Blade Runner 4K UHD (1982)

[trevanian]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Way more about the latter, I think: the eye and the ear. But see how you’re like the most madly critical person of Star Trek on the planet? Transpose that to AV quality and you’ve basically got someone like me.

I read you loud and (Analog) clear. Thanks.

[jurid]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Oh I wept all right, upon seeing the cruddy compression and hearing that shoddy remix.

As indicated in Archer's review in Forbes ( https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnarc...h=7809d69917c2 ) about the problems with BR in 4k:

"The most likely cause of most of the grain is issues with the film negative the 4K master was derived from. In terms of the inconsistency in the image’s ‘finish’, for instance, Scott filmed the biggest special effects shots - which look sensational and largely grain free - using 65mm, while the rest was shot in a smaller format, resulting in a rougher finish from the 4K scan.

It’s been suggested to me by someone who works in the film industry, too, that the film’s negative is unusually thin, and that mistakes were made with the exposure of the original negative - two problems now brought to light as never before by the HDR process."

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by jurid

As indicated in Archer's review in Forbes ( https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnarc...h=7809d69917c2 ) about the problems with BR in 4k:

"The most likely cause of most of the grain is issues with the film negative the 4K master was derived from. In terms of the inconsistency in the image’s ‘finish’, for instance, Scott filmed the biggest special effects shots - which look sensational and largely grain free - using 65mm, while the rest was shot in a smaller format, resulting in a rougher finish from the 4K scan.

It’s been suggested to me by someone who works in the film industry, too, that the film’s negative is unusually thin, and that mistakes were made with the exposure of the original negative - two problems now brought to light as never before by the HDR process."

Ugh, Forbes. The “rest” was shot in 35mm anamorphic using the common stock of the day (5247) and looks perfickly fine in itself on the 4K transfer. Grain is not a bad thing and it’s not especially “rough” in this transfer. That the VFX done by Trumbull et al was completed on 65mm is neither here nor there, it’s going to have a ‘cleaner’ appearance than the 35mm by default and is not a ‘problem’ as such. Ghostbusters has the same characteristics, the VFX were done on 65mm by Boss Film and so it’s one of very few photochemical films where the image quality actually gets cleaner and sharper when the VFX shots kick in!

The issues I have with the 4K UHD of Blade Runner specifically are the mediocre to poor compression, there’s lots of chroma noise (great big chunks of coloured blocks) buzzing around underneath the film grain and it looks so untidy to me. They’ve also sharpened several shots where the focus was missed during the original shoot and it doesn’t compensate at all, it just makes the grain look far too sharp and electronic.

[cybersoga]

I have also seen compression artefacts in Blade Runner HDR10 but they aren't so noticeable after changing my display's HDR tone mapping to the most accurate setting. No doubt that this title would benefit from a better encode.

Also i'd just like to mention that these screen shots look make it look fantastic https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...6&postcount=78

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by cybersoga

I have also seen compression artefacts in Blade Runner HDR10 but they aren't so noticeable after changing my display's HDR tone mapping to the most accurate setting. No doubt that this title would benefit from a better encode.

Also i'd just like to mention that these screen shots look make it look fantastic https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...6&postcount=78

Yeah, it’s not as tragibad as it was the first time I saw it because of the settings, but it’s still horribly encoded in places and I just cannae unsee it.

[jurid]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

The issues I have with the 4K UHD of Blade Runner specifically are the mediocre to poor compression, there’s lots of chroma noise (great big chunks of coloured blocks) buzzing around underneath the film grain and it looks so untidy to me. They’ve also sharpened several shots where the focus was missed during the original shoot and it doesn’t compensate at all, it just makes the grain look far too sharp and electronic.

those issues are related: as the compressor struggles compressing accentuated grain noise within a given bit rate budget, the signal can't get encoded properly. Hence the compression artifacts we observe.

[DR Herbert West]

[dallywhitty]

I want nothing more than for WB to release a 40th Anniversary Edition with the five cuts in 4K, original audio, and plentiful tat.

I also want a Sean Young commentary in which she dishes all the dirt.

[HeavyHitter]

Honestly, my fave way to watch this movie is still with the 2007 "Director's Cut" version BD. I'm not saying it's the highest overall quality version, but I never got fully used to the newer Final Cut color timing and it's not that bad of an encode all things considered (in motion).

[dallywhitty]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

Honestly, my fave watch to watch this movie is still with the 2007 "Director's Cut" version BD.

Same.

[steel_breeze]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

Honestly, my fave watch to watch this movie is still with the 2007 "Director's Cut" version BD.

If I was forced at gun-point to keep only one version, then that's probably true for me too... but whenever I actually go to watch Blade Runner, my usually-purist eyes are always seduced into poppin' in the UHD version with those sweet, sweet cleaned-up re-composites. <drool noise> As I've written before, this movie is my most glaring contradiction, since I'm usually alllll about "original cut" and "original audio". Go figure.

[Warm Gun]

I prefer the DC now too.

Color timing isn't as aggressive.

Joanna Cassidy's aged face isn't glued awkwardly onto her stunt double's head.

Final still looks better, though. Just because that DC Blu-ray is so dated.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by jurid

those issues are related: as the compressor struggles compressing accentuated grain noise within a given bit rate budget, the signal can't get encoded properly. Hence the compression artifacts we observe.

Which still has absolutely nothing to with what John "Bollocks" Archer was talking about. And only SELECT shots were sharpened up because the focus was missed, not the whole thing. Titles shouldn't be penalised for having grain, what with having been shot on that pesky film stuff that seemed to be everywhere for like a century, and it's not like well compressed film UHDs don't exist. It's the compression that's shit on BR, period.

[jurid]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Which still has absolutely nothing to with what John "Bollocks" Archer was talking about. And only SELECT shots were sharpened up because the focus was missed, not the whole thing. Titles shouldn't be penalised for having grain, what with having been shot on that pesky film stuff that seemed to be everywhere for like a century, and it's not like well compressed film UHDs don't exist. It's the compression that's shit on BR, period.

A bit categorical here, no? I don't care if he likes grain or not. I was commenting on difficulty of compressing noise, and it seems there was a lot of it in 4k DI. Also it seems mistakes were made during the DI creation. The resulting 4K BD speaks for.itself. what's worse it's not clear if those mistakes can be rectified without a new scan. if not, we will be waiting for a better BR rendition for a long time...

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by jurid

A bit categorical here, no? I don't care if he likes grain or not. I was commenting on difficulty of compressing noise, and it seems there was a lot of it in 4k DI. Also it seems mistakes were made during the DI creation. The resulting 4K BD speaks for.itself. what's worse it's not clear if those mistakes can be rectified without a new scan. if not, we will be waiting for a better BR rendition for a long time...

If you want to get categorical: You're implying there's a correlation between its underlying DI treatment and how badly it was compressed for the 4K UHD, I'm saying that that's bullshit. There is nothing in there that would be so challenging as to be impossible to handle for a competent compressionist given enough room to work, i.e. a UHD66 with minimal language options (unlike the multiple tracks on the current UHD) or a UHD100 stuffed with all the languages Warners' heart desires.

The decisions made when mastering the underlying 4K image are their own separate thing, like the selective DNR in some shots and crazy sharpening in others. If they could roll those back then I'd gleefully accept it, but if they took the exact same 4K HDR master as now and just gave it a proper fookin encode then I'd gladly take it as-is. Along with the 2007 5.1 mix, natch.

[useless watcher]

Originally Posted by cybersoga

I have also seen compression artefacts in Blade Runner HDR10 but they aren't so noticeable after changing my display's HDR tone mapping to the most accurate setting. No doubt that this title would benefit from a better encode.

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Yeah, it’s not as tragibad as it was the first time I saw it because of the settings, but it’s still horribly encoded in places and I just cannae unsee it.

I know the answer to this is probably already in this thread somewhere, but what are these settings that should be changed? I assume this is something specifically for this Blade Runner encode.. or are you talking about ideal settings for HDR content in general? Thanks for any clarification!

[Fjodor2000]

They should have just shot the movie using a more modern camera like the Arri Alexa LF or Sony Venice so they had some proper source material to work with in the first place. After all it was filmed in November 2019 according to the opening scene.

[jurid]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

The decisions made when mastering the underlying 4K image are their own separate thing, like the selective DNR in some shots and crazy sharpening in others. If they could roll those back then I'd gleefully accept it, but if they took the exact same 4K HDR master as now and just gave it a proper fookin encode then I'd gladly take it as-is. Along with the 2007 5.1 mix, natch.

You are going on a tangent here. WB budgeted under 50Mb/s for video, their mistake. Scan mistakes jointly with their decisions for DI contributed to compression issues. That's all. Of course, increasing bit rate would resolve compression artifacts. That's trivial. I don't believe there should be a disagreement about that.

[dylrichard02]

Just got this, I had waited for a while since I knew it would go lower in $. Sure enough I ordered it for $17.99, kinda pathetic that all WB can do for this is package DVDs with a VC-1 blu-ray from 2007 and only 1 cut is in 4K. Not to mention the presentation's issues, which seem to have been discussed in excess here lately. I love this movie, it deserves so much more.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by jurid

You are going on a tangent here. WB budgeted under 50Mb/s for video, their mistake. Scan mistakes jointly with their decisions for DI contributed to compression issues. That's all. Of course, increasing bit rate would resolve compression artifacts. That's trivial. I don't believe there should be a disagreement about that.

No, I've been banging on about the shite compression on this for years, literally. You're the one saying that it's compressed badly because of "mistakes" made during the DI process, empowered by John Archer's speculative nonsense, but I'll keep on contending that one has nothing to do with the other.