Forrest Gump 4K UHD (1994)

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by andreasy969

Yes, it does - no doubt about that. But it still looks processed then.



At any rate, I'd recommend buying it only cheap. I got mine from wowhd for 20,68 €, but I still slightly regret having paid even that "much".

I dunno from what I can see the 4K UHD spoils the sfx "illusion" due to the inconsistent detail, going from detailed to waxy to no grain, etc, while the BD is much more consistent throughout.

From what I've seen I think I'd rather watch the BD, so probably will not buy this 4k UHD at all.

[andreasy969]

Originally Posted by Ruined

I dunno from what I can see the 4K UHD spoils the sfx "illusion" due to the inconsistent detail, going from detailed to waxy to no grain, etc, while the BD is much more consistent throughout.

From what I've seen I think I'd rather watch the BD, so probably will not buy this 4k UHD at all.

Where I compared it with the BD, except for the bad things I mentioned, the UHD still has the benefit of getting rid of the EE halos for ex as others mentioned before me already. The Forrest-Jenny-reunion would be good example.

So all in all, I think I still prefer the UHD despite its flaws. But sticking with the BD is a valid option as well - I'm also not a big fan of upgrading from poor to another kind of poor.

[Bourne1886]

Originally Posted by andreasy969

Received my Gump disc today, skipped though it and unfortunately don't like what I see.

Even when it looks good, it looks bad to my eyes. Looks as if someone tried to make it look like a digitally shot film to me.

I also took two caps of a scene that imo had rather offensive DNR and looked really waxy to me throughout:





As you can see, the BD actually isn't really any better, but that's not an excuse for the UHD looking like crap imo.

I also spotted some awful looking "standing grain or whatever you want to call it" which imo is the result of the applied filtering in two scenes so far. The first one was the 'Forrest having an "accident" when being initimate with Jenny' scene, the other one is in the example below (the BD frame doesn't match at all because it doesn't matter).



The UHD really has some terrible "compression/artefacts/whatsoever" here while the BD at least still looks like somewhat consistent grain to me. The cap unfortunately doesn't manage to show how bad it looks in motion. And I really don't think it looks like it does, because that's natural grain.

Utterly disappointing relase imo. Even when it looks good, it doesn't look like film to me resp. looks very processed to my eyes. And I find it worse in motion than I thought it'd be based on caps' caps.

I think it still looks better than the BD, but it still sucks. Just my 2 cents.

Excuse my ignorance, I’m at work and it’s early, which screenshot is which?

[andreasy969]

Originally Posted by Bourne1886

Excuse my ignorance, I’m at work and it’s early, which screenshot is which?

The 1080p one is the BD, the 2160p one is the UHD.

BD is left and UHD is right.

[tama]

Originally Posted by andreasy969

Where I compared it with the BD, except for the bad things I mentioned, the UHD still has the benefit of getting rid of the EE halos for ex as others mentioned before me already. The Forrest-Jenny-reunion would be good example.

So all in all, I think I still prefer the UHD despite its flaws. But sticking with the BD is a valid option as well - I'm also not a big fan of upgrading from poor to another kind of poor.

Are you now able to display HDR/DV content on your screen yet? I seem to remember you were viewing disc on a non HDR set.

[andreasy969]

Originally Posted by tama

Are you now able to display HDR/DV content on your screen yet? I seem to remember you were viewing disc on a non HDR set.

No. And as I stated not so long ago that won't happen until I can get a native 4K HDR projector new for 3000 € which is my personal pain threshold reg. the money I'm willing to spend on a new projector (maybe this year, maybe only next year). I also doubt that I'll be able to display DV ever - I'm not a TV guy and I don't think DV will be a projector thing.

But it's irrevelevant in regard to my opinion on Gump anyway, since the HDR won't get rid of the overly processed looking image.

[nick4Knight]

Originally Posted by Agent Kay

I got one of those, I got it for films mixed in atmos.

Your display likely has HDR which wasn't a thing in 1994, either... God, some people really do like to pick 'n' choose in these things... Get over it. Tech changes and you're coming across rather silly in your rationale why the audio shouldn't evolve but video is allowed magically to pass by the purist lens.

Nay, often people drool over the enhancement! I'm one of them.

[Agent Kay]

Originally Posted by nick4amber

Your display likely has HDR which wasn't a thing in 1994, either... God, some people really do like to pick 'n' choose in these things... Get over it. Tech changes and you're coming across rather silly in your rationale why the audio shouldn't evolve but video is allowed magically to pass by the purist lens.

Nay, often people drool over the enhancement! I'm one of them.

I don't pick and choose anything.
I am purist for sound and vision ta and consistent in that.
Original audio mixes.
Original colour timing
No DNR.
Some people call DNR an enhancement, so you would be the one picking and choosing.

Tech changes so now we have DNR and CGI, let's put that in everything?

Leave it all alone, if you want a new audio mix on a disc it should be a choice, not mandated.
You want to go mix to all speakers, press the button on your remote.

Pretty easy

And as for HDR, I don't like that if it changes the image too far from what was projected and shot.
Again, consistent.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by nick4amber

Your display likely has HDR which wasn't a thing in 1994, either... God, some people really do like to pick 'n' choose in these things... Get over it. Tech changes and you're coming across rather silly in your rationale why the audio shouldn't evolve but video is allowed magically to pass by the purist lens.

Nay, often people drool over the enhancement! I'm one of them.

Video is open to revisionism no matter whether it's SDR 709 or HDR 2020, but audio is MUCH more clear cut. It's either the original vintage or it's not.

[Agent Kay]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Video is open to revisionism no matter whether it's SDR 709 or HDR 2020, but audio is MUCH more clear cut. It's either the original vintage or it's not.

It is indeed, but can only replicate what was on the neg better each time, but like many things that can be abused.

[Geoff D]

Aye, it's more about the taste and the knowledge of the people at the controls of the tech, rather than the tech itself. Same could apply to audio remixing, fair enough, but unlike with video - where we are indeed only seeing what was captured being refracted through each new system - they often feel they have to physically add or subtract things from the audio presentation to justify its presence on X new format. And unlike video they can put the unmolested original audio on there with only a small impact on overall bitrate which is what makes it so immensely frustrating when only remixes are offered up.

[solid12345]

Originally Posted by nick4amber

Your display likely has HDR which wasn't a thing in 1994, either.

No but chemical film has wider gamuts than what digital displays have traditionally used for the last few decades, you don't need to artificially saturate colors or pump up the brightness to make use of newer technologies.

Also I wish more discs included the original mixes for alot of movies as well, the mono-soundtrack of Terminator 1 is far superior to the new surround mixes because Cameron went in and changed the gunshot sounds which have alot less "mph" to them. I have two different sound setups in different rooms, one has stereo, the other surround. Some movies I prefer to listen in stereo like concert movies.

It uses up hardly any disk space for a stereo mix so I don't know why studios don't just throw them in for the hell of it, even if they assume consumers are dumb and don't know how to get into the audio settings, just make the 5.1 mix default and let us change it to mono/stereo for purists.

[Sabre95]

$17.76 on Amazon. Worth it at this price or should I keep waiting on owning a copy of Forrest Gump at home for them to release a better disc?

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by Sabre95

$17.76 on Amazon. Worth it at this price or should I keep waiting on owning a copy of Forrest Gump at home for them to release a better disc?

They probably won't be rereleasing it, so you might as well bite.

[y2jman]

I really want to have this on 4k but a lot of you guys saying its not worth it because dnr mess is that true?

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by y2jman

I really want to have this on 4k but a lot of you guys saying its not worth it because dnr mess is that true?

It's worth it because only certain scenes seem to have DNR. I would say probably two-thirds of the film looks fantastic while the rest is still better than the BD, but should look as good as the rest.

[cheesemonkey]

Finished watching this today finally. No where near as bad as reviewers are saying. Thought it looked great and loved watching the movie again.

[EarlyGrace]

I really want to buy this but less than 2 stars on 4K scares the heck out of me.

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by EarlyGrace

I really want to buy this but less than 2 stars on 4K scares the heck out of me.

As has been mentioned, it's not T2 bad. There are a few rough spots kind of like the various Nolan Batman films. The Atmos mix does improve upon the 3.1 (not a typo) track from the previous releases.

[Pgcmoore]

on sale, may wait longer thou
one film i kinda want, just for some of the vietnam and those shrimpin boat scenes, but never purchased