Back to the Future Trilogy 4K UHD (1985-1990)

[Bellicose]

Originally Posted by wright96d

Just a reminder, if you do agree that there is a problem with the 4K, and you would like to see it fixed, please contact Universal.

https://www.uphe.com/en/contact-support

I'd like you to explain all the points I brought up in my post. Use PNGs when detailing issues. And there has to be logic here. Why are various parts of the same shot not showing signs of 720p. Half of them look the same in detail. The old master is contrast boosted, sharpened, and with tons of macroblocking even in PNG.

DNR and excess usage of cinema tools and noise reduction suites can easily product a messed up image. Algorithms mess stuff up all the time.

[wright96d]

Originally Posted by Bellicose

I'd like you to explain all the points I brought up in my post. Use PNGs when detailing issues. And there has to be logic here. Why are various parts of the same shot not showing signs of 720p. Half of them look the same in detail. The old master is contrast boosted, sharpened, and with tons of macroblocking even in PNG.

DNR and excess usage of cinema tools and noise reduction suites can easily product a messed up image. Algorithms mess stuff up all the time.

You realize I'm not talking about the old master, right? That is indeed garbage. I'm talking about the remastered Blu-Ray. You didn't even use the old master in your comparisons, you used the remastered Blu-Ray. I'm not arguing with you because I don't even know where to start. I never said every single pixel of every single frame from the timestamps I provided would exhibit the exact same artifacts as the worst examples I provided. It varies. It's all worse than the Blu-Ray to one degree or another. And please, if one more person complains because I used JPGs to compare, I'm going to lose it. Put the JPGs and PNGs in separate tabs. Flip back and forth. There is no difference.

[Bellicose]

Originally Posted by wright96d

You realize I'm not talking about the old master, right? That is indeed garbage. I'm talking about the remastered Blu-Ray. You didn't even use the old master in your comparisons, you used the remastered Blu-Ray. I'm not arguing with you because I don't even know where to start. I never said every single pixel of every single frame from the timestamps I provided would exhibit the exact same artifacts as the worst examples I provided. It varies. It's all worse than the Blu-Ray to one degree or another. And please, if one more person complains because I used JPGs to compare, I'm going to lose it. Put the JPGs and PNGs in separate tabs. Flip back and forth. There is no difference.

There is an actual difference. The difference between jpeg and png is not only objective it is logically verified.

I took my comparisons exactly from your post and posted on those two. Yes, that is the UK remastered one, and that is what you used. I edited reference to old master to include both of them. The new bluray looks awful too.

https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?a=2&x...0&l=1&i=6&go=1

Here is the 25th vs the 4K. The 25th looks pitiful everywhere. This is why your 720p claims don't make sense to me. It's not consistent enough to be a foundation of 720p. In the 25th you can even see the slight curling on the same edge there, just not as bad. But look everywhere else. Its contrast is off, macroblocking everywhere. If this is 720p being blown up, then the blocks are going to be all messed up on the 4K. And they aren't really. It just looks super smudged on certain details for the most part, but macroblocking is not a huge issue, because the source seems to be of high quality and encoded properly.

The base idea being there is no more detail there, and only marginal more detail in the next remastered version. In most spots they are the same, and the 4K almost always is better looking and more resolved. It just has enhanced DNR and processing on certain parts if you ask me. It could be an issue of using a bad file, but I can't verify that.

The remastered bluray looks oversharpened to me in comparison. The 4K appearing naturally soft with some DNR that varies in intensity.

I also fully doubt the 4K looks like that screen on a brand new LG OLED or whatever. That 4K screen is pretty dim on my 1080p LED, and I guarantee it's not like that in reality. 150 nits, converted, et cetera. We really should only being grading detail levels on these shots of 4K, and even then the 4K is doing fine in most shots.

The simple fact is if this were 720p we should be seeing consistent issues all over the board. We don't see that though. It's just certain areas and lines, like an algorithm is malfunctioning or poorly set up and used. I could be wrong, but I doubt it. The differences aren't massive enough to be 720p to 1080p. It looks like a 1080p master with more DNR in places. I have no idea what resolution is actually available on the negative. DNR isn't bad everywhere, and some parts are a bit hazy naturally due to the camera and stock or effects.

I'm not against getting a disc fixed, but they would basically have to turn off DNR. I doubt that is going to happen.

[wright96d]

Originally Posted by Bellicose

There is an actual difference. The difference between jpeg and png is not only objective it is logically verified.

I took my comparisons exactly from your post and posted on those two. Yes, that is the UK remastered one, and that is what you used. I edited reference to old master to include both of them. The new bluray looks awful too.

https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?a=2&x...0&l=1&i=6&go=1

Here is the 25th vs the 4K. The 25th looks pitiful everywhere. This is why your 720p claims don't make sense to me. It's not consistent enough to be a foundation of 720p. In the 25th you can even see the slight curling on the same edge there, just not as bad. But look everywhere else. Its contrast is off, macroblocking everywhere. If this is 720p being blown up, then the blocks are going to be all messed up on the 4K. And they aren't really. It just looks super smudged on certain details for the most part, but macroblocking is not a huge issue, because the source seems to be of high quality and encoded properly.

The base idea being there is no more detail there, and only marginal more detail in the next remastered version. In most spots they are the same, and the 4K almost always is better looking and more resolved. It just has enhanced DNR and processing on certain parts if you ask me. It could be an issue of using a bad file, but I can't verify that.

The remastered bluray looks oversharpened to me in comparison. The 4K appearing naturally soft with some DNR that varies in intensity.

I also fully doubt the 4K looks like that screen on a brand new LG OLED or whatever. That 4K screen is pretty dim on my 1080p LED, and I guarantee it's not like that in reality. 150 nits, converted, et cetera. We really should only being grading detail levels on these shots of 4K, and even then the 4K is doing fine in most shots.

The simple fact is if this were 720p we should be seeing consistent issues all over the board. We don't see that though. It's just certain areas and lines, like an algorithm is malfunctioning or poorly set up and used. I could be wrong, but I doubt it. The differences aren't massive enough to be 720p to 1080p. It looks like a 1080p master with more DNR in places. I have no idea what resolution is actually available on the negative. DNR isn't bad everywhere, and some parts are a bit hazy naturally due to the camera and stock or effects.

I'm not against getting a disc fixed, but they would basically have to turn off DNR. I doubt that is going to happen.

Look dude, if you can genuinely look at the aliasing on the clock tower ledge, and believe it's from studio grade DNR techniques applied to a 2160p image, and you can look at the magically reappearing vent grate, and chalk it up to oversharpening, nothing I can say or do is going to convince you otherwise. I'm watching Ted Lasso.

[broly965]

OK i just got the steelbook set and the UHD is great looking. I have a question about the standard bd's. Are they remastered or the previous blu?

[SpazeBlue]

Originally Posted by broly965

OK i just got the steelbook set and the UHD is great looking. I have a question about the standard bd's. Are they remastered or the previous blu?

They're remastered.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Bellicose

Honestly, as we have been using the old one to compare, I have no idea what that person likes with that version. It's contrast-boosted, sharpened, has a lot of macroblocking, and it's poorly colored IMHO. While it looks okay I guess, it certainly doesn't look great, and there is not much to hate about the new version. Turn your contrast up I guess.

Some people posted on here that they still preferred the old BDs, not just for the colour but also the nuked contrast and DNR and sharpening doing what they do best (or worst): make it “pop” (ugh).

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by wright96d

Just a reminder, if you do agree that there is a problem with the 4K, and you would like to see it fixed, please contact Universal.

https://www.uphe.com/en/contact-support

To be brutally honest I’m FAR more annoyed at the entire 10-minute reel that has badly blurred chroma. Yes, there’s some oddness going on when Marty gets to Hill Valley ‘55 for the first time but the specific weird softening/aliasing that’s not there on the new Blu is only present for a few minutes, whereas the dodgy chroma reel is there on the new BD too and is a fundamental flaw with this transfer at the source level.

[wright96d]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

To be brutally honest I’m FAR more annoyed at the entire 10-minute reel that has badly blurred chroma. Yes, there’s some oddness going on when Marty gets to Hill Valley ‘55 for the first time but the specific weird softening/aliasing that’s not there on the new Blu is only present for a few minutes, whereas the dodgy chroma reel is there on the new BD too and is a fundamental flaw with this transfer at the source level.

Well, if you want to contact them about both, I totally welcome that. Though, the chroma thing doesn't really bother me, personally. I just look at it as an unprocessed transfer of shitty high speed 80s film stock.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by wright96d

Well, if you want to contact them about both, I totally welcome that. Though, the chroma thing doesn't really bother me, personally. I just look at it as an unprocessed transfer of shitty high speed 80s film stock.

The stock has literally nothing to do with it, as evinced by the old Blu not having the blurred chroma. I’m not sure I’ve seen such a striking failure of QC as that in quite some time, certainly not in the era of modern datacines. That reel is a botched transfer, period. But we’re all gonna be bothered by different things in different measures.

[wright96d]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

The stock has literally nothing to do with it, as evinced by the old Blu not having the blurred chroma. I’m not sure I’ve seen such a striking failure of QC as that in quite some time, certainly not in the era of modern datacines. That reel is a botched transfer, period. But we’re all gonna be bothered by different things in different measures.

Now that I'm looking at it again, I definitely see what you're talking about. It looks like William Friedkin got his hands on one of the reels.

Edit: Is this movie cursed or something? No matter what, it's just never been able to actually get a perfect home media release like so many other classic films.

[Gacivory]

Originally Posted by wright96d

Now that I'm looking at it again, I definitely see what you're talking about. It looks like William Friedkin got his hands on one of the reels.

Edit: Is this movie cursed or something? No matter what, it's just never been able to actually get a perfect home media release like so many other classic films.

Zemeckis is a fan of DNR, so yes, cured these are.

[The Edge]

Originally Posted by Gacivory

Zemeckis is a fan of DNR, so yes, cured these are.

Zemeckis doesn’t participate in anything relating to his past work. He makes them then moves on. Bob Gale the co-creator and co-writer of the trilogy is the keeper of the flame.

[Mierzwiak]

I finally watched the first BTTF and wow, what a disappointing UHD.

The biggest problems were already mentioned (like Marty's arrival in 1955, which is painful to watch), but to me the whole movie looks pretty meh, sometimes even ugly. For most of the runtime the grain, or what is left from it, looks awfully processed (look how it moves around Marty, Jennifer and Strickland in the scene at the beginning of the movie; disgusting!), with only a few shots having the look of what I could describe as a 4K scan of 35mm film. And what's with those VHS-like, horizontal artifacts in most of the third act? It looks like horizontally stretched, processed grain. Super weird!

My main impression is that it looks... dated. It's more like watching mediocre to decent Blu-ray from 10 years ago than modern 4K restoration and even the Dolby Vision grade doesn't help that much. It might be a nice upgrade from the previous BD, but it only shows how horrible it was, not how good this UHD is.

[johnnyringo7]

Originally Posted by Mierzwiak

I finally watched the first BTTF and wow, what a disappointing UHD.

The biggest problems were already mentioned (like Marty's arrival in 1955, which is painful to watch), but to me the whole movie looks pretty meh, sometimes even ugly. For most of the runtime the grain, or what is left from it, looks awfully processed (look how it moves around Marty, Jennifer and Strickland in the scene at the beginning of the movie; disgusting!), with only a few shots having the look of what I could describe as a 4K scan of 35mm film. And what's with those VHS-like, horizontal artifacts in most of the third act? It looks like horizontally stretched, processed grain. Super weird!

My main impression is that it looks... dated. It's more like watching mediocre to decent Blu-ray from 10 years ago than modern 4K restoration and even the Dolby Vision grade doesn't help that much. It might be a nice upgrade from the previous BD, but it only shows how horrible it was, not how good this UHD is.

I think you're going a little too far with your criticism

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Mierzwiak

I finally watched the first BTTF and wow, what a disappointing UHD.

The biggest problems were already mentioned (like Marty's arrival in 1955, which is painful to watch), but to me the whole movie looks pretty meh, sometimes even ugly. For most of the runtime the grain, or what is left from it, looks awfully processed (look how it moves around Marty, Jennifer and Strickland in the scene at the beginning of the movie; disgusting!), with only a few shots having the look of what I could describe as a 4K scan of 35mm film. And what's with those VHS-like, horizontal artifacts in most of the third act? It looks like horizontally stretched, processed grain. Super weird!

My main impression is that it looks... dated. It's more like watching mediocre to decent Blu-ray from 10 years ago than modern 4K restoration and even the Dolby Vision grade doesn't help that much. It might be a nice upgrade from the previous BD, but it only shows how horrible it was, not how good this UHD is.

I enjoyed it far more than you did but yes, all these issues are readily apparent.

[Fendergopher]

Another release to add to the wishlist of re-releases with fresh fixed encodes, along with Blade Runner.

[wright96d]

Originally Posted by Fendergopher

Another release to add to the wishlist of re-releases with fresh fixed encodes, along with Blade Runner.

Am I not alone in thinking the 4K of Blade Runner looks oversharpened out the wazzoo, or are you referring to the bit-starved Blu-Ray?

[Canada]

Back to the Future DeLorean is the newest member of the National Historic Vehicle Register

[nick4Knight]

Originally Posted by johnnyringo7

I think you're going a little too far with your criticism

Agree. Think I usually agree with that user. But they went a little bit too hard on this one. It's imperfect in ways now mentioned ad nauseam, but generally pleasing in all other respects. And the amount of runtime that smashes the BD is an undoubted majority.

And then factor in this is a trilogy release, not just one movie being judged... pt II and III are great which mitigates the firsts faults further. I don't even notice the "VHS"-like artifacting. And I did specifically demo this sequence to see what others are. But last time I didn't, and so I'm not interested to pixel peep and then not be able to unsee it!