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

[Jurassic Shark 12,066]

1 minute ago, JTWfan77 said:

 

Looked fine in mine. Perhaps your cinema was broken?

 

It looked fine in mine as well.

[mstrox 6,651]

It looked fine in theaters.  In fact, the Special Edition was when I really fell in love with Star Wars (before that, ROTJ got fairly regular play when I was little, but I didn't have a lot of interest in the others).

[Disco Stu 15,495]

I'm banning Star Wars discussion

[mstrox 6,651]

👍

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

When will the Star Trek movies get 4K remasters?

[1977 1,743]

Finally today, the results are in on my Twitter follow-up poll about the classic Star Trek films in 4K. I asked those who were interested in the films in 4K whether they would buy just the hits (say, films I, II, IV, and VI) or if they wanted to buy all ten of them (all of the Original Series and Next Generation films). And the answer by a WIDE margin was all ten. With nearly 2K people voting, the whole slate of films was preferred by a whopping 92.3% of people.

 

And here’s the thing to keep in mind: If new 4K scans and proper re-masters are done for each film, not only can Paramount release them on physical 4K Ultra HD and Digital 4K, they can release remastered Blu-rays versions too. And that’s REALLY important, because other than Star Trek II, all of the other films look TERRIBLE on Blu-ray. Those original discs are so scrubbed with Digital Noise Reduction that they’re unwatchable. I mean, they were bad the day they were original released. And they certainly haven’t gotten better in the years since. So there IS pent-up demand for new and properly-remastered Blu-rays of these films in addition to 4K.

 

Also:

 

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

It needs to be done!

[1977 1,743]

According to The Digital Bits, work on updating ST: TMP DE for hi-def has begun. I can't find the reference though, I read it a few months back.

 

Edit: I found it.

 

A lot of you are likely wondering about the classic Star Trek films on 4K, including the long-awaited (and occasionally teased) Star Trek: The Motion Picture – Director’s Edition. What I can tell you is that this is a big project but things are moving in a positive direction, if very slowly. So don’t give up; this one is going to require some patience. But do take every opportunity you have via social media to let the studio know that you really want #sttmp40 on physical 4K Ultra HD. Positive mojo can only help.

 

https://thedigitalbits.com/columns/my-two-cents/012820-1230

[crocodile 8,006]

Finished the OT. Both Empire and Jedi are problematic (especially the latter). Now watching TFA. Looks gorgeous.

 

Karol

[Chen G. 3,949]

20 minutes ago, crocodile said:

Both Empire and Jedi are problematic

 

Picture-quality-wise or content-wise?

[crocodile 8,006]

4 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

 

Picture-quality-wise or content-wise?

I wouldn't be discussing content in this thread. Yeah, picture. They look better than on any other format but it's very far from perfection. TESB never really shines bit is more consistent of the two, ROTJ looks good in some places and terrible in others.

 

Karol

[Jurassic Shark 12,066]

They look great on wide-screen VHS!

[crocodile 8,006]

Finished the set.

 

The Last Jedi has apparently different HDR (no Dolby Vision this time) grading but I can't see any difference. My player cannot either because when I played the new disc it asked me to "resume watching".

 

The Rise of Skywalker looks gorgeous. Great great transfer. All three look terrific. I wish Disney would restore the other six to the same standard and not simply reuse existing scans.

 

Overall, I'm glad I got this. All nine films look better here than they do on Disney+. It is actually surprising given that the streaming versions contain Dolby Vision whereas the physical discs don't. As it stands, four films in the set look great, one looks good, two look passable and two disappoint greatly. But even the worst ones look better than their HD counterparts so there's that.

 

Karol

[Naïve Old Fart 9,516]

17 hours ago, Jurassic Shark said:

They look great on wide-screen VHS!

I remember being absolutely blown away, when I first saw the OT, in widescreen VHS. Up to that point, all we'd had was crummy mono pan and scan. Widescreen, combined with stereo, brought the trilogy to life, in a vital new way.

[A24 4,331]

4 hours ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

I remember being absolutely blown away, when I first saw the OT, in widescreen VHS. Up to that point, all we'd had was crummy mono pan and scan. Widescreen, combined with stereo, brought the trilogy to life, in a vital new way.

 

The first time I saw Star Wars on home entertainment was on LaserDisc during a Hi-Fi show. I thought it looked incredible. 

[Chen G. 3,949]

3 hours ago, crocodile said:

The Rise of Skywalker looks gorgeous. Great great transfer. All three look terrific. I wish Disney would restore the other six to the same standard and not simply reuse existing scans.

 

Are the restorations of the classic films derived from the existing scans? Because those were 1080p. Everything I've read points to this being a new 4K scan, although obviously scanning a negative with a lot of optical effects isn't going to yield anywhere near 4K. But its still going to (and evidentally does) resolve more than the Bluray. I've even heard that standard Blurays are now downrezzed from this version.

 

Besides, you're not going to get a transfer of an 80s movies looking as good as 2010s movies. Lights, lenses and filmstocks aren't what they used to be, and digital compositing allows to get maximum detail out of the negative. Plus, all three sequels had at least some footage shot on medium-format (film and/or digital) cameras.

[A24 4,331]

16 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

 

Lenses and filmstocks aren't what they used to be,...

 

 The biggest problem or difference is not the quality of the lenses but analog editing and film deterioration. The benefit of modern movies (shot on film) is that they immediately transfer them to digital, which makes them unblemished and forever fresh.

 

 

[crocodile 8,006]

37 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

 

Are the restorations of the classic films derived from the existing scans? Because those were 1080p. Everything I've read points to this being a new 4K scan, although obviously scanning a negative with a lot of optical effects isn't going to yield anywhere near 4K. But its still going to (and evidentally does) resolve more than the Bluray. I've even heard that standard Blurays are now downrezzed from this version.

 

Besides, you're not going to get a transfer of an 80s movies looking as good as 2010s movies. Lights, lenses and filmstocks aren't what they used to be, and digital compositing allows to get maximum detail out of the negative. Plus, all three sequels had at least some footage shot on medium-format (film and/or digital) cameras.

I think these scans were done in 2012-2014.

 

2010's movies look generally worse than 1980's. Or less appealing anyway. Some of the most worthwhile UHDs were for older films. I generally don't buy many new films. The problem with the OT is that the new scans are heavily tinkered with in many places and so they are "smoothed" over by DNR. When I say they don't look good I mean they don't look like 1980's films (in places).

 

Karol

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

40 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

Everything I've read points to this being a new 4K scan, although obviously scanning a negative with a lot of optical effects isn't going to yield anywhere near 4K.

 

Although a 4K scan won't necessarily yield more detail, it will be more accurate to the source. Essentially it will recreate an image that looks indistinguishable from a new 35mm print, and that's how it should be, not some fool's errand to somehow expect an older film to reveal pin-sharp levels of detail usually found in a 4K demo video featuring wildlife and city flyovers. Key word is accuracy, and the higher the resolution, the fewer digital compression artifacts the image will have.

[Chen G. 3,949]

6 hours ago, Alexcremers said:

 The biggest problem or difference is not the quality of the lenses but analog editing and film deterioration.

 

Yeah, that's kind of the point I'm getting at with films like Star Wars. Today, you can composite a shot digitally which, for a 35mm project on a 4K DI, is lossless. However, back in the days of optical effects, any composite shot is at least one generation removed from the original camera elements; which we know was the case with Star Wars and its sequels by the admission of Richard Edlund.

 

So, if we are being generous and saying that the original 35mm camera elements of a film like Star Wars resolve 3.2K (they probably don't), then any shot containing an optical effect will be one generation removed from that, resolving maybe 2.5K. So there is a benefit to scanning and releasing it in 4K (quite aside from the need to oversample the negative), but the gain is not as big as one might think.

 

Its also why Revenge of the Sith, which probably measures about 1.6K, fares reasonably well in comparison: the gap between that and the composited footage in the previous films isn't really that big, and is compensated for by greater sharpness and clarity.

 

Same, on a larger format, with 2001, of which Kubrick said over half of the film is a dupe shot of some kind. If we're generous and saying that vintage Todd-AO resolves 6.7K (it doesn't), then any such duped shot would "only" resolve 5.3K.

[rough cut 1,714]

This discussion has derailed completely.

[Jurassic Shark 12,066]

Chen is on repeat.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

He must sit there and count all the dots.

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

I think the Disney SW OT looks good.  While I agree with the nerds that the Lowry remasters looked too dark and the colors were wacky, these poor souls overanalyze this stuff to the point of embarrassing demented obsession. Just put the movies on and enjoy them.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

I like that DNR look in movies. Natural... healthy... just the way God made ya.

[Alan 689]

I'm liking the new colour grading on the OT. From what I've seen it looks much more natural and less "over baked" than the 2011 discs.

[rough cut 1,714]

The Star Wars sequel trilogy, especially how the two last movies actually do not link to the movie before - effectively making each entry non-watchable - has made me lose interest in Star Wars as a whole in a way that I never thought would happen.

 

Lackluster movies like Rogue One and Solo, sure didn’t help either.

 

Mandalorian was good, but I almost feel bad for it, for being attached to this crap sci-fi universe that  Star Wars has become.

 

Ping me in about ten years, when I’ve hopefully repressed all memories of the Reys and the Kylos, the Jyn Ersos and whatever the name dragon lady had in that stinker of a film...

 

By then, maybe, they’ll have released the OT in a remastered box of their own, 3 discs only, with picture quality as good as Blade Runner 4K.

 

Now that would be something!

 

I’ll stick to my old Star Wars DVDs until then. Oh, wait, I gave them to a thrift shop...

 

Oh, well. Can’t say I miss them.

[Jurassic Shark 12,066]

41 minutes ago, rough cut said:

The Star Wars sequel trilogy, especially how the two last movies actually do not link to the movie before - effectively making each entry non-watchable - has made me lose interest in Star Wars as a whole in a way that I never thought would happen.

 

Lackluster movies like Rogue One and Solo, sure didn’t help either.

 

Mandalorian was good, but I almost feel bad for it, for being attached to this crap sci-fi universe that  Star Wars has become.

 

Ping me in about ten years, when I’ve hopefully repressed all memories of the Reys and the Kylos, the Jyn Ersos and whatever the name dragon lady had in that stinker of a film...

 

By then, maybe, they’ll have released the OT in a remastered box of their own, 3 discs only, with picture quality as good as Blade Runner 4K.

 

Now that would be something!

 

I’ll stick to my old Star Wars DVDs until then. Oh, wait, I gave them to a thrift shop...

 

Oh, well. Can’t say I miss them.

 

Why don't you buy the OT 2K bluray box?

[crocodile 8,006]

8 hours ago, Alan said:

I'm liking the new colour grading on the OT. From what I've seen it looks much more natural and less "over baked" than the 2011 discs.

Now people are complaining the Hoth sequence is not blue enough. Back in 2004 they were complaining it was too blue. You just can't win!

 

But yes, colour grading is definitely a reason to invest in those.

 

Karol

[JoeinAR 1,949]

I will purchase Jaws on 4K because its Jaws. 

[rough cut 1,714]

Yeah, me too.

[rough cut 1,714]

On 5/4/2020 at 8:55 AM, Jurassic Shark said:

 

Why don't you buy the OT 2K bluray box?

 

Even though I "double dipped" on a lot of movies going from DVD to BD - including Jaws, E.T., The Indiana Jones series and a whole lot of others (too many to mention) - I never got the BD release of Star Wars. I had it on DVD, but I guess I wasn't "feeling it". And I'm not feeling it now either, neither for BD or 4K.

 

But just to make it clear, I have nothing against double dipping. Or even tripple dipping (if you consider DVD, BD and 4K)! LOL

 

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Anyone else get the new SW Skywalker Saga box?

[Jurassic Shark 12,066]

There's a new VHS box? Cool!

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

THX certified, in Dolby Surround!

[crocodile 8,006]

In stunning 333×480 pixels (equivalent) resolution!

 

Waiting on @Chen G. to correct me...

 

Karol

[JoeinAR 1,949]

I will double dip for Jaws. I will dd for Titanic and Avatar. I have died and decayed waiting on The Abyss and True Lies.

[1977 1,743]

6 hours ago, Jurassic Shark said:

There's a new VHS box? Cool!

 

 

[Jurassic Shark 12,066]

Is it widescreen?

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

Considering they put a happy Yoda on the 1990s ROTJ video cover (and a storm trooper helmet on ESB) and he's barely in the movie and looks cross-eyed near death, the crappy fake covers for the Disney movies should have minor characters or costumed extras barely featured in the movies. 

 

 

Like this crappy fem Rocketeer.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,516]

2 hours ago, JTWfan77 said:

 

 

Nice, but I'll wait for Betamax.

[1977 1,743]

8mm would be better.

[A24 4,331]

 

[Naïve Old Fart 9,516]

Is that Bespin? He's wearing Bespin's t-shirt!

[crocodile 8,006]

Watched 1917 three times on the new disc. It is a perfect transfer. I didn't need to watch the film that many times for the sake of it but the 4K disc (and standard one too) also features two splendid commentary tracks - one by Sam Mendes and another one by Roger Deakins. Both very generous and informative and there is very little overlap in content. Mendes talks about the inspirtation, facts, wiritng and actors. whereas Deakins goes into great detail about camera equipment, lensesn rigs, lighting...basically telling you how they shot the entire film from start to finish. It's a goldmine if you're into this sort of thing. Fans of the cinematographer's work should really check it out (I'm talking to you @Marian Schedenig and @Koray Savas).

 

Karol

[Chen G. 3,949]

2 hours ago, crocodile said:

Watched 1917 three times on the new disc. It is a perfect transfer.

Which is interesting, given it was shot on 4.5K digital which I don’t believe actually resolves a full 4K.

[crocodile 8,006]

Well, that doesn't seem to matter much on the 55'' TV.

 

Speaking of resolution, what does it mean by "resolve at"? I thought that was only to do with analogue elements?

 

Karol

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Chen's often preoccupied with how well the resolution reveals the pores on the actors' faces.

[A24 4,331]

33 minutes ago, crocodile said:

 

Speaking of resolution, what does it mean by "resolve at"? I thought that was only to do with analogue elements?

 

 

The lenses are analog and have so-called 'resolving power'. For instance, if they used lenses from the silent era, then they might as will have shot in on 2K digital.  

[Chen G. 3,949]

31 minutes ago, crocodile said:

Speaking of resolution, what does it mean by "resolve at"? I thought that was only to do with analogue elements?

 

"Resolving power" is a comfortable way to discuss the actual resolution of things. If I take a 6K RED Dragon and shoot out-of-focus, I'll still get 6K REDRAW files, but the actual resolution - or, the resolving power - will obviously be less than that. Likewise, you can scan a piece of 8mm film at 20K and get 20K files, but the actual resolving power of the scan will be less than that.

 

Digital camera never actually resolve their stated resolution. The footage has to undergo filtering for colour and aliasing, and is typically within 76-80% of the stated value. So a 4K RED One actually resolves around 3.2K. You'd therefore need to shoot at 5K to get images that will actually resolve a full 4K.

 

Resolving power is also a good way to discuss the fine detail on analog formats, which obviously don't have actual resolution because they don't have pixels.