Superman: The Movie 4K UHD (1978)

[Mocorongo]

Originally Posted by JEDGAR1000

The screenshots are HDR images improperly converted to SDR, so they'll always look worse & darker than they actually are. (As a general rule of thumb, always trust Geoff D, if he says it's good, it's good.)

"They'll always look worse and darker than they actually are"

So everyone that says the 4K is darker than normal is lying, too? @Geoff D is the only one telling the truth, forum member @david_blu and Oliver Harper are both wrong when they point any flaw?

[Geoff D]

I've gone back and forth on this one. It has several things that I don't like, several things that I do like. It's not a disaster by any means but it could've done with a bit more polish.

[imsounoriginal]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

I’m so confused about this release. Sit has some positive reviews but the comments and scream grabs here say otherwise. I was planning on getting this but now I dont’t know.

It's absolutely worth getting.

If you're unsure, just wait for a sale.

[DMRI2006]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

I’m so confused about this release. Sit has some positive reviews but the comments and scream grabs here say otherwise. I was planning on getting this but now I dont’t know.

It has the best soundtrack option of any release (the 5.1 DD from the 70mm track, which is only here)

The screen grabs never tell the whole story usually with UHD. It's not perfect, and like a lot of Warner releases IMO it's a tad dark, but it looks great at times.

Still absolutely worth picking up.

[JEDGAR1000]

Originally Posted by Mocorongo

"They'll always look worse and darker than they actually are"

So everyone that says the 4K is darker than normal is lying, too? @Geoff D is the only one telling the truth, forum member @david_blu and Oliver Harper are both wrong when they point any flaw?

4K often is darker than normal, however, what I meant was don't pay too much attention to screenshots, as 99% of the time they're improperly converted to SDR.

[Mocorongo]

Originally Posted by JEDGAR1000

4K often is darker than normal, however, what I meant was don't pay too much attention to screenshots, as 99% of the time they're improperly converted to SDR.

What would be the proper way to take these screenshots?

Even so, I wouldn't trust pictures, as I don't trust reviewers to correctly point out inconsistencies. They are always dumb or have other interest$ in mind.

Perhaps it would be best if I put some specific scene in Matroska/lossless for everyone to play in a PC (equipped to display 4K contents, of course)?

I don't trust reviewers due to most of them never do one thing that I consider basic: compare all possible editions and previous releases in other physical medias. They automatically assume if the movie is being released in 4K that means the 1080p is inferior, and if it's in Blu-ray it can't be worse than the DVD.

I'll remember that next time I see all that teal and orange in the sequels.

The fact the release is recent doesn't mean it closely resembles the film's theatrical presentation. Isn't that what matters in the end? If a few scenes (not many) aren't OK in the 4K disc I wouldn't say this is a total loss, only that a re-release could fix eventual problems.

What I fear it might happen is that Warner releases the DC and only include the remix audio track. That is, if this is even possible, considering their reluctance to improve the look of deleted scenes.

[Geoff D]

It's not the TAKING of the screenshots that's your problem. What you're not doing is putting HDR content into a suitable transfer function for viewing on SDR displays, which is what 99.999% of us are doing when looking at these caps. You're showing them 'raw' with no EOTF applied at all which is why they look so dim, murky and yellowy. Believe it or don't, it's the truth nonetheless. You'd need to hit up someone like andreasy69 to get the lowdown on how to apply an SDR transform, but even that isn't perfect because it can't fully convey the HDR imagery. It's still a damned sight closer than what you're doing though. Same applies with your 'matroska' file, if an SDR transform isn't being applied then it'll look similarly shite.

[s2mikey]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I've gone back and forth on this one. It has several things that I don't like, several things that I do like. It's not a disaster by any means but it could've done with a bit more polish.

Well, UHD is supposed to be the pinnacle of home video presentations so any releases that arent fairly major upgrades or have one too many issues are simply NOT worth buying, IMO. Im content wth my blu-ray set that includes both cuts of SM2 and pretty good transfers of the other films I care about which is really just 1, 2 and Returns. The rest are crap.

If this hits the $9.99 bin or whatever then maybe.... but even then, not feeling compelled. And where is SM2 and Returns in UHD?

[Geoff D]

For what it's worth the 'I DO NOT LIKE' things were greatly outweighed by the 'I DO LIKE' things when I rewatched it last, see here: https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...5#post15983915

but even if it did look like a bag of boiled dicks it's still worth buying for the 70mm audio alone (see also: Grease).

[motorheadache95]

Originally Posted by s2mikey

Well, UHD is supposed to be the pinnacle of home video presentations so any releases that arent fairly major upgrades or have one too many issues are simply NOT worth buying, IMO. Im content wth my blu-ray set that includes both cuts of SM2 and pretty good transfers of the other films I care about which is really just 1, 2 and Returns. The rest are crap.

If this hits the $9.99 bin or whatever then maybe.... but even then, not feeling compelled. And where is SM2 and Returns in UHD?

I pretty much feel the same way. UHD was already a bit of a stretch for me after buying shit-tons of DVDs and then upgrading 90% of it to Blu-Ray. The UHD release really has to knock it out of the park to get me interested in rebuying a catalog title at a premium price on a new format yet again.

As for the other Supes films? I'm guessing II will come out in the not-too-distant future, but the others, I dunno. Superman Returns especially, with the one-two punch of featuring Bryan Singer and Kevin Spacey, isn't likely to be revisited for a while.

[s2mikey]

Originally Posted by motorheadache95

I pretty much feel the same way. UHD was already a bit of a stretch for me after buying shit-tons of DVDs and then upgrading 90% of it to Blu-Ray. The UHD release really has to knock it out of the park to get me interested in rebuying a catalog title at a premium price on a new format yet again.

As for the other Supes films? I'm guessing II will come out in the not-too-distant future, but the others, I dunno. Superman Returns especially, with the one-two punch of featuring Bryan Singer and Kevin Spacey, isn't likely to be revisited for a while.

Bingo. I too have rebought too many titles too many times and at some point you have to get more selective so Ive reached that point. Im not rebuying all of the catalog titles I own on blu-ray in UHD. Just isnt going to happen.

Superman 1 and 2 are two of my favorite films but Im content with my blu-ray versions at this point. Even if they come out with SM2 it might only be the Lester cut which is good but I prefer to own both versions(Donner & Lester). I doubt we'd get both on UHD.

[DMRI2006]

Originally Posted by motorheadache95

I pretty much feel the same way. UHD was already a bit of a stretch for me after buying shit-tons of DVDs and then upgrading 90% of it to Blu-Ray. The UHD release really has to knock it out of the park to get me interested in rebuying a catalog title at a premium price on a new format yet again.

As for the other Supes films? I'm guessing II will come out in the not-too-distant future, but the others, I dunno.

I'm not so sure there's going to be any kind of "catalog rush" for UHD at all. Not saying to piss all over it because I'm invested in it, but I get the increasing feeling 4K upgrades are going to be digital only for the catalog releases that end up getting them -- no matter what the studio.

Part of the problem also is that a really good Blu-Ray looks really good in 4K, making the advances many times modest to, at times, non-existent. (And so much of it depends on the quality of your TV and its HDR capabilities also) It used to be that even a "bad" Blu-Ray would best a DVD, but that's not the case when it comes to UHD and Blu-Ray.

[Conan The Barbarian]

This is why I miss video stores, rent the disk, determine if its what you want to buy.

[fighthefutureofhd]

Originally Posted by motorheadache95

I pretty much feel the same way. UHD was already a bit of a stretch for me after buying shit-tons of DVDs and then upgrading 90% of it to Blu-Ray. The UHD release really has to knock it out of the park to get me interested in rebuying a catalog title at a premium price on a new format yet again.

As for the other Supes films? I'm guessing II will come out in the not-too-distant future, but the others, I dunno. Superman Returns especially, with the one-two punch of featuring Bryan Singer and Kevin Spacey, isn't likely to be revisited for a while.

Why? There are a number of Singer's films that have recently come out on 4K. Catalog titles no less. And so far there has been no proven, factually, evidence of anything regarding Singer. Just hearsay/accusations at this point. That shouldn't put anyone off from releasing his stuff. I'll give you on Kevin Spacey. However, we must understand this not just any film we're talking about. This is a Superman film. One of Warner Brothers biggest properties. There is no way that they won't release this movie. It's coming and probably sooner than one might expect. Hopefully, anyway. It's my favorite of the Superman movies.

[fighthefutureofhd]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

For what it's worth the 'I DO NOT LIKE' things were greatly outweighed by the 'I DO LIKE' things when I rewatched it last, see here: https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...5#post15983915

but even if it did look like a bag of boiled dicks it's still worth buying for the 70mm audio alone (see also: Grease).

I just read that post of yours you quoted and wanted to say thank you so much for that. You really did a good job articulating your points and making the movie sound so much more lovely than it already is. So much in fact that I am thinking of playing the movie tonight when I get home and I had plans to watch Avengers Age of Ultron. Again thank you for another wonderfully insightful post. Really like to see someone with a passion for something speak so eloquently about their passion. It brightens the corners of my otherwise dreadful life.

[Mocorongo]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

It's not the TAKING of the screenshots that's your problem. What you're not doing is putting HDR content into a suitable transfer function for viewing on SDR displays, which is what 99.999% of us are doing when looking at these caps. You're showing them 'raw' with no EOTF applied at all which is why they look so dim, murky and yellowy. Believe it or don't, it's the truth nonetheless. You'd need to hit up someone like andreasy69 to get the lowdown on how to apply an SDR transform, but even that isn't perfect because it can't fully convey the HDR imagery. It's still a damned sight closer than what you're doing though. Same applies with your 'matroska' file, if an SDR transform isn't being applied then it'll look similarly shite.

OK. I want to point out that I tested two movies this week: Karate Kid (1984) and STM, in 4K and regular 1080p (and all 3 saved as Matroska/lossless).

Karate Kid looks that way when the capture is from my PC:
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...&postcount=543

And when I do from my iPAD:
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...&postcount=559

Now, assuming the 2nd method is more accurate than the 1st, this is how STM (4K) looks like when compared to the regular Blu-ray:

4K:


1080p:


If I were to guess I would say the 4K is the correct one, in terms of skin tones, which look orange in the 1080p.

But check how the 4K is somehow darker in a few areas of the picture. Isn't this a tie?

I am not considering the technical aspects, only judging based on how faithful to the theatrical presentation they are.

This example doesn't show anything relevant. I'll try others.

4K:



1080p:



This is really, really bad for the 1080p. Even the sky had a fake blue added to it! In this case the 4K is a lot better and natural. The way this 1080p looks is exactly what's wrong with the sequels.

Since these screenshots are huge (14 MB each file) and all of them are going to load 200 MB, I will not put the rest of them directly. Instead please visit the hyperlinks to see the pictures.

About the scene questioned before, the one Clark turns into Superman and flies to save Lois, which was said to be darker in the 4K... What I find out is that the 4K doesn't look OK at least there.

4K:

https://bit.ly/2UDeaHN

1080p:

https://bit.ly/2GBmxyj

******************************
******************************
******************************

Second example:

4K

https://bit.ly/2GDlsHv

1080p

https://bit.ly/2UGQvq0

******************************
******************************
******************************

And 3rd:

4K

https://bit.ly/2vlIRXL

1080p

https://bit.ly/2vqai2p

Question: why the suit looks radically different (darker) in the 2nd example from 4K?

Based on these 3 examples (from this scene) I am tempted to say the 1080p version is better.


***** # *****

How about checking more to discover if this was an exception...?

4K scene from Jor-El in the Fortress of Solitude:

https://bit.ly/2ITlmgH

1080p

https://bit.ly/2URDkHz

The 4K scene looks more authentic, Jor-El's image in 1080p has a yellow tone that doesn't appear natural.

Ending:

4K
https://bit.ly/2XEJRCf

1080p
https://bit.ly/2UxmE2Z

My guess is that 4K is better than 1080p and the latter has excessive brightness, even if it's not too much. Superman suit appears to be in the correct blue (see other caps) and all the lights surrounding him look green in 1080p, and OK in the 4K.

*********

4K
https://bit.ly/2IQiZuS

1080p
https://bit.ly/2ZG62tQ

In here 4K is better again.

- The 1080p has the orange skin tone;

- The 1080p has too much brightness to my taste. The sky in 4K is blue, in 1080p is almost white. Colours are not washed out in 4K, instead they are perfectly fine. And the blue suit is OK, too, the same can't be said about the one from the 1080p.

Krypton council (4K)

https://bit.ly/2PANg2t

1080p

https://bit.ly/2UVvxbO

Again too much orange for 1080p.

Young Clark:

4K
https://bit.ly/2GAqFij

1080p
https://bit.ly/2W4NPnt

***********

4K
https://bit.ly/2Prqaek

1080p
https://bit.ly/2Vm8OF1

These last screenshots are different from the rest: the 4K has increased brightness for this specific moment. My guess is there's no difference between them or the 4K is better since that scene is during daylight.

[HeavyHitter]

I always felt the theatrical version pushed teal a bit too much although it was a respectable release. I do like the overall color better on the UHD BD, but will have to give it a re-watch as I'm using different settings on my 820 and new gamma point on my JVC.

[Agent Kay]

That teal suit makes me sick

[moviebuff75]

Is the 2.0 sound mix on the blu faithful to the 35mm presentations of the film?

[rockin]

If anyone is hating the HDR on this, then definitely check out the 4K version on iTunes, as that seems to be without the HDR, and actually looks more balanced in my opinion. It has the same colour timing as the 4K blu ray, but the brightness is more balanced.