4k Discs -12/26/2020 Are they worth investing in?

Discussion in 'Visual Arts' started by jojopuppyfish, Dec 26, 2020.

  1. Spitfire

    Spitfire Senior Member

    Pacific Northwest
    Just watched 2001 the other day. Impressive
    EVOLVIST likes this.
  2. JimW

    JimW In the Process of Becoming

    Charlottesville VA
    I have no experience, but from what I've read, my understanding is no loss in quality. If done right, it's a digital copy of what's on the disc. Like making a .wav file from a cd, not like an mpg; no compression.
    EVOLVIST likes this.
  3. SpudOz

    SpudOz Forum Resident

    Is it a real life movie or animated title? Some animated titles aren't that large when - I've seen one as low as 35GB. Assuming it is a straight rip of the movie file on the disc and no additional compression has been applied after the rip was done, then the quality should be identical to what is on the disc.

    Also, if the rip is only of the movie and base soundtrack then some data will be saved by not including additional (non-English) soundtracks. The smallest file that I have for a live action movie after doing a quick random look at my files is 40GB for a B&W title from the 1960's.
    EVOLVIST and jamesc like this.
  4. dwm67

    dwm67 Forum Resident

    Alberta, Canada
    I just watched the new Kino Lorber 4k release of ‘In the Heat of the Night’ … absolutely stunning picture quality … they also include the other 2 movies in the trilogy on the special features blu ray … will be watching them this weekend.
    Uglyversal, jamesc and EVOLVIST like this.
  5. hyntsonsvmse

    hyntsonsvmse Nick Beal

    I have found that quality has dropped in the last few months of classic films.
    There's a few I've bought that I regret buying as I'd already got the blurays.
    12 monkeys is a marvelous film but it's another lacklustre release. It's not worth the upgrade of you've got the bluray.
    Yes it's a difficult film to remaster but arrow haven't put much effort in to the 4k bluray.
    Disappointing and another to avoid if you've got the bluray already.
    For classic films then it's yet another case of caveat emptor.
    jamesc likes this.
  6. CBackley

    CBackley Chairman of the Bored

    I reported before I had glitches with Dolby Vision on my UHD player. It turns out it was due to my Audioquest Pearl 48 HDMI cables. I tried two different cables. They couldn’t play Dolby Vision discs correctly. I swapped them out for a cheap Amazon Basics hi-speed HDMI cable and now my Dolby Vision is all good. Crazy.
    EVOLVIST likes this.
  7. "Classic films" compared to what? Or, do you mean archive films, as in not a new film released in UHD?

    I'm just asking, just to clarify. I would think it would be a film-by-film basis, and not a decrease in quality across the board from all studios.

    I'm just thinking aloud, though. I recently picked up Death Wish II (1982) from Vinegar Syndrome and it was pretty aces. They HDR was a tad saturated in night scenes, but otherwise very nice.

    Singin' In the Rain (1952) was also just released in UHD, and given the source(s), multi-generations removed from the OCNs, the film glimmers. There's not much to niggle about since the negatives were lost in the Eastman fire of 1978.

    In other words, things are looking fab on my side of the 4K world. :)
    jhm, MartyTem and CBackley like this.
  8. hyntsonsvmse

    hyntsonsvmse Nick Beal

    Classic films would be older films from a different century.
    I have wasted a lot of money in the last 6 months on such films.
    I would never call Death wish 2 a classic film.
    What you see depends who is looking.
    There aren't exactly many old films out on the format are there.
    Recent releases have been poor. Once again there haven't been many recent releases.
    I can't be bothered to list all those I regret buying.
    I've had every one of them on bluray and would not have bought them I had seen them first.
    If I list them you someone will say that "I've got them and they are brilliant. The reviews love them too."
    So I'll pass on naming them as u just can't be bothered with all that cloned drivel.
    EVOLVIST likes this.
  9. It's cool. I was just wondering. Death Wish II is from the 20th Century, just as The Wizard of Oz is, if anything prior to the year 2000 is a film from a different century.

    Your post made me think, because I don't believe I own many films from the 21st Century. Some very recent releases of classic films have all been great to these eyes. These are just the new releases of older films that I have purchased and enjoyed since I started buying 4K discs in August 2021:

    The Apartment (1960)
    In the Heat of the Night (1967)
    Singin' In the Rain (1952)
    Touch of Evil (1958)
    Citizen Kane (1941)
    Indiana Jones I-III (1981-1989)
    The Seventh Seal (1957)
    A Clockwork Orange (1971)
    Willy Wonka & The Chocolate Factory (1971)
    Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978)
    Dracula (1931)
    Frankenstein (1931)
    The Wolf Man (1941)
    The Invisible Man (1933)
    The Godfather (1972)
    The Godfather II (1974)
    Some Like it Hot (1959)

    There are some really good ones from the 1940s-1960s coming out this year, too. I'm looking forward to Giant (1956), Double Indemnity (1944), Saboteur (1942), Shadow of a Doubt (1943), The Trouble With Harry (1955), Marnie (1964), and several others that I might be forgetting at the moment. It seems like there are more legacy films being released than newer ones, but maybe I'm myopic because I've only been focusing on beloved classics. Oh yeah, and The Night of the Hunter (1955).

    I don't know. Perhaps it depends on one's playback gear, too. I sit stupidly close to a 77", right where the entire screen is in my field of vision, and I even found out recently that my glasses were getting in the way of my full enjoyment, so I got a new script and keep those specs scratch and smudge free. A lot of factors.

    I agree, though, that a few standard BDs can compete with their 4K counterparts. I thought that The Shining (1980) had a really good BD, but the HDR grading on the UHD disc is what seperates it from the BD by a few miles.

    I'm just ruminating, really, so as always, a grain of salt.
    jamesc, Graham and jhm like this.
  10. hyntsonsvmse

    hyntsonsvmse Nick Beal

    Sadly, there's another bad Hitchcock 4k bluray boxset.
    It's got 2 of his worse ever films on it.
    Marnie looks truly awful. They've done absolutely nothing with the original print. It's got exactly the same problems that the bluray has.
    So following in the footsteps of rubbish like rear window, the birds, universal continue to rip people off with substandard collections and releases.
    Marnie is a brilliant film but needs a complete reconstruction. It deserves a full reconstruction as it's so good.
    Be very careful with both of Hitchcocks 4k blu ray boxsets.
    No doubt vol 3 will arrive soon. Expect the same formula of some essential films, bundled with rubbish.
    You can also bank on substandard PQ with its colour releases.
  11. CBackley

    CBackley Chairman of the Bored

    The Hitchcock sets look bad? Is this a common opinion? If so, that sucks!
  12. Oatsdad

    Oatsdad Oat, Biscuits, Abbie & Mitzi: Best Dogs Ever

    Alexandria VA
    No, that's not a common opinion.

    Over on the HTF, people have been very pleased with the new 4K set as well as the one from 2020.
    EVOLVIST, Graham and CBackley like this.
  13. malcolm reynolds

    malcolm reynolds Handsome, Humble, Genius

    The only 4K UHDs that I would avoid are Serenity (which makes me sad), Lord Of The Rings and the Star Wars films. The Serenity BD is vastly superior to the UHD. The Operative's black hair has no detail and it looks like he is wearing a helmet. As for the Star Wars UHDs not only are they terrible films but they are really dark. LOTR is slathered in DNR, plus I have tried playing them on several different machines and each disc locks up.
  14. CBackley

    CBackley Chairman of the Bored

    Oh, man. The Star Wars and LOTR UHD sets are bad?
  15. Graham

    Graham Forum Resident

    London, UK
    On the bluray.com forum several posters with decent track records have said the films look incredible. Marnie has lots of purposefully gauzy soft shots.
    CBackley likes this.
  16. MrEWhite

    MrEWhite Forum Resident

    United States
    Imo, Lord of the Rings doesn’t look THAT bad. Better than the Blu-rays that came before it at least. I do agree the Star Wars 4ks aren’t amazing though (especially Episode 1, way too much DNR).
    EVOLVIST likes this.
  17. Marnie (1964)

    I almost don't want to touch this one. It's a film that will never look great. This UHD disc rights some wrongs, but like Dial M For Murder, as an example, the "flaws" are baked into the negative, and really, as a historical archive, we shouldn't want it to appear different than it does.

    This one is all about the HDR. The higher dynamic range helps cement the scenes together. Gone are the color fluctuations as seen on the BD. It no longer has that blanched look; it's no longer washed out. That's a big bonus! On the other hand, if you don't care for Hitchcock's intentional use of filters, or the many opticals, this 4K presentation might not wind your clock. It's Hitchcock recreating his noir period and/or using techniques that defined his work in the late 1930s, so if it sounds like a hodge-podge, that's because it is. The image still bears this out.

    Personally, I thought that the opticals appear more palatable in 4K, with grain patterns that are more in line with the degree by which each image was manipulated. The many gauzy shots of Hedren become tedious, but it doesn't stop there; Connery gets his fair share, as well.

    I'm not trying to excuse away Hitchcock's stylized look for Marnie. As mentioned, the HDR goes a long way in solidifying the image, but it's not a reference image. I have no doubt that this is the best this film will look, which is cause to rejoice enough. The effort that has gone into stabilizing the opticals, without giving it a digital sheen, can be celebrated. Just don't think that this is a massive makeover. Blacks hold tight. The color grading is respectful to mid-'60s Technicolor. I detected no digital artifacts.

    That said, I enjoyed the film more than I ever have. I'm glad that it's in my collection. I'm glad that it's in 4K, which is more than I can say for Dial M for Murder and The Wrong Man (1956), that they should never be in 4K, lest we spoil the illusions. (I love both films, but the chances are great that the more resolution = more noise.)

    The mono mix here isn't quite as impressive as The Trouble with Harry. Then again, as far as voices are go, you'd have to de-Connery Sean Connery's voice to catch all of his quirks. It's a part of the original mix. Otherwise, the orchestration feels right, warm and inviting; there's no sibilance nor piercing effects.

    Can this be considered an upgrade? Yes, if you don't mind Hitchcock's intended design. If not, there's a chance that this presentation of Marnie might be the same ol', same ol'.

    I'm thinking that there will be a few converts, though.

    This is a full restoration, unless they're going to go back and recut the film, which they can't. Its the intended look. It does not have the same problems that the BD has. The colors no longer fluctuate, there are no longer density issues, and the grain during the many, many opticals is more in line with the amount of zoom applied to create said opticals.
    jhm, jamesc and CBackley like this.
  18. Uglyversal

    Uglyversal Forum Resident

    I haven't got many from the 21st century, most of my movies are 30 year or more older but in either case I think they are all superior to their BD counterpart and in no way I think the quality is going downhill. For serious viewing and enjoyment I use a projector that while I think it can hardly be beaten by many more modern ones it comes with some problems. It doesn't ha HDR which sometimes can display problems because not all discs convert very well to a non HDR environment but my opinion remains, there is no beating 4K discs.
    Are there awful discs out there with picture that do not reach the standard that can be obtained on true, properly scanned 4K? Yes, there are but even those films still look better to me than on their BD version. There are some very rare and specific titles were they've decided to go overboard revisioning the original look like Terminator and a few others but those are in the minority and often the same problem is present on the BDs in one way or another. I am looking forward the release of all the classic films of the 20th century, I won't buy them all but I'll certainly get a lot of them.
    Last edited: May 15, 2022
  19. Uglyversal

    Uglyversal Forum Resident

    No it is not a common opinion, I can see why some people could complain about some of the titles released so far but overall ALL the 4K Hitchcok are superior to the prior BD releases. I have the first set, some movies display more difference than others, like Vertigo which is probably the best improvement on that set. Others like Rear window may show a little less on some shots but in other shots improvement is fairly noticeable. There is an important change in the way grain is seen and it looks more natural. If you are thinking in buying don't be deterred by negative comments, the size of where you watch them would make a difference but just the big jump in quality for Vertigo is worth the set. I am lookin forward #2 that might be arriving this week.
  20. cdcollector87

    cdcollector87 Forum Resident

    Totally depends on the movie imo. Most times I'd rather just get the Blu-ray. Older movies where they take the time to do a quality transfer, I'd say benefit from 4K. Newer movies that are digitally shot I don't see as much of a difference. Or movies where the Blu-ray release just wasn't well-done and the 4K is a major improvement I'll upgrade.

    Speaking of older movies, a lot never even came out on Blu-ray and only got a DVD release. Recently I bought a movie called Forced Vengeance. It's an older Chuck Norris movie from the 70s and I believe it's a burned-on-demand DVD, at least my copy was. I'm surprised more obscure things don't just go that route, where they burn a DVD or Blu-ray depending on what you buy rather than it being out-of-print and unavailable.

    A lot of this stuff either has or is going out of print apart from major blockbuster hits and if you don't grab it now, the only way to own it will be digitally, and then you're at the mercy of the studio and rightsholders making it available to continue to stream.
    jhm, EVOLVIST and Uglyversal like this.
  21. cdcollector87

    cdcollector87 Forum Resident

    To add to my previous post, I also own another movie called Stoned which is about Brian Jones and that one is also a burned-on demand title (but it is a Blu-ray). I think it was a made-for-TV movie in the UK or something that I saw on YouTube and thought I might want to watch it again.
  22. cdcollector87

    cdcollector87 Forum Resident

    For LOTR, I actually like the color timing best on the DVDs. That's just me though. For Star Wars, at least for the OT movies, those new Disney transfers look far more neutral than the 2011s. As for Episode 1, wasn't that one always DNR'd a bit though? I thought George Lucas shot that movie on film and they DNR'd it to make it look digital?
    PH416156 likes this.
  23. MrEWhite

    MrEWhite Forum Resident

    United States
    I don't know about that, but I don't remember it looking this DNR'd before.
  24. Oatsdad

    Oatsdad Oat, Biscuits, Abbie & Mitzi: Best Dogs Ever

    Alexandria VA
    Yeah, DNR is an issue on some of the OT and PT "Star Wars" movies.

    None of the Prequels were ever gonna look great on 4K due to their sources, though...
  25. Oatsdad

    Oatsdad Oat, Biscuits, Abbie & Mitzi: Best Dogs Ever

    Alexandria VA
    "Phantom Menace" didn't "need" DNR to match "Clones" and "Sith" to the same degree until 4K. The difference between the film of "Menace" and the digital of the other 2 becomes more clear on 4K.

Share This Page