#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 Buyer beware? http://www.highdefdigest.com/blog/ultra-hd-not-always-4k/ Ricard 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BloodBoal 7,538 Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 The most interesting thing of course is this: Quote And, ultimately, most viewers can’t tell the difference between 2k and 4k anyway. We're slowly reaching a point where the difference between each new fomat will be less and less noticeable... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted January 8, 2017 Author Share Posted January 8, 2017 I haven't seen a single reason to update from1080. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BloodBoal 7,538 Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 Yep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wojo 2,453 Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 As my eye gets worse with age, I'm sure I'll reach a point where VHS is sufficient again. Ricard 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted January 8, 2017 Author Share Posted January 8, 2017 Vintage! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disco Stu 15,495 Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 45 minutes ago, petaQ said: As my eye gets worse with age, I'm sure I'll reach a point where VHS is sufficient again. And then finally, at the end, you'll watch all films in magic lantern format Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488 Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 This is the only one you need. crumbs 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marian Schedenig 8,174 Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 5 hours ago, Stefancos said: Buyer beware? Not necessarily surprising, or new, is it? I don't think 1080p is always 1080p either. There are Blu-rays that look like upscales of rather average 720p transfers, with very obvious aliasing. crumbs 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Naïve Old Fart 9,498 Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 3 hours ago, petaQ said: As my eye gets worse with age, I'm sure I'll reach a point where VHS is sufficient again. What happened to the other eye? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488 Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 9 minutes ago, Marian Schedenig said: Not necessarily surprising, or new, is it? I don't think 1080p is always 1080p either. There are Blu-rays that look like upscales of rather average 720p transfers, with very obvious aliasing. The Star Wars OT Blu-rays don't look like full HD to me. Revenge of the Sith is the only good transfer. aj_vader 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jilal 569 Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 5 hours ago, Stefancos said: I haven't seen a single reason to update from1080. 5 hours ago, BloodBoal said: Yep. Computer displays can carry a lot more information at a 2K or 4K resolution that they would be able to do at 1080p. For a composer, this could mean displaying twice the amount of MIDI tracks in a DAW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bofur01 245 Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 Being really pernickety, with 1080p being (technically) 1.92K... surely there can't be "a lot" more information carried in 2k? But I do agree about 4k, obviously Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wojo 2,453 Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 2 hours ago, Richard said: What happened to the other eye? Apple iPatch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unlucky Bastard 7,782 Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 4 hours ago, Rose Dawson said: The Star Wars OT Blu-rays don't look like full HD to me. Revenge of the Sith is the only good transfer. I read somewhere that the OT transfers come from a 2K master. They look okay for the most part, but I've seen better transfers of films from 1977 to 1983. The new ID4 UHD release is a frustrating one. I haven't bought it yet, but I did buy the regular blu-ray downscale of the 4K remaster just for the alien attacker model it came with. Natually I checked out the disc, but if this is any indication of how ID4 now looks in UHD, I don't want it anyway. Whoever mastered this decided to drain it of colour, giving it a weird gold sheen and sometimes sepia look in certain shots, and the whites and highlights have been washed out. On the other hand, it does boast added detail in the image, and the grain looks great. What the hell happened with the colours?! Someone at Fox thought this would look good? Sony's Mastered in 4K Godzilla looks incredible however. Colours are accurate. Grain structure is intact. One of the best looking transfers of a 90s film I've seen. Aside from the 2014 Godzilla, where someone thought it'd be fun to suck all the gamma and contrast out, most of my blu-rays look fine on my Panasonic plasma. I still watch DVDs is there's no alternative! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crumbs 14,301 Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 This is hardly surprising. As @Marian Schedenig pointed out, studios have been cutting corners on Bluray masters for years, often releasing ancient "HD" masters as the basis for their Bluray releases. Universal are one of the worst offenders; even their "flagship" Bluray releases like Jurassic Park and Back to the Future used dated transfers originally created for DVD releases a decade earlier. Most modern films are finished at 2K so the "4K" release is never truly 4K. It might look marginally better than the 1080p Bluray (2K is technically a higher resolution than 1080p and there'd be less image compression) but that's about it. Very few films are finished in a total 4K workflow; you'd have to render all visual effects shots at higher resolution and finish the DI at 4K, which has huge cost and time implications for very little benefit. I'd guess most digital projectors only project at 2K resolution anyway. The only true 4K films are ones that pre-date digital effects, where all the information exists on the original negative and can scanned, restored and graded at 4K (or 6K/8K). Examples of this that immediately spring to mind are Jaws, the Indiana Jones trilogy, Alien, Aliens, Lawrence of Arabia, and other classics pre-90s. The Star Wars trilogy looks garbage on Bluray because Lowry really botched the transfer with excessive noise reduction that introduced motion artifacts, then Lucasfilm made the image quality worse by slapping on a godawful, inaccurate colour grade (presumably to make the films match the visuals of the prequels, when ANH was actually quite desaturated and naturalistic originally). Those scans were done in 2003 anyway so they are fairly dated. Trust Lucas the tight-ass not to commission new scans for Bluray. Spielberg refused to let the Indy films come out on Bluray without having a modern 4K restoration (he wasn't satisfied with the 2003 scans Lowry did for Indy). Nick1Ø66 and Ricard 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unlucky Bastard 7,782 Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 Wasn't Raiders the only one to get a brand new remaster, and TOD and LC are still the same old Mr Lowry masters? Gruesome Son of a Bitch 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488 Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 Yes, Raiders was given a yellowish tint and the others were sourced from older masters and remained accurate. 32 minutes ago, Daniel Clamp said: I read somewhere that the OT transfers come from a 2K master. They look okay for the most part, but I've seen better transfers of films from 1977 to 1983. The new ID4 UHD release is a frustrating one. I haven't bought it yet, but I did buy the regular blu-ray downscale of the 4K remaster just for the alien attacker model it came with. Natually I checked out the disc, but if this is any indication of how ID4 now looks in UHD, I don't want it anyway. Whoever mastered this decided to drain it of colour, giving it a weird gold sheen and sometimes sepia look in certain shots, and the whites and highlights have been washed out. On the other hand, it does boast added detail in the image, and the grain looks great. What the hell happened with the colours?! Someone at Fox thought this would look good? Sony's Mastered in 4K Godzilla looks incredible however. Colours are accurate. Grain structure is intact. One of the best looking transfers of a 90s film I've seen. The ID4 remaster is atrocious. After looking at screenshots, it was apparent they had visually ruined the film. It's actually the version being broadcast on cable these days. It doesn't matter since the old ID4 Blu-ray is accurate and perfectly fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay 37,287 Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 Is there a good, well organized, easy to search website that lists which versions of blu rays have accurate and inaccurate colors, too much noise reduction etc? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488 Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 43 minutes ago, crumbs said: This is hardly surprising. As @Marian Schedenig pointed out, studios have been cutting corners on Bluray masters for years, often releasing ancient "HD" masters as the basis for their Bluray releases. Universal are one of the worst offenders; even their "flagship" Bluray releases like Jurassic Park and Back to the Future used dated transfers originally created for DVD releases a decade earlier. Well, doesn't Spielberg approve all of the Blu-ray transfers of his films? The Jurassics definitely have a dated look about them, but they're accurate. They're exactly the way they looked in the cinema. Everyone was complaining about all the noise in the JP transfer, but it looked the way I always remembered. One of the weirdest is Close Encounters because it didn't look much better than the DVD? There was literally no reason to upgrade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unlucky Bastard 7,782 Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 1 hour ago, Rose Dawson said: The ID4 remaster is atrocious. After looking at screenshots, it was apparent they had visually ruined the film. It's actually the version being broadcast on cable these days. It doesn't matter since the old ID4 Blu-ray is accurate and perfectly fine. Something interesting happened recently regarding ID4's broadcast versions. On the Foxtel Action channel, the reframed 16:9 version with accurate colours is shown, but a few weeks before Christmas, Channel 10 (one of Australia's free-to-air stations) showed the 4K remaster in letterbox format. 45 minutes ago, Rose Dawson said: One of the weirdest is Close Encounters because it didn't look much better than the DVD? There was literally no reason to upgrade. Not really. The DVD was good for its time, but has no grain detail whatsoever. The blu-ray revealed all that beautiful film grain, which people who weren't used to that on home video did nothing but complain about because they had no idea how film looked. Ricard 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crumbs 14,301 Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 41 minutes ago, Daniel Clamp said: Wasn't Raiders the only one to get a brand new remaster, and TOD and LC are still the same old Mr Lowry masters? My understanding is that the trilogy was prepped for a Bluray release to tie-in with KOTCS in 2008, using the 2003 Lowry masters, but Spielberg canned the idea because he didn't think the quality was good enough. So they commissioned new transfers of all 3 films sometime around 2009 (when a newer transfer began appearing on HDTV broadcasts of the trilogy, that was different from the Lowry versions). When Lucas finally decided to release the Blurays, Spielberg again felt Raiders didn't look good enough and he commissioned a complete, frame-by-frame restoration of the entire film. This was finished by Lou Levinson at Laser Pacific and introduced those controversial colour changes (and it's the reason Raiders looks different to the TOD and TLC transfers in the Bluray set; they were finished at different times). I believe the ~2009 transfers of the trilogy were done by these folks: http://www.filmlight.ltd.uk/markets/restoration.php http://www.filmlight.ltd.uk/pdf/misc/FilmLightCredits.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488 Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 I still think that Raiders is a poor transfer because of the color changes. I prefer the DVD or HD broadcast, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crumbs 14,301 Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 1 hour ago, Rose Dawson said: Well, doesn't Spielberg approve all of the Blu-ray transfers of his films? The Jurassics definitely have a dated look about them, but they're accurate. They're exactly the way they looked in the cinema. Everyone was complaining about all the noise in the JP transfer, but it looked the way I always remembered. I have no idea why Spielberg allowed Jurassic Park to end up on Bluray using a HD master from 1999, but there were long-held fears Universal would put out a shoddy transfer and those fears were, unsurprisingly, realised. From what I understand, no Universal/Spielberg film has been released since without having a new scan (Schindler's List, E.T. and Jaws were all new scans). Frustratingly, Jurassic Park had a modern 4K remaster by Laser Pacific (same company that did Raiders) for the 3D conversion, but the 2D version bundled with the 3D Bluray set is just a reprint of the old Bluray master! So there's basically no release with the untouched 4K remaster; you can't even rip a left/right eye copy from the 3D version because they scrubbed the film with DNR to remove all grain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488 Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 Well, at least Always looks amazing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unlucky Bastard 7,782 Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 I want 1941 on blu-ray but I have to buy it in a boxset full of all these other movies I have individually anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488 Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 The price of that set periodically drops and it's very tempting. I need to get new copies of Jaws and The Lost World and I never bought Always. It would be a good deal for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crumbs 14,301 Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 2 minutes ago, Rose Dawson said: Well, at least Always looks amazing. Welp, looks like I was wrong about modern scans for all Universal/Spielberg films! Always is clearly a dated, ancient transfer. It looks like upscaled DVD. Typical Universal garbage. Smeared with edge enhancement to create the illusion of sharpness, when all it does is worsen the grain and create artifacting around objects. Gruesome Son of a Bitch and Not Mr. Big 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488 Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 You're too picky! Damn it, I need to get Always. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crumbs 14,301 Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 I'm not expecting a lavish 4K remaster for Always, but it still looks like a crappy old transfer. "Better than the DVD" doesn't cut the mustard for me. Universal deserve all the criticism they get for their shoddy catalog treatment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay 37,287 Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 9 minutes ago, Daniel Clamp said: I want 1941 on blu-ray but I have to buy it in a boxset full of all these other movies I have individually anyway. 1941 was released outside of the boxset 2 years ago https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00TF7KY96 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unlucky Bastard 7,782 Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 Not in Australia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488 Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 Major color shifts (Star Trek: Generations turns green, Raiders turns yellow, ID4 loses all color etc.) and DNR are really the only things that fuck up my viewing experience. I'll take an overly-sharpened transfer with edge enhancement over a DNR'd one. It's why I still watch The Phantom Menace on DVD. The Star Trek movies also got it bad. Those are long overdue for a remaster. And why is Generations so green? It never looked like that. Did the guy preparing the Blu-ray transfer spill his coffee and accidentally hit the "Green" button? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Not Mr. Big 4,639 Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 33 minutes ago, crumbs said: Welp, looks like I was wrong about modern scans for all Universal/Spielberg films! Always is clearly a dated, ancient transfer. It looks like upscaled DVD. Typical Universal garbage. Smeared with edge enhancement to create the illusion of sharpness, when all it does is worsen the grain and create artifacting around objects. 1941 looks pretty shitty too. Spoiler Spoiler http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/screenshot.php?movieid=42386&position=9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crumbs 14,301 Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 Yep, another Universal mastering mess. Blown out contrast, edge enhancement that turns film grain into video noise, inexplicable white halos around objects from over-sharpening (look at the white halo around Belushi's head!), the character of 80's film stock totally lost and replaced with an ugly video look. And, worst of all, very little fine detail in the image (just look at the silver stars on the performing girls, no detail to be seen) because they cheaply use the same transfers from the DVD releases for most of their catalog Blurays. Film scanning technology simply couldn't capture the fine details of a film print in the late 90s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aviazn 273 Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 If you watch movies on a TV across the room—even a big one—4K makes little difference. But if you watch them on a 27" monitor at your desk or directly beside your bed (as I do), 4K is a godsend. The first time I saw a 4K monitor showing 4K footage (it was a volcano erupting, with the ash plume billowing) I literally gasped. I spent the next half-hour searching "4K drone" on YouTube and watching the results, then bought the monitor and walked out of the store with it. It's very hard to go back to 1080p content. crumbs 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unlucky Bastard 7,782 Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 Is there a list or database of UHD discs that are actual 4K or films that have been scanned and delivered in 4K? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BloodBoal 7,538 Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,326 Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 Wow, how did this turn into a Drax and E.T.& Elliot thread? Gruesome Son of a Bitch 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted January 9, 2017 Author Share Posted January 9, 2017 Sad isnt it. It's barely about 4k anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unlucky Bastard 7,782 Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 We're taking charge of JWfan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted January 9, 2017 Author Share Posted January 9, 2017 Ok. We'll be over at JWfan Pro, discussing the latest 8k transfer of Blade Runner. Gruesome Son of a Bitch 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crumbs 14,301 Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 11 minutes ago, BloodBoal said: This is not quite what you're looking for, but caps-a-holic.com allows you to compare screencaps from various home video releases of a movie to see if there are such changes that were made. Examples (scroll down the page and move your mouse over the big picture to see the difference. If you want to see a different shot, just select one, then select "Fullscreen comparison"): https://www.caps-a-holic.com/c.php?go=1&a=0&d1=5041&d2=5040&s1=47003&s2=46991&i=6&l=0 https://www.caps-a-holic.com/c.php?go=1&a=0&d1=3554&d2=3552&s1=32885&s2=32864&i=6&l=0 https://www.caps-a-holic.com/c.php?go=1&a=0&d1=7986&d2=7987&s1=76032&s2=76048&i=0&l=0 https://www.caps-a-holic.com/c.php?go=1&a=0&d1=5240&d2=5241&s1=48921&s2=48953&i=9&l=0 Some great comparisons in there, examples of remasters done properly and not just reusing decade old DVD transfers. Ridley Scott and James Cameron are probably two directors I have the most trust in when it comes to these things, they are fortunately very hands-on with their film restorations. Alien, Blade Runner and Gladiator are superb examples of reference quality Bluray PQ. Especially when they're fixing up a previously flawed Bluray release, like Gladiator. Original release using DVD master: Remaster: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,326 Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 Yes, more of this, please! And less talk of Godzilla and Always! What a lousy thread it has been so far. It's almost enough never to buy into 4K! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted January 9, 2017 Author Share Posted January 9, 2017 I tried! I'm sorry Alex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A24 4,326 Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 Luckily Drax and E.T&Elliot don't have access to JWfan Pro! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unlucky Bastard 7,782 Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 We'll hack it with David Levinson's Mac notebook. Gruesome Son of a Bitch 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted January 9, 2017 Author Share Posted January 9, 2017 Better not mention it too much. They may find out where its located... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unlucky Bastard 7,782 Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 We already know.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted January 9, 2017 Author Share Posted January 9, 2017 Alex! Secure the servers! Breach imminent! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now