Forrest Gump 4K UHD (1994)

[ROSS.T.G.]

Yeah the contrast and color look stunning. The blacks are so deep but the DNR ruined it for me. I just don’t understand how one scene looks great then the next nasty. Very frustrating.

[lgans316]

@GeoffD nailed it again in his review. The UHD is a massive improvement in all areas except for film grain. Yes there is DNR and I would say about 50% of grain has been scrubbed. However it has been done to an extent where it is doesn't negatively impact the overall PQ. There are few Cliffhanger type DNR moments which made me grind my teeth especially when seeing the bit rates hovering between 28-54 Mpbs. You can still see a thin layer of film grain for most parts and excellent texture detailing. There are many moments oferong that 4K crispness. Blacks look mostly stunning on my OLED. My major complaint is the application of HDR which appears to be on the milder side. Do not be put off my the negative reviews. Enjoy this wonderful film in 4K UHD like you have never seen before. There are worst docs out there and this ain't one of them.

[Viking61]

Forrest Gump 25th Anniversary Edition. UPC 032429318312. Release date May 7 2019. Can someone make a database entry for it?

[ROSS.T.G.]

Maybe this one won’t be ruined by DNR lol

[UberMensch]

Could this get a new non-dnr remaster? I would buy it Day 1 if it does.

[Fat Phil]

Surely that has to be the quickest repackage ever?

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by UberMensch

Could this get a new non-dnr remaster? I would buy it Day 1 if it does.

Nope. It's just a re-package. The DNR is mainly due to the numerous low-rez film print-outs of the digital effects that were not exactly perfected during the time of the film's release. There are many, many digitally manipulated shots throughout Gump. Zemeckis pushes technology a little bit too far. It wasn't ready for prime-time in the early 90's.


They would literally have to rebuild the effects from scratch at 4k and I doubt Paramount would foot the bill.


Get it for the much improved Atmos track.

[nick4Knight]

I still don't think you only get this for atmos. This is a stunning picture when it's stunning and unlike a botched DI or modern IP like Batman Begins the down parts aren't a mystery; we know it's source related. So for me it's not frustrating to see DNR when it pops up.

It's a product of it's parts being imperfect. Not merely knobs being pressed that shouldn't.

p.s I had a dream about Who Framed Roger Rabbit? being scanned and released on 4K. It made me happy more Zemeckis was out and then sad when I woke and realized we ain't there yet..

[Agent Kay]

Originally Posted by FilmFreakosaurus

Nope. It's just a re-package. The DNR is mainly due to the numerous low-rez film print-outs of the digital effects that were not exactly perfected during the time of the film's release. There are many, many digitally manipulated shots throughout Gump. Zemeckis pushes technology a little bit too far. It wasn't ready for prime-time in the early 90's.


They would literally have to rebuild the effects from scratch at 4k and I doubt Paramount would foot the bill.


Get it for the much improved Atmos track.

Improved from what?
One of the biggest sound demo discs on 3 formats....

#surejan

[HeavyHitter]

I own the BD; if I am only concerned about overall PQ, should I even bother with the UHD BD?

[brainofj72]

I’m hoping the repackage is a SteelBook. I canceled my preorder for the original edition because of the DNR talk but I might grab a Steel if it hits $15.

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by Agent Kay

Improved from what?
One of the biggest sound demo discs on 3 formats....

#surejan

The 5.1 mix is mostly 3.1. There's almost no surround usage or when it does get used, it's light. The Atmos mix is more expansive; it opens the environment of the dramatic scenes more.

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

I own the BD; if I am only concerned about overall PQ, should I even bother with the UHD BD?

Get it. The colors are improved. The Atmos track adds to the scope of the film.

[Agent Kay]

Originally Posted by FilmFreakosaurus

The 5.1 mix is mostly 3.1. There's almost no surround usage or when it does get used, it's light. The Atmos mix is more expansive; it opens the environment of the dramatic scenes more.

So?
It has to be 22.1 to be good?
The opening of Beverley Hills cop has some of the best mixing in modern film.
And that's stereo.

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by Agent Kay

So?
It has to be 22.1 to be good?
The opening of Beverley Hills cop has some of the best mixing in modern film.
And that's stereo.

Au contraire, it was Dolby Stereo (matrixed 4.0 surround) and not the best mix ever.



Apocalypse Now takes the cake as it was one of the first 5.1 mixes used at the cinema with a very layered and atmospheric track, and that was back in the 70's. Walter Murch is a god!

[ROSS.T.G.]

Yeah Walter Murch deserves all the credit in the world. In the Blink of an Eye is a great quick read.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by ROSS.T.G.

Yeah Walter Murch deserves all the credit in the world. In the Blink of an Eye is a great quick read.

I read that just the other day. I'll never look at people blinking in movies in quite the same way again, and his penchant for not making an edit at a certain place unless he can physically stop the film on the exact same frame every time (when playing at normal speed) appeals to the UHD vs BD freeze-framer in me.

[ROSS.T.G.]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I read that just the other day. I'll never look at people blinking in movies in quite the same way again, and his penchant for not making an edit at a certain place unless he can physically stop the film on the exact same frame every time (when playing at normal speed) appeals to the UHD vs BD freeze-framer in me.

I started Easy Riders, Raging Bulls again. Still my all time favourite book. I also liked The Conversations and Placing Movies. Sidney Lumets Making Movies is another quick read.

[kboumi]

Originally Posted by FilmFreakosaurus

The DNR is mainly due to the numerous low-rez film print-outs of the digital effects that were not exactly perfected during the time of the film's release. There are many, many digitally manipulated shots throughout Gump. Zemeckis pushes technology a little bit too far. It wasn't ready for prime-time in the early 90's.


They would literally have to rebuild the effects from scratch at 4k and I doubt Paramount would foot the bill.

I’m going to sound terribly tedious now, but I just don’t get how DNR adds to the resolution of the images, if the source is low-res, yet still you say that if it was not for the DNR, they would have to rebuild these.

Firstly, one does not have to be an expert to take a look at the screenshots, or the disc itself and objectively evaluate that there is something wrong with the grain structure in most of the shots, especially in movement. Compare to Home Alone, which uses the same film stock, but exhibits completely natural film grain structure. The lower resolution parts with effects is one thing, the rest is the other. True, on an average screen, the rest looks quite good. Up close, however, I can still see it is wrong. My guess is ironed out underneath, fake grain on top, the qualities of that are just there. The old blu-ray exhibits more natural characteristics, although it is a lower resolution scan with manifold problems, which the 4K disc solves, like colour grading, detail. Reason: DNR. I’m not telling anybody to get the old blu-ray, I am just saying what I see.

Secondly, advocating for DNR with low-res film print-outs is wrong. Even low-res, the source must still exhibit more film-like quality than when DNR is placed on top. It just has less detail. Again: there is no way that any of the shots in the film now look better thanks to DNR. It just doesn’t make sense. And I can state that because the "good" is clearly defined here. Good means natural, because we are watching preserved digitised film material. So why do they add DNR? Because they don’t care about film, they care about your money and believe that you want it to be as smooth as a baby’s bottom, like the newest digitally shot whatever.

And finally, the bottom line: Scan it, stabilise it, repair damage, clean it, do colour grading, that’s it. Then we can hear the people yelling that some parts of the film show lower quality shots and *are grainy*, and yes, then we can blame the source and finally end this dumb discussion.

Not that anybody would care, mind you. I’m just saying that your point is wrong.

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by kboumi

I’m going to sound terribly tedious now, but I just don’t get how DNR adds to the resolution of the images, if the source is low-res, yet still you say that if it was not for the DNR, they would have to rebuild these.

Firstly, one does not have to be an expert to take a look at the screenshots, or the disc itself and objectively evaluate that there is something wrong with the grain structure in most of the shots, especially in movement. Compare to Home Alone, which uses the same film stock, but exhibits completely natural film grain structure. The lower resolution parts with effects is one thing, the rest is the other. True, on an average screen, the rest looks quite good. Up close, however, I can still see it is wrong. My guess is ironed out underneath, fake grain on top, the qualities of that are just there. The old blu-ray exhibits more natural characteristics, although it is a lower resolution scan with manifold problems, which the 4K disc solves, like colour grading, detail. Reason: DNR. I’m not telling anybody to get the old blu-ray, I am just saying what I see.

Secondly, advocating for DNR with low-res film print-outs is wrong. Even low-res, the source must still exhibit more film-like quality than when DNR is placed on top. It just has less detail. Again: there is no way that any of the shots in the film now look better thanks to DNR. It just doesn’t make sense. And I can state that because the "good" is clearly defined here. Good means natural, because we are watching preserved digitised film material. So why do they add DNR? Because they don’t care about film, they care about your money and believe that you want it to be as smooth as a baby’s bottom, like the newest digitally shot whatever.

And finally, the bottom line: Scan it, stabilise it, repair damage, clean it, do colour grading, that’s it. Then we can hear the people yelling that some parts of the film show lower quality shots and *are grainy*, and yes, then we can blame the source and finally end this dumb discussion.

Not that anybody would care, mind you. I’m just saying that your point is wrong.

Never did I say DNR made things look better just that it's used. I am saying they can be trying to even out the in-camera shots intercut with the fuzzier looking, lower res film-outs. There are many film outs in this movie because there are many digital effects shots that, at the time, had much less resolution than 35mm film (composited digitally created skies, birds, feathers, trees, explosions, bullet hits, leg removal, crowd extensions, water, buildings, animated mouths, etc. Some things that used to be optically composited using 65mm film rather than via computer because of generation loss through the optical printer.)... so the mastering techs chose to use DNR at many spots in the film due to these dodgy intercut sequences.

4k just makes the use more noticeable than the 1080p Blu.