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

[SpazeBlue]

Originally Posted by Croweyes1121

Again, there is ZERO additional detail present in the blu-ray here. It's just EE and contrast-boosting, which is thankfully gone on the UHD.

Yep, exactly.

[MOS3]

Originally Posted by Croweyes1121

You're gonna need to give me an example, because the only way to think the blu-ray is more detailed than the UHD here is to have the screenshots mixed up (the UHD is mouse OFF the image): https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?a=1&x...5&l=0&i=1&go=1

Yeah, that's what's confusing me... Part III looks amazing...Part II has more detail but not as much as 3 I think.....but other than the edge enhancement on part 1, I don't really see much improvement there

PS: I guess what I'm trying to say (english is not my native language so apologies if it was a bit confusing) the uhd of part 1 looks more natural without edge enhancement, but I don't see more detail, unlike part 3 that looks A LOT more detailed compared to the blu ray. If I didn't know it was an UHD, I would have guessed it is a new remastered bluray or something like that.

[Croweyes1121]

Originally Posted by MOS3

Yeah, that's what's confusing me... Part III looks amazing...Part II has more detail but not as much as 3 I think.....but other than the edge enhancement on part 1, I don't really see much improvement there

This is true. Everyone has pretty much concurred that Part III is the best-looking of the bunch. But your initial post stated that you thought the Blu-ray looked much better and better detailed:

Originally Posted by MOS3

I'm comparing BttF UHD to the Bluray and I swear the blu ray looks better to me...more detail

That is incorrect, and what I was responding to. I'm not arguing that there's a night and day difference on the first film with regard to detail. But the absence of edge enhancement and contrast boosting is, in and of itself, a big improvement in image quality. Keep in mind that the absence of those artifacts reveals the image beneath them that was previously obscured. So in THAT sense there IS better detail on the UHD, even if it's just detail revealed by eliminating the problems that plagued the previous release. This also doesn't account for the HDR benefits you're going to get on the UHD and can't see viewing caps on an SDR monitor. Improvement is improvement.

[MOS3]

Originally Posted by Croweyes1121

This is true. Everyone has pretty much concurred that Part III is the best-looking of the bunch. But your initial post stated that you thought the Blu-ray looked much better and better detailed:

That is incorrect, and what I was responding to. I'm not arguing that there's a night and day difference on the first film with regard to detail. But the absence of edge enhancement and contrast boosting is, in and of itself, a big improvement in image quality. Keep in mind that the absence of those artifacts reveals the image beneath them that was previously obscured. So in THAT sense there IS better detail on the UHD, even if it's just detail revealed by eliminating the problems that plagued the previous release. This also doesn't account for the HDR benefits you're going to get on the UHD and can't see viewing caps on an SDR monitor. Improvement is improvement.

Yeah, like I said I might have expressed myself poorly and maybe that caused some confusion, sorry about that.

[Croweyes1121]

Originally Posted by MOS3

Yeah, like I said I might have expressed myself poorly and maybe that caused some confusion, sorry about that.

No problem. In any case, you speak English far better than I speak Spanish. lol

[Geoff D]

Old Blu has more artificial sharpness and less actual detail, new UHD has less sharpness and more actual detail. Won't be the last time that someone's eyes are fooled by the former.

[MOS3]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Old Blu has more artificial sharpness and less actual detail, new UHD has less sharpness and more actual detail. Won't be the last time that someone's eyes are fooled by the former.

Yeah, I guess my main problem is Part III.... those were the first comparisons I saw, so naturally I expected the same level of improvement on the other movies...and when I saw the screen caps for Part 1 I got confused

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by MOS3

Yeah, I guess my main problem is Part III.... those were the first comparisons I saw, so naturally I expected the same level of improvement on the other movies...and when I saw the screen caps for Part 1 I got confused

Different film is different, quite literally as the first film was shot on grainier stock than Parts II and III, and the very setting of Part III taking place in such bright open spaces means that it's going to be exposed betterer and look sharper.

[Poya]

While Marty’s the main protagonist of the trilogy, it seems that each movie has its own dedicated protagonist. George’s the main for the first, Biff for the second, and Doc for the third.

[Geoff D]

Biff in the second whatnow?

[dynoman]

Originally Posted by Gogeta149

I'll suggest to call Gruv, I did today and they told me that it's backordered and they're waiting for more to come to the warehouse.

If you guys ordered any TV shows from them at eBay (Parks and Rec, House) call them, because I had an order for P&R and they told me that they cancelled the order on the 10th but there's no notification on eBay and now I had to sent a request for refund.

they have a number? I checked their website, where are you people seeing such things, I sent an email

[stratford]

Originally Posted by Swissangel4616

in switzerland not anymore available on 4K.

I asked in some shops. Some never had/got the 4K. I could buy the bluray they told me. Why should I buy the bluray when I want have the 4K and already have an earlier bluray release?

Im so tired with Universal. Have not gotten the Spartacus 4K. And now this... I mean.. it's Back to the Future. It looks like 4K is death

Swissangel4616 ref 'It looks like 4K is death' I hardly think so, just import like the rest of us. Back in Laser disc days, here in Europe it was import most titles or go with out

[Fat Phil]

Originally Posted by Poya

While Marty’s the main protagonist of the trilogy, it seems that each movie has its own dedicated protagonist. George’s the main for the first, Biff for the second, and Doc for the third.

Nah. But I do like the idea of Biff being the protagonist in II .

The tragic tale of a man who just wanted to improve his lot in life. His pursuit of the American Dream - money, fake boobies and a Scarface bathtub - cruelly sabotaged by a punk kid and a crazy scientist.

[eledoremassis02]

Originally Posted by Fat Phil

Nah. But I do like the idea of Biff being the protagonist in II .

The tragic tale of a man who just wanted to improve his lot in life. His pursuit of the American Dream - money, fake boobies and a Scarface bathtub - cruelly sabotaged by a punk kid and a crazy scientist.

All he wanted to do was move out of his Grandmothers house

[ROSS.T.G.]

Originally Posted by Fat Phil

Nah. But I do like the idea of Biff being the protagonist in II .

The tragic tale of a man who just wanted to improve his lot in life. His pursuit of the American Dream - money, fake boobies and a Scarface bathtub - cruelly sabotaged by a punk kid and a crazy scientist.

Lol amazing. I think that’s the synopsis for Deathblow.

[chip75]

Originally Posted by Fat Phil

Nah. But I do like the idea of Biff being the protagonist in II .

The tragic tale of a man who just wanted to improve his lot in life. His pursuit of the American Dream - money, fake boobies and a Scarface bathtub - cruelly sabotaged by a punk kid and a crazy scientist.

He had acquired tastes too.

Originally Posted by chip75

Funny you don't always spot the things in the background, Black Taboo (1984) is an adult feature. Biff just leaves his stash lying around.



Although it might have been Lorraine's.

[Donl1282]

Has anyone else not receive a shipping notification from Gruv on eBay yet?

[motorheadache95]

Originally Posted by RCRochester

There is no "Marty 2" and no Martys vanish.

What he is seeing is himself going back in time. There is no alternate timeline. Yes, Marty is overlapping a bit because he went back a little early, and there are already changes evident from what happened back in 1955 (i.e. Lone Pine Mall) but that's it.

You have to accept what is presented in the film at face value because those are the established rules of time travel in this film's universe.

I think that's right-- because Marty is time-displaced, when he changes fate, it alters time, but effects the memories of everyone else. There is no literal alternate Marty 2.

Just an aside to everyone, I like talking about the rules of time travel in these kind of movies because I think it's fun, I don't really take it seriously and I'm not really trying to over-think the story.

[eledoremassis02]

Whenever I think about time travel in back to the future

[y88cdw]

It's funny how the new UHD remaster fixed errors in previous releases (light blocker on the left)
https://ibb.co/qj7Wthv