Wild 4K UHD (2014)

[Pieter V]

Wild 4K Blu-ray

[PenguinMaster]

Foxconnect.com now has a pre-order listed for this with a release date of March 1st. It is $25.99.

https://www.foxconnect.com/wild-2.html

[worldchmps]

Are the extras the same or different?

[tyrok]

Originally Posted by worldchmps

Are the extras the same or different?

So far all UHD Blu-rays come with the standard Blu-ray as well. So it shouldn't be missing any extras.

[Pieter V]

Review:

Unfortunately, the movie arrives on Ultra HD Blu-ray with one of the weakest and most disappointing 4K video presentations yet, plagued with several compression artifacts and lacking the sort of pop we'd expected from the new format, the likely result of cheaply-done upconvert. On the plus side, it arrives with the same audio presentation as the Blu-ray, along with the same healthy collection of supplements. Still, the overall package because our first good flick, bad disc on UDH BD for early adopters

http://ultrahd.highdefdigest.com/309...ahdbluray.html

[ray0414]

With the new firmware update yesterday, im hearing the PQ for wild improved (less grain).

Firmware 1002 had the PQ a little outta whack.

[bruceames]

I was very unimpressed with the PQ, but I will revisit it on my new TV with HDR.

[ray0414]

Originally Posted by bruceames.

I was very unimpressed with the PQ, but I will revisit it on my new TV with HDR.

Feedback says wild is the least impressive movie so far.

[bruceames]

Originally Posted by ray0414

Feedback says wild is the least impressive movie so far.

Yeah the only reason they threw that in the launch lineup was to have a least one movie that the wife/gf would like. Because it's definitely not the type a movie meant impress PQ-wise.

I remember when HD DVD came out and Phantom of the Opera was a launch title (a chick flick if there ever was one). But that movie actually was very impressive visually (for its time), unlike Wild.

[infiniteCR]

I thought the picture on the blu-ray was perfect. Maybe there isn't much left to improve upon?

[bruceames]

Originally Posted by infiniteCR

I thought the picture on the blu-ray was perfect. Maybe there isn't much left to improve upon?

The PQ on the UHD is getting a bad rap. There is nothing wrong with the PQ. This site gave the regular BD 4.5 stars (HDD gave it 4.5 stars as well) and the UHD watched on an HDR TV looks much more lively without looking unnatural. People think that HDR automatically means popout colors, zero grain and basically no evidence of a film-like look. So if the BD is 4.5 stars, then the UHD would be 6 stars. It looks that much better. So yes it was improved upon.

I think the problem has been that it's being compared to the other colorful male-oriented action films and this movie has a far different look than those. But anybody with an HDR TV who has this should compare to see what a difference there really is.

I'm really getting sold on this format now. IMO, the difference between UHD and BD is even greater than BD and DVD. With the latter comparison, it was just about resolution. Now it's not only increased resolution but more important we're getting a wider color gamut and 10 bit color (and higher frame rate which will be important on some releases). People for the most part are greatly underestimating the upgrade.

[bruceames]

Originally Posted by Poya

It's getting a bad rap, not because of not living up to the "action films". The reviews have made it clear that there are many artifacts that are there that ruin the picture, such as posterization.

And the reviewers don't even have their sets properly calibrated. One reviewer wasn't even watching in HDR mode! I never saw any artifacts or posterization.

The impressions are all over the place because HDR is very new and hardly anyone knows the proper calibration settings for their TV. For example some people insist seeing banding on The Martian while other don't see it at all. It's a calibration issue, not an encoding issue.

[bailey1987]

Originally Posted by bruceames.

And the reviewers don't even have their sets properly calibrated. One reviewer wasn't even watching in HDR mode! I never saw any artifacts or posterization.

The impressions are all over the place because HDR is very new and hardly anyone knows the proper calibration settings for their TV. For example some people insist seeing banding on The Martian while other don't see it at all. It's a calibration issue, not an encoding issue.

One simple question I want answering I could answer myself if anyone of the people who is posting pictures would actually post pictures at the exact same moment in each edition of the film. the question is, Is there any more picture visible on either side of the screen or to the top and bottom of the screen?

[infiniteCR]

Originally Posted by bruceames.

And the reviewers don't even have their sets properly calibrated. One reviewer wasn't even watching in HDR mode! I never saw any artifacts or posterization.

The impressions are all over the place because HDR is very new and hardly anyone knows the proper calibration settings for their TV. For example some people insist seeing banding on The Martian while other don't see it at all. It's a calibration issue, not an encoding issue.

You mention that not many people know how to set these up correctly. Who does? How will I know if the person I pay to set mine up actually knows how to do so?

[bruceames]

Originally Posted by infiniteCR

You mention that not many people know how to set these up correctly. Who does? How will I know if the person I pay to set mine up actually knows how to do so?

I would wait a while before paying someone to calibrate for HDR, until the calibration guys get it all figured out.

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by bruceames.

I would wait a while before paying someone to calibrate for HDR, until the calibration guys get it all figured out.

And they decide what it should look like

[bruceames]

Originally Posted by dvdmike

And they decide what it should look like

If they need to make that decision individually then that means they haven't figured it out yet. They should KNOW what it's supposed to look like and not have to make their own artistic choice.

[MisterFantastic]

Shot at 2.8k, finished at 2k. Ouch.

[bruceames]

Originally Posted by MisterFantastic

Shot at 2.8k, finished at 2k. Ouch.

What do you expect. Shot at 2.8k, finished at 4k? Even The Martian was finished in 2k and that was shot at 5k.

[bruceames]

Originally Posted by Poya

Another not-so-positive review for this release, courtesy on this site. That's it. I'm buying the regular Blu. I was stupid to not get it for $4.99.

Take all reviews with a grain of salt at this point. It's just somebody's opinion. I'd read several positive impressions of this movie and it appears to be display dependent and settings dependent (like other movies but this one even more so).

Anyway I don't think this movie is worth $30, not much replay value IMO. Nice to watch once but a little too much depressing melodrama for me. Was hoping for more "on the trail" stuff (since I am an avid hiker and hiked quite a bit on the PCT) and less flashbacks to her trouble past.