Forrest Gump 4K UHD (1994)

[GenPion]

Originally Posted by 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.

Yeah, if they had done this perfectly it would be a immediate must-own. It needs a price drop considering it seems like a mixed upgrade.

[Dreamliner330]

I thought this movie looked just fine. There were a few very soft shots...one in particular but honestly overall it looked good to me.

I haven't seen this movie in a very long time, probably VHS. I had it on Blu-ray but never got around to it. What a treat, honestly. Movies like this will make you question half the garbage in your collection.

I'd probably widdle down to 20 titles or less if this movie was the quality standard.

[kboumi]

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.

Well, most new masters of at least the popular films are made with the presumption that they will bring money. If natural presentations instead of enhanced ones would bring more money, that is if people wanted them, we would get them. If all people stopped using disposable plastic bags and came back to paper ones, maybe the ocean wouldn’t be full of plastic waste. I guess it played a role in the re-issues of Gladiator and Out of Africa, Eureka repaired some title cards in Keaton’s comedies just days before release... But the simple truth is that if people didn’t buy it, they wouldn’t make it this way. It always starts with the individual but it’s easier to avoid the discomfort saying "Well, when all others buy it, what change will I be able to do." This is nothing against you, of course, I don’t feel like judging your values. But the idea that only studios are responsible is false. Like with any product, they are trying to make as much money as possible, and the ultimate decision lies with the awareness (and values) of the customer.

The question is what it is that we really want... Because of the differous techniques used with physical film, whether it’s fake zooming or lower resolution fades, or lower resolution effects, or whatever, you get different "distractions", fluctuations in quality. An easy argument would simply be--if it was screened that way, why shouldn’t we see it so. But even with restoration of old films, which strictly follows the idea that we don’t enhance the looks of a film, there are controversies. Like whether to leave in cue marks when they were stamped right into the negative... After all, they are a "witness of a time" and I’d still like to see them gone. And yes, not seeing the negative means we don’t know what it looks like, so if the digital processing is just light, we don’t mind. But I think that in all sensibility, we could agree that film looks a certain way and that’s what we would like to see. Why? Because it’s film. No matter whether they choose to correct errors, no matter how they deal with different kinds of elements, the bottom line is, there should always be a natural film structure. Most of the time we don’t even get that with this transfer, so we don’t even need to discuss the complicated issues. We get a processed image AND fluctuations in quality. Not any kind of film material can produce this look. Some shots even look better on the original blu-ray, which is transferred from whoever knows what (Forrest running, 21 minutes in, the three of them walking, 2 hours and 7 minutes in, and others). I of course chose the worst examples to suit my argument, but overall, even when fake grain is added on top, more than not (although I can’t state the exact percentage), the transfer is ruined by processing. Just because this looks better than some other title doesn’t mean it’s right. I remember clapping at the blu-ray with The Untouchables simply because I was used to the dvd... 4K discs are an opportunity to get it right. And that’s why people shouldn’t be okay with this.

[The Fallen Deity]

Originally Posted by 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.

Yeah it's extremely inconsistent.

Still... It looks better then the BD which isn't saying much really.

The scan is clearly great and if Paramount hadn't resorted to scrubbing it, it would've probably looked gorgeous.

[Croweyes1121]

I didn't choose to buy this one, but I must say, caps-a-holic must have only chosen to highlight scenes that show a substantial improvement on the UHD over the blu-ray, because looking at those comparisons, I really don't understand the "stick with the blu-ray" comments on this title. There's absolutely no comparison between the two - at least not in the specific shots they've posted.

[ROSS.T.G.]

Originally Posted by kboumi

Well, most new masters of at least the popular films are made with the presumption that they will bring money. If natural presentations instead of enhanced ones would bring more money, that is if people wanted them, we would get them. If all people stopped using disposable plastic bags and came back to paper ones, maybe the ocean wouldn’t be full of plastic waste. I guess it played a role in the re-issues of Gladiator and Out of Africa, Eureka repaired some title cards in Keaton’s comedies just days before release... But the simple truth is that if people didn’t buy it, they wouldn’t make it this way. It always starts with the individual but it’s easier to avoid the discomfort saying "Well, when all others buy it, what change will I be able to do." This is nothing against you, of course, I don’t feel like judging your values. But the idea that only studios are responsible is false. Like with any product, they are trying to make as much money as possible, and the ultimate decision lies with the awareness (and values) of the customer.

The question is what it is that we really want... Because of the differous techniques used with physical film, whether it’s fake zooming or lower resolution fades, or lower resolution effects, or whatever, you get different "distractions", fluctuations in quality. An easy argument would simply be--if it was screened that way, why shouldn’t we see it so. But even with restoration of old films, which strictly follows the idea that we don’t enhance the looks of a film, there are controversies. Like whether to leave in cue marks when they were stamped right into the negative... After all, they are a "witness of a time" and I’d still like to see them gone. And yes, not seeing the negative means we don’t know what it looks like, so if the digital processing is just light, we don’t mind. But I think that in all sensibility, we could agree that film looks a certain way and that’s what we would like to see. Why? Because it’s film. No matter whether they choose to correct errors, no matter how they deal with different kinds of elements, the bottom line is, there should always be a natural film structure. Most of the time we don’t even get that with this transfer, so we don’t even need to discuss the complicated issues. We get a processed image AND fluctuations in quality. Not any kind of film material can produce this look. Some shots even look better on the original blu-ray, which is transferred from whoever knows what (Forrest running, 21 minutes in, the three of them walking, 2 hours and 7 minutes in, and others). I of course chose the worst examples to suit my argument, but overall, even when fake grain is added on top, more than not (although I can’t state the exact percentage), the transfer is ruined by processing. Just because this looks better than some other title doesn’t mean it’s right. I remember clapping at the blu-ray with The Untouchables simply because I was used to the dvd... 4K discs are an opportunity to get it right. And that’s why people shouldn’t be okay with this.

Right... well I haven’t seen the disc yet and I bought it because I like the movie. I think it’s overrated and melodramatic but it still has its moments. Paramount has a notorious track record for bush league transfers whether they sell or not. They sometimes put in a lot of effort for movies that aren’t big sellers and shoddy effort and big sellers so this idea that if we all band together and boycott releases won’t do anything. They will just think it didn’t sell well enough and move onto the next movie. It’s what studios do. 99% of consumers don’t care and studios know that. They know streaming is where the money is but they release discs for extra profit. There is a reason many movies like Predator and Die Hard are seeing remasters on iTunes before physical media. Discs are an after thought now. What percentage of consumers take the time to research how a movie looks or sounds anymore? We are that 1%. Nobody else gives a shit.

[The Fallen Deity]

Originally Posted by Croweyes1121

I didn't choose to buy this one, but I must say, caps-a-holic must have only chosen to highlight scenes that show a substantial improvement on the UHD over the blu-ray, because looking at those comparisons, I really don't understand the "stick with the blu-ray" comments on this title. There's absolutely no comparison between the two - at least not in the specific shots they've posted.

Yeah even though the UHD has been futzed with it still looks better than the BD.

The BD's transfer is ancient and it shows.

[TheSweetieMan]

I’m 20 minutes in... where is this awful DNR at? Because so far, this looks nothing like GREASE or T2.

In fact, unlike SPR, this doesn’t even have the chroma level issues.

There seems to be an immense sense of depth, with terrific background and foreground separation. The clouds in the skies render so much more detail compared to the regular blu, nothing looks blown out. Black levels so far are very dark and rich. The beginning of the film where Forrest is sitting on the swing on the tree branch, there’s a tremendous sense of depth and dimensionally between the night time blacks, and the whites of the house.

Colors also look so much more rich and textured, without ever veering into a territory where it looks too saturated or too vibrant. It just feels bold and nuanced.

Loving what I’m seeing so far.

[pawel86ck]

caps-a-holic caps looks surprisingly good considering very bad reviews. There is huge difference in sharpness and the thing is BD transfer wasnt that bad in the first place. When it comes to DNR I have to look for it with zoom feature, and people still look like people if you know what I mean (so it's nothing like Terminator 2 DNR mess).

[TheSweetieMan]

Yeah I’m about 40 minutes in and I am loving what I’m seeing.

In terms of contrast and depth alone, this is Paramount’s best catalog release so far.

I was expecting to experience a disappointing disaster of sorts, but this is anything but so far.

[Pieter V]

Regarding the grain; I don't think that's fake grain we are looking at. That's just the old Eastman film stock grain structure in my opinion.

Home Alone and Léon use the same film stock.

https://www.caps-a-holic.com/c.php?d...d2=9591&c=3870

[kboumi]

Originally Posted by ROSS.T.G.

Right... well I haven’t seen the disc yet and I bought it because I like the movie. I think it’s overrated and melodramatic but it still has its moments. Paramount has a notorious track record for bush league transfers whether they sell or not. They sometimes put in a lot of effort for movies that aren’t big sellers and shoddy effort and big sellers so this idea that if we all band together and boycott releases won’t do anything. They will just think it didn’t sell well enough and move onto the next movie. It’s what studios do. 99% of consumers don’t care and studios know that. They know streaming is where the money is but they release discs for extra profit. There is a reason many movies like Predator and Die Hard are seeing remasters on iTunes before physical media. Discs are an after thought now. What percentage of consumers take the time to research how a movie looks or sounds anymore? We are that 1%. Nobody else gives a shit.

Well of course, you are right. I mean, people don’t mind plastics, they don’t mind global warming, and those are things which can endanger their lifes. So no, I don’t expect that there would be a change overnight. I don’t expect anything. But the argument stands. If the amount of people who buy only properly done masters (be it physical or digital distrubution where--yes--the future, or the present already, lies) is large enough to make profit, these will become available. So I don’t agree that the studios wouldn’t care. I believe they care about money. That’s what I logically presume, although I definitely can’t prove it. As for the percentages, well, Criterion works on this model, re-releasing some movies in greater quality. Though it’s a different case--standalone brand, not the only thing they are doing--I don’t think they would be doing that if it wasn’t profitable. From my perspective, this is not about percentages. It starts with the individual, that’s it. So I either don’t buy releases which are not nice, or view them if I "must" and pass them along / sell them. And yes, that makes my collection rather small. But to each his own, of course.

[jonam]

The BD is much more natural. Maybe dated but at least it does not look like a cartoon. Check screecap 8. UltraHD should look more like film. Why does Paramount always do this. Has anyone tried watching the blu ray upscaled to 4K?
Seriously the BD is the one to keep and own. Skip the UHD.

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by jonam

The BD is much more natural. Maybe dated but at least it does not look like a cartoon. Check screecap 8. UltraHD should look more like film. Why does Paramount always do this. Has anyone tried watching the blu ray upscaled to 4K?
Seriously the BD is the one to keep and own. Skip the UHD.

LOL just like typical dissenters to pick and choose ONE screen cap and make blanket claims on the rest. Also the above statement, as if the blu-ray itself looks like film. It certainly doesn't, has blobby/chunky grain because the scan is from a 3rd or 4th gen source and is fuzzy and ancient.

Also just like dissenters to look at a few caps and claim they know what the transfer looks like in motion, and warn people away from it even though they haven't even watched it.

Seriously, the UHD blows the blu-ray away, even if it's not 100% filmic. Better is still better.

[tama]

Originally Posted by jonam

The BD is much more natural. Maybe dated but at least it does not look like a cartoon. Check screecap 8. UltraHD should look more like film. Why does Paramount always do this. Has anyone tried watching the blu ray upscaled to 4K?
Seriously the BD is the one to keep and own. Skip the UHD.

I have watched the BD upscaled to compare. And you're wrong.

And despite its faults no the UHD doesn't look like a cartoon.

[Vilya]

I have read enough to decide that I will buy this on 4K UHD. I was very hesitant after reading the blu-ray.com review, but many of you have said that this release is, overall, a noticeable improvement over the blu-ray.

It may not be a "perfect" release, but if I waited for perfection, I would have a very small collection. I will take the improvements that are available now.

[jonam]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

LOL just like typical dissenters to pick and choose ONE screen cap and make blanket claims on the rest. Also the above statement, as if the blu-ray itself looks like film. It certainly doesn't, has blobby/chunky grain because the scan is from a 3rd or 4th gen source and is fuzzy and ancient.

Also just like dissenters to look at a few caps and claim they know what the transfer looks like in motion, and warn people away from it even though they haven't even watched it.

Seriously, the UHD blows the blu-ray away, even if it's not 100% filmic. Better is still better.

That's all that Paramount needs to know. Good gesture. Well Done.

[Croweyes1121]

Originally Posted by jonam

That's all that Paramount needs to know. Good gesture. Well Done.

You're right. It's a much better strategy to just not buy any physical media at all that isn't flawless. That way, an already niche market becomes completely untenable for the studios and we're left with streaming as our only option now rather than later. Brilliant.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

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.

The ENR processing done to SPR is a positive process, not a negative one, although they did push develop the neg by a stop or two in the lab, bringing up the grain and contrast (not in itself a rarity, mind you).

I've just chided someone for judging a film by its caps in another thread but holy balls, every single one of those capsaholic images for Gump looks very smudgy to my eyes. I think their usual terrible SDR conversion is smooshing the colours together in certain parts of the image so it's hard to judge how certain textures and larger areas of colour are being affected by the underlying tinkering, but the watercolour-filter-esque processing is definitely there.

The issue here isn't that more modern stocks are finer-grained, especially in well-exposed daylight exteriors, it's that there appears to be this pall of over-processed smudgyness to textures that pervades the entire movie. Some will watch it and see absolutely nothing wrong, some will react with horror. I do of course want to see it for myself but this has 2 for £30 written all over it...

[grodd]

It does seem like the DNR is worse in some shots than others,(shots 2,5,8 look bad) but for the most part this makes the blu ray look like a DVD. A no-brainer huge upgrade. A lot bigger upgrade than many if not most.