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

[Indiana Jones]

Originally Posted by Master S

Anyone know where you can get the Back To The Future Trilogy 4K Digipak with English text on the cover ?

I had a pre-order on Amazon Italy because it had English text on the cover, but now they changed the picture and it's all Italian text now...

Amazon.co.uk - English digipack with the superior outer box art.

[hoejunter]

Obligatory “my set has dispatched” post

[shane01]

Originally Posted by The Edge

I knew it. Another terrible job on the trilogy as usual.

Dude, honestly is this a bit?!

Also, you’re obsessed with DNR yet watch your movies in the wrong color temp! You goofball.

[Mierzwiak]

Originally Posted by Markgway

Your help has been invaluable.

What else do you want me to tell you?

Here are pics of Hateful Eight on my TV that I took with five different white balance setting.

Can you guess which one shows how it looks in real life?

The answer is

[Show spoiler] none of them.

[Markgway]

Originally Posted by Mierzwiak

What else do you want me to tell you?

I thought photos may be a useful indicator. I was wrong obviously. Remember, no one likes a smart arse.

[DAT_JB]

Anyone's order from amazon.uk already dispatched?

[chip75]

Originally Posted by Markgway

I thought photos may be a useful indicator.

I think it's probably due to that you'd have taken a picture of your display (when we don't know how accurate the colours are), with a camera (when we don't know how accurate the colours are), viewed on member's devices (when we don't know how accurate the colours are)! It's just difficult to judge things from camera/phone pictures.

But you should be able to see the temperature shifts with the images, or at least the extremes between what would be the coolest and the warmest.

[phantomiceman]

For those thinking this is a bad release it isnt and its most definetly the best the movie has ever looked. The movie just seems to steer more towards a digital look than a film look. There is some grain there but certainly not what youd expect from a movie thats been scanned from filmstock.. I think Universal has tried to clean the image but its not over powering to the point that faces looks artificial , details and textures are there but what may have been lost is hard to say. Since ive not seen the movie in 35mm its hard to say how close it is to the source so i guess its really down to wether you are purist or not.Is it demo worthy, not really but is it worth getting for owning the best version there is of this classic.. Yes i would say so... Please find some screen grabs...

[eledoremassis02]

Originally Posted by phantomiceman

For those thinking this is a bad release it isnt and its most definetly the best the movie has ever looked. The movie just seems to steer more towards a digital look than a film look. There is some grain there but certainly not what youd expect from a movie thats been scanned from filmstock.. I think Universal has tried to clean the image but its not over powering to the point that faces looks artificial , details and textures are there but what may have been lost is hard to say. Since ive not seen the movie in 35mm its hard to say how close it is to the source so i guess its really down to wether you are purist or not.Is it demo worthy, not really but is it worth getting for owning the best version there is of this classic.. Yes i would say so...

As long as its an upgrade from the last set then I cant complain. Tho it is frustrating how Universal has made some really solid releases.

[Mattmck99]

Originally Posted by wildphantom

Zoom just despatched mine alert!!!!

It’s happening........88mph!!

Same here , hopefully it will arrive before the weekend.

[Louisville Slugger]

I mean when you see what Arrow has done with releases like Sixteen Candles you wish every studio would treat its catalog releases like them.

[lgans316]

Originally Posted by phantomiceman

For those thinking this is a bad release it isnt and its most definetly the best the movie has ever looked. The movie just seems to steer more towards a digital look than a film look. There is some grain there but certainly not what youd expect from a movie thats been scanned from filmstock.. I think Universal has tried to clean the image but its not over powering to the point that faces looks artificial , details and textures are there but what may have been lost is hard to say. Since ive not seen the movie in 35mm its hard to say how close it is to the source so i guess its really down to wether you are purist or not.Is it demo worthy, not really but is it worth getting for owning the best version there is of this classic.. Yes i would say so...

Agree. I an rewathcing part 1 now. The is a fine layer of grain throughout and most of the times it looks filmic and gorgeous. Whatever it is, it's been done carefully.

For part 1 I would give full credit to Universal
Parts 2 and 3 - if these were shot on a different film stock that has way less grain than part 1, I would be pleased to say Universal have gone a good job with these films. Only a matter of a week before the verdict will be out from the experts

[jerclay]

Ok, I’ve been able to watch Part I. First thing first, it’s far from being disaster that this dude on here is trying so hard to present. I see a lot of grain. And it does look healthy! Has it been tempered with? I’ll leave that to more knowledgeable people on here to judge. But from what I can tell, it’s no more tempered than ET, it’s filmic a and I enjoyed how it looked. Not a single shot looked smeary or excessively DNR’d to me. I can compare to the last known source of the good presentation of Part I which is a DCP rip, and I don’t see a big difference in consistency of grain - maybe a little if you need to be picky. The movie itself does not look very sharp, and I assume it was never supposed to be razor sharp to begin with,, but some scenes stand out as definitely sharper than on the 1080 DCP. The colors are more consistent and not so overblown now, which I find very welcoming. And the HDR! As I mentioned many times here, it’s not what it does to the highlights so much, as what it does to the shadows and the lights in the shadow, what matters the most! For example the very first night scene where Marty returns home to find out his dad’s car was wrecked now seems so gorgeous! So if you ask me, I am very much happy with the look of the first part in 4K! It’s no use comparing this to the old Blu Ray whatsoever, but even if you compare it to the DCP - it’s a certain upgrade!

[avs commenter]

Seems all my favorite movies, Halloween, Star Wars, and now BTTF all have either controversial or disappointing 4K transfers.

[Indiana Jones]

Originally Posted by DAT_JB

Anyone's order from amazon.uk already dispatched?

Unlikely to happen until the weekend.

[buckeye1]

I know its far fetched but I'm really hoping that sometime tomorrow I'll get a shipping notification and possible I'll get it Saturday or Monday at the latest..🤞

[tyrok]

[HDMan72]

That set looks real sweet! Cant wait to receive mine.

[lgans316]

Originally Posted by avs commenter

Seems all my favorite movies, Halloween, Star Wars, and now BTTF all have either controversial or disappointing 4K transfers.

Star Wars was certainly a mixed bag but I wouldn't put BTTF in the Star Wars league. Both are the best they have looked but more effort has gone into BTTF for sure if I have to compare both.

[jerclay]

Originally Posted by avs commenter

Seems all my favorite movies, Halloween, Star Wars, and now BTTF all have either controversial or disappointing 4K transfers.

If you’re just talking about Part I of BTTF it’s certainly not a disappointment. And consider yourself lucky T2 is not on your list...