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

[emailking]

Originally Posted by Big_Bass_Man

I was told the problem is, the piracy encoding on newer UHD's. XBOX and Sony players need a firmware update. LG players, UHD's work fine.

Hmm, that's weird. It played fine on my Oppo which I don't think has had an update in a few years. Sony is usually on the ball with changes like that.

[guizhang]

i know this thread is mostly about the quality of the UHDs, but i rewatched all these for the first time since the 90s

1 and 3 were pretty good. i especially liked 3 more now than i did back then. conversely, i thought 2 was the worst of the trilogy. it was my favorite as a kid, but i imagine that was because of the 2015 gimmicks. the narrative structure was a mess and it ruined the neat simplicity of the original by adding unnecessary fluff. nothing gets accomplished, just felt like filler to me. when i watched the original and 3, i never questioned the time travel aspect, but by going into the future i was constantly questioning the logic and all the paradoxes. main gripe though being that was just a mess structurally.

oh and elizabeth shue sucks compared to the original jennifer

[Bellicose]

Originally Posted by Fendergopher

Not really, it's more the chroma layer on the UHD is encoded badly so you get lots of noise mingled in with the proper grain, which should be easily fixable with a new encode, ideally on a BD100. And I do agree with others who want the old 5.1 mix on the UHD along with the Atmos mix, despite me not having that much issue with the changes overall.

And although it's simple to miss stuff like this when you're just watching and enjoying the movie, it honestly warrants a fix, especially when much smaller labels can do it:

https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?a=1&x...9&l=1&i=5&go=1

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

IDK, the film still looks incredible in 4K. I agree them not doing 100GB disc for that was disappointing. 50 is just not good enough sometimes, but at least it's a darker film. I don't think it is really encoded badly, I just think people fail to realize how low 50Mbps is on 4K, even with better algorithms. I'd always prefer to be in the 70-80 range on UHD if possible, and it's sad to see so many great films using BD66. Wish BR would have just gone for the better disc.

Sure, things can always be improved a little here and there, but the Atmos on BR blows the other one away for the most part. I'd definitely buy another release with 30 more gigs devoted to the picture though. Sign me up.

And also, we do need to remember how bad some of these were on their bluray releases. Both BR and BttF sucked on BD. 8K Blade Runner here we come.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Bellicose

IDK, the film still looks incredible in 4K. I agree them not doing 100GB disc for that was disappointing. 50 is just not good enough sometimes, but at least it's a darker film. I don't think it is really encoded badly, I just think people fail to realize how low 50Mbps is on 4K, even with better algorithms. I'd always prefer to be in the 70-80 range on UHD if possible, and it's sad to see so many great films using BD66. Wish BR would have just gone for the better disc.

Sure, things can always be improved a little here and there, but the Atmos on BR blows the other one away for the most part. I'd definitely buy another release with 30 more gigs devoted to the picture though. Sign me up.

And also, we do need to remember how bad some of these were on their bluray releases. Both BR and BttF sucked on BD. 8K Blade Runner here we come.

BR’s chroma channels are what’s encoded badly while the luminance channel is mostly fine. 50 Mb/s average isn’t even that low, I’ve got movies that are ~35 Mb/s and for film-based stuff it’s pretty much murder, Apollo 13 and ID4 are wretchedly compressed as a result. But for whatever reasons the encoders on BR shat out this terrible chroma compression, I think even a new encode on a UHD66 (minus all the extra language tracks) would be fine but as any theoretical re-release would have lots of language tracks (eh, it’s Warners) then it’s got to be on a UHD100, just in case.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by guizhang

i know this thread is mostly about the quality of the UHDs, but i rewatched all these for the first time since the 90s

1 and 3 were pretty good. i especially liked 3 more now than i did back then. conversely, i thought 2 was the worst of the trilogy. it was my favorite as a kid, but i imagine that was because of the 2015 gimmicks. the narrative structure was a mess and it ruined the neat simplicity of the original by adding unnecessary fluff. nothing gets accomplished, just felt like filler to me. when i watched the original and 3, i never questioned the time travel aspect, but by going into the future i was constantly questioning the logic and all the paradoxes. main gripe though being that was just a mess structurally.

oh and elizabeth shue sucks compared to the original jennifer

In all fairness, the original Jennifer was barely in the first movie where as that character had a much bigger part in 2 so it remains to be seen how much better, if any, the original would have performed. I think Shue did just fine though.

I really only like the first movie. The second movie doesn't hold up for me quite as well as it once did (but it's 'okay') and I could never get into the third....as I almost always doze off in it.

[motorheadache95]

I've always loved Part II-- admittedly the opening 2015 stuff doesn't hold up as well, as I find it kind of overly silly and corny. But once the plot gets going, I really love how they went balls-out with the complications of time travel and how they literally revisit the first movie, almost like a wink at rehash sequels.

I like Part III as well, and it's back to basics approach of "stuck in time x, figure out how to get back to time y" plot, but IMO it's not as good as the original and thus is my least favorite of the three.

[dallywhitty]

Part II went from being my favourite as a kid, to my least favourite, to now being my second fave after revisiting the trilogy on UHD. Part III is still great, of course, but I dunno, I appreciate how bonkers Part II is.

The original's still the best, though.

[Bellicose]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

BR’s chroma channels are what’s encoded badly while the luminance channel is mostly fine. 50 Mb/s average isn’t even that low, I’ve got movies that are ~35 Mb/s and for film-based stuff it’s pretty much murder, Apollo 13 and ID4 are wretchedly compressed as a result. But for whatever reasons the encoders on BR shat out this terrible chroma compression, I think even a new encode on a UHD66 (minus all the extra language tracks) would be fine but as any theoretical re-release would have lots of language tracks (eh, it’s Warners) then it’s got to be on a UHD100, just in case.

Eh, the compression is always going to be bad if you ask me at 50. While you say it isn't that bad, it really isn't great either. It's the equivalent of softer 25Mbps blurays or around there in most cases. Not even close to optimal, and there would be very little reason to do another encode to fix chroma issues when your bitrate stays the same. It's always going to be a trade off, and they probably tried to save somewhere they thought people would not notice. They need a 75Mbps encode, and they will not have these issues almost certainly.

It's crazy how low studios are going with these bitrates if you ask me. I thought bluray was bad, and while UHD is an improvement because of the algorithm, I am very unhappy to see all these 50Mbps and below films. Christ, even blurays got in the 34-38 range all the time. Adding 12Mbps more for that much of a resolution and grain increase is not optimal under any circumstances.

[K9 Mark V]

Sorry if this was mentioned before (Don't have time to check 300+ pages of a forum) but is the atmos mix included a new mix entirely, based off of the 5.1, or more faithful to the original stereo mix with Doc's original 'You made it!' in the first film?

(For those who don't know what I'm referring to, it's the first comparison in this video)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFo1vaDk-SA

[SpazeBlue]

Originally Posted by K9 Mark V

Sorry if this was mentioned before (Don't have time to check 300+ pages of a forum) but is the atmos mix included a new mix entirely, based off of the 5.1, or more faithful to the original stereo mix with Doc's original 'You made it!' in the first film?

The first.

[Batman1980]

Originally Posted by dallywhitty

Part II went from being my favourite as a kid, to my least favourite, to now being my second fave after revisiting the trilogy on UHD. Part III is still great, of course, but I dunno, I appreciate how bonkers Part II is.

The original's still the best, though.

It still has the honor of being one of the rare trilogies that have no weak entries.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Bellicose

Eh, the compression is always going to be bad if you ask me at 50. While you say it isn't that bad, it really isn't great either. It's the equivalent of softer 25Mbps blurays or around there in most cases. Not even close to optimal, and there would be very little reason to do another encode to fix chroma issues when your bitrate stays the same. It's always going to be a trade off, and they probably tried to save somewhere they thought people would not notice. They need a 75Mbps encode, and they will not have these issues almost certainly.

It's crazy how low studios are going with these bitrates if you ask me. I thought bluray was bad, and while UHD is an improvement because of the algorithm, I am very unhappy to see all these 50Mbps and below films. Christ, even blurays got in the 34-38 range all the time. Adding 12Mbps more for that much of a resolution and grain increase is not optimal under any circumstances.

Most UHDs with an average - remember, average - bitrate of 50-ish Mb/s don't have anything like the disastrous chroma encoding of BR. And I've seen discs with with 60+ Mb/s averages have some of the worst encoding artefacts I've ever seen. I'd never turn down a UHD100 for anything and everything but there always comes a point where returns diminish, and the quality of the encoding is dependent as much on the people doing it as the amount of space it has.

[edit] With the proper fine tuning and allocation of bitrate then BR would work perfickly fine on a UHD66, a 70 Mb/s average bitrate for the transport stream (video + minimal audio tracks) would fit on there with room to spare. But it wouldn't ever have minimal audio tracks - Warners gonna Warners - so it would need a 100GB disc to give it enough space.

But you know that HEVC is a vastly more efficient codec than AVC, yes? So comparing one to the other doesn't make much sense to me.

[1924]

Originally Posted by The Fallen Deity

Honestly, if these transfers hadn't been DNR'ed, they would look perfect imo.

The scrubbing on these discs reminds me of the "clean-up" work they did on quite a few of their early catalogue UHDs (Jurassic Park, E.T. and Waterworld come to mind).

Old post but no way are these are close to as bad as JP. Hell I wouldn’t even be surprised if with JP just just went back to the old
Master used for the DVD!

[NoFro]

Originally Posted by guizhang

Oh and elizabeth shue sucks compared to the original jennifer

Indeed. Hard work trying to act your way around that wig though.

[Mierzwiak]

Originally Posted by guizhang

oh and elizabeth shue sucks compared to the original jennifer

That's harsh considering she basically slept through the entire two movies.

[Tober27]

Originally Posted by Mierzwiak

That's harsh considering she basically slept through the entire two movies.

She was given so little to do, it always baffles me. She is the female lead you would get for these movies at the time, not just the girlfriend part, she could have played female Marty, so I never got why she wasn't treated as the 3rd lead.
Zemeckis and Gale always joked that they'd never have had her go with Marty and Doc at the end of 1 if they knew there'd be a sequel, then had to get rid of her right away. Why not actually write her into the story instead?

While Jennifer in the first movie seemed genuine, her clothes seemed casual, Shue looks like she's wearing a costume.

[starmike]

Originally Posted by K9 Mark V

Sorry if this was mentioned before (Don't have time to check 300+ pages of a forum) but is the atmos mix included a new mix entirely, based off of the 5.1, or more faithful to the original stereo mix with Doc's original 'You made it!' in the first film?

(For those who don't know what I'm referring to, it's the first comparison in this video)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFo1vaDk-SA

Yup, I've noticed this for years. It's why I hang onto my laserdisc.

[1924]

Part 2 is good but the main problems I have with it are the beginning. Why is Doc so agitated about saving young Marty when he as a time machine and literally has all the time in the world? Also, the old makeup on some of the actors is awful and Michael J Fox has his own daughter? Seriously??


Also, while it was cool to see the original film at different angles at the end I think would have overall preffered going to a different time period all together somehow

[vector72]

Originally Posted by 1924

Part 2 is good but the main problems I have with it are the beginning. Why is Doc so agitated about saving young Marty when he as a time machine and literally has all the time in the world? Also, the old makeup on some of the actors is awful and Michael J Fox has his own daughter? Seriously??


Also, while it was cool to see the original film at different angles at the end I think would have overall preffered going to a different time period all together somehow

Doc tells you why he's so agitated, he just went thru hell sending Marty back to the future.

The makeup is tounge-in-cheek. We're supposed to know it's MJ.Fox -- that's the joke.

[Markgway]

I found the skit-like comedy versions of the characters in 2015 to be a letdown.

They're not worthy of the film.