Forrest Gump 4K UHD (1994)

[Khronikos]

Originally Posted by Fat Phil

I do agree that there's not always a perfect solution. There's going to be trade-offs somewhere along the line.

I could be totally off base but wouldn't plentiful grain be beneficial to CGI and 35mm footage, almost acting as a dither and helping to better blend the two? I felt the grain management on the Jurassic Park UHD really hurt the CGI stuff, more so than anything else.

Is it grain management? Is there that much grain at all on the CGI shots?

I guess for older films there is more grain. I just want people that value quality transfers in charge of the classics.

I mean FG is on track for a release the next major anniversary probably with a new transfer lol. If there is room to make money I can see it happening. Dunno if the sales are that great though.

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by Fat Phil

I do agree that there's not always a perfect solution. There's going to be trade-offs somewhere along the line.

I could be totally off base but wouldn't plentiful grain be beneficial to CGI and 35mm footage, almost acting as a dither and helping to better blend the two? I felt the grain management on the Jurassic Park UHD really hurt the CGI stuff, more so than anything else.

In theory. But it depends on how sharp the 35mm elements are compared to the CGI, which was most likely done at 1K in 1994. That's a pretty big discrepancy in quality, which is another reason I think we have a DNR'd Terminator 2 as well (although it looks much worse than this).

There's also a huge fallacy that all 35mm film (or shots) will have heavy grain. Film stocks were getting pretty fine grained by 1994, and anything outside wouldn't have much grain anyway (grain typically comes from lower light/indoor/night shots where faster speed film is used, or film is pushed for brighter exposure). So I'm not seeing all the shots asnbeing de-grained/re-grained, but again, I'm just going by a few still comparisons. The old blu had some chunky grain because it was from a 2nd or 3rd generation element, and some noise, so just because that chunky grain isn't there in the new 4K version doesn't mean it should ALL be there in the first place.

And before anyone compares it to Private Ryan, that film had cross processing done to the negative which pumps contrast and actually enhances and brings out grain that wouldn't normally be as invasive.

[Khronikos]

Since Martin originally reviewed the infamous Patton title back in the day, I am very glad and respectful of his review because he is not taking it easy on the film.

People that want him to give this a 4 because you bought it and are excited well that's just pathetic sorry. We need more reviews like this out there to tell the studios this is not an acceptable UHD transfer. I swear some of the whales on this forum are annoying and incompetent. Just BUY BUY BUY! Oh man he rated this too low gotta be a 4 or 5 on a 5 scale I mean I just bought it!

[Khronikos]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

In theory. But it depends on how sharp the 35mm elements are compared to the CGI, which was most likely done at 1K in 1994. That's a pretty big discrepancy in quality, which is another reason I think we have a DNR'd Terminator 2 as well (although it looks much worse than this).

Dude, T2 is garbage tier. They clearly didn't even do a new master from the 3D version.

You can still properly DNR a 1K scene. Which is to say not much DNR at all, but just give it extremely high bitrate.

I get it though. If the effects are 1K the film might get a little awkward. I think that can be the case here, but because no one ever releases any info we have no idea what is going on.

T2 is utter garbage though.

At best you just say **** it and you don't DNR your film to match the CGI. That is how it should be. That or put some fake grain on the CGI to blend it. It's not that tough. The people making decisions right now are just incompetent.

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by Khronikos

Dude, T2 is garbage tier. They clearly didn't even do a new master from the 3D version.

At best you just say **** it and you don't DNR your film to match the CGI. That is how it should be. That or put some fake grain on the CGI to blend it. It's not that tough. The people making decisions right now are just incompetent.

They didn't need to do a new master. The 3D WAS a new master. But again, the quality discrepancy might be the reason WHY they did it that way. I don't know.

You say that's how it should be, but honestly you don't know how it would look, so really no one can say unless they have the original elements and/or worked on one of these projects. How it SHOULD be is all the effects are re-rendered in 4K. It might be light revisionism, but if the original files are still archived, then that's the way it should go IMO. That's the only real way to make sure everything is matching quality.

Remember, too, that they can't go back to the original negatives, because the CGI wouldn't be there. So at BEST, these films will be from the IP, or IN made fro the IP, which will also have some loss in quality being 1 generation removed form the negative.

[ROSS.T.G.]

Originally Posted by Khronikos

And you keep accepting your ****ing garbage until it's all garbage. High-tier values you must carry through your life.

Yeah... not really sure what that means. I have less values than you because I said studios are responsible for subpar transfers? Please correct me if I miss understood.

[MeatballSub]

Is there DNR? Yes. Does it suck the life out of the quality? Yes.

But my word, the UHD is the best this film has ever looked. The Blu-ray looks like dogshit in comparison.

[Khronikos]

Originally Posted by MeatballSub

Is there DNR? Yes. Does it suck the life out of the quality? Yes.

But my word, the UHD is the best this film has ever looked. The Blu-ray looks like dogshit in comparison.

Certainly most scenes do exhibit a lot more detail, but there is also a ton of DNR. I wouldn't say the bluray is dogshit lol.

[Khronikos]

Originally Posted by ROSS.T.G.

Yeah... not really sure what that means. I have less values than you because I said studios are responsible for subpar transfers? Please correct me if I miss understood.

You insinuated that a crusade, which I am not doing, is worthless, and then fell back to your cynical and smug outlook on film production right now. I don't know you figure it out.

[Khronikos]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

They didn't need to do a new master. The 3D WAS a new master. But again, the quality discrepancy might be the reason WHY they did it that way. I don't know.

You say that's how it should be, but honestly you don't know how it would look, so really no one can say unless they have the original elements and/or worked on one of these projects. How it SHOULD be is all the effects are re-rendered in 4K. It might be light revisionism, but if the original files are still archived, then that's the way it should go IMO. That's the only real way to make sure everything is matching quality.

Remember, too, that they can't go back to the original negatives, because the CGI wouldn't be there. So at BEST, these films will be from the IP, or IN made fro the IP, which will also have some loss in quality being 1 generation removed form the negative.

AFAIK they degrain the hell out of 3D, so if they only did one master with the DNR well...

[ROSS.T.G.]

Originally Posted by Khronikos

You insinuated that a crusade, which I am not doing, is worthless, and then fell back to your cynical and smug outlook on film production right now. I don't know you figure it out.

How is my comment about the studios being the ones to blame for subpar presentations cynical? You really should pull your head out of your ass. Crusade or not, you sound like a bozo.

[Maggot]

It's certainly a case of "this could have been better". As always, I personally find way too many "remasters" a mixed bag. Some shots looks better, some worse. Usually everything from the color to the contrast is never the same. They do a "one stop shop pass" over it and that change may work for some scenes and not for others. There's clearly DNR going on. It's certainly not remotely close to the wax jobs of Terminator 2 or Predator. It's still unfortunate.

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by Khronikos

AFAIK they degrain the hell out of 3D, so if they only did one master with the DNR well...

The DNR would come after the scan, the cleanup, the color. So there would be a master (the same one) before the DNR was applied.

[nick4Knight]

Originally Posted by harpolini

Woah, based on some early reviews I was expecting a Predator scale DNR massacre. I always thought the BD was pretty decent but looking at the caps the 4K make the BD look like a DVD by comparison. Sold.

That's the problem listening to gross hyperbole from warriors on their keyboards!

No home video release has gotten anywhere near as bad as UHE. And yet they spout the words on here all the time like it's inconsequential...

[ncraft]

Originally Posted by ROSS.T.G.

Well I said I would wait for a price drop. I say a lot of things... I’m a weak little man...

You probably shouldn't have bought it. I can't really talk though, I bought Gods of Egypt after watching it and knowing it was pure uncut garbo.

[infiniteCR]

Nothing I’d triple dip on here. But I’m sure I’ll pick it up in a bargain bin a few years down the road.

[ROSS.T.G.]

Originally Posted by ncraft

You probably shouldn't have bought it. I can't really talk though, I bought Gods of Egypt after watching it and knowing it was pure uncut garbo.

Yeah... I know lol. In the end I’ve been thinking about buying the BD for years and haven’t owned since DVD which was sold over 10 years ago so I’m ok even if it’s not great.

[AKORIS]

I'm totally unsure what to do with this release after all the reviews and comments...

I guess I'll just wait awhile until the price drops to a point where I can't resist..

[HeavyHitter]

Based on the caps, the UHD BD has a lot more detail in most of them...but the ones with DNR just makes me shake my head. Really too bad they are still DNR'ing. There is a funkiness to the grain whether it's fake or not, but but in motion it might not be much of an issue. I will probably pick this up at some point as I think overall on my set-up it will be an improvement over the BD although I would rather the price come down first.

[GenPion]

Looks like a mixed bag to me but still like a upgrade over the Blu-ray from those screenshots. In motion, watching the full film, I'll have to make up my own mind regarding this release.

The Blu-ray release is quite good but this does show noticeable improvement in resolution but also some DNR (but not as drastic as it sounded from some of the comments). In motion might be a different story though. But I'm curious to see for myself and compare.