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?  

99 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

14 hours ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

Seriously, guys, maybe DVD is the most authentic way to watch older films. No de-graining, no DNR, and definitely no teal!

It depends on the film. I've seen some stunning blu-rays, but the popcorn blockbuster seems especially prone to having this happen to it. That last LotR set was appalling.

 

Now the problem I have is with hdr being applied to movies that were not shot for it. I have little experience with this, so it may just be the display I was watching on, but it looks too bright and unnatural in most cases. 2001 hurt my eyes, but Dune looked great.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Schilkeman said:

That last LotR set was appalling.

 

What was the problem with this set? I was hoping to pick up the EE Blu-ray set as I understand that it corrected the horrid green tint on FOTR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, JTWfan77 said:

 

What was the problem with this set? I was hoping to pick up the EE Blu-ray set as I understand that it corrected the horrid green tint on FOTR.

Fellowship is color corrected, although it's still a bit different from the original, but the dnr went way overboard. I think Jackson was trying to mimic the digital look of the Hobbit trilogy by eliminating all the grain from LotR.

 

FWIW, I know I read somewhere an interview with PJ around the time of the first blu-ray release stating that the colors on FotR were what they would have been if digital color grading had been available for the first film. I don't know if that's true, and he changed them back due to fan backlash, or if they were wrong, and he was just covering. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Schilkeman said:

FWIW, I know I read somewhere an interview with PJ around the time of the first blu-ray release stating that the colors on FotR were what they would have been if digital color grading had been available for the first film. I don't know if that's true, and he changed them back due to fan backlash, or if they were wrong, and he was just covering. 

 

I don't believe that. There is a method online explaining how to remove that green tint which I have done and the corrected version looks stunning. If it were a digital grade surely the colour timing would have fluctuated within the film, making this correction impossible to do in one pass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, JTWfan77 said:

 

I don't believe that. There is method online explaining how to remove that green tint which I have done and the corrected version looks stunning. If it were a digital grade surely the colour timing would have fluctuated within the film, making this correction impossible to do in one pass.

There was definitely more done to it than just the green tint. Faces and other subjects were highlighted in more specific ways in several scenes, for instance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's kind of weird. I came across an IndieWire article where Jackson says FotR was finished photochemically (misquoted as a "photo mechanical" process). Yet there's a feature in the Appendices on digital grading where they're shown at work on the Moria sequence. It's also mentioned in the audio commentary on the FotR EE that they were able to turn Boromir's face from his usual skin tone to grey as he dies - something that would have been impossible with traditional finishing. So I wonder if Jackson is remembering things correctly there.

 

If I recall correctly, they redid the grading for the Blu-ray releases. But then somehow FotR ended up looking wildly different depending on whether you were watching the TC or the EE.

 

Now there's a new version for the 4K release. It's supposed to be the final look, but it seems there was a slight revisionist approach to it, as Jackson has gone on record saying he wanted The Lord of the Rings to look more like it was shot  "today". Or more specifically, around the same time as The Hobbit, bringing a visual continuity to all six films. I've never understood this. If he wanted visual continuity across all six films, why the hell was The Hobbit even shot on a RED camera in 48fps to begin with? Shoot it on the same Super 35 stock you shot LotR on and you only have to worry about getting the DI to look similar, right?

 

Anyway.

 

I've watched the 4K versions of the EE's only once, streamed over Prime Video about two years ago. Revisionist or not, at the time I thought it looked pretty good for the most. The one thing that does really piss me off about the 4K version, though, is that godawful sepia wash over the brief flashbacks in TTT and RotK. What the fuck is that all about?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 14/12/2023 at 4:17 AM, Manakin Skywalker said:

This has been a major concern of mine for the last few years: AI upscaled film scans.

 

There is absolutely NO reason for AI to be used in the process of scanning and remastering a film, unless it's been horribly damaged or degraded. The old process for remastering (sans DNR) is pretty much perfect as is, you cannot get better results than that without corrupting the image, making it look fake and waxy. AI (and traditional DNR by extent) should only be used in the most extreme of circumstances, if even that.

 

In general, I'm in sympathy with this argument.

 

That said, you really have to upscale the VFX & CGI shots in older films (and TV shows). There's really no way to get around it since they were typically rendered in much lower resolution. If AI can help with that (and it can), why not use it? Not for the whole film, but for those shots?

 

One of my Holy Grails is an HD version of Deep Space Nine. Which is going to be completely cost prohibitive given that they'd have to re-render all the effects shots to do so, but I've seen some amazing AI upscales done with that show. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

in music videos you can see the absurd level of sharpness applied to everything, and it gets desynced bc they have to remove bad frames

 

10 hours ago, Mr. Breathmask said:

Or more specifically, around the same time as The Hobbit, bringing a visual continuity to all six films.

 

and these look kind of awful

 

22 hours ago, Mr. Breathmask said:

 

Uhm...

 

Aliens-banner.png

 

That's the Blu-ray on the left and the old DVD transfer on the right. The Blu-ray seems to have this blue/green/teal wash over it that I can't say I like. Doesn't feel like an '80's movie to me at all. The image on the right does.

 

on top of looking and feeling quite dated, now it looks all weird! it doesn't suit it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Mr. Breathmask said:

, is that godawful sepia wash over the brief flashbacks in TTT and RotK. What the fuck is that all about?

Matching with DOS and BOTFA.

On 14/12/2023 at 10:34 AM, Naïve Old Fart said:

 

@Tallguy, you act like everything's a conspiracy :lol:

 

 

 

 

"That is one big pile of shit"? :lol:

 

 

 

 

Seriously, guys, maybe DVD is the most authentic way to watch older films. No de-graining, no DNR, and definitely no teal!

But. but. the edge enhancement!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

 

Why would anyone deliberately alter what they shot, just for the sake of it?

Why does everything have to look teal?

If this is 4K, then I don't want any part of it 

 

This is a comparison of the Blu-ray vs. the DVD. I don't know what the 4K of Aliens looks like.

 

2 hours ago, A24 said:

They can change or update the color grading all they want, as long as they provide us with the original.

 

I don't think they did. Unless you know of a Blu-ray release of Aliens that doesn't have that teal look?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

...what constitutes the “original”?

Whatever the director and the cinematographer wanted to achieve, at the time. Whatever was practical, using whatever technology was available.

Seriously though, it's an interesting question.

As various editions of/remasterings of/DNR'd versions of/4K versions of/de-grained versions of, there is, now, no purity in cinema. It's possible to achieve what the director wanted you to see, on first release, but it's also possible to change the colour palette of a film (teal! :pukeface:) just to suit current tastes and trends. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Mr. Breathmask said:

This is a comparison of the Blu-ray vs. the DVD. I don't know what the 4K of Aliens looks like.

https://slow.pics/c/ALrcIesc

Here's many comparisons between blu-ray and 4k digital.

Unfortunately, there is DNR.

I will keep my blu-ray it seems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, filmmusic said:

https://slow.pics/c/ALrcIesc

Here's many comparisons between blu-ray and 4k digital.

Unfortunately, there is DNR.

I will keep my blu-ray it seems.

 

Oh man, that is some of the worst AI upscaling I've seen! You can easily tell it's AI DNR from all the weird artifacting that's been introduced.

 

I'm convinced they didn't even actually rescan the elements, just upscaled them. Notice how the only difference is that the height has been increased ever so slightly; most people using AI upscaling do that to hide this weird sharpening effect that appears at the edges of the frame, particularly where the black bars begin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, JTWfan77 said:

I guess I'll just have to live with my Abyss and True Lies DVDs.

Fortunately, for True Lies there is a 35mm print scan "out there".

It's darker than usual, but I'll prefer it over the botched 4k!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm seeing lots of criticisms of the True Lies 4K remaster all over reddit and stuff.  I wonder if Cameron will say anything about it and/or change things before March.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's annoying we had to wait so long for these Cameron titles only for them to drop the ball. I mean, even the artwork they chose is absolutely hideous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

"Finally, we’ve learned from industry sources that the 4K Ultra HD release of James Cameron’s The Abyss (1989) in the UK has been cancelled, and for exactly the reason you think—the scene in which the rat is made to breath underwater. UK censors asked for the scene to be cut, Disney apparently wanted to comply, but Lightstorm vetoed it. So if you want this title in 4K and you live in the UK, you’ll have to import it from elsewhere."

 

 

https://thedigitalbits.com/columns/my-two-cents/122623-1600

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The full "Beanie" scene has only been shown on TV once; by Channel 4, in January, 1993.

I've always accepted the edited version, on the EV. It doesn't bother me, at all. I don't understand why Lightstorm would veto it. After all, don't they want people to buy it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Slipperman9 said:

I don't understand why Lightstorm would veto it. After all, don't they want people to buy it?

 

Well, 1) It's Cameron. 2) It IS super crucial to the plot. 3) If I remember right they jumped through rather a lot of hoops to be cool with the animal rights people to begin with so don't go changing their minds now.

 

Honestly, are they objecting to the depiction, no matter how it was done? Or are they upset because they DO know how it was done?

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------

 

So...

 

I hooked up my Blu Ray and my 4K and did as good a job switching between the two as I could (on a menu based smart TV since I can't literally flip an A/B switch). (Hmmm. Didn't think of hooking up a switcher to the same HDMI port... Maybe another time. If I still have one...)

 

I can barely tell the difference. 70" inch screen. Not a super high end brand. Two Sony players. I looked at Superman, Dune, Jaws.

 

I'm sure I'll continue to buy 4K disks just because those are usually the "default" when a new title comes out. And this might also be a bit of future-proofing.

 

As for Superman:

 

Blu (with original theatrical sound)

image.jpeg

 

And 4K:

If the original sound mix is on the 4K disc I can't find it for the life of me. Maybe I need x-ray vision? (It's not in the commentary menu either.)

 

image.jpeg

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Tallguy said:

Well, 1) It's Cameron. 2) It IS super crucial to the plot. 3) If I remember right they jumped through rather a lot of hoops to be cool with the animal rights people to begin with so don't go changing their minds now.

 

Honestly, are they objecting to the depiction, no matter how it was done? Or are they upset because they DO know how it was done?

 

This is nothing new, as I recall the scene was edited out of UK theatrical & TV showings for the same reasons. Not sure about the early home video releases.

 

And I definitely agree that the bit is critical to the plot. But it's critical because it's expository, and the rat is just a visual representation of what would otherwise be just some actors explaining it. And honestly, Cameron could probably have edited the scene for UK audiences to get the basic point across without the rat if he was interested in catering to the UK censor scolds.  But Cameron being Cameron, he's clearly not interested in doing that, not then, not now, and I don't blame him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Brando said:

Did the 4K Superman release have the Special Edition? I know the additions are minor but I love the scene where he tells Jor-El that he felt good doing the rescues and whatnot, so I prefer that version.

The UK version has the special edition on blu-ray only.

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Superman-The-Movie-4K-Blu-ray/214538/

The US version, has the theatrical cut in both 4k and blu-ray.

15 minutes ago, Tallguy said:

And 4K:

If the original sound mix is on the 4K disc I can't find it for the life of me. Maybe I need x-ray vision? (It's not in the commentary menu either.)

Well, from what I know, the 4k doesn't have the 2.0 stereo track.

But technically the 5.1 IS the original sound mix.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

 

This is nothing new, as I recall the scene was edited out of UK theatrical & TV showings for the same reasons. Not sure about the early home video releases.

 

The PAL LaserDisc Special Edition has an alternate edit of the scene which features more of the actors reacting to the description of what is happening on screen, rather than explicitly showing the animal in the fluid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, filmmusic said:

The US version, has the theatrical cut in both 4k and blu-ray.

Damn, a real shame. Idk why they can't put both versions on the 4K disc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hear what you're saying, @Tallguy, but the edit that's on the SE DVD doesn't cut that much out. All sorts of films get trimmed in all sorts of territories, for all sorts of reasons, so, what the fuss?

 

@filmmusic, if you are talking about the EV of SUPERMAN, from 2000, then the 5.1 mix is definitely not the original film mix.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, filmmusic said:

But technically the 5.1 IS the original sound mix.

 

27 minutes ago, Slipperman9 said:

@filmmusic, if you are talking about the EV of SUPERMAN, from 2000, then the 5.1 mix is definitely not the original film mix.

 

Hmmmm...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Slipperman9 said:

Why "hmmm...", @Tallguy?

The sound was substantially remixed, and redubbed (in places), for the 2000 SE. Once you listen to the original 6-track mix - the one heard in cinemas in 1978 - you'll understand.

 

The "hmmm" was because I haven't listened yet myself and there is disagreement between you and @filmmusic. Sound unheard, I think you're probably correct. I'm aware that the sound in 2000 was very different. Some improvement, some not improvement IMHO. A big part of why I bought this edition (before I had 4K) was because I wanted the original mix. I was rather disappointed to find it missing from the 4K after I purchased a player. It's also not on the digital copy but that's par for the course. (Movies like The Last Jedi where all the bells and whistles are included on the digital edition are an exception in my experience.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Slipperman9 said:

, if you are talking about the EV of SUPERMAN, from 2000, then the 5.1 mix is definitely not the original film mix.

What is EV? (extended version?)

I'm talking about the 4k blu-ray of the theatrical edition.

They say the 5.1 mix is the original mix.

And it's evident from the "whoosh" sounds of the main titles. It doesn't feature those other sounds that are in the remix.

 

Quote

The Dolby 5.1 track is a version of the original 1978 audio, I'm guessing either (a) the 70mm 5.1 mix, or (b) a SLIGHTLY enhanced version of either the 70mm or Dolby Stereo mixes. It's the best the original audio has sounded, probably due to the LFE.

https://ultrahd.highdefdigest.com/61334/supermanthemovie4kultrahdbluray.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's easy to tell which mix of SUPERMAN that one is listening to.

Does the "S" have an LFE and a "locking" sound, as it flies over the camera? Yes? Then you're listening to the 2000 mix.

No? It has, as @filmmusic has pointed out, a "whoosh"? That's the 1978 mix.

 

btw, has the "pitch shift" in the Main Title been corrected, for the 4K?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Slipperman9 said:

It's easy to tell which mix of SUPERMAN that one is listening to.

Does the "S" have an LFE and a "locking" sound, as it flies over the camera? Yes? Then you're listening to the 2000 mix.

No? It has, as @filmmusic has pointed out, a "whoosh"? That's the 1978 mix.

 

btw, has the "pitch shift" in the Main Title been corrected, for the 4K?

 

So: Final answer. The 5.1 is at least close to the original mix. And yes, the two "tells" that I looked for was the "clang" on the S in the main title and when Superman says goodbye to Lois after the helicopter rescue there is no "whoosh".

 

I feel sheepish for not knowing that was there all this time. But in my defense it is called out on the Blu-ray and not on the 4K.

 

I think the pitch might be fixed on the Atmos mix. Maybe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has anyone watched Titanic in the new 4K release? Does it look AI-fake now, or did they keep some of the grain that made the original theatrical presentation so gorgeous? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Bayesian said:

Has anyone watched Titanic in the new 4K release? Does it look AI-fake now, or did they keep some of the grain that made the original theatrical presentation so gorgeous? 

I haven't watched it but I've seen screenshot comparisons.

It does look AI-fake in some scenes, but not as bad as True Lies.

That said, I'm keeping my blu-ray and won't purchase it.

As I won't purchase the other Cameron films.

Sheesh... the guy can ruin his films alright!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Jurassic Shark said:

 

What exactly do you mean by this?

well, I cannot put it in words.

The faces mostly, look unnatural to me.

like this:

https://twitter.com/metaplexmovies/status/1735735555181223980

Doesn't the picture on the right look unnatural to you? even if it has more detail?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, filmmusic said:

well, I cannot put it in words.

The faces mostly, look unnatural to me.

like this:

https://twitter.com/metaplexmovies/status/1735735555181223980

Doesn't the picture on the right look unnatural to you? even if it has more detail?

 

It looks too smoothed out, and the colours are much duller.

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.