|
|
Post by garbulky on Jan 3, 2020 14:15:25 GMT -5
Godzilla 1998 4k UHD Blu-ray. A real disappointment. I have watched this movie several times on different formats. I don't notice a difference over the Blu-Ray. Lots of film grain and an overall poor quality presentation. If I had to guess, this is simply a blu-ray rebadge from the early days of 4k. Even as a Blu-Ray it's poor quality. There's film grain because it was shot on film. Attack of the Clones was one of the first (if not the first) movies shot completely in digital in 2002. Prior to that, only certain parts of a film were shot in digital. When movies shot on film are scanned for home media release, they're scanned at a resolution comparable to the best format of the time. They will not re-scan the movie unless they think that they will get a return on their investment. An example would be when The Beatles "Help" was released. Each frame from the master print was cleaned and repaired, then scanned and color corrected for the release. This was very expensive! Godzilla (1998) was not well received and was considered a box office flop. It has not gained cult-status like other notable box office flops such as Fantasia or even Rocky Horror. Therefore it is highly unlikely that the studio has re-scanned the original print from the time that it was first scanned (which may have been for the DVD release). Just because it's on a new format does not mean that it is an improved picture. I totally understand what you mean. This one is obviously not taken from a good master. I too doubt that they cleaned repaired and color corrected it. Compare this one to the 4k release of the shining filmed in the 70's or even the 4k release of Wizard of Oz filmed in the 30's and the difference is obvious. Those have film grain but the picture is phenomenal and the grain doesn't detract too badly. You have great dense color with good depth and detail. Interestingly there are some titles like this Godzilla that appear to have worse "film grain" but it may simply be from poor mastering and be more noise than anything. It also may be a stylistic choice. The current 4k version of Godzilla age of monsters have purposefully bumpbed up film grain either purposefully added on digital or simply a stylistic choice if it was done on film - which I doubt. The same goes for Netflix's "Glow" which was filmed in very high res digital cameras. They purposefully digitally added film grain - which is a pity. |
|
stiehl11
Emo VIPs 
Give me available light!
Posts: 7,269
|
Post by stiehl11 on Jan 4, 2020 15:05:31 GMT -5
There's film grain because it was shot on film. Attack of the Clones was one of the first (if not the first) movies shot completely in digital in 2002. Prior to that, only certain parts of a film were shot in digital. When movies shot on film are scanned for home media release, they're scanned at a resolution comparable to the best format of the time. They will not re-scan the movie unless they think that they will get a return on their investment. An example would be when The Beatles "Help" was released. Each frame from the master print was cleaned and repaired, then scanned and color corrected for the release. This was very expensive! Godzilla (1998) was not well received and was considered a box office flop. It has not gained cult-status like other notable box office flops such as Fantasia or even Rocky Horror. Therefore it is highly unlikely that the studio has re-scanned the original print from the time that it was first scanned (which may have been for the DVD release). Just because it's on a new format does not mean that it is an improved picture. I totally understand what you mean. This one is obviously not taken from a good master. I too doubt that they cleaned repaired and color corrected it. Compare this one to the 4k release of the shining filmed in the 70's or even the 4k release of Wizard of Oz filmed in the 30's and the difference is obvious. Those have film grain but the picture is phenomenal and the grain doesn't detract too badly. You have great dense color with good depth and detail. Interestingly there are some titles like this Godzilla that appear to have worse "film grain" but it may simply be from poor mastering and be more noise than anything. It also may be a stylistic choice. The current 4k version of Godzilla age of monsters have purposefully bumpbed up film grain either purposefully added on digital or simply a stylistic choice if it was done on film - which I doubt. The same goes for Netflix's "Glow" which was filmed in very high res digital cameras. They purposefully digitally added film grain - which is a pity. Understand that "film grain" (when we're talking actual film and not shot on digital cameras and added in post) has a lot of variables. It could be the lens(es) used or the film stock or the lighting. So, something like Eyes Wide Shot is incredibly clear (lacking film grain) considering that it was only shot using ambient light. Faster film stock (ISO) requires faster lenses. Faster lenses reduce depth of field. Cleaner (less grain) film stock at a certain ISO is more expensive than grainier film stock at the same speed. Therefore the not only does the budget for the film determine the camera/lens/film stock to be used but the cinematographer. who puts it all together, the production can hire. While today's digital process has changed what the cinematographer's role is, back in the "film" days it was incredibly important to the finished product. And often, other than dailies and rushes (again, not at the same quality as the actual finished product), you never truly knew what you had until it was finished. Th Shining and The Wizard of Oz are considered classics. While they don't necessarily have the grain that you dislike, they are also quite a bit "softer" than other productions (see: Eyes Wide Shut, for the reason stated above). There's only so much a computer can do. And, while you may disagree (which is your prerogative), I would rather see a film as it was intended by the director/cinematographer than what someone with a computer put together after the fact. Film is an artistic medium. If you like or dislike a film based simply on how much grain is on it, you're not getting it. |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Jan 4, 2020 17:32:28 GMT -5
I totally understand what you mean. This one is obviously not taken from a good master. I too doubt that they cleaned repaired and color corrected it. Compare this one to the 4k release of the shining filmed in the 70's or even the 4k release of Wizard of Oz filmed in the 30's and the difference is obvious. Those have film grain but the picture is phenomenal and the grain doesn't detract too badly. You have great dense color with good depth and detail. Interestingly there are some titles like this Godzilla that appear to have worse "film grain" but it may simply be from poor mastering and be more noise than anything. It also may be a stylistic choice. The current 4k version of Godzilla age of monsters have purposefully bumpbed up film grain either purposefully added on digital or simply a stylistic choice if it was done on film - which I doubt. The same goes for Netflix's "Glow" which was filmed in very high res digital cameras. They purposefully digitally added film grain - which is a pity. Understand that "film grain" (when we're talking actual film and not shot on digital cameras and added in post) has a lot of variables. It could be the lens(es) used or the film stock or the lighting. So, something like Eyes Wide Shot is incredibly clear (lacking film grain) considering that it was only shot using ambient light. Faster film stock (ISO) requires faster lenses. Faster lenses reduce depth of field. Cleaner (less grain) film stock at a certain ISO is more expensive than grainier film stock at the same speed. Therefore the not only does the budget for the film determine the camera/lens/film stock to be used but the cinematographer. who puts it all together, the production can hire. While today's digital process has changed what the cinematographer's role is, back in the "film" days it was incredibly important to the finished product. And often, other than dailies and rushes (again, not at the same quality as the actual finished product), you never truly knew what you had until it was finished. Th Shining and The Wizard of Oz are considered classics. While they don't necessarily have the grain that you dislike, they are also quite a bit "softer" than other productions (see: Eyes Wide Shut, for the reason stated above). There's only so much a computer can do. And, while you may disagree (which is your prerogative), I would rather see a film as it was intended by the director/cinematographer than what someone with a computer put together after the fact. Film is an artistic medium. If you like or dislike a film based simply on how much grain is on it, you're not getting it. Well I don't think I'm not getting it. I get that people do things on purpose. But art requires interaction of both the creator and the observer and they both can have opinions. An observer can think a certain aspect of art "sucks" and they would always be 100% right (it's a personal opinion). If a director thinks they are being so fab and stylish by ruining their picture with blurry cinematography I'm not going to be ecstatic about it. Having said that, I do recognize some people look at the substance of the film/song versus the quality they were recorded in. They could be equally happy listening to a great song on a car radio. But I find both to be equally important and find that the quality of reproduction to be just as important as the story, song, or acting. Until recently, film grain or filters used in filming was not an issue for me. The theaters I watched on had such poor quality that I couldn't really see the intricacies of a lot of the picture. The TV's I owned were smaller and did not have sufficient reproduction capabilities to show me when a filming style mars the experience. Nowadays, the kind of picture one can get with good tv's is nothing short of stunning. This also reveals a lot of things that I hadn't paid attention to. When I watched Jurassic Park in the theaters, I never noticed that the CGI scenes were that obvious. But now when I watch them, it sticks out to me like a sore thumb. We simply have better equipment, better mastering to newer formats, and of course better digital tech. If you've seen Mission Impossible Fallout you can tell the difference in purposeful film grain and filter effects between the IMAX sequences and the non-IMAX ones which are loaded to the brim with a diffuse look to them in stark contrast to the IMAX sequences which are stunning. The director clearly thought they were going for a "european" vibe with this filming technique, but all it did for me was rob the detail and impact of the great scenes and wash out and blur the rest of the detail. BUt in the case of Godzilla, which is a much newer movie (made in the 90's) I would suggest just watching the blu ray to see what I'm talking about poor mastering. Sometimes things I think of as being natural film grain are simply the result of a poor quality process of mastering. As for the soft diffuse look compared to more modern takes when one looks at the shining and wizard of oz, I agree it is a little bit softer and more diffuse. But I didn't really find that it took away from the picture. Same goes for 2001 a space oddyssey. Those are all examples of good mastering and good production values. |
|
LCSeminole
Global Moderator 
Res firma mitescere nescit.
Posts: 20,849
|
Post by LCSeminole on Jan 4, 2020 20:03:35 GMT -5
I’ve been watching season 2 of “Jack Ryan” on Amazon, the video in HDR10 and Dolby Atmos(7.2.4 in my case) are the best I’ve seem while streaming.
|
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Jan 10, 2020 0:35:13 GMT -5
Just watched Joker 4k UHD Blu-ray. I haven't compared with the regular HD Blu-ray but it is a well done 4k master with nice dense colors and deep shadows. The lights in dark sequences also pop nicely and stand out well on OLED's.
Not as wow-worthy as Aquaman or some of the very best, but there's no doubt that it's good to look at. The movie itself is rather slow and it doesn't really get on a roll till the last half an hour but the end delivers quite nicely and I think it was pretty good.
Joaquin Phoenix joker is probably just as well portrayed as Heath Ledger's in my opinion. Only thing is that I wish that they didn't use mental illness as basically the villain's power. It just furthers stereotypes. Having said that, that IS the joker's identity, so it's hard to critique its use. I just wish there was a better way of doing it.
|
|
|
|
Post by davidl81 on Jan 10, 2020 9:43:40 GMT -5
Just watched Joker 4k UHD Blu-ray. I haven't compared with the regular HD Blu-ray but it is a well done 4k master with nice dense colors and deep shadows. The lights in dark sequences also pop nicely and stand out well on OLED's. Not as wow-worthy as Aquaman or some of the very best, but there's no doubt that it's good to look at. The movie itself is rather slow and it doesn't really get on a roll till the last half an hour but the end delivers quite nicely and I think it was pretty good. Joaquin Phoenix joker is probably just as well portrayed as Heath Ledger's in my opinion. Only thing is that I wish that they didn't use mental illness as basically the villain's power. It just furthers stereotypes. Having said that, that IS the joker's identity, so it's hard to critique its use. I just wish there was a better way of doing it. I thought it was neat in a way that Joker really didn't have any powers etc. He was a physically very weak person. Even in the Dark Knight movie Joker could take punishment from Batman and still fight back, where in this movie Joker was portrayed as a non physical threat. What I was surprised about in this movie was how it was a big message about income inequality and how the ultra rich can take advantage of and walk all over the poor. I wasn't really ready for that part of the story. |
|
|
|
Post by gzubeck on Jan 15, 2020 2:16:07 GMT -5
OK...I don't want to hijack this thread but I've got to report on regular blurays that up-convert really really well in a quality sony 4k player. A week ago I watched Rodgers and Hamersteins movie Oklahoma with a young Shirley Jones. It was the Todd AO 70mm version. I was completely floored by the picture resolution and I would think any film done in 70mm might also be stunning transfers of older films (It's like watching 8k resolution). I also recently watched Avatar 1080p and that looked really good up-converted. In addition I watched both the Hobbit and lord of the rings extended versions and the picture and sound quality was fantastic up-converted. Some films are not available in 4k yet like the ones I mentioned but in all honesty after seeing how good these 1080 transfers are I probably wont purchase the 4k versions anyway. Just thought I'd let you know. Back to 4k movies....
|
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Jan 15, 2020 3:55:15 GMT -5
OK...I don't want to hijack this thread but I've got to report on regular blurays that up-convert really really well in a quality sony 4k player. A week ago I watched Rodgers and Hamersteins movie Oklahoma with a young Shirley Jones. It was the Todd AO 70mm version. I was completely floored by the picture resolution and I would think any film done in 70mm might also be stunning transfers of older films (It's like watching 8k resolution). I also recently watched Avatar 1080p and that looked really good up-converted. In addition I watched both the Hobbit and lord of the rings extended versions and the picture and sound quality was fantastic up-converted. Some films are not available in 4k yet like the ones I mentioned but in all honesty after seeing how good these 1080 transfers are I probably wont purchase the 4k versions anyway. Just thought I'd let you know. Back to 4k movies.... YES!!! Blu rays look stunning on the new TV's. Imo they don't even need to bne "upconverted. They simply look amazing. Here are some other goodies that you'll find look great: 2001 a space oddyssey - WOW! Others that look great but not quite reference quality. South Pacific - though perhaps not reference material, it's still quite nice. Cleopatra. So question: WHICH Oklahoma version did you purcahse? I am looking here and they have two one a lot cheaper than the other one. Should I get the blu ray at $26 or the multiformat at $13? www.amazon.com/Oklahoma-Blu-ray-DVD-Gordon-MacRae/dp/B00MIWR6WI/Edit: I went ahead and ordered the multiformat $13 version. I"m looking forward to it. |
|
|
|
Post by gzubeck on Jan 16, 2020 22:42:04 GMT -5
OK...I don't want to hijack this thread but I've got to report on regular blurays that up-convert really really well in a quality sony 4k player. A week ago I watched Rodgers and Hamersteins movie Oklahoma with a young Shirley Jones. It was the Todd AO 70mm version. I was completely floored by the picture resolution and I would think any film done in 70mm might also be stunning transfers of older films (It's like watching 8k resolution). I also recently watched Avatar 1080p and that looked really good up-converted. In addition I watched both the Hobbit and lord of the rings extended versions and the picture and sound quality was fantastic up-converted. Some films are not available in 4k yet like the ones I mentioned but in all honesty after seeing how good these 1080 transfers are I probably wont purchase the 4k versions anyway. Just thought I'd let you know. Back to 4k movies.... YES!!! Blu rays look stunning on the new TV's. Imo they don't even need to bne "upconverted. They simply look amazing. Here are some other goodies that you'll find look great: 2001 a space oddyssey - WOW! Others that look great but not quite reference quality. South Pacific - though perhaps not reference material, it's still quite nice. Cleopatra. So question: WHICH Oklahoma version did you purcahse? I am looking here and they have two one a lot cheaper than the other one. Should I get the blu ray at $26 or the multiformat at $13? www.amazon.com/Oklahoma-Blu-ray-DVD-Gordon-MacRae/dp/B00MIWR6WI/Edit: I went ahead and ordered the multiformat $13 version. I"m looking forward to it. I hate to tell you this...I bought the entire Rodgers and Hammerstein box set of six movies and it includes both versions in it. I got it at a steal during the holiday season for $22 for all six movies (Only four of them are great). Wait until the box set goes on sale again otherwise retail is $75 ouch... The Todd AO is the better version in all cases as it means 70mm...PS I hope you get the AO version especially for $13! |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Jan 16, 2020 23:06:37 GMT -5
YES!!! Blu rays look stunning on the new TV's. Imo they don't even need to bne "upconverted. They simply look amazing. Here are some other goodies that you'll find look great: 2001 a space oddyssey - WOW! Others that look great but not quite reference quality. South Pacific - though perhaps not reference material, it's still quite nice. Cleopatra. So question: WHICH Oklahoma version did you purcahse? I am looking here and they have two one a lot cheaper than the other one. Should I get the blu ray at $26 or the multiformat at $13? www.amazon.com/Oklahoma-Blu-ray-DVD-Gordon-MacRae/dp/B00MIWR6WI/Edit: I went ahead and ordered the multiformat $13 version. I"m looking forward to it. I hate to tell you this...I bought the entire Rodgers and Hammerstein box set of six movies and it includes both versions in it. I got it at a steal during the holiday season for $22 for all six movies (Only four of them are great). Wait until the box set goes on sale again otherwise retail is $75 ouch... The Todd AO is the better version in all cases as it means 70mm...PS I hope you get the AO version especially for $13! I just got it in and YES IT IS the Todd A0 version says it right on the back! ($13!) Haven't watched it yet. About to put it in. I am halfway through Gemini man and.... oh my.... the 4k 60 frames per second UHD is just extreme reference quality isn't it?! |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Jan 17, 2020 13:15:02 GMT -5
So I know that this is not a 4k. But it's got to be said If you haven't seen the Todd A-0 version of Oklahoma, it is incredible to look at. What a brilliant mastering, a real visual feast. Everything about its visual quality is off the charts, really. Selling at only $13 bucks in the multiformat version it is all kinds of silly good. thanks to gzubeck 's advice... |
|
|
|
Post by gzubeck on Jan 21, 2020 2:09:07 GMT -5
So I know that this is not a 4k. But it's got to be said If you haven't seen the Todd A-0 version of Oklahoma, it is incredible to look at. What a brilliant mastering, a real visual feast. Everything about its visual quality is off the charts, really. Selling at only $13 bucks in the multiformat version it is all kinds of silly good. thanks to gzubeck 's advice... Glad you liked it...I feel embarrassed that I got the box set for $22...I think either the up-conversion of your TV or the up-conversion of the Sony player will definitely bring the quality to near 4k resolution. I hear that super high quality transfers can do this even if their issue is in bluray 1080p. The first thing that popped into my head when watching this was when did they have 8k recording 65 years ago? I guess its called 70mm... |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Feb 28, 2020 4:20:35 GMT -5
Some updates. Frozen 2 4k UHD. The First fronzen was simply "ok" in 4k UHD. Mild improvements, slightly better color. Frozen 2 on the other hand was a solid 4k UHD implementation. Though the picture has a stylistic soft feel to it, they still manage to cram in a lot of sharp detail to give it a level of pop. Hard to explain how, but they've figured out how to do "soft" hi-res. The most impressive segments were the lighting sequences where there black background. Looks good on an OLED. The audio was also well mixed with nice dynamics, and vocals. The singers are at the top of their game, which is good because it was songs about 90% of the time! Reccomended for a solid 4k presentation! Perhaps not at the very best visuals I've seen but still well worth the purchase. Ford Vs Ferrari 4k UHD: Well holey moley. simpleman68 was right. This was a heck of a movie and it looks fantastic in 4k. This movie has grain in it. Nevertheless it still is replete with good detail. So it's one of those "grain done right" 4k discs. If you are in to cars, you really can't miss purchasing this one. If you aren't in to cars, just give it a rent. Good solid acting. Christian Bale was at the top of his game, method acting and became another person as he usually does. Matt Damon gave a great performance in his "Matt Damon pretending to play X character" role. Poor Caitriona Balfe has to bear the burden of being the sole woman in a movie about dudes. She gamely gave it a go and did what she could, but honestly we need to do better for writing female characters. ("Ken got hurt? Ken!!! I hope he's ok!") Sigh. The cars were complete stars with fantastic camera work. There must have been CGI used to capture those scenes, but I couldn't detect where it was. I was never a fan of the Ford GT but oh my goodness, I sure was after that movie! This really was some epic race scenes. I also think it's fair to say the audio pretty much made that movie. During the race scenes I cranked the volume to max and it was so much fun, tons of aural detail. The sound was warm, heavy, full, with lots of pressure. When those engines roared, you really felt the sheer power. It's a visceral experience. These felt like real cars with huge engines. My only complaint was that we were only given brief glimpses of the other great non-Ferrari/ford/cobra cars. Highly recommended if you like fast powerful cars, epic race scenes, and Matt Damon Matt Damon'ing. A beautiful day in the neighborhood (Blu-ray). The Blu-ray looked good, and it did fill up the eentire screen. However, I don't think I would want to go and buy the 4k version of this film. I just don't see it as being worth it. Tom hanks stole every scene he was in. However, this movie was about a heavily fictionalized version of a writer that knew Mr. Rogers and not about Mr. Rogers. So be forewarned. Interesting trivia the TV segments of the show was filmed with the same cameras used for the original show. |
|
|
|
Post by megash0n on Feb 28, 2020 8:58:07 GMT -5
Some updates. Frozen 2 4k UHD. The First fronzen was simply "ok" in 4k UHD. Mild improvements, slightly better color. Frozen 2 on the other hand was a solid 4k UHD implementation. Though the picture has a stylistic soft feel to it, they still manage to cram in a lot of sharp detail to give it a level of pop. Hard to explain how, but they've figured out how to do "soft" hi-res. The most impressive segments were the lighting sequences where there black background. Looks good on an OLED. The audio was also well mixed with nice dynamics, and vocals. The singers are at the top of their game, which is good because it was songs about 90% of the time! Reccomended for a solid 4k presentation! Perhaps not at the very best visuals I've seen but still well worth the purchase. Ford Vs Ferrari 4k UHD: Well holey moley. simpleman68 was right. This was a heck of a movie and it looks fantastic in 4k. This movie has grain in it. Nevertheless it still is replete with good detail. So it's one of those "grain done right" 4k discs. If you are in to cars, you really can't miss purchasing this one. If you aren't in to cars, just give it a rent. Good solid acting. Christian Bale was at the top of his game, method acting and became another person as he usually does. Matt Damon gave a great performance in his "Matt Damon pretending to play X character" role. Poor Caitriona Balfe has to bear the burden of being the sole woman in a movie about dudes. She gamely gave it a go and did what she could, but honestly we need to do better for writing female characters. ("Ken got hurt? Ken!!! I hope he's ok!") Sigh. The cars were complete stars with fantastic camera work. There must have been CGI used to capture those scenes, but I couldn't detect where it was. I was never a fan of the Ford GT but oh my goodness, I sure was after that movie! This really was some epic race scenes. I also think it's fair to say the audio pretty much made that movie. During the race scenes I cranked the volume to max and it was so much fun, tons of aural detail. The sound was warm, heavy, full, with lots of pressure. When those engines roared, you really felt the sheer power. It's a visceral experience. These felt like real cars with huge engines. My only complaint was that we were only given brief glimpses of the other great non-Ferrari/ford/cobra cars. Highly recommended if you like fast powerful cars, epic race scenes, and Matt Damon Matt Damon'ing. A beautiful day in the neighborhood (Blu-ray). The Blu-ray looked good, and it did fill up the eentire screen. However, I don't think I would want to go and buy the 4k version of this film. I just don't see it as being worth it. Tom hanks stole every scene he was in. However, this movie was about a heavily fictionalized version of a writer that knew Mr. Rogers and not about Mr. Rogers. So be forewarned. Interesting trivia the TV segments of the show was filmed with the same cameras used for the original show. Check out Jupiter Ascending in UHD. So far, this movie gets best audio for me. I haven't watched a ton of movies yet with the RMC, so.. It could just be the new gear. |
|
|
|
Post by davidl81 on Feb 29, 2020 10:35:13 GMT -5
Some updates. Frozen 2 4k UHD. The First fronzen was simply "ok" in 4k UHD. Mild improvements, slightly better color. Frozen 2 on the other hand was a solid 4k UHD implementation. Though the picture has a stylistic soft feel to it, they still manage to cram in a lot of sharp detail to give it a level of pop. Hard to explain how, but they've figured out how to do "soft" hi-res. The most impressive segments were the lighting sequences where there black background. Looks good on an OLED. The audio was also well mixed with nice dynamics, and vocals. The singers are at the top of their game, which is good because it was songs about 90% of the time! Reccomended for a solid 4k presentation! Perhaps not at the very best visuals I've seen but still well worth the purchase. Ford Vs Ferrari 4k UHD: Well holey moley. simpleman68 was right. This was a heck of a movie and it looks fantastic in 4k. This movie has grain in it. Nevertheless it still is replete with good detail. So it's one of those "grain done right" 4k discs. If you are in to cars, you really can't miss purchasing this one. If you aren't in to cars, just give it a rent. Good solid acting. Christian Bale was at the top of his game, method acting and became another person as he usually does. Matt Damon gave a great performance in his "Matt Damon pretending to play X character" role. Poor Caitriona Balfe has to bear the burden of being the sole woman in a movie about dudes. She gamely gave it a go and did what she could, but honestly we need to do better for writing female characters. ("Ken got hurt? Ken!!! I hope he's ok!") Sigh. The cars were complete stars with fantastic camera work. There must have been CGI used to capture those scenes, but I couldn't detect where it was. I was never a fan of the Ford GT but oh my goodness, I sure was after that movie! This really was some epic race scenes. I also think it's fair to say the audio pretty much made that movie. During the race scenes I cranked the volume to max and it was so much fun, tons of aural detail. The sound was warm, heavy, full, with lots of pressure. When those engines roared, you really felt the sheer power. It's a visceral experience. These felt like real cars with huge engines. My only complaint was that we were only given brief glimpses of the other great non-Ferrari/ford/cobra cars. Highly recommended if you like fast powerful cars, epic race scenes, and Matt Damon Matt Damon'ing. A beautiful day in the neighborhood (Blu-ray). The Blu-ray looked good, and it did fill up the eentire screen. However, I don't think I would want to go and buy the 4k version of this film. I just don't see it as being worth it. Tom hanks stole every scene he was in. However, this movie was about a heavily fictionalized version of a writer that knew Mr. Rogers and not about Mr. Rogers. So be forewarned. Interesting trivia the TV segments of the show was filmed with the same cameras used for the original show. Based on your recommendation my father in law and I watched Ford vs Ferrari last night (after I grilled the family some fairly decent ribeyes and a few bottles of wine!) and that sure was a fun movie in the theater room. The S15s really did a great job with the low end rumble of those engines and the strategic use of Atoms was excellent. Highly recommend for someone wanting to demo their system. |
|
LCSeminole
Global Moderator
Res firma mitescere nescit.
Posts: 20,849
|
Post by LCSeminole on Feb 29, 2020 12:03:07 GMT -5
I’ve been slowly making my way through the Harry Potter 4K UHD Blu-rays. The DTS:X tracks are most definitely outstanding, especially the use of the surrounds and heights. The Dumbledor & Voldemort fight scene in “Order of the Phoenix” where all the glass was breaking/falling in the Ministry Atrium was absolutely fantastic, puts you right in the middle of the falling glass. This is most definitely demo material for immersive setups.
|
|
|
|
Post by davidl81 on Feb 29, 2020 19:43:09 GMT -5
I’ve been slowly making my way through the Harry Potter 4K UHD Blu-rays. The DTS:X tracks are most definitely outstanding, especially the use of the surrounds and heights. The Dumbledor & Voldemort fight scene in “Order of the Phoenix” where all the glass was breaking/falling in the Ministry Atrium was absolutely fantastic, puts you right in the middle of the falling glass. This is most definitely demo material for immersive setups. That scene is my favorite use of immersive audio I have ever heard. |
|
|
|
Post by vcautokid on Mar 1, 2020 3:42:14 GMT -5
I've just decided on a 4k UHD player (Sony X700). So now I have to buy a 4k disc with wich to test it out. But the problem I've found is that there are a lot of momvies which may be mastered in 4k but have 2k digital (CGI) intermediaries and the such. Some movies are not even shot in 4k and later "upsampled". So 1. What are some good true 4k discs with 4k everything? 2. What are your best looking 4k movies you would recommend to demo? Here the movies don't have to be "true 4k" discs. I'm merely interested in what you think is the best looking in picture quality. Absolutely correct that allot of movies may start out 8K or 4K but don't end up that way being delivered to you. The idea is it is about options. You could deliver 4K native to us no problem. But reality is that film is still alive and well. Though your Aria and Panavision Digital beasts and more are on the scene. See the Netflix approved camera list to blow your mind if that is your bag. Much is made about the resolution, but it goes way further than that. And the final product delivered may not always be natively 4K let alone 8K. There are many movies made that don't end up max res. So what? In many it ends up still amazing. IMAX known these days as Lie-MAX seldom is truly IMAX native format. It goes through conversion to work in the IMAX environment. An Aria Alexa or similar 4K camera may have been used instead of the cumbersome and large, heavy, and noisy IMAX cameras that some directors will not even allow on set because the fans are so noisy in them. The Digital has promoted better options. Though the delta from real IMAX vs. Digital is rapidly closing, the biggest challenge is how bright. IMAX natively is still better though not by a ton than Digital. Though that may have changed as the Digital world changes so quickly. I love movies, and there are great 4K bluerays out there. I am more of the immersive story seeking viewer than the pyrotechnic watcher per se, but great picture and sound is still a must. I think the story and the fate of the characters have to engage me first before I sweat too much on how well looks and sounds. |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Mar 1, 2020 4:20:07 GMT -5
Some updates. Frozen 2 4k UHD. The First fronzen was simply "ok" in 4k UHD. Mild improvements, slightly better color. Frozen 2 on the other hand was a solid 4k UHD implementation. Though the picture has a stylistic soft feel to it, they still manage to cram in a lot of sharp detail to give it a level of pop. Hard to explain how, but they've figured out how to do "soft" hi-res. The most impressive segments were the lighting sequences where there black background. Looks good on an OLED. The audio was also well mixed with nice dynamics, and vocals. The singers are at the top of their game, which is good because it was songs about 90% of the time! Reccomended for a solid 4k presentation! Perhaps not at the very best visuals I've seen but still well worth the purchase. Ford Vs Ferrari 4k UHD: Well holey moley. simpleman68 was right. This was a heck of a movie and it looks fantastic in 4k. This movie has grain in it. Nevertheless it still is replete with good detail. So it's one of those "grain done right" 4k discs. If you are in to cars, you really can't miss purchasing this one. If you aren't in to cars, just give it a rent. Good solid acting. Christian Bale was at the top of his game, method acting and became another person as he usually does. Matt Damon gave a great performance in his "Matt Damon pretending to play X character" role. Poor Caitriona Balfe has to bear the burden of being the sole woman in a movie about dudes. She gamely gave it a go and did what she could, but honestly we need to do better for writing female characters. ("Ken got hurt? Ken!!! I hope he's ok!") Sigh. The cars were complete stars with fantastic camera work. There must have been CGI used to capture those scenes, but I couldn't detect where it was. I was never a fan of the Ford GT but oh my goodness, I sure was after that movie! This really was some epic race scenes. I also think it's fair to say the audio pretty much made that movie. During the race scenes I cranked the volume to max and it was so much fun, tons of aural detail. The sound was warm, heavy, full, with lots of pressure. When those engines roared, you really felt the sheer power. It's a visceral experience. These felt like real cars with huge engines. My only complaint was that we were only given brief glimpses of the other great non-Ferrari/ford/cobra cars. Highly recommended if you like fast powerful cars, epic race scenes, and Matt Damon Matt Damon'ing. A beautiful day in the neighborhood (Blu-ray). The Blu-ray looked good, and it did fill up the eentire screen. However, I don't think I would want to go and buy the 4k version of this film. I just don't see it as being worth it. Tom hanks stole every scene he was in. However, this movie was about a heavily fictionalized version of a writer that knew Mr. Rogers and not about Mr. Rogers. So be forewarned. Interesting trivia the TV segments of the show was filmed with the same cameras used for the original show. Based on your recommendation my father in law and I watched Ford vs Ferrari last night (after I grilled the family some fairly decent ribeyes and a few bottles of wine!) and that sure was a fun movie in the theater room. The S15s really did a great job with the low end rumble of those engines and the strategic use of Atoms was excellent. Highly recommend for someone wanting to demo their system. Hi David! Really glad to hear you enjoyed the movie! Thanks for commenting. |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Apr 14, 2020 12:17:13 GMT -5
Have to throw out a reccomendation for Stranger Things Season 2 4k UHD blu ray. This was a beautiful transfer, significantly superior to the Netflix 4k UHD transfer. If you enjoyed it the first time round, consider giving this a purchase. Its excellent deep blacks make a great shwocase for night time scenes. Beautiful dense colors, lots of detail. Excellent all around! Not to mention that it takes up the whole screen. Native 4k DI. There's really nothing here except for the Lost sister episode storyline that isn't brilliant. At $28 I thought it was money well spent. The packaging ships the 4k discs in a faux VHS cassette that reminds you that "friends rewind." Of course, the cassette is not rewound.  On the inside are actual photographs slipped in to the cassette as well; candid pics of the prom. 1917: Once again a great transfer for an excellent film. Is it reference level demo worthy? Not necessarily, but still a solid job. Also as a film this movie was a 5/5. |
|
