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

[Bellicose]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

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.

I mean we aren't comparing one to the other. 4K is vastly more resolution with vastly more detail to chaotic grain. And the bitrate is not even twice that of the 1080p variant. Algorithms aren't THAT efficient. I don't think I've ever really seen any 50Mbps showcase film unless the film itself is basically on stock with very little grain.

I tend to feel the chroma complaints are just a bit over the top. If you have any valid evidence to post and compare, which might convince me more, do so if you get time.

At any rate, a 100GB disc would have solved any and all compression issues on the chroma side pretty easily. The line you are talking about with a BD 66 vs 100 is not even close to diminishing returns now. That's an extra 30GB right there for video lol. Come on now. You'd have to be nearly deficient in the brain to not make that transfer better.

[Geoff D]

Have you SEEN some of the shite that StudioCanal have served up on 100GB discs or 66GB with otherwise high bitrate? Deficient in the brain about sums it up.

4K is VASTLY more detail on paper but I think that side of it is VASTLY overrated by people in these sorts of discussions, it’s more the grain that needs the extra care and attention. Referring to what ideal situations should be is fine, but it’s like the old saying: everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth, i.e. the reality of the situation is far more nuanced than one size good, one size bad.

But look, I’m not saying that more space wouldn’t always be preferable, but just as much emphasis should be put on managing that compression properly rather than relying on the space to do their job for them. I’d trust some compressionists to do a better job with x film on a UHD66 than I would others with a UHD100, they’re just that good at what they do.

[nick4Knight]

Originally Posted by Bellicose

At any rate, a 100GB disc would have solved any and all compression issues on the chroma side pretty easily. The line you are talking about with a BD 66 vs 100 is not even close to diminishing returns now. That's an extra 30GB right there for video lol. Come on now. You'd have to be nearly deficient in the brain to not make that transfer better.

No it is specifically that you DO get law of diminishing returns putting it on a BD-100 and giving room for a generically higher bitrate on the same content because they will be less vigilant on the compression. Less critical of their quality. So it's likely to only end up being 5% better than the 33% better it technically "should" be.

So 5% on shitty work is not gonna create some magically good output. You need better, or even just very competent people in the position, not more space, more bitrate. That's not some arbitrary argument. It is the argument.

[Geoff D]

The funny thing is that either way this content is still the proverbial quart being squeezed into a pint pot. People make soooooooooo much noise about UHD100s or whatever but we're still talking about masters that are a nominal 8TB in size being shrunken into a mere fraction of that. More bits are vital to have in reserve as there is always a point where the temporal demands of the content - especially with grainy film, as noted - will outpace the efficiency of the codec if it doesn't have enough bits, but these algorithms are throwing away so much information that for a two-hour (or less) movie with minimal audio tracks then a UHD66 is *actually* fine as long as Mr Magoo isn't doing the encoding (which is part of the problem: too many Magoos at authoring houses who think they can just feed the files into a computer, punch a few keys and get a perfick render a few hours later).

The other problem is those darned audio tracks, the studios want to make 'one size' discs that serve all their territories across the world and when it gets totted up the audio can consume a serious amount of space e.g. Elysium's audio tracks are a staggering 24 Mb/s. So despite that movie being on a UHD100 disc the actual video bitrate of 63 Mb/s would fit onto a UHD66 with plenty of room for several audio tracks. And more studios are following Universal's lead and putting the extra features on the 4K disc too.

So that's the irony really. People speak in platitudes about how everything should be maxed out but it literally doesn't work like that, not even when the studios DO use 100GB discs or split a longer feature over two discs. Perhaps it should work like that, but we're not in that ideal world unfortunately. It's often indie discs encoded by the maestro at Fidelity that come close to these ideals, but even they reach the limits of returns that diminish because they're usually short-ish movies with very few language tracks. Cat o'Nine Tails has a stonking average of almost 85 Mb/s for video (with about 2.3 Mb/s for audio) and yet still 'only' takes up 76GB of the disc. Oh noes!

[AlanDistro]

Looking forward to that Superbit 4K line.

[Bellicose]

Originally Posted by nick4Knight

No it is specifically that you DO get law of diminishing returns putting it on a BD-100 and giving room for a generically higher bitrate on the same content because they will be less vigilant on the compression. Less critical of their quality. So it's likely to only end up being 5% better than the 33% better it technically "should" be.

So 5% on shitty work is not gonna create some magically good output. You need better, or even just very competent people in the position, not more space, more bitrate. That's not some arbitrary argument. It is the argument.

This is completely your opinion, and there is absolutely nothing to back it up. You are whipping numbers our of nowhere. 34GB adds a metric crap load to the bitrate. Akin to 25Mbps blurays vs 35 or so. You would easily notice the difference in a resolution that demands it. Nobody is talking about bad employees or other arbitrary things that could happen to any encode. We are talking straight up adding 34GBs of data.

Do the math bud. 34GB is over half a 66GB disc. We aren't nearing the diminishing returns lol. You have no idea what you are talking about. Do some modern encoding with video if you don't believe that.

The idea it will only end up 5% better lmao? This is nonsense but very funny. It depends on the original bitrate of the film, it's length, genre, stock, et cetera, in an objective sense. All things being equal, a 4K film that uses 34 more gigs of data on picture is simply going to be much better when you analyze frame by frame for deficiencies. And most people would also be able to see it. For the love of god we are talking about chroma complaints. But somehow people think that a deficiency in bitrate on chroma is not going to be solved with 50% more bitrate lol. Where do you think the bits will go?

[Bellicose]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

The funny thing is that either way this content is still the proverbial quart being squeezed into a pint pot. People make soooooooooo much noise about UHD100s or whatever but we're still talking about masters that are a nominal 8TB in size being shrunken into a mere fraction of that. More bits are vital to have in reserve as there is always a point where the temporal demands of the content - especially with grainy film, as noted - will outpace the efficiency of the codec if it doesn't have enough bits, but these algorithms are throwing away so much information that for a two-hour (or less) movie with minimal audio tracks then a UHD66 is *actually* fine as long as Mr Magoo isn't doing the encoding (which is part of the problem: too many Magoos at authoring houses who think they can just feed the files into a computer, punch a few keys and get a perfick render a few hours later).

The other problem is those darned audio tracks, the studios want to make 'one size' discs that serve all their territories across the world and when it gets totted up the audio can consume a serious amount of space e.g. Elysium's audio tracks are a staggering 24 Mb/s. So despite that movie being on a UHD100 disc the actual video bitrate of 63 Mb/s would fit onto a UHD66 with plenty of room for several audio tracks. And more studios are following Universal's lead and putting the extra features on the 4K disc too.

So that's the irony really. People speak in platitudes about how everything should be maxed out but it literally doesn't work like that, not even when the studios DO use 100GB discs or split a longer feature over two discs. Perhaps it should work like that, but we're not in that ideal world unfortunately. It's often indie discs encoded by the maestro at Fidelity that come close to these ideals, but even they reach the limits of returns that diminish because they're usually short-ish movies with very few language tracks. Cat o'Nine Tails has a stonking average of almost 85 Mb/s for video (with about 2.3 Mb/s for audio) and yet still 'only' takes up 76GB of the disc. Oh noes!

This still completely ignores the films and studios THAT DO work like that lol. I get what you are saying, but you are literally just taking one side, showing examples from this side, and then somehow hand-waving a 100GB disc, despite its capability of feeding bit starved UHDs with at least 50% more bitrate.

The objective data is there for people to see. In the 30Mbps range, 4K has a ton of macroblocking even with modern encoders. You could DNR that out of course, but it's been shown 40 and 50 can have the same effects. 60 seems to be better in my experience, and I don't see as many issues, though they exist on tougher content.

The explicit point is that the extra 50% bitrate is literally getting you out of this danger territory. Your ideas here are incoherent, and they are based on the frivolous notion that all studios exist the same, so in the end it doesn't matter. This is not only illogical, it's ridiculous.

We have been shown what high-end UHDs can do.

We know objectively that 30-50 is a problem area for UHDs, with 50 being a problem area unless the compressionist is very good at their job, and even then they won't be able to prevent everything. I would compare it to a standard 25Mbps bluray all things being equal. It could be worse in some cases.

70-90 seems to be the range where these deficiencies are lessened to the point they do not matter on average. More akin to an average and decent 35Mbps encode.

Point taken about audio, but again it means very little when the gains are needed. Not all studios plaster ten audio tracks, nor does that data make up more than 10GB usually. So you still have 20+GBs devoted to film easily on a 100GB disc, and that is exactly what is needed to save many of these discs and make them superior.

The extra space is easily used on average for video, and it often is by many studios as we see with the various 70Mbps releases out there. Platitudes have nothing to do with anything. I have just loosely laid out exactly why, in an objective sense, that 50% more bitrate is key to saving a lot of these films. And you have not laid out any convincing argument as to why it would not.

Independence Day is pathetic. A 100GB disc would have almost 100% solved all of its issues even if the compressionist was sloppy drunk. 33Mbps is not enough for 4K. I have never seen one film with a bitrate in the 30s or lower 40s that I would call good. 50s has some decent films, but it still tends to have deficiencies, the same ones we are talking about with Blade Runner.

In the end, we are talking about adding 34GB to Blade Runner, a disc that maybe has 50GB devoted to it atm. This would most certainly solve ANY and all issues with bitrate with all things being equal.

Give BR even 20GB, and it would have a lot of room to breathe.

[Geoff D]

I know ID4 is pathetic! I've moaned about it several times. But you're shifting the goalposts, I'm not talking about 30 Mb/s encodes for a 2 and a half hour movie with lots of audio tracks crammed onto a UHD66, but the 50 Mb/s average afforded to the likes of a 2-hour Blade Runner which is enough to get the grain and detail decently rendered IF the compressionist knows what they're doing. It's after that point where returns start to diminish and doesn't take into account the real world properties of any given content, rather than looking at everything via the rather tiresome prism of objective data. I'd just love to see a new encode of BR period, be it on a UHD66 with minimal audio eating into the bitrate or on a UHD100 with all the languages Warners can muster.

[Bellicose]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I know ID4 is pathetic! I've moaned about it several times. But you're shifting the goalposts, I'm not talking about 30 Mb/s encodes but the 50 Mb/s average afforded to the likes of Blade Runner which is enough to get the grain and detail decently rendered IF the compressionist knows what they're doing. It's after that point where returns start to diminish and doesn't take into account the real world properties of any given content, rather than looking at everything via the rather tiresome prism of objective data.

Well I agree with you there. I'm not sure what happened to BR, which is why I thought pics might work. I don't totally understand the issue here as I am away from my main setup at home, and it has been a long time since I watched it. Does Caps have any comparisons that would show this issue?

At any rate, I still feel these studios need to start using 100GB discs more. It's just ridiculous we are getting so many bit-starved discs, but it's no different than bluray.

And you are right that a lot of compressionists seem to not give a shit even when afforded more bitrate, but I'll still take Magoo and 100GB over Magoo and 66GB any day of the week.

It's sad we have so many great titles sitting here on 66s.

[Geoff D]

That to me is still the key problem: more space is always preferable, but it's not the space as much as it is the people utilising that space as this stuff is still very tricky to encode. I was very surprised that Paramunt put the longer cut of Almost Famous onto a UHD66 with an average of just 42 Mb/s for video plus a small Dobly FEL layer but there have been no issues with compression reported thus far (playback issues yes, compression issues no).

[Bellicose]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

That to me is still the key problem: more space is always preferable, but it's not the space as much as it is the people utilising that space as this stuff is still very tricky to encode. I was very surprised that Paramunt put the longer cut of Almost Famous onto a UHD66 with an average of just 42 Mb/s for video plus a small Dobly FEL layer but there have been no issues with compression reported thus far (playback issues yes, compression issues no).

Wow, that is another one. They really do seem to be going super low here. And for what? The cost of a 66 vs 100? Seems petty as hell, but I guess that is their game. And definitely I agree with you that if you are going to use these lower bitrates, you need competent people in the booth.

I'd like to see comparisons of an actually keen 40Mbps encode vs a sloppy Magoo one. A better compressionist would no doubt save the worst parts from being butchered.

For me I am staying away from day one purchases of any film in the 40s. That is just not good enough to me. Very sad. I honestly forgot ID was so bad lol. I literally almost spit out my drink. That's lower than a good portion of my blurays!

Next up is Criterion! They better be going 100GB for that price. If "Drive" turns out like the bluray, I would be very unhappy.

[Bellicose]

Originally Posted by AlanDistro

Looking forward to that Superbit 4K line.

Definitely, but for me I am unsure about this chroma noise claim. These are issues which can easily be display issues as well, and chroma can be mitigated if you have control over gamma and brightness on the separate RGB lines like with Nvidia Control Panel. I know my display wasn't the best until I calibrated it.

I wish someone could post issues of the chroma issue, otherwise I have no idea what the deal is. I didn't really notice it before. Blade Runner still looks pretty stunning. It's a dark film, so I guess on a smaller 50 inch I don't have as many issues.

[The Edge]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

In all fairness, the original Jennifer was barely in the first movie

She's also guilty of overmilking her 5 minutes (roughly) of screen time with all these appearances. Any woman in 1984-85 could've played Jennifer Parker, Claudia Wells wasn't that special.

[The Edge]

Originally Posted by guizhang

nothing gets accomplished

So everyone imagined this?

[Mierzwiak]

Originally Posted by Bellicose

I tend to feel the chroma complaints are just a bit over the top. If you have any valid evidence to post and compare, which might convince me more, do so if you get time.

It starts in the chapter 13. Watch those scenes and pay attention to:

Car's roof:


The table:


ENTIRE. EFFING. SHOT


Those VHS-like "artifacts" are best visible on bright objects like in the shots above, but if you look closely you can see it everywhere, even on actor's faces. It's a MESS.

[Bellicose]

Originally Posted by Mierzwiak

It starts in the chapter 13. Watch those scenes and pay attention to:

Car's roof:


The table:


ENTIRE. EFFING. SHOT


Those VHS-like "artifacts" are best visible on bright objects like in the shots above, but if you look closely you can see it everywhere, even on actor's faces. It's a MESS.

Oh, I was talking about Blade Runner, but this is interesting and on topic obviously.

Paper does show some noise, but it's tough to say how bad some things are, and what is color timing, grain, and what not. I also think some displays will show it much worse than others. All depends I guess. I'm not quite sure it looks too bad in person, but it could get bothersome. Luckily, it's pretty easy to tweak a display to if a certain color is a culprit.

[emailking]

Originally Posted by Tober27

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.

I mean, they do write her into the story.

[Show spoiler]Biff has no opportunity to steal the time machine if Marty and Doc just immediately go back to 1985.

Sure they would have come up with something else, but she's pretty key to the plot as it is.

Originally Posted by The Edge

She's also guilty of overmilking her 5 minutes (roughly) of screen time with all these appearances. Any woman in 1984-85 could've played Jennifer Parker, Claudia Wells wasn't that special.

Eh, I'm good with it. lol

[slimdude]

Originally Posted by starmike

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

Laserdisc which is analog video vs 4K UHD with Dolby Vision and HDR is a no brainer. That's like choosing 8-Track Tapes over SACD. You're going backwards instead of forward. We've got 4K UHD and you still go for laserdisc!

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Bellicose

Oh, I was talking about Blade Runner, but this is interesting and on topic obviously.

Paper does show some noise, but it's tough to say how bad some things are, and what is color timing, grain, and what not. I also think some displays will show it much worse than others. All depends I guess. I'm not quite sure it looks too bad in person, but it could get bothersome. Luckily, it's pretty easy to tweak a display to if a certain color is a culprit.

For what it's worth, the stuff that Mierz is showing on BTTF has nothing to do with the compression related problems that we were discussing in general, it's a mastering error at source which smears the chroma badly for a whole reel of the film.

I haven't got anything to show you for Brade Runnah because it's a bugger to try and capture. But it is there, and it is awful. And some people just can't "see" it anyway, I recall one person on here saying that they didn't see anything amiss with the chroma blocking but that they were colourblind so that might have something to do with it

[K9 Mark V]

Originally Posted by slimdude

Laserdisc which is analog video vs 4K UHD with Dolby Vision and HDR is a no brainer. That's like choosing 8-Track Tapes over SACD. You're going backwards instead of forward. We've got 4K UHD and you still go for laserdisc!

I'm pretty sure his whole point was he only held onto it because it had the original stereo mix (which had an alternate vocal take of 'You made it!' in the first film and original shotgun sound effects in the second film) and not one based on video quality. I could be wrong but that was my impression of his reply. Many people in this community are supportive of ripping audio from laserdisc and syncing it with the 4K versions of a film.