Jump to content

Anyone here succumbed to 4K Ultra HD Blu-ray?


1977

Do you own or plan to acquire a UHD Blu-ray capable home cinema system?  

96 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you own or plan to acquire a UHD Blu-ray capable home cinema system?

    • Yes, I do
    • No, 1080p Blu-ray is good enough.
    • No, I'll miss my 3D Blu-ray too much.
    • No, I've only got 720p capability and it looks mighty fine.
    • No, DVD rulez!
    • No, I'm still rocking a Laserdisc player!
    • No, VHS will return (just look at vinyl)!
    • What's UHD Blu-ray?


Recommended Posts

“Apocalypse Now” – 40th Anniversary & Restoration

 

Quote

Francis Ford Coppola’s “Apocalypse Now” will celebrate its 40th Anniversary at the Festival with a screening of a new, never-before-seen restored version of the film, entitled “Apocalypse Now: Final Cut.” Remastered from the original negative in 4K Ultra HD, the film will be brought to life with Dolby Vision and Dolby Atmos, delivering spectacular colors and highlights that are up to 40 times brighter and blacks that are 10 times darker, and Dolby Atmos, producing moving audio that flows all around you with breathtaking realism. The Beacon Theatre will also be outfitted for this exclusive occasion with Meyer VLFC (Very Low Frequency Control), a ground-breaking loudspeaker system engineered to output audio frequencies below the limits of human hearing, giving the audience a truly visceral experience.

Nominated for eight Academy Awards, Francis Ford Coppola’s stunning vision of the heart of darkness in all of us remains a classic and compelling Vietnam War epic. Martin Sheen stars as Army Captain Willard, a troubled man sent on a dangerous and mesmerizing odyssey into Cambodia to assassinate a renegade American Colonel named Kurtz (Marlon Brando), who has succumbed to the horrors of war and barricaded himself in a remote outpost. [Released August 15, 1979]

After the screening: an evening with Francis Ford Coppola who will reflect on the film and discuss its elaborate restoration.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hard to tell if they're referring to a new cut, or a new restoration with the term "Final Cut".

 

I wish that the Final Cut was timed with the appearance of the complete Coppola score :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've recently gotten all my movies both new and older on 4K Ultra HD Blu-Ray Disc. Not for every title but a few older and mostly newer released movies. I do like 4K Ultra HD Blu-Ray Disc but do like the colors for certain titles better on Blu-Ray than 4K it depends on the title I guess. My 4K Set up is an LG 4K UHD Blu-Ray Disc Player plus an Onkyo A/V Receiver with 4K Pass Through and a 50 inch 4K UHD TV from TCL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

‘Ghostbusters’ 1 & 2 steelbook coming soon, with new footage.

 

C816F874-1C8C-4539-A011-A4640AA62DF8.jpeg

 

Quote

Among the new materials:

GHOSTBUSTERS
•6 Rare & Newly Unearthed Deleted Scenes, including the long-requested Fort Detmerring scenes!
• Raw takes for the Central Park bums sequence
•1984 ShoWest Exhibitor Reel, featuring Bill Murray and Dan Aykroyd pitching an early reel of footage to theatrical exhibitors.
•Full Ghostbusters TV Commercial from the film
•Ghostbusters TV Commercial Outtakes
•“A Moment With the Stars” – original press kit featurette
•Original Domestic Teaser Trailer
•Original Stereo Audio for the Feature (Blu-ray only)
•Fan Commentary featuring Troy Benjamin and Chris Stewart (Interdimensional Crossrippodcast),Ashley Victoria Robinson (Geek History Lesson podcast) and Sean Bishop (Ghostbusters prop replica expert), moderated by Ghost Corps’ Eric Reich

GHOSTBUSTERS II
•Commentary featuring Director Ivan Reitman, Star/Co-Writer Dan Aykroyd and Executive Producer Joe Medjuck
•“The Oprah Winfrey Show: Cast of Ghostbusters II” – June 1989
•Full Ghostbusters II Theatrical EPK
•Rare Unfinished Teaser Trailer – featuring the full commercial from the film!
•Original Stereo Audio for the Feature (Blu-ray only)

THE REAL GHOSTBUSTERS
•"The Real Ghostbusters - Pitch Concept Pilot" - A Fan Restoration by Robert Barbieri

Plus archival special features:

GHOSTBUSTERS

Commentary featuring Ivan Reitman, Harold Ramis and Joe Medjuck
Slimer Mode Picture-in-Picture Track
"Tricks and Trivia" Text Commentary
10 Deleted Scenes
Who You Gonna Call: A Ghostbusters Retrospective
1984 Featurette
SFX Featurette
Cast and Crew Featurette
Ecto-1: Resurrecting the Classic Car
Multi-Angle Explorations
Storyboard Comparison
Alternate TV Version Takes
"Ghostbusters" Music Video by Ray Parker, Jr.
Photo Galleries
Trailers
International Teaser Trailer
Domestic Theatrical Trailer
30th Anniversary Theatrical Trailer

GHOSTBUSTERS II

7 Deleted Scenes
Time Is But A Window: Ghostbusters II and Beyond
"On Our Own" Music Video by Bobby Brown
Photo Galleries
Trailers
Domestic Teaser Trailer
Domestic Theatrical Trailer
International Theatrical Trailer 



The double feature Steelbook set will be released on June 11th!

 

@Ghostbusters II

Link to comment
Share on other sites

New version of Apocalypse Now confirmed

 

Quote

"...when asked which version I personally wanted to be shown, I often felt that the original 1979 was too abruptly shortened, and Redux was too long, and settled on what I now felt was the perfect version, which is what we’re showing at Tribeca later this month, called Apocalypse Now Final Cut.”

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Alien 4K HDR has been released this week. Not sure if local stores here already have it. It's only $15 in the States. For that price it's a no-brainer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pass.

 

I am not double dipping for this. I am happy with my box set

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, crocodile said:

I can see quite a difference between this and standard Blu-ray.

 

Good to hear. I was already a big fan of the blu-ray (thought it was the ultimate version).

 

1 hour ago, JoeinAR said:

Pass.

 

I am not double dipping for this. I am happy with my box set

 

Me too but if it's a big improvement then I'm going for it. I mean, what else am I going to buy on 4K?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All my new purchases are 4K.

I will get E.T. and Jaws. I have Superman the movie which does really pop in 4K but you have to avoid the Atmos sound because it is an abomination. It is not from the film and really hurts the opening credits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, John said:

I can’t see a Jaws 4K release being that much of an improvement.

 

It isn't meant to be.

 

Do the math: Bluray is 2K. 35mm film is about 3-3.5K. A UHD also gives you sharper grains, which improve the image's percieved sharpness.

 

So yeah, its there, but its not a huge improvement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, John said:

Visually, it’s also just not that type of movie that would benefit greatly from a UHD release. I mean, it’s no 2001. 

 

JoeinAR's wrath will be terrible, his retribution swift.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, John said:

Visually, it’s also just not that type of movie that would benefit greatly from a UHD release. I mean, it’s no 2001. 

 

Yeah, I was going to say the same. We need to differentiate the quality of the film as a whole from its pictorial value.

 

To be fair, though, 2001 was shot on 65mm, so that's theoretically more like 6K, although I suspect the duping required for some of the special effects reduced this figure siginificantly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, John said:

I can’t see a Jaws 4K release being that much of an improvement. The current BR looks amazing as it is. 

I agree the Bluray is a revelation but its Jaws. I am obligated and duty bound to get all the releases from E.T., Jaws, and Superman.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not interested in 2001. I do not like it, nor do I care to appreciate it as a film but Im glad for those who do.. I only care about the story as a religious allegory and how it got me an A in college.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't feel too strongly about it either, but in terms of pictorial quality? Its certainly a prime candidate for UHD, much more so than Jaws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, John said:

It’s the best movie ever made™!

 

It's definitely one of few 4K discs I will ever own (even though the standard blu-ray is pretty damn impressive)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Chen G. said:

 

Yeah, I was going to say the same. We need to differentiate the quality of the film as a whole from its pictorial value.

 

To be fair, though, 2001 was shot on 65mm, so that's theoretically more like 6K, although I suspect the duping required for some of the special effects reduced this figure siginificantly.

I thought 6K would be the equivalent of 35mm? IMAX 70mm is supposed to be up to 18K.

 

Karol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a very common error of conflating of the actual amount of fine detail in the negative, and the amount of oversampling ideally needed to scan it. You can even scan 35mm in 8K (as has indeed been done on The Wizard of Oz). You can scan it at 11K for all I care, but the negative doesn't really contain that much information. The oversampling is just done for technical reasons.

 

If a 35mm negative did contain this much information, than math would dictate that smaller formats like Super-8 would look much, much better than they evidently do and, conversly, 1080p or even 2.8K footage (per Skyfall) would look much poorer (in comparison to 35mm) than it actually does. The final presentation of a scan of 35mm is 4K, at most. Anything beyond that is a blowup.

 

an IMAX negative, likewise, isn't really anywhere near 18K; and, of course, you don't get to see an IMAX negative, do you? You get to see a contact print which is sub-7K. If the negative was duped in any way (for compositing effects) its even less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

That's a very common error of conflating of the actual amount of fine detail in the negative, and the amount of oversampling ideally needed to scan it. You can even scan 35mm in 8K (as has indeed been done on The Wizard of Oz). You can scan it at 11K for all I care, but the negative doesn't really contain that much information. Its just done for technical reasons. The final presentation of a scan of 35mm is 4K, at most. Anything beyond that is a blowup.

 

an IMAX negative, likewise, isn't really anywhere near 18K; and, of course, you don't get to see an IMAX negative, do you? You get to see a contact print which is sub-7K. If the negative was duped in any way (for compositing effects) its even less.

Out of curiosity, where do you get this information from? I would like to read/watch/listen more about it. Can't argue with any of your points because I haven't got enough knowledge.

 

Karol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are ways to measure the amount of fine detail in filmstock and equate it to horizontal digital resolution. I recall reading an empirical paper where figures of 3.2K or so were quoted for Super-35mm. I believe there are diminishing returns with larger formats, too, so the increase in detail isn't necessarily perfectly linear to the increase in the size of the negative.

 

I've also seen comparisons between high-resolution scans of filmstock compared to digital cameras, and 3.4K digital footage gives 35mm a run for its money, even though filtering loses within the camera dictate that it shouldn't look quite as good. Likewise, 6K digital looks equivalent if not better to UHD scans of 65mm footage, even if that footage underwent cleaning and sharpening. Of course, film looks better when its played than in does in stills, but you get a sense for how the formats compare.

 

Also this:

https://cinematography.com/index.php?/topic/72252-film-resolution-equivalent/&do=findComment&comment=462548

 

And again, if 35mm really was 8K than Super-8mm would be 2K! Given that so many IMAX presentations are just blow-ups of 2K copies of films, that would make Super-8 footage good enough for IMAX, which it mostly clearly is not.

 

On the flipside, if those figures were true, most films shot on digital would look much worse than they really do. Apocalypto was shot on 1080p digital, Skyfall was largely shot on 2.8K digital, and Gone Girl was shot on 6K digital. The filters in digital camera mean that the actual amount of fine detail in the files is about 15-20% less than those figures (so 6K digital is just 5K or so) and sometimes there's some compression of the video files which degrades image quality further, so those should all look terrible. But they don't.

 

Likewise, didn't many people find Nolan's contact print of 2001 inferior to the digital 4K presentation of the film? If 35mm was 8K than 65mm would be 16K and even after the duping for the effects and the contact print being struck, it would look a helluva lot better than 4K. But if the 35mm is 3.2K and 65mm is 6K, it makes perfect sense why a 4K copy of the film looked better than the contact print.

 

Another example was the effects for Nolan's Batman films. For IMAX, they started rendering effects shots in 8K - not 12 and certainly not 18. In fact, they soon found out that the images looked nearly identical in a "mere" 5.6K, and so most shots with VFX were done to that standard. Makes sense, too: the bigger the resolution, the smaller the difference a K or two make. 8K cameras are getting common in tentpoles, and I'd be surprised if the difference between 8K digital and a 9K IMAX negative is particularly noticable.

 

So its more like 3K for 35mm, 4.5K for VistaVision, 6K for 65mm and over 9K for IMAX. Contact prints can be 30% less, and dupes can be 50% less or more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Jurassic Shark said:

VHS will do.

Drax is that you

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Blu Ray of LAWRENCE OF ARABIA was stunning becuase they had used 4K on that one and it took quite a long time to come. So hopefully when it finally comes out on 4K blu ray- the results would be beyond fantastic!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, due to the need to oversample, they scanned it at 4K for the 2K release, and at 8K for the 4K release. 

 

Here's a 6K still from that scan, lined up with stills from a 6K digital camera: http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?114840-RED-Dragon-vs-65mm-Film-cont-d&s=1ed424b6f4ca9d53d58ee0577d9c729a.

 

Due to the older filmstock and the lenses used in Lawrence, 6K digital clearly seems superior, certainly in stills. But I've seen a similar comparison to an 8K scan from the more recent Baraka, and that - too - was at least matched by 6K digital footage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Ghostbusters II said:

Chen G., I don't know why you post such long posts. Nobody reads them.

I do even if I disagree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/24/2019 at 1:59 PM, crocodile said:

It looks good. I can see quite a difference between this and standard Blu-ray. Watched it last night actually.

 

 

 

Shouldn't you be watching the Nolan version from now on?!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.