Blade Runner 4K UHD (1982)

[jamesdevil]

At least they actually uploaded their '4K trailer' in 1440p.

[Pieter V]

Originally Posted by jamesdevil

At least they actually uploaded their '4K trailer' in 1440p.

I have the 2160p option in Chrome.

[jamesdevil]

Originally Posted by Pieter V

I have the 2160p option in Chrome.

Wow, totally didn't know this was a thing. Safari letting me down.

[Pieter V]

Originally Posted by jamesdevil

Wow, totally didn't know this was a thing. Safari letting me down.

Apple vs Google vs Microsoft (Edge)

I'll always use Chrome.

[Croweyes1121]

For my part, I never judge any of these releases on YouTube videos. There's just no way of knowing if they're indicative of anything regarding the actual UHD disc, to say nothing of the compression, which automatically makes them worthless as a reference just on its own.

[DJJez]

im dying to know what kind of HDR treatment this is gonna get

i would love it to have serious pop like john wick 2 but it aint gonna happen for such an old movie and i dont think it would look right. i think its gonna be pretty subtle

thoughts?

[Croweyes1121]

Originally Posted by DJJez

im dying to know what kind of HDR treatment this is gonna get

i would love it to have serious pop like john wick 2 but it aint gonna happen for such an old movie and i dont think it would look right. i think its gonna be pretty subtle

thoughts?

Yeah, I assuming the same. Just the uptick in the resolution and a slight boost in the colors should make this movie "pop" enough IMHO. It already looks pretty great as-is...not that I'm *not* upgrading.

[Geoff D]

For a movie that looks as beautiful as BR has always done I'd be happy with 4K SDR, never mind HDR. I also think we'll see a fairly restrained HDR grade because the movie has such a rainy, smokey look that making it some super-bright version would lose that effect. The Final Cut Blu has a lot of black crush and dat teal tint, two things which I often see taken care of when a movie transitions to HDR, so I'm looking forward to that side of things the most, as well as the true 4K res.

[Croweyes1121]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

The Final Cut Blu has a lot of black crush and dat teal tint, two things which I often see taken care of when a movie transitions to HDR

This. The scene where Deckard first meets Rachel always irritates me when I view the FC version, knowing how much more information is there in Deckard's jacket on the other cuts. The crush in that scene is just awful.

[s2mikey]

Originally Posted by DJJez

im dying to know what kind of HDR treatment this is gonna get

i would love it to have serious pop like john wick 2 but it aint gonna happen for such an old movie and i dont think it would look right. i think its gonna be pretty subtle

thoughts?

Yeah - we've already seen that 4K treatments of older films doesnt exactly blow you away. It almost cant.... they're upping the resolution of something that wasnt like that to begin with. Nothing wrong with it and Im sure some will be really solid. But I suspect most of these 4K redos of older titles will be trivial upgrades at best versus the massive upgrade that blu-ray was from DVD. Just how it is. Thats what we've seen thus far.

Then, when 8K eventually comes out, the "upgrade" over 4K will be like nothing. There is a diminishing returns thing at play here. We may have hit it already. Thats why Im not rebuying most titles in 4K if I have a good blu-ray version already on my shelf. No need to. Maybe Ill do Star Wars, LOTR. Matrix or other major favorites if they come out but thats it. Of course, titles I dont own at all Ill buy in 4K. But thats it.

[Geoff D]

I think the resolution upgrade + better compression of 4K is usually a big improvement over 1080p when it comes to the graininess of film sources and retaining detail within that grain, and in this case we're going to see a 10-year-old VC-1 encode intended for HD DVD stack up against a brand new 4K HEVC encode so I suspect the differences will not be subtle in that respect.

I'm already starting to yearn for dat 4K grain when I watch 1080p stuff now, the recent Mulholland Drive remaster is a case in point. It looks beautiful for Blu-ray but there's something missing somehow.

[KcMsterpce]

Originally Posted by s2mikey

Yeah - we've already seen that 4K treatments of older films doesnt exactly blow you away. It almost cant.... they're upping the resolution of something that wasnt like that to begin with.

I am not sure if it's about higher "resolution", but the idea that the way lighting and filming was done - especially before the advent of digital postprocessing and heavy CGI - roughly around 2005 and earlier, would even warrant HDR "upgrades". Sometimes, a movie isn't meant to show the brightest whites at the same time as the darkest blacks.
For example, LEON at points was too bright in the whites for a lot of clothing, especially during the interior of Tony's Italian restaurant. The HDR didn't cause blowout, but it did seem so white that I was expecting the clothing to become transparent. It was a super-bleached presentation, yet still keeping the texture of the fabric on screen. So, the contrast felt blown out, but it wasn't bleeding the whites.

There are other times where LEON looked much better in 4k, such as the city streets. Other times - normal dingy apartment interiors, typically - had a minimal improvement, but I personally could take it or leave it.
As I watched LEON, I just thought about how the movie wasn't LIT, or FILMED with the idea or intent of applying HDR.
This comes to the question of how much HDR should be applied to movies not intended for it. Especially movies that are filmed 100% film, with lighting and "texture" that might not benefit in the way originally intended for viewing.
I feel that movies which did not heavily utilize computerized post-processing for color correction (this kind of started around the time of OH BROTHER WHERE ART THOU? and the LORD OF THE RINGS movies if I remember right) have less benefit to HDR. There are always exceptions, of course.

That's my take on it.
I don't think all movies would be improved with HDR. Blade Runner has a chance to be awesome, but I don't want HDR to be excessive for most scenes. It's already a dark movie, and I think a good HDR enhancement would merely darken the blacks without causing crush, while also improving overall skin tone. Some scenes might not even need HDR at all, while others - for example the blinds going down as Deckard is about to give Rachel "the test" - might be a great benefit in HDR.
It comes down to a shot by shot, moment by moment decision-making process. In the case of LEON, for example, it feels like they didn't pay enough attention to the whites and lighting for a more congruent HDR enhancement process.

Finally, it all comes down to a viewer's opinion. And my opinion is just one of all others that have eyes can make.

[Geoff D]

You wanna see another take on the whites in Leon, watch the old transfer on the previous Blu-ray where everything's super bright and blown out with it. Even buildings get clipped away because the contrast is so high.

[s2mikey]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I think the resolution upgrade + better compression of 4K is usually a big improvement over 1080p when it comes to the graininess of film sources and retaining detail within that grain, and in this case we're going to see a 10-year-old VC-1 encode intended for HD DVD stack up against a brand new 4K HEVC encode so I suspect the differences will not be subtle in that respect.

I'm already starting to yearn for dat 4K grain when I watch 1080p stuff now, the recent Mulholland Drive remaster is a case in point. It looks beautiful for Blu-ray but there's something missing somehow.

Originally Posted by KcMsterpce

I am not sure if it's about higher "resolution", but the idea that the way lighting and filming was done - especially before the advent of digital postprocessing and heavy CGI - roughly around 2005 and earlier, would even warrant HDR "upgrades". Sometimes, a movie isn't meant to show the brightest whites at the same time as the darkest blacks.
For example, LEON at points was too bright in the whites for a lot of clothing, especially during the interior of Tony's Italian restaurant. The HDR didn't cause blowout, but it did seem so white that I was expecting the clothing to become transparent. It was a super-bleached presentation, yet still keeping the texture of the fabric on screen. So, the contrast felt blown out, but it wasn't bleeding the whites.

There are other times where LEON looked much better in 4k, such as the city streets. Other times - normal dingy apartment interiors, typically - had a minimal improvement, but I personally could take it or leave it.
As I watched LEON, I just thought about how the movie wasn't LIT, or FILMED with the idea or intent of applying HDR.
This comes to the question of how much HDR should be applied to movies not intended for it. Especially movies that are filmed 100% film, with lighting and "texture" that might not benefit in the way originally intended for viewing.
I feel that movies which did not heavily utilize computerized post-processing for color correction (this kind of started around the time of OH BROTHER WHERE ART THOU? and the LORD OF THE RINGS movies if I remember right) have less benefit to HDR. There are always exceptions, of course.

That's my take on it.
I don't think all movies would be improved with HDR. Blade Runner has a chance to be awesome, but I don't want HDR to be excessive for most scenes. It's already a dark movie, and I think a good HDR enhancement would merely darken the blacks without causing crush, while also improving overall skin tone. Some scenes might not even need HDR at all, while others - for example the blinds going down as Deckard is about to give Rachel "the test" - might be a great benefit in HDR.
It comes down to a shot by shot, moment by moment decision-making process. In the case of LEON, for example, it feels like they didn't pay enough attention to the whites and lighting for a more congruent HDR enhancement process.

Finally, it all comes down to a viewer's opinion. And my opinion is just one of all others that have eyes can make.

Good stuff here, gents.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by KcMsterpce

I am not sure if it's about higher "resolution", but the idea that the way lighting and filming was done - especially before the advent of digital postprocessing and heavy CGI - roughly around 2005 and earlier, would even warrant HDR "upgrades". Sometimes, a movie isn't meant to show the brightest whites at the same time as the darkest blacks.

HDR is like lossless audio - you're transferring ALL the range of details from the deepest darks to the brightest brights. It does NOT mean all bright & shiny - it means higher range than what was available before. Home video has been graded at 100 nits and there's more range than that in film negatives.

Yes, newer material will have more HDR "highlights" because they're being captured and graded that way - but older films will still benefit as well because you're no longer limited to the crushed down dynamic range we've had since the beginning of television.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I think the resolution upgrade + better compression of 4K is usually a big improvement over 1080p when it comes to the graininess of film sources and retaining detail within that grain, and in this case we're going to see a 10-year-old VC-1 encode intended for HD DVD stack up against a brand new 4K HEVC encode so I suspect the differences will not be subtle in that respect.

I'm already starting to yearn for dat 4K grain when I watch 1080p stuff now, the recent Mulholland Drive remaster is a case in point. It looks beautiful for Blu-ray but there's something missing somehow.

Any concerns about Blade Runner being around a 10-11 year old transfer?

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I think the resolution upgrade + better compression of 4K is usually a big improvement over 1080p when it comes to the graininess of film sources and retaining detail within that grain, and in this case we're going to see a 10-year-old VC-1 encode intended for HD DVD stack up against a brand new 4K HEVC encode so I suspect the differences will not be subtle in that respect.

I'm already starting to yearn for dat 4K grain when I watch 1080p stuff now, the recent Mulholland Drive remaster is a case in point. It looks beautiful for Blu-ray but there's something missing somehow.

Even with my projector only effectively resolving around 3K on a big screen, I can clearly see the improved film grain rendition and encoding on UHD BD versus the BD counterpart. This alone is worth the upgrade (aside from the other UHD BD goodies).

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

Any concerns about Blade Runner being around a 10-11 year old transfer?

Not really. A brand new scan might may well create an even 'tighter' image but this really would be a case of rapidly diminishing returns because we're not talking about it being some old HD telecine from an IP but a full 4K/6K workup from original 35mm camera negative and 65mm VFX. (Same goes for the Godfather restoration from the same period.) The grain management that they did to level out a few shots that they lifted from the workprint might look a bit obvious, as might the power windows and other DI tweaks which were used during the Final Cut grading, but in terms of overall detail & grain rendition I think it'll be fine.

[Croweyes1121]

You know, it's amazing to me. I remember being astounded the first time I was able to watch movies at home on that silver, top-loading monster of a VHS player. Then laserdisc, then DVD, then blu-ray...all the while, huge strides were made in displays. CRT, projection, LCD, etc...with panels getting better and better, thinner and thinner, cheaper and cheaper.

It's funny. I remember my very first experience with letterboxed films (VHS copies of Innerspace and Always). And then my first experience with scope widescreen (the VHS Star Wars Trilogy box with the hologram on the front). I actually remember wondering why Star Wars had huge bars where Always and Innerspace had little ones...and having the rectangle screen / square television epiphany at school...then faking a stomach ache so I could go home early and watch Empire and Jedi (on my 13"(!) CRT no less).

And here we are in 2017...and in less than a month I'll be watching Blade Runner...in 4K, with HDR, on my 65" OLED television, with lossless audio...and as nitpicky as we can all get at times over these releases, it's one HELL of a time to be a fan of film. Finally, we're at a place that was just a pipe dream for, quite literally, DECADES...something that is actually presenting us with, essentially, a near-perfect representation of an actual FILM, but at home, and in quality that's actually usually BETTER (aside from sheer size) than what we used to only be able to get from a theater.

It's pretty awesome. I can't wait to check this out and marvel at our collective good fortune at being ABLE to buy this. I mean really think about it...this film, and in this INSANE quality...on something the size of a CD. It's just incredible.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Croweyes1121

It's pretty awesome.

It is. And it's nice to take stock of it now and again.

Also, we're going to be buying that 4K HDR WCG lossless Blade Runner for about half the price we paid for the laserdisc...

... in unadjusted dollars.