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

[crocodile 8,000]

1 hour ago, Jay said:

Does there exist a Blu Ray disc containing the new, non-DNRed-to-hell edition of Predator, or is it still only available on the 4K disc?

No, although I was told this first ever Blu-ray from 2008 of is much better than the later edition.

 

 

Karol

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Just now, crocodile said:

No, although I was told this first ever Blu-ray from 2008 of is much better than the later edition.

 

 

Karol

 

I already said that and he goes "nup!"

[crocodile 8,000]

11 minutes ago, Þekþiþm said:

 

I already said that and he goes "nup!"

But that's not the one included in the 4K set. This "plastic one" 2010 one is:

 

 

Karol

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

But that's not what I said! I said get the 2008 one.

[crocodile 8,000]

Just now, Þekþiþm said:

But that's not what I said! I said get the 2008 one.

Ah I get you.

 

Karol

[Jay 37,346]

Guys I already knew the Ultimate Hunter edition had the DNR-ed to hell transfer, and the previous Blu Ray was not DNRed to hell.  And I knew the 4K had a new transfer that was not DNRed-to hell.  I simply asked if that NEW transfer was available on a blu anywhere.  I already knew the old BD existed.  Drax needs to learn how to read.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

1 hour ago, JTWfan77 said:

It's annoying that certain titles get stunning 4K UHD remasters but the old problematic Blu-ray masters keep getting recycled (e.g. Predator, first couple of Harry Potters) while other titles get the newer transfers on BD too (Star Wars Saga). What, did they press too many copies of the BD discs and they need to shift them?

Yeah studios do reuse older discs. I bought a blu-ray once, can’t remember the film, but it was a single disc release and the disc said “Disc 2” on it. They had taken a disc from a previous release and repackaged it solo. 

[crocodile 8,000]

17 minutes ago, Jay said:

Guys I already knew the Ultimate Hunter edition had the DNR-ed to hell transfer, and the previous Blu Ray was not DNRed to hell.  And I knew the 4K had a new transfer that was not DNRed-to hell.  I simply asked if that NEW transfer was available on a blu anywhere.  I already knew the old BD existed.  Drax needs to learn how to read.

Tbh, I am just as bad. 😆

 

Karol

[Jurassic Shark 12,054]

8 hours ago, JTWfan77 said:

Very little is (except some of those later Star Trek films and the first issue of Patton).

 

Like the Jaws 4K release?

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

Star Treks I-10 need 4K remasters. Well, they did Wrath of Khan. Most of them are heavily afflicted by DNR. Generations also has a green tint applied to it.

[Chen G. 3,949]

13 minutes ago, Gruesome Son of a Bitch said:

Star Treks I-10 need 4K remasters. Well, they did Wrath of Khan. Most of them are heavily afflicted by DNR.

 

Don't they do DNR on those kinds of movies because of all of the compositing that was required for the optical effects? That will invariably result in more grain than is necessarily desirable, and it also makes UHD masters in general less worthwhile because a lot of the time you're not really seeing a scan of a first-generation piece of film.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

3 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

 

Don't they do DNR on those kinds of movies because of all of the compositing that was required for the optical effects? That will invariably result in more grain than is necessarily desirable, and it also makes UHD masters in general less worthwhile because a lot of the time you're not really seeing a scan of a first-generation piece of film.

 

No, it was mostly to make them look better on old low-res CRT teles.

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

They also messed up the "God" scene in V.

 

 

The Trek movies are very dated HD transfers without even taking the DNR and other video anomalies into consideration.

[Jurassic Shark 12,054]

3 hours ago, JTWfan77 said:

June 3rd 2008

 

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Patton-Blu-ray/679/#

 

Just don't read the review, they seem to think the PQ is stunningly good LOL

 

 

I have the steelbook of that one.

 

Well, the stills in the review do look great, and the review even says:

 

"The film's 1080p, 2:20:1 framed imagery looks like it was filmed yesterday."

 

"Patton debuts in high definition with an image quality that's simply stunning, far superior to any and all expectations I had for the transfer."

 

"Every single rock and grain of sand are seen individually, the detail so high that the viewer is put right in the middle of this war-ravaged area."

 

[Chen G. 3,949]

That's what shooting 65mm (even with older lenses) will do for ya...

[Jurassic Shark 12,054]

I don't see the problem of completely removing the grain if they still manage to make it look good.

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

Grain makes it look more filmic, same with all the black specks. 

[1977 1,743]

11 minutes ago, Jurassic Shark said:

I don't see the problem of completely removing the grain if they still manage to make it look good.

 

Cause it looks like a wax museum

 

 

Ugh.

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

Audiences today want smooth video like the Photoshopped smoothed-out posters. No wrinkles!

[crocodile 8,000]

17 minutes ago, Jurassic Shark said:

I don't see the problem of completely removing the grain if they still manage to make it look good.

I think the idea is that the film should look as faithful to the source as possible. If it's shot on film then it should look like film.

 

Karol

[1977 1,743]

I wish digital cinematography looked more like film.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Instead people want it to look like an airbrushed photo like those lad mags of the 2000s.

[Chen G. 3,949]

15 minutes ago, JTWfan77 said:

Cause it looks like a wax museum

 

 

You do know that's how 65mm photography looks, right? it almost looks digital in terms of how little grain its got. Even release prints look incredibly clean and smooth - that's the whole appeal of medium-format photography.

 

I don't know that anyone would bother doing DNR on a 65mm source.

[Jurassic Shark 12,054]

44 minutes ago, JTWfan77 said:

 

Cause it looks like a wax museum

 

 

 

Perhaps he just had an oily skin type!

[1977 1,743]

17 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

 

You do know that's how 65mm photography looks, right? it almost looks digital in terms of how little grain its got. Even release prints look incredibly clean and smooth - that's the whole appeal of medium-format photography.

 

I don't know that anyone would bother doing DNR on a 65mm source.

 

So then why the outcry? And the re-issue with actual film grain??

 

With the arrival of Blu-ray, it took film studios and home video production houses a few years to refine their workflows and figure out how to best treat older catalog titles. Initially, many stuck with what worked in the DVD days, smoothing away grain with heavy digital noise reduction and trying to make details pop with edge enhancement. These supposed picture quality remedies weren't particularly distracting in standard definition, but in 1080p —which is much more capable of displaying the nuanced texture of film—they're fraught with ugly side effects. In strong enough doses, edge "enhancement" gives footage a harsh, filtered quality, adding halo-like artifacts to hard outlines. Worse, de-noising invariably robs a high-def picture of clarity, softening the image and giving actors' faces a shiny, unnatural, almost airbrushed-looking sheen.

The two go hand-in-hand. DNR is accomplished through wholesale blurring, and then digital sharpening is used in an attempt to restore detail. The argument for keeping these techniques in place was that viewers wouldn't want a grainy picture on their slick new HDTVs. The counterargument, of course—which will alway win out for those who truly care about film restoration and preservation—is that grain is an inherent aspect of celluloid filmmaking, and that the act of smearing it away is akin to filing down the brush strokes on the Mona Lisa in order to create a "cleaner" picture.

 

That initial edition, however, was quite literally glossy; the natural filmic patina of the fine-grained original 65mm negative had been egregiously scrubbed out of each and every frame, inadvertently removing detail in the process. Some viewers inexplicably approved—just look at the user reviews here on the site—but I have a feeling they'll reconsider after seeing the night-and-day difference in 20th Century Fox's all-new remaster of the film, which ditches the DNR and edge enhancement in favor of a gorgeously unaltered picture that's drastically sharper.

 

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Patton-Blu-ray/55325/#Review

 

8 minutes ago, Jurassic Shark said:

Perhaps he just had a oily skin type!

 

He put too much moisturiser on that day.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

11 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

 

I don't know that anyone would bother doing DNR on a 65mm source.

 

 

Because it was the early days of blue laser and they hadn't perfected the process yet.

[Jurassic Shark 12,054]

26 minutes ago, crocodile said:

I think the idea is that the film should look as faithful to the source as possible. If it's shot on film then it should look like film.

 

Karol

 

As long as it looks good and realistic, I don't care. When DVDs ruled the world, everyone hated grains!

 

[Evanus 217]

Well, it doesn't look very realistic when they to go too far with the DNR. Take Terminator 2, for example...

https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?go=1&a=0&d1=11905&d2=11117&s1=117388&s2=109142&i=13&l=0

It's a shame, you can see there's more detail but it looks all weird and waxy because they had to remove the noise for some reason.

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

It's like botox for film.

[Jurassic Shark 12,054]

The important thing is that we get to see Arnold's pimple scars.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

5 hours ago, Jurassic Shark said:

 

As long as it looks good and realistic, I don't care. When DVDs ruled the world, everyone hated grains!

 

 

Mainly because film grain didn't interact well with the old DVD compression codec, which often resulted in digital noise on top of the film grain. So they had to come up with ways to alter the image to make it more compression friendly, resulting in waxy smooth images in that format that people just accepted. But blu-ray was capable of yielding an image that would be much more accurate to the source material, hence details in the 35mm stock would become much more visible (and did anyone complain about seeing this grain-based detail at the cinema?). I like how JTWfan77 describes the film grain as "patina", which is surprisingly apt as it reminds me of the pleasant grainy texture of an old leather jacket or lounge.

 

Ideally, forget the outdated standards of the DVD format, instead home video transfers should accurately reflect the source material as much as possible, and not some arbitrary view of what "reality" looks like.

[A24 4,331]

5 hours ago, Þekþiþm said:

 

and did anyone complain about seeing this grain-based detail at the cinema?

 

No, but we usually see new movies in the cinema (when the print is pristine) and not remasters from old deteriorated films. Once you start tinkering with film (boosting faded colors, contrast and clarity), grain becomes more visible. 

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

But that grain is embedded into the film. It's not dirt or dust that's accumulated over time.

[Jurassic Shark 12,054]

11 hours ago, JTWfan77 said:

that grain is an inherent aspect of celluloid filmmaking

 

Then there's the problem when the best available print is a copy of a copy of a copy, with grains superimposed over grains...

[A24 4,331]

I wish digital preservation (4K or 6K) already existed 50 years ago. That way we would have a better representation of how the original films looked like. 

[Jurassic Shark 12,054]

1 minute ago, Alexcremers said:

I wish digital preservation already existed 50 years ago. That way we would a better representation of how the original films looked like. 

 

Then everything would have been preserved in 160 x 120.

[1977 1,743]

A better artwork choice for Spain at least:

 

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

Jsharkws.

[Sharkissimo 1,973]

Why does the 4K master of the Empire Strikes Back look so gloomy?

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

11 minutes ago, Sharkissimo said:

Why does the 4K master of the Empire Strikes Back look so gloomy?

 

To make it more dark and disturbing. 

[A24 4,331]

It was never meant to be an upbeat flick. 

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

It's a space flick for kids. 

[Chen G. 3,949]

On 4/16/2020 at 9:18 AM, Alexcremers said:

I wish digital preservation (4K or 6K) already existed 50 years ago. That way we would have a better representation of how the original films looked like. 

What films from 50 years ago would resolve 6K? Even those films that were shot on 65mm and DIDN’T involve any optical effects would not have resolved as much given the lenses available at the time.

[Faleel 5,345]

3 hours ago, Chen G. said:

What films from 50 years ago would resolve 6K? Even those films that were shot on 65mm and DIDN’T involve any optical effects would not have resolved as much given the lenses available at the time.

Well, we are already discussing a hypothetical situation where digital preservation exists 50 years ago....

[A24 4,331]

4 hours ago, Chen G. said:

What films from 50 years ago would resolve 6K? Even those films that were shot on 65mm and DIDN’T involve any optical effects would not have resolved as much given the lenses available at the time.

 

To store all the analog information of 35mm film to digital, it is estimated that would take up to 5K, depending on what film stock was used. For 70mm celluloid, the number needs to be even higher. 

[Jurassic Shark 12,054]

Chen doesn't believe in these estimates.

[A24 4,331]

It's not just about resolution but also about dynamic range. 

[Jurassic Shark 12,054]

Of course.

[Chen G. 3,949]

4 hours ago, Alexcremers said:

 

To store all the analog information of 35mm film to digital, it is estimated that would take up to 5K, depending on what film stock was used. For 70mm celluloid, the number needs to be even higher. 

Nope. 35mm resolves around 3K. 65mm resolves less than 7K at the most, and much less with older optics and stocks; probably closer to 5K.

 

You’re conflating resolving power with oversampling and/or perceived temporal resolving power.

[A24 4,331]

5 hours ago, Jurassic Shark said:

Chen doesn't believe in these estimates.

 

I guess you are right.