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

[ZANTHERA]

Originally Posted by y88cdw

It's not just you.

I've compared both 2015/2020 releases on a reference monitor, one layer over another and clicking visibility to instant compare.

Except for the higher resolution and some image stabilization, the 2015 release has a much superior master in terms of picture quality. The 2020 release has unpleasing VHS style noise. Also dubbing errors introduced in the DVD but not present on the VHS are yet to be fixed.

You're kidding right? the 2015 version for all three films has horrible edge enhancement and noise reduction. What you're seeing as a better looking master is the result of a lot of manipulation taking it very far away from what true master quality is.

The noise is supposed to be there, it's just how film is. Granted, they did still do some minor forms of noise reduction, but it's nowhere near as bad as the old set.

Compare the third film here, and you'll be able to see just how very much improved it is over the old version. In particular, look at the picture of the courthouse, you can pretty much count every brick now, whereas they were very blurred before. That picture is also one where you can see the very strong edge enhancement done, these can be seen as bright lines around the edges of things. https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?d1=14684&d2=14683&c=5642

Also, what do you mean by dubbing errors?

[Scottishguy]

Originally Posted by y88cdw

It's not just you.

I've compared both 2015/2020 releases on a reference monitor, one layer over another and clicking visibility to instant compare.

Except for the higher resolution and some image stabilization, the 2015 release has a much superior master in terms of picture quality. The 2020 release has unpleasing VHS style noise. Also dubbing errors introduced in the DVD but not present on the VHS are yet to be fixed.

A VHS Normac appears.

[motorheadache95]

Psh, comparing the Blu-Ray and UHD is like figuring out whether you'd rather get kicked in the teeth or the balls. The laserdisc on my OLED is the best, purist way to watch the movie with the proper colors.

[SpazeBlue]

Originally Posted by motorheadache95

Psh, comparing the Blu-Ray and UHD is like figuring out whether you'd rather get kicked in the teeth or the balls. The laserdisc on my OLED is the best, purist way to watch the movie with the proper colors.

Jim? Jim, is that you?

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by y88cdw

Crossing fingers for 2025.

Is that when you go to get your cataracts sorted?

[JR Ewing]

Originally Posted by y88cdw

It's not just you.

I've compared both 2015/2020 releases on a reference monitor, one layer over another and clicking visibility to instant compare.

Except for the higher resolution and some image stabilization, the 2015 release has a much superior master in terms of picture quality. The 2020 release has unpleasing VHS style noise. Also dubbing errors introduced in the DVD but not present on the VHS are yet to be fixed.

[JR Ewing]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Is that when you go to get your cataracts sorted?

[Monterey Jack]

The UHDs look amazing.

[motorheadache95]

Originally Posted by SpazeBlue

Jim? Jim, is that you?

Jim? I don't know any Jim. But he sounds like a really intelligent guy if he knows how much better laserdisc is, especially compared to the worst formats of all time, which are DVD and Blu-Ray. I hate teal.

[stratford]

Originally Posted by y88cdw

It's not just you.

I've compared both 2015/2020 releases on a reference monitor, one layer over another and clicking visibility to instant compare.

Except for the higher resolution and some image stabilization, the 2015 release has a much superior master in terms of picture quality. The 2020 release has unpleasing VHS style noise. Also dubbing errors introduced in the DVD but not present on the VHS are yet to be fixed.

y88cdw do either of these discs have the infamous framing errors?

[DaGodfadder]

I just bought this on sale.

I’ve owned my OLED screen and 4K player for just 8 months now, but for me a pattern has emerged: the 4K transfers for contemporary films are mostly mind blowing, whereas the transfers for older films are, generally speaking, pretty underwhelming.

I like the crisp, clear image that I see with films such as Tenet or Blade Runner 2049. Judging by some of the comments in this thread I get the feeling that this will be another muddy looking film.

[stratford]

Originally Posted by DaGodfadder

I just bought this on sale.

I’ve owned my OLED screen and 4K player for just 8 months now, but for me a pattern has emerged: the 4K transfers for contemporary films are mostly mind blowing, whereas the transfers for older films are, generally speaking, pretty underwhelming.

I like the crisp, clear image that I see with films such as Tenet or Blade Runner 2049. Judging by some of the comments in this thread I get the feeling that this will be another muddy looking film.

DaGodfadder which older films ' are, generally speaking, pretty underwhelming.'? If you name some examples the rest of us may be able to advise

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by DaGodfadder

I just bought this on sale.

I’ve owned my OLED screen and 4K player for just 8 months now, but for me a pattern has emerged: the 4K transfers for contemporary films are mostly mind blowing, whereas the transfers for older films are, generally speaking, pretty underwhelming.

I like the crisp, clear image that I see with films such as Tenet or Blade Runner 2049. Judging by some of the comments in this thread I get the feeling that this will be another muddy looking film.

A lot of films were shot on, well, film before many filmmakers went to digital video. There are any number of 35mm and greater sourced films on 4k media that look stunning.

Many newer films are stuck in 2k DI limbo whereas older films can be rescanned in true 4k.

[lgans316]

Originally Posted by DaGodfadder

I just bought this on sale.

I’ve owned my OLED screen and 4K player for just 8 months now, but for me a pattern has emerged: the 4K transfers for contemporary films are mostly mind blowing, whereas the transfers for older films are, generally speaking, pretty underwhelming.

I like the crisp, clear image that I see with films such as Tenet or Blade Runner 2049. Judging by some of the comments in this thread I get the feeling that this will be another muddy looking film.

I feel the opposite. I love grainy films over the ones that have that clean digital look and the older films with grain truly shine on my Panasonic OLED

[DaGodfadder]

Originally Posted by stratford

DaGodfadder which older films ' are, generally speaking, pretty underwhelming.'? If you name some examples the rest of us may be able to advise

War of the Worlds and Close Encounters are two films I’ve recently watched that didn’t excite me (with regards to image quality - the films themselves were great).

To a lesser extent: both 2001 and Lawrence weren’t nearly as exciting as I had pictured in my mind.

I think the problem, for me, might be this ‘film grain’ thing people talk about. I really dislike it. The thing that impresses me most about the 4K technology is sharpness and clarity. Tenet, Blade Runner 2049, Gemini Man, 1917 all blew my mind. I’m just not blown away by how ‘older’ films look.

I’ll let you know what I think about the Back to the Future films when they arrive. Keep in mind that I love all the movies I’m talking about here - I’m simply referring to the ‘wow factor’.

(Edit: I’m slowly working my way through the Tom Cruise Mission Impossible films, having purchased the box-set. Same thing. Fun movies to watch, but tech-wise kind of disappointing.)

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by DaGodfadder

War of the Worlds and Close Encounters are two films I’ve recently watched that didn’t excite me (with regards to image quality - the films themselves were great).

To a lesser extent: both 2001 and Lawrence weren’t nearly as exciting as I had pictured in my mind.

I think the problem, for me, might be this ‘film grain’ thing people talk about. I really dislike it. The thing that impresses me most about the 4K technology is sharpness and clarity. Tenet, Blade Runner 2049, Gemini Man, 1917 all blew my mind. I’m just not blown away by how ‘older’ films look.

I’ll let you know what I think about the Back to the Future films when they arrive. Keep in mind that I love all the movies I’m talking about here - I’m simply referring to the ‘wow factor’.



(Edit: I’m slowly working my way through the Tom Cruise Mission Impossible films, having purchased the box-set. Same thing. Fun movies to watch, but tech-wise kind of disappointing.)

Movies have different aesthetics. Natural film grain is part of a certain kind of organic aesthetic. I like it better than that slickly clean digital look except for, perhaps, newer nature docs.

Scrub away the grain from movies shot on film negatives and much of the detail goes with it.

Many 35mm films on Sony 4k Blu-ray disc look amazing. "A Few Good Men" is a particularly good example.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by DaGodfadder

War of the Worlds and Close Encounters are two films I’ve recently watched that didn’t excite me (with regards to image quality - the films themselves were great).

To a lesser extent: both 2001 and Lawrence weren’t nearly as exciting as I had pictured in my mind.

I think the problem, for me, might be this ‘film grain’ thing people talk about. I really dislike it. The thing that impresses me most about the 4K technology is sharpness and clarity. Tenet, Blade Runner 2049, Gemini Man, 1917 all blew my mind. I’m just not blown away by how ‘older’ films look.

I’ll let you know what I think about the Back to the Future films when they arrive. Keep in mind that I love all the movies I’m talking about here - I’m simply referring to the ‘wow factor’.

(Edit: I’m slowly working my way through the Tom Cruise Mission Impossible films, having purchased the box-set. Same thing. Fun movies to watch, but tech-wise kind of disappointing.)

You are sooooo not gonna like how the BTTF films look. Though Part III's sunny locations means that it's naturally brighter and crisper than the previous two, it still won't give you a raging PQ boner but may yet elicit a twinge from your bathing suit area.

[johnnyringo7]

Originally Posted by lgans316

I feel the opposite. I love grainy films over the ones that have that clean digital look and the older films with grain truly shine on my Panasonic OLED

Love both, for example Scarface/Jaws or The Revenant/1917. 4K can make shine the best of both worlds.

[motorheadache95]

This problem with the "look of films" pretty much goes back to the DVD era, where the goal was to make films looks as clean and slick as possible. For DVD it was probably a bit more necessary, because the PQ couldn't really handle the fine detail of a filmed image properly and you had to clean it up to look decent in standard-def on all our old tube tv's. At that time "the Lowry process" was all the rage and the standard for how to restore a movie.

The problem at first shifting to HD was people didn't really know what to expect from it or how to make good use of it. I certainly didn't. If you go back and look at old reviews of the first HD titles, like The Last Samurai on HD-DVD or like, Hitch on Blu-Ray, they basically focus on the clarity and sharpness, and how much of a 3-dimensional "pop" the picture has (also referred to as the "window effect"). That's the kind of mentality people from studios like Universal looked at, deciding that they needed to slather their films in DNR and EE to get their movies looking like that crystal-clear "window".

[DaGodfadder]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

You are sooooo not gonna like how the BTTF films look. Though Part III's sunny locations means that it's naturally brighter and crisper than the previous two, it still won't give you a raging PQ boner but may yet elicit a twinge from your bathing suit area.

Maybe I’ll learn to like film grain. I haven’t watched these movies in a good twenty years, and am really looking forward to it.