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

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Moviefan2k4

At the risk of playing "devil's advocate" here, Zemeckis may not be aware of the problems with the transfers, since he's largely moved on and has established himself as a prominent filmmaker elsewhere. On the other hand, Bob Gale is pretty much the steward for the franchise, so if anyone besides the studio knew about the problem it would likely be him. Also, its important to note that the second film in particular has many more VFX shots than either the first or the third, so if the second reel of footage has been compromised, it might be at the source. I haven't read anything on this recently, but unless I'm wrong the last proper remaster was done for the 25th-anniversary Blu-Rays, and that was 14 years ago. If Universal decided not to spring for another revamp this time around, that could be one reason for the quality difference.

That's why I said and/or, it's pretty much Gale's to do with as he wishes, but you never know. Gale's the one who signs off on this stuff and time and again has proved himself oblivious to the problems that keep occurring.

But I think you're confused re: "reels", they're talking about the second reel of the first film that's been compromised due to shoddy mastering, as well as the bizarre chroma smearing problem that occurs later in the film during the under the sea dance. In any case, these are shots/scenes with little or no VFX so it is not a source issue, especially not when the remastered blu shows MORE detail in the same shot.

It's funny you mentioned Part II and VFX, because the bizarre thing about that one on 4K is that the VFX looks superb while other live action shots with no effects at all have been DNR'ed! It's the literal opposite of what you're suggesting is happening.

And as for the transfers, you're wrong on pretty much all counts. The movies were transferred to HD from new interpositives for the DVDs and those same masters were used for the first set of Blurays, albeit with more dust busting, noise reduction and sharpening slathered on to justify the 'remaster'. But for the UHDs they all had brand new 4K transfers from the OG negative and that's what's disappointing about these issues. The 4Ks still smash the old Blus into the middle of next week, but there are some pervasive problems with the first one in particular.

Right, I think that's everything ticked off from the 'let's try and justify why it looks like it does using the old classics' bingo card

[KevinStriker]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

And as for the transfers, you're wrong on pretty much all counts. The movies were transferred to HD from new interpositives for the DVDs and those same masters were used for the first set of Blurays, albeit with more dust busting, noise reduction and sharpening slathered on to justify the 'remaster'. But for the UHDs they all had brand new 4K transfers from the OG negative and that's what's disappointing about these issues. The 4Ks still smash the old Blus into the middle of next week, but there are some pervasive problems with the first one in particular.

Am I reading this correctly; or are the same transfers used for the 2002 DVDs (completed in 1998 and put on a shelf) recycled for the 2009 Blu-rays, which were then recycled again in 2015 for the 30th Anniversary?

[-JKR-]

Originally Posted by KevinStriker

Am I reading this correctly; or are the same transfers used for the 2002 DVDs (completed in 1998 and put on a shelf) recycled for the 2009 Blu-rays, which were then recycled again in 2015 for the 30th Anniversary?

I mean, how is that surprising looking at those masters?


Anyway, it's disappointing how this trilogy simply cannot get a properly great and satisfying master.

Same with Jurassic Park.

[KevinStriker]

Originally Posted by -JKR-

I mean, how is that surprising looking at those masters?

In my defense, 2009 is the last time I sat down and watched those DVDs.

[Moviefan2k4]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I think you're confused re: "reels", they're talking about the second reel of the first film that's been compromised due to shoddy mastering, as well as the bizarre chroma smearing problem that occurs later in the film during the under the sea dance. In any case, these are shots/scenes with little or no VFX so it is not a source issue, especially not when the remastered blu shows MORE detail in the same shot.

I guess I'm just not very good at spotting that kind of thing, because the Blu-Ray transfers were excellent in my eyes.

Originally Posted by Geoff D

It's funny you mentioned Part II and VFX, because the bizarre thing about that one on 4K is that the VFX looks superb while other live action shots with no effects at all have been DNR'ed! It's the literal opposite of what you're suggesting is happening.

I guess I've just become accustomed to whatever it is you're talking about. I wouldn't even know how to spot "digital noise reduction" at all, unless someone specifically pointed it out for me visually.

Originally Posted by Geoff D

And as for the transfers, you're wrong on pretty much all counts. The movies were transferred to HD from new interpositives for the DVDs and those same masters were used for the first set of Blurays, albeit with more dust busting, noise reduction and sharpening slathered on to justify the 'remaster'. But for the UHDs they all had brand new 4K transfers from the OG negative and that's what's disappointing about these issues. The 4Ks still smash the old Blus into the middle of next week, but there are some pervasive problems with the first one in particular.

That's both good and bad to know, because even though I love the trilogy as a whole, the first was always my favorite.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by KevinStriker

Am I reading this correctly; or are the same transfers used for the 2002 DVDs (completed in 1998 and put on a shelf) recycled for the 2009 Blu-rays, which were then recycled again in 2015 for the 30th Anniversary?

Yep.

[SpacemanDoug]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Yep.

Despite the fact that the BDs had some actual differenxes that weren't on the 2002 DVDs

One of them being the "coming summer 1990" text at the end of part 2 (I was told prior the 2010 BD was the first home video release to have that and I've long since junked my DVD copies) and the other being the black screen after Marty is knocked out by Biff's goons being shortened significantly for an unknown reason

Unfortunately the 4K master for 2 retains the latter and is a very sloppy edit since it led to the music being slightly cut off

[Dsneybuf]

The Part I 2010 Blu-ray also differed from the '02 DVD when Universal distorted and shifted the end credits, although the '20 Blu-ray and UHD fixed them.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by SpacemanDoug

Despite the fact that the BDs had some actual differenxes that weren't on the 2002 DVDs

One of them being the "coming summer 1990" text at the end of part 2 (I was told prior the 2010 BD was the first home video release to have that and I've long since junked my DVD copies) and the other being the black screen after Marty is knocked out by Biff's goons being shortened significantly for an unknown reason

Unfortunately the 4K master for 2 retains the latter and is a very sloppy edit since it led to the music being slightly cut off

Plus the weird end credits squeeze as mentioned above, they made some tweaks while they were twatting them with all that other stuff for Blu, but they are the same underlying masters and are not new film transfers [from DVD to Blu].

[SpacemanDoug]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Plus the weird end credits squeeze as mentioned above, they made some tweaks while they were twatting them with all that other stuff for Blu, but they are the same underlying masters and are not new transfers.

Unfortunately the audio is even worse on the 4K disks though, despite the fact the old 5.1 mixes did have a small amount of changes, they still resemble the original theatrical audio mixes more than the Atmos mixes do

[InUCTiEn]

How does one distinguish between the old release and the new one with improved packaging on say Gruv.com? I know the new one may not be listed yet but the fronts look the same, right?

[starmike]

Originally Posted by SpacemanDoug

Unfortunately the audio is even worse on the 4K disks though, despite the fact the old 5.1 mixes did have a small amount of changes, they still resemble the original theatrical audio mixes more than the Atmos mixes do

I can't stand the version of "Marty, you made it" that they use on the 4K. Yes, I know why, but it's still weak vs. the Laserdisc version.

[Dsneybuf]

Originally Posted by InUCTiEn

How does one distinguish between the old release and the new one with improved packaging on say Gruv.com? I know the new one may not be listed yet but the fronts look the same, right?

Barnes and Noble's website has a different UPC code for each set:
2020: 0191329144657
2024: 0191329262986

Also, Gruv's eBay store already has the repackaged set; I could recognize it by release date.

[Telemachus]

I tried to watch some minutes of the old Blu rays recently after watching the UHD set twice and the BDs look downright awful. But damn I miss the 5.1 from the old BDs. There's one part at the end of BttF II I always notice and it's the delayed line delivery from the guy who gives Marty the letter, such a small thing but bothers me so much!!

[SpacemanDoug]

Originally Posted by starmike

I can't stand the version of "Marty, you made it" that they use on the 4K. Yes, I know why, but it's still weak vs. the Laserdisc version.

Why did they change it initially to begin with?

[FatherDude]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

But I think you're confused re: "reels", they're talking about the second reel of the first film that's been compromised due to shoddy mastering, as well as the bizarre chroma smearing problem that occurs later in the film during the under the sea dance. In any case, these are shots/scenes with little or no VFX so it is not a source issue, especially not when the remastered blu shows MORE detail in the same shot.

Does the fact that these aren't VFX shots completely preclude the possibility of a source issue? I certainly don't rule out that Universal straight-up botched the job, but I wonder if portions of the OCN are in bad shape, necessitating an inferior source for those stretches. Can the problems that have been observed be explained by that, in combination with less than elegant approaches toward "helping" the situation?

[starmike]

Originally Posted by SpacemanDoug

Why did they change it initially to begin with?

70mm vs. 35mm, I believe.

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

[Member-865437]

Originally Posted by SpacemanDoug

Despite the fact that the BDs had some actual differenxes that weren't on the 2002 DVDs

One of them being the "coming summer 1990" text at the end of part 2 (I was told prior the 2010 BD was the first home video release to have that and I've long since junked my DVD copies) and the other being the black screen after Marty is knocked out by Biff's goons being shortened significantly for an unknown reason

Unfortunately the 4K master for 2 retains the latter and is a very sloppy edit since it led to the music being slightly cut off

I am still the proud owner of a copy of the 2002 releases, and I can confirm the 'part 2' disc does not have "coming Summer 1990" on it. I just checked because I haven't watched these discs in close to fifteen years (they still work great and the image doesn't look half bad on a 4K television screen.)

The time between the screen going black and Marty waking up is seven seconds. I'm not sure how that stacks up with the UHD's.

Also, at least on the title screens and end credits, there's a lot of noticeable film wobble. So at least that's been improved on with newer releases!

[lilboyblu]

Originally Posted by KevinStriker

Am I reading this correctly; or are the same transfers used for the 2002 DVDs (completed in 1998 and put on a shelf) recycled for the 2009 Blu-rays, which were then recycled again in 2015 for the 30th Anniversary?

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by FatherDude

Does the fact that these aren't VFX shots completely preclude the possibility of a source issue? I certainly don't rule out that Universal straight-up botched the job, but I wonder if portions of the OCN are in bad shape, necessitating an inferior source for those stretches. Can the problems that have been observed be explained by that, in combination with less than elegant approaches toward "helping" the situation?

No, because A) the new Blu having unf*cked versions of some shots is proof enough and 2) even the old Blu didn't have the chroma smeared to VHS-levels of resolution during that 10-minute stretch during the dance scene.