp [no pun intended] tongues might say that this is part of film material’s secret).
For the others, @19:02, look at the guy’s above:
https://ibb.co/YXwLZ5q
https://ibb.co/176Btz2
Update after checking the differences on the TV:
Interestingly, the color shift is way less apparent than on the PC with VLC. As for banding, I still have some in the V2 (especially in the underwater sequence at the beginning), but I suppose that this is already embedded in the 3D source.
About the HDTV open matte rip:
jakeandelwooduk was so kind to provide me the HDTV open matte rip (in 25 fps) and again, it is quite different from the 3D one. A lot more color saturation and the framing also seems to be slightly different (besides the lower bitrate and thus data reduction artefacts of course):
@MJBenito:
While I was actually looking for differences in regard to banding (where V2 is better indeed), I’ve also noticed a color difference between V1 and V2 with the latter tending to be slightly greenish now compared to V1:
https://ibb.co/fksjxtn
https://ibb.co/2kNd0HN
Is that intended?
I’m working on Premiere Pro with Lumetri color adjustments[…]
Thanks a lot for your insights. I want to start doing that as well, as the silly color grading of the UHD BD of “Training Day” (otherwise a welcome improvement over the BD) similarly annoys me, asking to be “fixed”.
https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?go=1&a=0&d1=18089&d2=18105&s1=207597&s2=207955&i=0&l=0
In this case, considering the Open Matte version is sourced from a h264 4:2:0 8 bits encoding, I thought the whole 4K Filmized Remaster process would have worked in the same color space… Only to find that the final image had banding and macro blocking issues.
Yes, the reason for that most probably is that during the conversation, not only get the color values shifted around, multipied, divided, etc., but furthermore in the more versatile floating point domain and then transfered back to integers, necessarily getting rounded to the 8 bit (or rather ~ 7.78 bit equivalent, as video signals often only use the values 16-235, so called “limited range”) which then results in distortion; at 8 bit per color perceivable as banding.
My guess would be that for some reason, as so often, no dithering is applied which at 8 bit is a must to avoid banding artifacts. For instance, many Blu-rays also have lots of banding embedded which would not be necessary at any bit depth if one accepts the higher noise floor in return.
That’s why I made a V2 from scratch using 4:2:0 10 bits for the whole remastering process. You’ll surely notice differences from V1 to V2 during deep ocean scenes and final scenes of the movie.
Good move. While dithering is desirable even at 10 bit, probably it isn’t noticeable anymore and when dealing with lossy codecs, higher bit depths might be preferable to dithered 8 bit due to the additional noise it creates. On the other hand, you added some to simulate the film grain anyway. Interesting that it apparently didn’t act as dithering itself to prevent the banding here.
Of course I’ve seen the post regarding the HDTV version but I wanted the best encoding available for the open matte. Even if that means a little more DNR baked in the source.
I contacted him as it would be interesting how that version looks but most probably yours will win overall by cleaner encoding source alone, yes.
Superb work of yours anyway and the fresh/neutral colors are a pleasure compared to all the official releases.
