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

[K i r a]

Any Screenshot comparisons of Spider-Man 2's M4K vs 1080p?

[tylergfoster]

Originally Posted by K i r a

Any Screenshot comparisons of Spider-Man 2's M4K vs 1080p?

I believe the only one that was up was a cell phone pic comparison, which is obviously not optimal.

I am really surprised at how many people want the 2.1 cut that was just done to sell DVDs and is not Raimi's preferred cut of the movie.

[Pieter V]

Spider-Man 2 4K vs regular Blu-ray:

http://www.caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergl...D=1812#auswahl

[Bolty]

Originally Posted by tylergfoster

I believe the only one that was up was a cell phone pic comparison, which is obviously not optimal.

I am really surprised at how many people want the 2.1 cut that was just done to sell DVDs and is not Raimi's preferred cut of the movie.

Because it's MY preferred cut and Blu-ray is supposed to be about choices--it's how it was sold and it's just plain stupid they would not include both existing cuts and they lost 1 sale which i guess they don't care about.

Oh and the 2.0 cut was just to sell movie tickets by that logic.

[The Fallen Deity]

Originally Posted by Pieter V

Spider-Man 2 4K vs regular Blu-ray:

http://www.caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergl...D=1812#auswahl

Woah, the M4K transfer is a huge improvement over the old transfer.

[BrandonJF]

Originally Posted by Pieter V

Spider-Man 2 4K vs regular Blu-ray:

http://www.caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergl...D=1812#auswahl

Wow. I don't even know what to think of this. The color timing is radically different between the two. The framing is different, as was previously reported. The mastered-in-4k version appears to have a softer image.

To me, the old release is more visually appealing, although I guess that doesn't necessarily make it correct. Given all of these changes, I wonder which one is supposed to be the intended representation of the movie?

[The Fallen Deity]

Originally Posted by BrandonJF

Wow. I don't even know what to think of this. The color timing is radically different between the two. The framing is different, as was previously reported. The mastered-in-4k version appears to have a softer image.

To me, the old release is more visually appealing, although I guess that doesn't necessarily make it correct. Given all of these changes, I wonder which one is supposed to be the intended representation of the movie?

The old transfer has a really ugly magenta push and it also looks contrast boosted. Both of these issues appear to be corrected on the new transfer.

[Poya]

Originally Posted by BozQ

Why Warner Bros? Just curious.

Look at Ben Hur. Look at Citizen Kane. Look at Wizard of Oz. Look at Casablanca. Look at Gone With The Wind. They all look fantastic.

[Kryptonic]

Originally Posted by The Fallen Deity

Woah, the M4K transfer is a huge improvement over the old transfer.

It is not.

[42041]

Looks much nicer to me. Ugly sharpening is gone, color rendition is more film-like. The original disc is also a 4K DI, and I would assume this is just a better HD conversion of the same source, so predictably, not a huge detail increase.

[HeavyHitter]

The MI4K version looks much more film-like and natural. The original shots look very "video" looking with the over-boosted contrast, magenta push, and excessive sharpening.

[gonzo_fool]

Originally Posted by Pieter V

Spider-Man 2 4K vs regular Blu-ray:

http://www.caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergl...D=1812#auswahl

Ahhh, the original color timing (I'm not a fan of the bland, magenta look of the old transfer) and a more film-like appearance. Since I still have my old 2-disc DVD with all the special features, the 4K disc gets a buy from me. Thanks, Sony!

[Ben_UK]

Hmm, some shots from the 4K one look more magenta than the old release, but then some look less. Not sold myself, however it does look a touch softer and more "filmic".

[emgesp]

The gamma seems strange in the MI4K Spider-Man 2.

[The Fallen Deity]

Originally Posted by Kryptonic

It is not.

That's your opinion. I personally think it looks much better then the old release. Much more film like.

[The Fallen Deity]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

The MI4K version looks much more film-like and natural. The original shots look very "video" looking with the over-boosted contrast, magenta push, and excessive sharpening.

+1

[tylergfoster]

Originally Posted by Bolty

Oh and the 2.0 cut was just to sell movie tickets by that logic.

No, Raimi specifically said in interviews that he wasn't personally interested in doing an alternate or extended cut but that the studio really pushed him to do it. Same situation as the Ridley Scott "Director's Cut" of Alien.

[dvdmike]

The 90's telecine pink push is finally gone! miles better will dump the old release

[Bolty]

Originally Posted by tylergfoster

No, Raimi specifically said in interviews that he wasn't personally interested in doing an alternate or extended cut but that the studio really pushed him to do it. Same situation as the Ridley Scott "Director's Cut" of Alien.

You totally missed my point........

You mocked Spider-Man 2.1 as 'simply to sell DVDs'

while the purpose of the movie or ANY movie is to sell tickets or DVDs or Blu-rays or pay-per-view etc.

So what. There are two version of a movie in a format where both can be contained on a single disc.

It isn't about which version YOU prefer--it's about giving the buyer choice and selling discs.

They gave me no choice and they're not selling me a disc that I was perfectly willing to buy.

If that makes you happy--who cares
It's whether it makes Sony happy---maybe they'd be more happy to sell me a disc than not.

[GenPion]

Originally Posted by Bolty

while the purpose of the movie or ANY movie is to sell tickets or DVDs or Blu-rays or pay-per-view etc.

Is that the purpose of any movie? A movie should ideally be profitable, of course, but does that mean that's the reason they are made? Most film directors get into the industry out of a love for cinema.

The point tylergfoster was making is that Sam Raimi's director's cut of Spider-Man 2 WAS the theatrical version. That is the version on the 4K release. It is the version preferred by the filmmaker.

Spider-Man 2.1 was done by producers as a means of offering an extended version while making more profits because of additional DVD sales.

It is the same concept as when Ridley Scott was asked by producers to do a "Directors Cut" so that they could make more money off of the film.

This is all all besides the point in regards to the 4K release of Spider-Man 2. Sony likely did not save the materials for Spider-Man 2.1 where it even COULD be transferred as a 4K release.

The materials for the extended cut were likely edited post production. Sony rescanned the theatrical version because it was possible to do so with the materials they have. The extended cut was probably edited together using inferior methods which would prevent a 4K scan from being possible. This seems like a likely reason for why the 4K releases have not contained the extended versions of various films.