Braveheart 4K UHD (1995)

[Nicolas554]

Originally Posted by MrBrown

While some shots seem to wow.. i think this shot makes me pass on the UHD BD:
http://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?a=1&x=...7&l=0&i=6&go=1

I’m watching the UHD now. Overall the movie looks great, but this shot is disappointing... it will annoy me everytime ill watch it

[Bourne1886]

Originally Posted by Nicolas554

I’m watching the UHD now. Overall the movie looks great, but this shot is disappointing... it will annoy me everytime ill watch it

I wonder why it’s like that? Looks like it’s floating over his face rather than crusted on!

Can anybody shed light on it?

[Spartan21]

Originally Posted by Nicolas554

I’m watching the UHD now. Overall the movie looks great, but this shot is disappointing... it will annoy me everytime ill watch it

It's really odd. Some kind of anomaly. Posterization. Paramount should make a recall and fix it. Has anybody seen another example in the movie?

Here is an example of posterization:

[LordoftheRings]

Originally Posted by FilmFreakosaurus

And all superior to the infantilized shit they trowel out today.

I would tend to agree with this very true and sad reality.
The comic humorous superheroes and Disney/Fox Star Wars dramas have taken over the financial and cultural territory today, and very big money time.

Us today we are twenty years older, them today are the new kids on the block, video gamers of the galaxy.

[Synchg]

the costume design/cinematography for this movie is ugly af though... that or they used shitty film stock.
i can't help but get 70's b-movie vibe from this still
doesn't sit right with me, feels cheap. Are those impaled heads in the back? oh mel you so cray cray

http://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?go=1&a...16462&i=12&l=1

[Canada]

Originally Posted by LordoftheRings

It's probably because everybody have already seen Braveheart (1995) and Gladiator (2000) years ago.
They are great flicks but 20-years old.
And Black Panther is brand new from this year, plus it's a new huge blockbuster.

The people who buy 20-years old flicks are us, the minority of addicted 4K film maniacs.
Everybody else, the masses they buy new Disney flicks; Black Panther and Star Wars: The Last Jedi.

That's why the quantity on the store shelves varies by a ratio of roughly twenty to one.


Saving Private Ryan (1998), another 20-years old flick, and Die Hard (1988), 30-years old.

Originally Posted by FilmFreakosaurus

And all superior to the infantilized shit they trowel out today.

As much as I love all the superhero films, I am stating to get burnt out on them.

[jaaguir]

Originally Posted by Bourne1886

I wonder why it’s like that? Looks like it’s floating over his face rather than crusted on!

Can anybody shed light on it?

A few posts ago:

Originally Posted by OutOfBose

Yeah, that warpaint shot is odd. But I guess I understand what happened. It's blue similar to the sky behind, so perhaps filters for elimination of debris and print damage was calibrated to do it on blue background for that shot. So it did it's job on Wallace's face too. And the guy responsible didn't even notice.

I think overall the UHD looks clearly better than the BD. That shot should be an anomaly.

[DJR662]

Mine came in yesterday but won't have the time to watch it until the weekend.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by singhcr

8K would only be worth it for 8/35 (if 4/35=4K, wouldn't 8/35=8K?), 70mm, and IMAX 15/70. I never thought we'd see the day that you'd start to hit the resolving limits of 35mm negatives, but that appears to be the case.

It is indeed strange that a 1.85:1 film with a smaller negative size than anamorphic 2.40 seems to give bigger gains. I guess it all depends on how the film was shot (film stock, lenses, etc) and how good the existing BD is. With SPR I'm quite shocked that there's as much of a jump up as there is, as the existing disc is already stellar.

I keep reading these posts from Geoffy and others who gush about HDR and wonderful looking grain and I keep kicking myself for not being on the UHD train yet. It calls me..sweetly...I try and resist yet I cannot look away...

8/35 is twice the image area but bear in mind that the "4K" we speak of is from perf to perf measured horizontally across the image as conventionally captured, with 3K for the height of a fullap 4-perf frame, but as 8/35 is flipped 90 degrees then the horizontal becomes the vertical and vice versa.

So when scanning it you're now using the 4K width for the height and the 3K for 4 perfs becomes 6K for 8 perfs. When Spartacus' negative was scanned for the 55th anni restoration it was done at 4Kx6K, 4K perf to perf capturing the height and 6K capturing the width, which was ultimately downrezzed to conventional 4K resolution (including 1.5x desqueeze, given that Spartacus was shot in Technirama anamorphic) for the restoration.

[alexanderg823]

Checked out this and gladiator last night, in the dark, and on the 75q9fn which i got set up yesterday.

While it looked more detailed than on the 65 inch oled (75 inch seems to be a real sweet spot for 4k), I gotta say the PQ was still not particularly impressive.

Despite being filmed 5 years apart, Gladiator looks tremendously better than Braveheart, and the former could almost pass for a film that was shot today in terms of clarity and sharpness. Perhaps technological advances happened in those 5 years that allowed for imagery on film to be retained better, I don't know. But Braveheart clearly has a very "dated" look to it that I didn't see in Gladiator (which was a massive improvement in UHD). That being said, it looked the best I've ever seen it and as it's one of the best movies ever, it should be in everyone's collection.

[madfloyd]

Wow, it's amazing how all the reviews can tout this as perfection then the general public gets its hands on it and all the warts are revealed.

Haven't checked out my copy yet but my expectations have been reset.

[Geoff D]

Since when was it ever different re: reviews? People place far too much stock in "the professionals".

[mzupeman]

Originally Posted by madfloyd

Wow, it's amazing how all the reviews can tout this as perfection then the general public gets its hands on it and all the warts are revealed.

Haven't checked out my copy yet but my expectations have been reset.

Screenshot scientist outrage. Braveheart looks pretty damn good. Some of the cinematography can be on the softer side while other shots wow, but this is the best it has ever looked and likely ever will look. The HDR is also nicely done without being overstated.

[hidefjunkie]

I had a quick look at this disc today and have to say i really liked what i saw. Nice clean image without too much grain and nice HDR too. Will watch the whole movie soon but this looks like a very nice upgrade from the quick look at it.

[alexanderg823]

Originally Posted by mzupeman

Screenshot scientist outrage. Braveheart looks pretty damn good. Some of the cinematography can be on the softer side while other shots wow, but this is the best it has ever looked and likely ever will look. The HDR is also nicely done without being overstated.

I found the hdr to be odd. In ascene with torch lighting, some torches in the foreground have a nice brilliant color to them that I'd expect from a flame, which in the same exact shot torches in the background have a dull muted look to them.

It looks bizarre and unnatural to me. I saw this effect numerous times throughout the film which seemed bizarre. The hdr grade of gladiator looked fantastic with appropriate brilliance to candle and torche lights.

[gates70]

Glad I make up my own mind about PQ and AQ otherwise this and other threads on this site would downright confuse the shit out of me. I always found it odd when I see a bunch of reviews and people saying "oh my, 5/5" and then some others come in here saying "not worth it" or "barely any difference"...especially when judging on stupid caps. Wish that trend would just die

[aetherhole]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Since when was it ever different re: reviews? People place far too much stock in "the professionals".

but, but, but... you're a professional...

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by aetherhole

but, but, but... you're a professional...

I'm a verbose enthusiast who's got waaaaay too much free time on his hands, always have been. My opinion is just that, and it's as I always say: find a forums buddy who's taste mirrors your own and you'll get FAR more insight from their thoughts than any number of clueless "pros". I label my posts here as "reviews" because people aksed me to.

[madfloyd]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I'm a verbose enthusiast who's got waaaaay too much free time on his hands, always have been. My opinion is just that, and it's as I always say: find a forums buddy who's taste mirrors your own and you'll get FAR more insight from their thoughts than any number of clueless "pros". I label my posts here as "reviews" because people aksed me to.

If I may ask, what do you do for a living?

[Geoff D]

I work in a supermarket. Illusions....SHATTERED.