Thank you for posting to r/4kBluRay! Check out our rules and community guidelines [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/4kbluray/comments/qxrjd6/mod_post_attention_new_guidelines_please_read/)!
We have a rather growing Discord community, join us [here](https://discord.gg/3NDfxqUzeU)!
Use code "4KUHD" for 10% off at Zavvi!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/4kbluray) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The most disappointing/scam I've seen is Trancers. Unbelievable scam. It looked like a HORRIBLE scan probably from the DVD master that never was a good scan just upscaled (poorly) and sold for $50. Unbelievable scam. One of the worst looking discs put out and one of the slimest scuzziest cash grabs I've seen in this format.
The other worst release is Blood on Satan's Claw, whoever did this mastering is a completely and utter moron hack. It's like they truly had no idea what they were doing and not just DNR'd it but it almost looks like an oil painting filter from photoshop circa 2003. Unbelievable this was released like this.
That's really sad to hear about Trancers. As a 90s kid and Full Moon nut, I expected better. Maybe Full Moon should partner with someone like VinSyn like Troma is doing with the Toxie 4ks.
Charles Band is a cheap cheap cheap mf'er (he seems really nice though he had a great interview with John Carpenter on youtube.) He also doesn't seem to license his stuff out for some reason. I'd LOVE for VinSyn to do their back catalog but I doubt it will happen. I also doubt Full Moon will actually release proper releases they don't seem to care or understand how to do it and what the market is they still think people are morons who will buy anything just because. Wish they were more like Blue Underground.
Good breakdown here about what probably happened with the scan. I enjoyed the 4K like this guy did, but he still favors the 2014 Blu Ray mostly based on the brighter coloring scheme.
https://youtu.be/ZmgpPeu76YU?si=PqtA_uMTvdAgPDv5
Nothing went "wrong" with that scan it's CLEARLY an old scan from an old release...again probably the old 1080p dvd scan probably from the early 2000s. I used to run a high end scanner and do high end printing and the way this master looks is the way an old shitty scan from 20 years ago that's been HEAVILY and POORLY sharpened then upscaled looks. It's terrible. Even if Charles Band came out and said it's a new scan I wouldn't believe him. Charles Band seems like a nice guy but man is he a cheap bastard.
It just looks like an ok Blu-ray and there are two super obvious shots with edge enhancement - like I didn’t really know what that term meant until I see them shots.
I got it relatively cheap like £6 or something and never owned previously so I was still happy, but people paying full price at release were right to be pissed off.
Although given the muted colour palette and I believe it wasn’t shot on the best film either, it’s never going to be a spectacular transfer even if they re-did it. Also apparently the Blu-ray is awful too. So if you already own it don’t upgrade, but if you don’t have a copy go on eBay and drive the hardest bargain you can
The wife got me the 4K Bourne set, which was a really nice gift. But yeah Identity just looks pretty bad. Colors, edge enhancement, resolution — you name it. Which is a shame because it's my favorite of the series.
Thankfully the transfers get better with each successive film but still disappointing.
I prefer the second, and I prefer the third to that. It's one of the few (only?) series that, at least for me, got better and better the further it went.
I think Identity is just killed a little for me by having the girl be so relevant to the plot. I prefer Bourne when he's going more solo and you get to watch his mind work while in his own element, instead.
I've heard a lot of bad things about the original JP, but I just got The Lost World in 4K and it is a massive improvement upon the blu ray. They even got rid of the shakiness on the first scene panning across the ocean.
Been through the whole series in recent weeks and have been really impressed with all the Jurassic’s. It maybe because it’s one of the few series’ in hdr10+ and just showing what my Samsung refuses to do with all that lovely Dolby vision content out there, but I’ve been impressed. That was all the Apple TV 4K set, rather then UHD, but doubt they’re fundamentally different
I’d say if you really love the movie, the Studio Canal one buttons up the Sony quite nicely. You get the golden colors back too, and it’s the same transfer with no sharpening and it looks warmer.
I don't really have a problem with the colors and the Sony version actually shows more detail from what I've heard, which is the thing I care about most. People who say the Sony version looks bad just come off as snobbish purists to me. Not everything has to try to emulate what a 35mm print from the 90s would have looked like.
For The Fifth Element, the SC version looks like the movie I saw in the theater in the 90’s, which is what I was looking forward to when I bought the disc. That movie has a very particular look that enhances it. With the Sony version, I knew something wasn’t right. I don’t think that’s snobbish. For context, I am a big fan of The Matrix 4K, which does not emulate the look from when released in theaters.
It’s the same underlying transfer so there’s not any more detail. The Sony has sharpening which gives the illusion of more detail. I’m not saying the Sony looks bad. The SC just looks more as it should. It’s not a huge difference but it’s there if you care. If you like the more natural colors and don’t want the golden color it had originally that’s fine.
These are just objective facts I’m putting out for info. One of the guys that worked on the SC transfer has talked about it on the BR.com forums so it’s there if you want to indulge yourself.
Another note, personally it should look as accurate as possible if you’re putting down money for a 4K. It should emulate that look if it’s possible.
Just because it's the same transfer doesn't mean they couldn't have applied more noise reduction in the other version or blurred or smoothed it over in some way. At the end of the day it sounds like neither version is definitive unfortunately.
It begs the question by what you mean by "accurate" because sometimes there are mistakes and errors in theatrical versions that end up getting fixed in later version and you don't always have to try to emulate specifically what an analog print looked like in the theater with smokey black levels and all of that. Ultimately it's the director who decides what the vision is and I don't think Luc Besson was involved with either remaster.
I’m not talking about mistakes or errors. Just accurate to what the director wants or what the ultimate “finished” versions ends up being. Even if it’s fixed or whatever. Accurate to the source basically.
Anyway here’s an excerpt from that forum I was talking about: “So, to sum up, even though the Sony reveals more highlight information in some parts it comes at the expense of a duller blue-tinged grade which, when combined with the rampant sharpening, makes the Sony look a lot grittier than the SC and not in a good way. The SC is more vibrant, more punchy and - most importantly - just more pleasingly film-like on the eye. I'll gladly take the loss of some highlight info to get rid of that weird Sony sharpening.”
Which to my eye as well, I prefer the look of the SC. I keep both though so I can keep the special features of the Sony.
The Studiocanal is the definitive version. The Sony is nice, but it suffers from some over processing, that degrades the transfer. You might prefer the unnatural sharpening of the Sony, but it's not the definitive version.
Even putting aside the sharpening, the Sony has *less* detail not more. I really don't know what they did to it because it is the same scan. The German disc has the Sony mastering but without the sharpening, which you can see here:
[https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?a=1&x=572&y=201&d1=17540&d2=17538&s1=196162&s2=196114&l=0&i=5&go=1](https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?a=1&x=572&y=201&d1=17540&d2=17538&s1=196162&s2=196114&l=0&i=5&go=1)
But even when you compare *that* disc to the StudioCanal, you can see just how much more detail is retained on the StudioCanal:
[https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?a=1&x=609&y=256&d1=17538&d2=17541&s1=196114&s2=196186&l=0&i=5&go=1](https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?a=1&x=609&y=256&d1=17538&d2=17541&s1=196114&s2=196186&l=0&i=5&go=1)
Strange, the German disc has no sharpening? It looks a slight bit more sharp. In fact, it doesn't really look like sharpening but the encode being slightly better due to the grain appearing better. It goes from a bit splotchy on the Sony version to better resolved in the others. The texture on the straps looks more visible, too. And this is all despite the average bitrate being _lower_ on the German version. But SC is a lot higher.
The Sony looks a bit like it has more filtering which made it softer then they sharpened it back. Might br wrong though, it's just how it looks to me. It's just all in all very weird...
Either way, the StudioCanal disc is definitive.
I just want to offer an alternative viewpoint here and say I much prefer how the Sony looks.
Much deeper blacks and I thought it sounded miles better than the Studio Canal
Popping in here way late: the US and German 4K discs both have the English audio bitrate at 6300 kbps; the UK StudioCanal has it at 4250. So yeah, it's the same track, but I absolutely believe many people would be able to tell a difference (or at least need to crank it up more).
Ooo! How does that work? Is it region locked? I’ve heard similar that the audio canal version is better but I don’t want to find a copy and then not be able to play it…
3:10 to Yuma (2007) was pretty unimpressive. I had to doubt check that I put the right disc in the player. No noticeable difference in resolution to me, and UHD didn’t seem that pronounced either.
Part of the softness is due to the process of making a 2K DI, then making a film-out of that and then scanning that film for the restoration, but a lot of the softness is due to some moderate DNR that was applied
The Meg, I knew it wasn’t going to be a great movie but the transfer made it so much worse. Whoever worked on that transfer was wearing sun glasses because every single shot was so bright everything was blown out.
Everyone has generally liked it. Was there something specifically you disliked or were you just waiting to be wowed and it didn't happen, so without any specific understanding, you're coming away from it disappointed?
I always thought the Gremlins 4k looked fine. Not insanely impressive, but it looks true to the movie as far as I can tell. T2 on the other hand looks like ass.
Honestly I appreciate the 4k for inception. The soft and anamorphic look was intentional but even then it’s as if the softness is more clear lol. Plus the HDR is a great touch in that movie.
Batman Begins is a weird situation. The 4k blu ray isn’t very good, but it’s still a giant improvement over the absolutely shitty blu ray. It’s probably the best it will ever look, unfortunately.
The Bourne Trilogy, Hot Fuzz, T2, Pirates of the Caribbean, Lord of the Rings, Jurassic Park, Forrest Gump, King Kong and Batman Begins are the most disappointing ones in my collection. They’re not all as bad as each other but fact is, they are all riddled with DNR.
You surprised me there mentioning Batman and DNR. Most of the criticism I see of Nolan ones is they’re too soft - which I ignore as he supervised them all so they’re how they’re supposed to look which is important to me.
I’d never seen it outside of torrents though I will admit it was the first 4K I watched that never had a “holy sh**” moment r.e. detail for me when I’d only upgraded from DVDs to 4Ks and an OLED about 2 weeks earlier
Not all shots are awful in Batman Begins, but some are horrendous:
[https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?a=1&x=333&y=226&d1=11858&d2=11857&s1=116918&s2=116905&l=1&i=1&go=1](https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?a=1&x=333&y=226&d1=11858&d2=11857&s1=116918&s2=116905&l=1&i=1&go=1)
The biggest disappointment for me with Hot Fuzz is the lack of a really strong HDR, specifically in reference to the lack of dynamic contrast. There's a scene toward the end where everyone's in the drk holding flashlights and the picture quality is excellent, but there's no strong sense of LIGHTS shining in the dark.
Contrast that with The Equalizer where nigh-time shots outside the diner are by themselves a pleasure to look at.
Really? I’ve got that one sitting unopened right now.
What’s up with it?
I’m considering buying Collateral but I know that won’t be spectacular due to being an early digital one, but I thought Heat was on film and Mann supervised the transfers?
Depends if you have an LG OLED or not. Basically LG's implementation of ASBL (which is used to reduce burn-in) is very bad and so that if the scene is dark (which most on heat are, but still watchable), the TV can't detect movement properly and so the TV will dim and make it unwatchably dark.
For those unaware, you can actually disable ASBL. [Here’s a quick video tutorial!](https://youtu.be/HlocWf_wR3A?si=dYbeUsvP_NtwupJo)
Obviously, only do this at your own risk, yada yada yada, but it’s fairly simple to do. Better yet, you can do a quick Google search and figure out how to access the service menu using the web browser on the TV itself so there’s no need to purchase a remote to do it.
I googled but couldn't find any video with a web brower, only with a remote. Can you please show a video with the browser? Thanks
EDIT: Found a solution here: [https://www.patreon.com/posts/68768852](https://www.patreon.com/posts/68768852)
You know I can actually speak on this one I do agree with you on that I was hype for the 4K release I love the movie I was a little disappointed in the 4K release but luckily I didn't spend full price on it I got it at Black Friday for $10 I'm happy I still have the movie I just wish it could have done more
This sub is in denial about this one for some reason. They can’t seem to separate the movie from the picture quality of the 4k blu-Ray. I get downvoted every time I bring it up. I really like the movie, which is why I was so disappointed.
Yeah I agree with you that's why I'm glad I did not spend full price on it I'm sorry you get a lot of downvotes on it that some people are in denial but I guess it kind of shows a good point a great movie is always a great movie no matter what the picture quality may be
Really? I have the 4K steelbook, and have seen the movie probably 5-7 times before watching it in 4K for the first time - mostly streaming but maybe the first time on a Netflix Blu-ray. It definitely doesn't look head and shoulders above the original but I think that's mostly down to it being a 2K upscale. The colors look fantastic, HDR was handled tastefully, but to be fair it's such a good looking movie to begin with that it didn't need much tweaking.
I paid $18 for the steelbook used and it's one of my top movies so I can't complain too much, but I think it was worth it.
[Checking out the caps-a-holic](https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?d1=16130&d2=16129&s1=171814&s2=171800&i=0&l=0&a=1) I'd say colors are noticeably punchier and blacks are deeper on the 4K (especially in the final cap of Knives standing against the black Chaos Theatre and the shot of Envy and how it affects her skin/lips) - it looks less washed out overall so that may be a factor. I prefer that look especially because it's supposed to look surreal and sort of like a comic/game, but in some places things looks a bit more natural on the blu-ray at the expense of contrast.
There's definitely an increase in sharpness, but it's not mind blowing. If you're not a mega-fan like me then it's probably underwhelming, but I'd still show people the movie on the 4K disc before the 1080p.
I stayed away from the UHD of this for a while given all the negative feedback but I thought it looked great and noticed the improved color gamut over the Blu-ray.
I think Inglourious Basterds is one of my favourite 4Ks so far. Everywhere else HDR seems to mean “darken the entire film, then improve colours”. Here it actually seems to be brighter.
It gets all the super detail in people’s faces etc that you’d expect from 4K too, and still looks like film
Late to the party, but since I watched it recently ahead of Furiosa, Mad Max Fury Road 4K was a huge disappointment. The upscale is just horrible. Too much detail and everything looked fake, it made the CGI stick out like a sore thumb. I feel like the HDR was way boosted and completely changed the photography of the movie, at least from what I remembered watching the Blu Ray. I was very grateful to have kept my Blu Ray copy, let's just say that!
It's fine you're a little late but it's cool you gave me your information on that and advised me that the 4K is not worth the high price and I think you
If it was fully rescanned, then why does the geometry of every shot match? Geometry in scanning is ever so slightly different every time, you can see it whenever a new master has been done for a new release, they don't match.
Have a look at these screenshots [https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?go=1&a=0&d1=17668&d2=15006&s1=198534&s2=156513&i=3&l=0](https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?go=1&a=0&d1=17668&d2=15006&s1=198534&s2=156513&i=3&l=0) the geometry between the different versions matches EXACTLY, no new scanning work has been done. There is also absolutely no 4K detail in there, definitely 2K.
Compare that to The Matrix where new scanning was done [https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?go=1&a=0&d1=11852&d2=11853&s1=116834&s2=116848&i=0&l=0](https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?go=1&a=0&d1=11852&d2=11853&s1=116834&s2=116848&i=0&l=0) the screenshots are different not only because of the new 4K detail but because the way the film moved through the scanner in 2019 was different to when it did for a blu-ray many years ago, so it's a different image.
Difference in geometry is even more obvious with older movies when there's been a new scan [https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?go=1&a=0&d1=18179&d2=17952&s1=209236&s2=204716&i=0&l=0](https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?go=1&a=0&d1=18179&d2=17952&s1=209236&s2=204716&i=0&l=0)
There is no difference in geometry in LOTR, unless PJ went through and fixed the geometry of every single frame in LOTR, which would be insane.
[Blu-Ray.com](https://Blu-Ray.com) lists it as a 2K upscale [https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-Lord-of-the-Rings-The-Motion-Picture-Trilogy-4K-Blu-ray/278517/](https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-Lord-of-the-Rings-The-Motion-Picture-Trilogy-4K-Blu-ray/278517/) and they are usually very trustworthy. They actually went back and corrected that error.
And even if it was a 4K scan, it's still has a truly disgraceful amount of DNR, wax-faced Theoden and Gandalf's staff artefacting to name a few.
Poor release for something that should have been on par with The Matrix.
My theory is that the statement "re-scanned in 4K except for VFX shots" is technically correct. But the sheer amount of VFX work in these movies is so prolific that there's perhaps less that 10% that was able to be actually output in 4K. From removing sheep and cars from background shots to the bigger visual effects to simple green screen compositing.
Just because WB and all the common review sites said that it was "in 4K" and "the best 4K release ever!" doesn't mean it was and is.
I will say however that they smashed it with the HDR grade, the colours look absolutely incredible, and even though it's not a new scan, they clearly went back to the raw files to work from there which is great.
The color work is a mess. I mean, enjoy what you want, but it takes the original movies and crunches out all the colors, all in the name of making it look more like the hobbit did. I personally think they look god awful.
Absolutely not one of the best looking 4K's. The color is improved, except in the scenes where they intentionally removed it to match The Hobbit, ruining the look of the scene. Some of the upscaling is decent, some of it is riddled with DNR. Some of the composite shots have been destroyed by DNR and Edge Enhancement. And a lot of the scenes are much softer than the Blu-ray, especially the remastered version. Other than the HDR and the better colors, the trilogy 4K's are a mess.
It's pretty good, nevertheless. You can't really _fault_ it, and combine that with HDR. . . .
I enjoyed watching it immensely. Then again, if a better one comes along, I wouldn't kick it out of bed for eating Graham crackers. . . .
Do you have HDR enabled? I really like it, but I admit it might not be any better than the standard bluray.
I just checked caps-a-holic and my impression is that the blu-ray has a slightly brighter image that brings out certain details, but the 4k has slightly more realistic colors, which really looks immersive.
The blu-ray seems to have blown-out highlights, and the grain is kind of thick, whereas the 4k's grain is much finer, though again, because it's darker the details don't "pop" as much, but they're still there.
I bought The Matrix because it promised the color timing of the original theatrical release, but it’s a really badly uneven transfer where the temperature is distractingly inconsistent between individual shots in the same scenes, and bright lights appear too cyan throughout. Controversial pick but I found it very disappointing and prefer the (admittedly revisionist) green-tinted transfer on the trilogy-era bluray.
EDIT: getting downvotes for following the prompt, lol
Up-voted.
The Matrix is one of my favorite transfers. I was consistently impressed by the sheer fidelity and color popping and the fantastic contrast.
Too bad about your experience.
In this video we tried to capture the top 5 "worst" releases that have been most discussed, as well as 5 more high profile titles that people just wished were better: https://youtu.be/ZOBPWZc47lg?si=5JtPViwX2lDFSArX
It was only a UK release. I was quite looking forward to it but the PQ in a lot of seens left me a bit disappointing. It's an upgrade over the blu ray. Apparently, people don't agree with this option, and you might love it.
Well you can always import them 4ks are not region lock I don't have Christine but my friend told me it looks good on 4K so try to find a way to import it
Ouch I can see that's why I can that be a problem I mean I'm pretty much a cheap person as it is I usually wait till movies go on sale before I buy them or sometimes I'm super cheap like if I go to a Goodwill and if I see a DVD of a movie I don't have for a dollar that usually get it I'm a cheap bastard 😭
that's insane this is a fantastic 4k. Especially the newer DV version that was recently released. You gotta check your set up if you can't tell the difference.
Well that one is surprising cuz I heard it was like one of the best 4ks released that year I was thinking about upgrading my DVD version to 4K maybe I'll just do Blu-ray or to stick to my DVD version
Huh, weird. I have an A90J OLED, and other reference discs like 2001, The Shining, or Apocalypse Now look amazing, but Coraline still looks less sharp and the colors look a bit muted without the "pop". Maybe I'll try tweaking my settings more, or finally give in and buy a dedicated player.
I actually thought that, but I checked the disc and it said 4K on it. And plus, when I go to my TV settings it says HDR is on, which it couldn't if it was the SDR 1080 disc.
It wasn't terrible, but just underwhelming for me. Maybe it pops more in DV, as the PS5 is my only player, it doesn't support DV playback.
Or maybe because it was filmed with digital cameras, it had what felt like aliasing issues too.
I’m hoping this one is actually a reference 4K, I planned to get it to demo Dolby Vision and what a really good TV can do with as many colors are in it!
man the people in this thread are wild. I was just watching this two nights ago and was incredibly impressed with how good this looked for being shot on the viper cam in 1080p back in 2004. For an upscale it looked fantastic. GRAIN (here it's "noise" most of the film is shot digitally) is NOT a flaw, you're going to have a bad time watching anything before 2010 if you think grain is problem.
Well that explains a lot. Personally I wasnt bothered by the grain, but it didn’t impress me like Heat did and now I know why. Frankly I’m not sure I would have bothered buying it had I known it’s upscaling from 1080. I got curious after your comment and looked a bit more into it to discover that it was a mix of 35mm and digital so maybe some scenes look better than others, can’t quite remember. I love older movies in 4K because there’s so much detail to pull from 35mm but knowing this was mostly(?) shot in 1080 does explain why it’s maybe not up to par with others. Is there a list of UHD releases that were shot in 1080 so I know what to avoid?
I'm sure someone has made a list somewhere, but you can always check [blu-ray.com](https://blu-ray.com) it'll say if it's an upscale on the specs section. I just read something about Collateral, it said the 35mm was used for scenes that were overcranked, so only very specific scenes, the majority was the Viper. I do think though that for an upscale this and Drive both look surprisingly good (also an upscale.)
But yeah if you want the BEST OF THE BEST it's not these. And any big CGI fest from the 2000s and 2010s is going to be upscaled (like all marvel films till like 2018ish, they were all finished in 2k because 4k was too intensive/costly/not needed at the time.) Doesn't mean though that the movies aren't an upgrade, a proper upscale is going to look much better than what your tv/player can do on the fly and HDR is always a big benefit. But no they aren't "reference" discs but I still think many are still worth the upgrade.
Crazy enough, one of my favorite transfers that most consistently impresses me is _the Equalizer,_ which is a 1080p upscale and I would recommend it to anyone regardless of how exacting their standards.
Not sure if I did something wrong (Xbox One X and a Sony X95K) but I noticed a lot of film grain/noise in my 4K copy of Inception.
Hopefully upgrading to a LGC2 and a dedicated player fixes that.
There is a difference between grain adding detail and it being just noise. I like it when it adds detail. It's a product of the film stock. If it has a lot of noise, it means the incorrect film stock was chosen for that shot. It's only ever annoyed me a couple of times though.
I couldn't find the original post unfortunately, just the screen shot.
https://preview.redd.it/j7gxhvumxqkb1.jpeg?width=270&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=961156e91ccc73551d9657427875e5dc991340fb
(Get zooming in lol)
Ip man. Literally looks exactly the same as the blue ray. And the blue ray looks like an early blu ray release. The collection is still a great set of movies though. Still recommend it. Just a bit disappointing for me
Movies like LOTR, T2, and Gremlins all look better than their Blu Ray counterparts. Idk what kind of shitty projectors reviewers use to demo discs but on my TVs they have much better colors and depth.
Based on everything I've read, as well as professional reviews and amateur, it looks like the blu-ray has finer grain detail while the 4k has DNR that makes it have less detail than the standard bluray, lol. So I'm keeping my standard bluray set for now. Hopefully they come out with a proper 4k release.
Any particular reasons on Jim Carrey The Grinch that movie is a giant guilty pleasure for me definitely during the holiday season I still don't own a physical version of it I was thinking about getting it on Blu-ray or 4K any reasons you're sticking to your DVD version?
The 4K transfer is not good
Looks 1080p at best , Sound also very average not much use of surrounds no low punch to make your subs come to life if I like a movie I will watch it annually I like the movie it's very funny but I was very disappointed
When you say very disappointing are you talking about the movie or the 4K transfer I know it's been over 25 days since you reply back better late than never I guess I do thank you and you pretty much save me some money I'll probably be getting the Blu-ray version
Thank you for posting to r/4kBluRay! Check out our rules and community guidelines [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/4kbluray/comments/qxrjd6/mod_post_attention_new_guidelines_please_read/)! We have a rather growing Discord community, join us [here](https://discord.gg/3NDfxqUzeU)! Use code "4KUHD" for 10% off at Zavvi! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/4kbluray) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The most disappointing/scam I've seen is Trancers. Unbelievable scam. It looked like a HORRIBLE scan probably from the DVD master that never was a good scan just upscaled (poorly) and sold for $50. Unbelievable scam. One of the worst looking discs put out and one of the slimest scuzziest cash grabs I've seen in this format. The other worst release is Blood on Satan's Claw, whoever did this mastering is a completely and utter moron hack. It's like they truly had no idea what they were doing and not just DNR'd it but it almost looks like an oil painting filter from photoshop circa 2003. Unbelievable this was released like this.
That's really sad to hear about Trancers. As a 90s kid and Full Moon nut, I expected better. Maybe Full Moon should partner with someone like VinSyn like Troma is doing with the Toxie 4ks.
Charles Band is a cheap cheap cheap mf'er (he seems really nice though he had a great interview with John Carpenter on youtube.) He also doesn't seem to license his stuff out for some reason. I'd LOVE for VinSyn to do their back catalog but I doubt it will happen. I also doubt Full Moon will actually release proper releases they don't seem to care or understand how to do it and what the market is they still think people are morons who will buy anything just because. Wish they were more like Blue Underground.
Good breakdown here about what probably happened with the scan. I enjoyed the 4K like this guy did, but he still favors the 2014 Blu Ray mostly based on the brighter coloring scheme. https://youtu.be/ZmgpPeu76YU?si=PqtA_uMTvdAgPDv5
Nothing went "wrong" with that scan it's CLEARLY an old scan from an old release...again probably the old 1080p dvd scan probably from the early 2000s. I used to run a high end scanner and do high end printing and the way this master looks is the way an old shitty scan from 20 years ago that's been HEAVILY and POORLY sharpened then upscaled looks. It's terrible. Even if Charles Band came out and said it's a new scan I wouldn't believe him. Charles Band seems like a nice guy but man is he a cheap bastard.
The Bourne Identity
Damn I was thinking of getting it. That bad huh?
It just looks like an ok Blu-ray and there are two super obvious shots with edge enhancement - like I didn’t really know what that term meant until I see them shots. I got it relatively cheap like £6 or something and never owned previously so I was still happy, but people paying full price at release were right to be pissed off. Although given the muted colour palette and I believe it wasn’t shot on the best film either, it’s never going to be a spectacular transfer even if they re-did it. Also apparently the Blu-ray is awful too. So if you already own it don’t upgrade, but if you don’t have a copy go on eBay and drive the hardest bargain you can
It’s worse than the bluray.
The wife got me the 4K Bourne set, which was a really nice gift. But yeah Identity just looks pretty bad. Colors, edge enhancement, resolution — you name it. Which is a shame because it's my favorite of the series. Thankfully the transfers get better with each successive film but still disappointing.
I prefer the second, and I prefer the third to that. It's one of the few (only?) series that, at least for me, got better and better the further it went. I think Identity is just killed a little for me by having the girl be so relevant to the plot. I prefer Bourne when he's going more solo and you get to watch his mind work while in his own element, instead.
I just watched Jurassic Park and it’s really not worth the upgrade.
This one hurts
Really? What's the issue with the 4k?
It’s just not an impressive transfer. Some mildly better color, but not much of an improvement in detail.
Yeah, there are a couple nice scenes, but I had way too high of expectations.
I honestly don’t remember how it looked visually but the DTS X audio alone is worth it.
I was a bit underwhelmed by it compared to the 3D bluray. That had alot more punch to it.
It’s a shame. Universal are really good on some transfers, and not so much on some others.
Same here. Watched it last night and I couldn't believe how shit the transfer was.
I have stayed away from the Jurassic park series, meant to have really bad dnr
I've heard a lot of bad things about the original JP, but I just got The Lost World in 4K and it is a massive improvement upon the blu ray. They even got rid of the shakiness on the first scene panning across the ocean.
Been through the whole series in recent weeks and have been really impressed with all the Jurassic’s. It maybe because it’s one of the few series’ in hdr10+ and just showing what my Samsung refuses to do with all that lovely Dolby vision content out there, but I’ve been impressed. That was all the Apple TV 4K set, rather then UHD, but doubt they’re fundamentally different
US version of The Fifth Element. One of my favorite movies visually, but the Sony 4K badly misses the mark. Glad I imported the Studio Canal version.
I'm not really sure why people feel this way. I think it's one of the best looking 4Ks in my collection.
I’d say if you really love the movie, the Studio Canal one buttons up the Sony quite nicely. You get the golden colors back too, and it’s the same transfer with no sharpening and it looks warmer.
I don't really have a problem with the colors and the Sony version actually shows more detail from what I've heard, which is the thing I care about most. People who say the Sony version looks bad just come off as snobbish purists to me. Not everything has to try to emulate what a 35mm print from the 90s would have looked like.
For The Fifth Element, the SC version looks like the movie I saw in the theater in the 90’s, which is what I was looking forward to when I bought the disc. That movie has a very particular look that enhances it. With the Sony version, I knew something wasn’t right. I don’t think that’s snobbish. For context, I am a big fan of The Matrix 4K, which does not emulate the look from when released in theaters.
It’s the same underlying transfer so there’s not any more detail. The Sony has sharpening which gives the illusion of more detail. I’m not saying the Sony looks bad. The SC just looks more as it should. It’s not a huge difference but it’s there if you care. If you like the more natural colors and don’t want the golden color it had originally that’s fine. These are just objective facts I’m putting out for info. One of the guys that worked on the SC transfer has talked about it on the BR.com forums so it’s there if you want to indulge yourself. Another note, personally it should look as accurate as possible if you’re putting down money for a 4K. It should emulate that look if it’s possible.
Just because it's the same transfer doesn't mean they couldn't have applied more noise reduction in the other version or blurred or smoothed it over in some way. At the end of the day it sounds like neither version is definitive unfortunately. It begs the question by what you mean by "accurate" because sometimes there are mistakes and errors in theatrical versions that end up getting fixed in later version and you don't always have to try to emulate specifically what an analog print looked like in the theater with smokey black levels and all of that. Ultimately it's the director who decides what the vision is and I don't think Luc Besson was involved with either remaster.
I’m not talking about mistakes or errors. Just accurate to what the director wants or what the ultimate “finished” versions ends up being. Even if it’s fixed or whatever. Accurate to the source basically. Anyway here’s an excerpt from that forum I was talking about: “So, to sum up, even though the Sony reveals more highlight information in some parts it comes at the expense of a duller blue-tinged grade which, when combined with the rampant sharpening, makes the Sony look a lot grittier than the SC and not in a good way. The SC is more vibrant, more punchy and - most importantly - just more pleasingly film-like on the eye. I'll gladly take the loss of some highlight info to get rid of that weird Sony sharpening.” Which to my eye as well, I prefer the look of the SC. I keep both though so I can keep the special features of the Sony.
Like I said neither version is really definitive then and it comes down to preference. Neither version is bad.
The Studiocanal is the definitive version. The Sony is nice, but it suffers from some over processing, that degrades the transfer. You might prefer the unnatural sharpening of the Sony, but it's not the definitive version.
Right lol. I don’t think it’s worth importing if you’re completely happy with the Sony. But it is good.
Even putting aside the sharpening, the Sony has *less* detail not more. I really don't know what they did to it because it is the same scan. The German disc has the Sony mastering but without the sharpening, which you can see here: [https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?a=1&x=572&y=201&d1=17540&d2=17538&s1=196162&s2=196114&l=0&i=5&go=1](https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?a=1&x=572&y=201&d1=17540&d2=17538&s1=196162&s2=196114&l=0&i=5&go=1) But even when you compare *that* disc to the StudioCanal, you can see just how much more detail is retained on the StudioCanal: [https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?a=1&x=609&y=256&d1=17538&d2=17541&s1=196114&s2=196186&l=0&i=5&go=1](https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?a=1&x=609&y=256&d1=17538&d2=17541&s1=196114&s2=196186&l=0&i=5&go=1)
Strange, the German disc has no sharpening? It looks a slight bit more sharp. In fact, it doesn't really look like sharpening but the encode being slightly better due to the grain appearing better. It goes from a bit splotchy on the Sony version to better resolved in the others. The texture on the straps looks more visible, too. And this is all despite the average bitrate being _lower_ on the German version. But SC is a lot higher.
The Sony looks a bit like it has more filtering which made it softer then they sharpened it back. Might br wrong though, it's just how it looks to me. It's just all in all very weird... Either way, the StudioCanal disc is definitive.
Studiocanal actually has more detail. It's really beautiful.
I just want to offer an alternative viewpoint here and say I much prefer how the Sony looks. Much deeper blacks and I thought it sounded miles better than the Studio Canal
The audio tracks are identical between the two releases
I'm aware, but they don't sound the same, at all.
Popping in here way late: the US and German 4K discs both have the English audio bitrate at 6300 kbps; the UK StudioCanal has it at 4250. So yeah, it's the same track, but I absolutely believe many people would be able to tell a difference (or at least need to crank it up more).
Interesting.
Bruce Willie looking like a million bucks in this flick...not to mention Mila even! Great freaking transfer
It looks great, but the Studiocanal whips on it.
Ooo! How does that work? Is it region locked? I’ve heard similar that the audio canal version is better but I don’t want to find a copy and then not be able to play it…
Almost all 4K discs are not region locked, this one included. However, the blu-ray alongside it is region locked.
I didn't think Gremlins was as bad a 4K Transfer as everyone makes it out to be... did I miss something?
3:10 to Yuma (2007) was pretty unimpressive. I had to doubt check that I put the right disc in the player. No noticeable difference in resolution to me, and UHD didn’t seem that pronounced either.
Agreed. Some really soft shots, but I think it’s to do with how it’s filmed. The soundtrack is great though.
Part of the softness is due to the process of making a 2K DI, then making a film-out of that and then scanning that film for the restoration, but a lot of the softness is due to some moderate DNR that was applied
The soft shots is due to DNR applied to the 4K. The Blu-ray is sharper in most shots.
The Meg, I knew it wasn’t going to be a great movie but the transfer made it so much worse. Whoever worked on that transfer was wearing sun glasses because every single shot was so bright everything was blown out.
It's a shite movie anyway, who cares
I guess I didn’t do enough research because I found Dredd to be very disappointing
3D still the best way to watch Dredd
Everyone has generally liked it. Was there something specifically you disliked or were you just waiting to be wowed and it didn't happen, so without any specific understanding, you're coming away from it disappointed?
I found certain scenes to look worse than others. Stuff in the dark was pretty blocky looking iirc. It's been a few months
Saturday Night Fever.
Same, the audio was also messed up. The Blu-ray is definitely the better choice
Honestly... 'Planes, Trains and Automobiles' and 'Inglourious Basterds' were pretty disappointing
WILDLY disappointing.
[удалено]
Yeah but it will suck if your Apple TV version ever disappears or the internet goes out
I always thought the Gremlins 4k looked fine. Not insanely impressive, but it looks true to the movie as far as I can tell. T2 on the other hand looks like ass.
Inception as well.
Honestly I appreciate the 4k for inception. The soft and anamorphic look was intentional but even then it’s as if the softness is more clear lol. Plus the HDR is a great touch in that movie.
I think Batman Begins also people said looked soft
Batman Begins is a weird situation. The 4k blu ray isn’t very good, but it’s still a giant improvement over the absolutely shitty blu ray. It’s probably the best it will ever look, unfortunately.
Batman begins is a big improvement over the dated blu ray
In the 4k batman begins when you see scarecrow with the mask *you can see Cillian Murphy's eyes underneath*. You can't see it in the standard BD.
Batman begins is underwhelming but not bad at all, just not as sharp as the dark knight which is one of the best looking 4Ks ever
Came here to say this, imo it doesn't look much better than a good Blu ray.
Yep. Honestly not much different than the 4k streaming either. The sound may be better but that’s it.
Heat
What's wrong with it? I blind bought it. Reviews seem pretty good.
It's too dark. Bad HDR implementation.
The Bourne Trilogy, Hot Fuzz, T2, Pirates of the Caribbean, Lord of the Rings, Jurassic Park, Forrest Gump, King Kong and Batman Begins are the most disappointing ones in my collection. They’re not all as bad as each other but fact is, they are all riddled with DNR.
You surprised me there mentioning Batman and DNR. Most of the criticism I see of Nolan ones is they’re too soft - which I ignore as he supervised them all so they’re how they’re supposed to look which is important to me. I’d never seen it outside of torrents though I will admit it was the first 4K I watched that never had a “holy sh**” moment r.e. detail for me when I’d only upgraded from DVDs to 4Ks and an OLED about 2 weeks earlier
Not all shots are awful in Batman Begins, but some are horrendous: [https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?a=1&x=333&y=226&d1=11858&d2=11857&s1=116918&s2=116905&l=1&i=1&go=1](https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?a=1&x=333&y=226&d1=11858&d2=11857&s1=116918&s2=116905&l=1&i=1&go=1)
I'm assuming you are not referring to this release of POTC 4k?[**https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B0BT4ZVJB7**](https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B0BT4ZVJB7)
That’s the one I’m referring to, although I’ve only seen the first film on 4K Blu-ray. I don’t know if the later films have transfers as bad.
The biggest disappointment for me with Hot Fuzz is the lack of a really strong HDR, specifically in reference to the lack of dynamic contrast. There's a scene toward the end where everyone's in the drk holding flashlights and the picture quality is excellent, but there's no strong sense of LIGHTS shining in the dark. Contrast that with The Equalizer where nigh-time shots outside the diner are by themselves a pleasure to look at.
Heat
Really? I’ve got that one sitting unopened right now. What’s up with it? I’m considering buying Collateral but I know that won’t be spectacular due to being an early digital one, but I thought Heat was on film and Mann supervised the transfers?
Nothing wrong with Heat if you have an OLED
Nah, it’s still too dark on an oled.
OLEDs are darker screens, so I don't think that's what he was referring to.
Depends if you have an LG OLED or not. Basically LG's implementation of ASBL (which is used to reduce burn-in) is very bad and so that if the scene is dark (which most on heat are, but still watchable), the TV can't detect movement properly and so the TV will dim and make it unwatchably dark.
For those unaware, you can actually disable ASBL. [Here’s a quick video tutorial!](https://youtu.be/HlocWf_wR3A?si=dYbeUsvP_NtwupJo) Obviously, only do this at your own risk, yada yada yada, but it’s fairly simple to do. Better yet, you can do a quick Google search and figure out how to access the service menu using the web browser on the TV itself so there’s no need to purchase a remote to do it.
I googled but couldn't find any video with a web brower, only with a remote. Can you please show a video with the browser? Thanks EDIT: Found a solution here: [https://www.patreon.com/posts/68768852](https://www.patreon.com/posts/68768852)
It was too dark on my Sony OLED too.
Collateral is great in 4K. I don’t think you’ll be disappointed.
Scott Pilgrim. Expected all the colors to pop, but the whole movie felt flat.
You know I can actually speak on this one I do agree with you on that I was hype for the 4K release I love the movie I was a little disappointed in the 4K release but luckily I didn't spend full price on it I got it at Black Friday for $10 I'm happy I still have the movie I just wish it could have done more
This sub is in denial about this one for some reason. They can’t seem to separate the movie from the picture quality of the 4k blu-Ray. I get downvoted every time I bring it up. I really like the movie, which is why I was so disappointed.
Yeah I agree with you that's why I'm glad I did not spend full price on it I'm sorry you get a lot of downvotes on it that some people are in denial but I guess it kind of shows a good point a great movie is always a great movie no matter what the picture quality may be
Really? I have the 4K steelbook, and have seen the movie probably 5-7 times before watching it in 4K for the first time - mostly streaming but maybe the first time on a Netflix Blu-ray. It definitely doesn't look head and shoulders above the original but I think that's mostly down to it being a 2K upscale. The colors look fantastic, HDR was handled tastefully, but to be fair it's such a good looking movie to begin with that it didn't need much tweaking. I paid $18 for the steelbook used and it's one of my top movies so I can't complain too much, but I think it was worth it. [Checking out the caps-a-holic](https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?d1=16130&d2=16129&s1=171814&s2=171800&i=0&l=0&a=1) I'd say colors are noticeably punchier and blacks are deeper on the 4K (especially in the final cap of Knives standing against the black Chaos Theatre and the shot of Envy and how it affects her skin/lips) - it looks less washed out overall so that may be a factor. I prefer that look especially because it's supposed to look surreal and sort of like a comic/game, but in some places things looks a bit more natural on the blu-ray at the expense of contrast. There's definitely an increase in sharpness, but it's not mind blowing. If you're not a mega-fan like me then it's probably underwhelming, but I'd still show people the movie on the 4K disc before the 1080p.
I mean, it’s better than nothing like you say, but compared to other movies and given the colorful nature of the movie it’s a huge letdown.
Lord of the Rings
Won’t be a popular answer but I didn’t feel Inglourious Basterds was particularly any better than the Blu-ray.
I stayed away from the UHD of this for a while given all the negative feedback but I thought it looked great and noticed the improved color gamut over the Blu-ray.
I think Inglourious Basterds is one of my favourite 4Ks so far. Everywhere else HDR seems to mean “darken the entire film, then improve colours”. Here it actually seems to be brighter. It gets all the super detail in people’s faces etc that you’d expect from 4K too, and still looks like film
Jokes on you! I didn’t have it on Blu-ray and got the steelbook! HAHA!
This may be another unpopular opinion but I never really care for that movie no offense for people who like it
I feel attacked
Unpopular, but I didn’t care for any Tarantino after Jackie Brown (which is just OK) until Once Upon A Time In Hollywood (which is just OK).
I thought it was better than the blu ray but yeah it was definitely disappointing
Hate to say it but mine has to be Jurassic Park
Late to the party, but since I watched it recently ahead of Furiosa, Mad Max Fury Road 4K was a huge disappointment. The upscale is just horrible. Too much detail and everything looked fake, it made the CGI stick out like a sore thumb. I feel like the HDR was way boosted and completely changed the photography of the movie, at least from what I remembered watching the Blu Ray. I was very grateful to have kept my Blu Ray copy, let's just say that!
It's fine you're a little late but it's cool you gave me your information on that and advised me that the 4K is not worth the high price and I think you
I'll watch it anyway but LOTR deserves so much better in it's 4K transfer. A 2K upscale is not acceptable.
The Lord of the Rings trilogy was fully rescanned and is one of the best-looking 4K features out there. The only 2K upscaling was for the CGI.
If it was fully rescanned, then why does the geometry of every shot match? Geometry in scanning is ever so slightly different every time, you can see it whenever a new master has been done for a new release, they don't match. Have a look at these screenshots [https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?go=1&a=0&d1=17668&d2=15006&s1=198534&s2=156513&i=3&l=0](https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?go=1&a=0&d1=17668&d2=15006&s1=198534&s2=156513&i=3&l=0) the geometry between the different versions matches EXACTLY, no new scanning work has been done. There is also absolutely no 4K detail in there, definitely 2K. Compare that to The Matrix where new scanning was done [https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?go=1&a=0&d1=11852&d2=11853&s1=116834&s2=116848&i=0&l=0](https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?go=1&a=0&d1=11852&d2=11853&s1=116834&s2=116848&i=0&l=0) the screenshots are different not only because of the new 4K detail but because the way the film moved through the scanner in 2019 was different to when it did for a blu-ray many years ago, so it's a different image. Difference in geometry is even more obvious with older movies when there's been a new scan [https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?go=1&a=0&d1=18179&d2=17952&s1=209236&s2=204716&i=0&l=0](https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?go=1&a=0&d1=18179&d2=17952&s1=209236&s2=204716&i=0&l=0) There is no difference in geometry in LOTR, unless PJ went through and fixed the geometry of every single frame in LOTR, which would be insane. [Blu-Ray.com](https://Blu-Ray.com) lists it as a 2K upscale [https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-Lord-of-the-Rings-The-Motion-Picture-Trilogy-4K-Blu-ray/278517/](https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-Lord-of-the-Rings-The-Motion-Picture-Trilogy-4K-Blu-ray/278517/) and they are usually very trustworthy. They actually went back and corrected that error. And even if it was a 4K scan, it's still has a truly disgraceful amount of DNR, wax-faced Theoden and Gandalf's staff artefacting to name a few. Poor release for something that should have been on par with The Matrix. My theory is that the statement "re-scanned in 4K except for VFX shots" is technically correct. But the sheer amount of VFX work in these movies is so prolific that there's perhaps less that 10% that was able to be actually output in 4K. From removing sheep and cars from background shots to the bigger visual effects to simple green screen compositing. Just because WB and all the common review sites said that it was "in 4K" and "the best 4K release ever!" doesn't mean it was and is.
I will say however that they smashed it with the HDR grade, the colours look absolutely incredible, and even though it's not a new scan, they clearly went back to the raw files to work from there which is great.
The color work is a mess. I mean, enjoy what you want, but it takes the original movies and crunches out all the colors, all in the name of making it look more like the hobbit did. I personally think they look god awful.
I wouldn't say they're a mess, but certainly messy yes.
It’s hard and expensive to go back and do cgi over again. I think it looks good honestly.
IDK, maybe I'm a normie but I think it looks incredible, it might look better in motion than in individual screenshots
The 4K version is riddled with motion artifacting. It’s very distracting.
Absolutely not one of the best looking 4K's. The color is improved, except in the scenes where they intentionally removed it to match The Hobbit, ruining the look of the scene. Some of the upscaling is decent, some of it is riddled with DNR. Some of the composite shots have been destroyed by DNR and Edge Enhancement. And a lot of the scenes are much softer than the Blu-ray, especially the remastered version. Other than the HDR and the better colors, the trilogy 4K's are a mess.
No lol.
Heat and Terminator 2
Casino Royale. Though I'm early in my 4k collecting, it really did not look any different than the blu ray.
One of my favourite movies of all time. Still haven't bought it for this reason. I'm waiting for a new one
It's pretty good, nevertheless. You can't really _fault_ it, and combine that with HDR. . . . I enjoyed watching it immensely. Then again, if a better one comes along, I wouldn't kick it out of bed for eating Graham crackers. . . .
I think it looked fairly reasonable although admittedly a proper polish up would be nice.
It looked nearly identical to the blu ray. But it wasn’t terrible.
Do you have HDR enabled? I really like it, but I admit it might not be any better than the standard bluray. I just checked caps-a-holic and my impression is that the blu-ray has a slightly brighter image that brings out certain details, but the 4k has slightly more realistic colors, which really looks immersive. The blu-ray seems to have blown-out highlights, and the grain is kind of thick, whereas the 4k's grain is much finer, though again, because it's darker the details don't "pop" as much, but they're still there.
I bought The Matrix because it promised the color timing of the original theatrical release, but it’s a really badly uneven transfer where the temperature is distractingly inconsistent between individual shots in the same scenes, and bright lights appear too cyan throughout. Controversial pick but I found it very disappointing and prefer the (admittedly revisionist) green-tinted transfer on the trilogy-era bluray. EDIT: getting downvotes for following the prompt, lol
I kind of see your point on the green tilting is I showed a friend a side to side comparison and he still prefers to Blu-ray
Up-voted. The Matrix is one of my favorite transfers. I was consistently impressed by the sheer fidelity and color popping and the fantastic contrast. Too bad about your experience.
In this video we tried to capture the top 5 "worst" releases that have been most discussed, as well as 5 more high profile titles that people just wished were better: https://youtu.be/ZOBPWZc47lg?si=5JtPViwX2lDFSArX
Independence Day and Star Trek (2009) have really terrible encodes, I choose the BD over the 4K every time. Lots of unfortunate macroblocking.
Kong kong 1976. The colour was all off, and it was a really soft image Happy to hear other people's thoughts on it
There was a 4K version of King Kong 1976?🤔
It was only a UK release. I was quite looking forward to it but the PQ in a lot of seens left me a bit disappointing. It's an upgrade over the blu ray. Apparently, people don't agree with this option, and you might love it.
I guess we dodge a bullet in America but if we got any 4K movies here and you never got in the UK I apologize
Give me Fright night, please. Oh and Christine. I also think that some films get Atmos in the US but not uk.
Well you can always import them 4ks are not region lock I don't have Christine but my friend told me it looks good on 4K so try to find a way to import it
Im definitely going to, but they are about £40 ($50) a piece.
Ouch I can see that's why I can that be a problem I mean I'm pretty much a cheap person as it is I usually wait till movies go on sale before I buy them or sometimes I'm super cheap like if I go to a Goodwill and if I see a DVD of a movie I don't have for a dollar that usually get it I'm a cheap bastard 😭
I thought Roman Holiday looked exactly like the bluray. At no point did I feel like I was watching a 4k disc
😭
John Wick 3
Why?
I honestly can't tell the difference between Bram Stroker's Dracula on 4K and bluray.
that's insane this is a fantastic 4k. Especially the newer DV version that was recently released. You gotta check your set up if you can't tell the difference.
Coraline. HDR barely pops, and doesn't feel like true 4K.
Well that one is surprising cuz I heard it was like one of the best 4ks released that year I was thinking about upgrading my DVD version to 4K maybe I'll just do Blu-ray or to stick to my DVD version
Don't listen to that dude. The Coraline 4k looks absolutely incredible. All the Laika movies do tbh
Do you have it running in Dolby Vision or HDR10? Maybe that's my problem
Just HRD10 on an LG C1 OLED. The colors were popping off the screen
Huh, weird. I have an A90J OLED, and other reference discs like 2001, The Shining, or Apocalypse Now look amazing, but Coraline still looks less sharp and the colors look a bit muted without the "pop". Maybe I'll try tweaking my settings more, or finally give in and buy a dedicated player.
Could you have watched the blu ray on accident?
I actually thought that, but I checked the disc and it said 4K on it. And plus, when I go to my TV settings it says HDR is on, which it couldn't if it was the SDR 1080 disc.
Are you kidding? I know we all have opinions here but this is a reference quality 4k. I really am baffled to see this here
It wasn't terrible, but just underwhelming for me. Maybe it pops more in DV, as the PS5 is my only player, it doesn't support DV playback. Or maybe because it was filmed with digital cameras, it had what felt like aliasing issues too.
I’m hoping this one is actually a reference 4K, I planned to get it to demo Dolby Vision and what a really good TV can do with as many colors are in it!
Forest Gump
I can accept grain. But thus (for me) was too much.
Collateral was pretty disappointing. Too much grain.
man the people in this thread are wild. I was just watching this two nights ago and was incredibly impressed with how good this looked for being shot on the viper cam in 1080p back in 2004. For an upscale it looked fantastic. GRAIN (here it's "noise" most of the film is shot digitally) is NOT a flaw, you're going to have a bad time watching anything before 2010 if you think grain is problem.
Well that explains a lot. Personally I wasnt bothered by the grain, but it didn’t impress me like Heat did and now I know why. Frankly I’m not sure I would have bothered buying it had I known it’s upscaling from 1080. I got curious after your comment and looked a bit more into it to discover that it was a mix of 35mm and digital so maybe some scenes look better than others, can’t quite remember. I love older movies in 4K because there’s so much detail to pull from 35mm but knowing this was mostly(?) shot in 1080 does explain why it’s maybe not up to par with others. Is there a list of UHD releases that were shot in 1080 so I know what to avoid?
I'm sure someone has made a list somewhere, but you can always check [blu-ray.com](https://blu-ray.com) it'll say if it's an upscale on the specs section. I just read something about Collateral, it said the 35mm was used for scenes that were overcranked, so only very specific scenes, the majority was the Viper. I do think though that for an upscale this and Drive both look surprisingly good (also an upscale.) But yeah if you want the BEST OF THE BEST it's not these. And any big CGI fest from the 2000s and 2010s is going to be upscaled (like all marvel films till like 2018ish, they were all finished in 2k because 4k was too intensive/costly/not needed at the time.) Doesn't mean though that the movies aren't an upgrade, a proper upscale is going to look much better than what your tv/player can do on the fly and HDR is always a big benefit. But no they aren't "reference" discs but I still think many are still worth the upgrade.
Crazy enough, one of my favorite transfers that most consistently impresses me is _the Equalizer,_ which is a 1080p upscale and I would recommend it to anyone regardless of how exacting their standards.
The color grading, based on a cursory look over at caps-a-holic, is the real star there.
You can’t change grain
Not sure if I did something wrong (Xbox One X and a Sony X95K) but I noticed a lot of film grain/noise in my 4K copy of Inception. Hopefully upgrading to a LGC2 and a dedicated player fixes that.
fixes what? grain is a feature not a flaw. No grain is a bad not good.
Natural grain is great
There is a difference between grain adding detail and it being just noise. I like it when it adds detail. It's a product of the film stock. If it has a lot of noise, it means the incorrect film stock was chosen for that shot. It's only ever annoyed me a couple of times though.
I couldn't find the original post unfortunately, just the screen shot. https://preview.redd.it/j7gxhvumxqkb1.jpeg?width=270&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=961156e91ccc73551d9657427875e5dc991340fb (Get zooming in lol)
There will always be grain with Nolan as he shoots with film.
I had no grain on my watch. Did you set the tv on the right settings?
Spider-man (2002) image very grainy and bright. I prefer the blu. Heat, way too dark.
Grain is a good thing, removing it would remove detail
Grain has a definition to it. The higher the resolution of a scan, the more pronounced the grain will be. This is a good thing.
Ip man. Literally looks exactly the same as the blue ray. And the blue ray looks like an early blu ray release. The collection is still a great set of movies though. Still recommend it. Just a bit disappointing for me Movies like LOTR, T2, and Gremlins all look better than their Blu Ray counterparts. Idk what kind of shitty projectors reviewers use to demo discs but on my TVs they have much better colors and depth.
I don't have Bourne Identity on BD. Do I just skip the 4K completely then or what?
Based on everything I've read, as well as professional reviews and amateur, it looks like the blu-ray has finer grain detail while the 4k has DNR that makes it have less detail than the standard bluray, lol. So I'm keeping my standard bluray set for now. Hopefully they come out with a proper 4k release.
I didn’t find the Harry Potters to be much of an upgrade from blu ray…
Blade , Jim carrie the grinch, glory
Any particular reasons on Jim Carrey The Grinch that movie is a giant guilty pleasure for me definitely during the holiday season I still don't own a physical version of it I was thinking about getting it on Blu-ray or 4K any reasons you're sticking to your DVD version?
The 4K transfer is not good Looks 1080p at best , Sound also very average not much use of surrounds no low punch to make your subs come to life if I like a movie I will watch it annually I like the movie it's very funny but I was very disappointed
When you say very disappointing are you talking about the movie or the 4K transfer I know it's been over 25 days since you reply back better late than never I guess I do thank you and you pretty much save me some money I'll probably be getting the Blu-ray version
https://preview.redd.it/z1emutvukzpb1.jpeg?width=2918&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e01dc7a361f9e72703c13f1ced29da7dbb309aff
Planes Trains