Sony "Mastered in 4K" Blu-ray Titles May 14 and July 16

[Andrew-Kenneth]

Originally Posted by RandyK

Anyone know why Spider-Man 2 Mi4K is listed as a preorder on Amazon? Release date says April 22.

Also, has anyone ordered Spider-Man 1 and 2 from Amazon recently and gotten a slip?

I noticed this too. It's listed as a pre-order.
That's why I ordered my region-free copy of Spider Man 2 MI4K from Amazon.fr.
It came without a slip-cover.
(My store-bought copy of the first Spider-Man MI4K also did not have a slipcover.)

[jblank]

Originally Posted by KoreanFilmFan

I swear the Moneyball Mi4k release looks worse than the original disc.

http://www.caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergl...=193#vergleich

I agree with you. They can call it whatever they want, but it is not only more detailed and defined, but it looks more realistic. The Mi4K screencaps look like the difference between me having my glasses on versus off. One is in focus, one is blurry.

[Poya]

Originally Posted by jblank

I agree with you. They can call it whatever they want, but it is not only more detailed and defined, but it looks more realistic. The Mi4K screencaps look like the difference between me having my glasses on versus off. One is in focus, one is blurry.

The original had a lot of sharpening.

[chip75]

Originally Posted by jblank

I agree with you. They can call it whatever they want, but it is not only more detailed and defined, but it looks more realistic. The Mi4K screencaps look like the difference between me having my glasses on versus off. One is in focus, one is blurry.

You can load the Mastered in 4K screenshots into a graphics program and add sharpening to it. It looks almost identical to the old release when you compare them. The original release doesn't seem to have any extra detail, it's just been sharpened.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by jblank

I agree with you. They can call it whatever they want, but it is not only more detailed and defined, but it looks more realistic. The Mi4K screencaps look like the difference between me having my glasses on versus off. One is in focus, one is blurry.

I've compared them both on my VT60 plasma and the Mi4K looks notably smoother and film-like. The original version has a bit of excessive edge enhancement which gives the initial appearance of extra sharpness, but in reality and watching in motion, this is not the case.

[jblank]

I understand what you guys are saying, but look at the screen cap with Pitt at the table with the scouts. Look at how much more you can see in the regular release versus the 4K. Much more information is able to be seen, especially on the back wall.

[HeavyHitter]

It's the exact same effect as when you excessively increase the sharpness control.

Just like this shot: http://www.caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergl...ess=#vergleich

It seems like more detail as the grain appears more defined as does the detail on the light poles, but look at the edge enhancement ringing. Same thing going on in the Pitt image, but harder to see the ringing because of the shot. It's all just a sharpness illusion as high frequency artifacts are over-enhancing what's there.

[jblank]

You can describe it a million different ways, only thing that matters to me is what my eyes prefer.

[HeavyHitter]

Well, it just means you like artificial sharpening. To each his own. I prefer a natural, authentic, film-like look with none of that.

[jblank]

I want the most lifelike image possible. I'm into High-Definition media for a vivid and defined picture, one that looks the closest to me sitting there, at that table. A "film-like" look isn't that important to me, I want pop, I want a visually impressive image. That doesn't mean I want wax figures and smeary DNR hatchet jobs, but anything that makes the image look more realistic is what I go for.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by jblank

I want the most lifelike image possible. I'm into High-Definition media for a vivid and defined picture, one that looks the closest to me sitting there, at that table. A "film-like" look isn't that important to me, I want pop, I want a visually impressive image. That doesn't mean I want wax figures and smeary DNR hatchet jobs, but anything that makes the image look more realistic is what I go for.

Well, I want to see a movie the way the filmmakers intended it to be seen which means in accordance to rec 709 standards (i.e, proper calibration) and have the ability to replicate the actual film as much as possible in my home which is another reason I have gone the front projection route.

Films are not meant to necessarily be made to be looking "out a window" (and that notion is partially what killed off plasma which is a far superior technology than LED, but that is another conversation).

Either way, regarding Moneyball, I have watched both on a reference quality, calibrated display as the original version merely adds false edge enhancement which you prefer that was NOT on the film print and simply gives the image a more artificial look and does not add more detail; but, hey, if you like that look go ahead and get the (subpar) original disc. I'll stick to the closest version to the original film negative.

[jblank]

I already have the "subpar" disc and I'm quite pleased with it. I completely respect the desire to maintain filmmakers intent, but all too often, when that happens, the image tends to look a bit dull. I don't think you are wrong, nor am I saying I am right, but we all buy the things we prefer, be it cars, houses, etc. With respect to the film screenshots in question, I don't think any of them look "artificial" and that isn't necessarily what I want. I do however prefer a picture that is more defined and shows off the format.

I agree with you about plasma, in fact, until I went 3D in August (purchased an LG 6400 series LED) I had a Panasonic Plasma that I loved and in some cases, prefer to this day. Part of me wishes I hadn't have sold it and instead kept it for our bedroom.

I'm a big proponent of calibration also, though I have to admit that on this latest HDTV, I decided to take care of it myself rather than pay, which is what I had done on the Plasma, and I'm happy with the results.

[Tech-UK]

But you are not seeing extra detail. Edge Enhancement/sharpening adds more pixels around high frequency areas to create the illusion that there's more detail, but you are actually LOOSING detail because the sharpening is covering it.

If your a fan of calibration, one of the first tasks is to calibrate sharpness using a reference test pattern, like the one found on the Spears & Munsil 2nd edition test disc.

Once you are watching Blu-ray's on a properly calibrated display, you instantly notice EE/sharpening and it looks poor.

[jblank]

We just agree to disagree. As I said, I prefer the image to be sharper, more lifelike, and almost all of the screenshots for Moneyball look better on the original disc, rather than the Mi4K. Also, I don't have a 70" screen, mine is a little smaller, so what might be a glaring flaw on a really large screen, might not be perceptible on mine.

http://www.caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergl...=193#vergleich

That image, to me, looks better on the original and regardless of what tools they use to "enhance" the image, it looks more lifelike, more defined, and for lack of a better term, better, to my eye. Is it DVD versus Blu-Ray different? Of course not, but this is one of the few Mi4K films that I didn't feel was worthy of the re-purchase, so I've stuck with the original.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Tech-UK

But you are not seeing extra detail. Edge Enhancement/sharpening adds more pixels around high frequency areas to create the illusion that there's more detail, but you are actually LOOSING detail because the sharpening is covering it.

They spell "losing" with a double o in the UK?

[Ben_R]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

They spell "losing" with a double o in the UK?

Not a particularly pertinent observation is it.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Ben_R

Not a particularly pertinent observation is it.

Didn't say it was.

[JimDiGriz]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

They spell "losing" with a double o in the UK?

No they dont! I see "loosing" all the time on the net though. Another one that the spellchecker never picks up. And its definitely not a UK thing - more a USA thing if anything!

[Tech-UK]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

They spell "losing" with a double o in the UK?

I didn't know I paid for you to be my spell checker, but seeing as you are doing it for free, please continue.

I must have added an extra 'o', the spell checker didn't pick it up.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by JimDiGriz

No they dont! I see "loosing" all the time on the net though. Another one that the spellchecker never picks up. And its definitely not a UK thing - more a USA thing if anything!

I'm seeing it in mainstream publications, actual websites, etc. People have forgotten how to properly spell it and insist on adding another "o" for some reason. It must be a conspiracy.

Originally Posted by Tech-UK

I must have added an extra 'o', the spell checker didn't pick it up.

Spell checker won't pick it up because "loose" is supposed to be the opposite of "tight".