Oblivion 4K UHD (2013)

[gates70]

Originally Posted by imsounoriginal

To be fair some of the sharpness on the BD looks artificial (especially the cap of TC and the trees outside his cabin), but on the whole I can't see preferring the softer look of the UHD, even if/when I see it in-motion.

To each their own, but like I said, UHD all day long for me. Colors on the BD looked too muted for my taste. Sure it was sharp but that's about all it had going for it. Everything else is better on the UHD.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by imsounoriginal

To be fair some of the sharpness on the BD looks artificial (especially the cap of TC and the trees outside his cabin), but on the whole I can't see preferring the softer look of the UHD, even if/when I see it in-motion.

I don't think anyone with working eyes genuinely prefers the UHD for the softness alone, the point is that the HDR is quite lovely (IMO) and our resident audio nuts will always default to the UHD for the Atmos alone.

Me, I'll stick with the UHD but with a shitload of sharpening on top, it's quite telling that I could basically max out the sharpening controls on my Panasonic player (https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...1#post13052470) and even then it barely adds any edge halos to the main presentation at all, only along the letterbox bars, which shows just how badly this has been filtered in the first place.

[ROSS.T.G.]

Get a Darblet and put it in game mode, push to the max.

[KMFDMvsEnya]

The BR transfer does indeed have more finer real detail versus the UHD, despite that the UHD colors are lovely and the HDR is great as well. Shame that it was decided to filter the film out, sure there would have been grain but it would likely have been pretty fine and potentially a nonissue.

Has there been any statement to why they used a film out for the HDR pass?

I personally prefer the Atmos track to the DTSMA, both tracks are good but the Atmos is more nuanced and doesn't overwhelm the audio with compressed dynamic range.

[Geoff D]

They didn't use a film out.

[edit]
Just because this got bludgeoned with a low pass filter doesn't meant it was done for the same reasons as 3:10 to Yuma (indeed, several of other Lionsgate's filmout transfers are good and grainy). This is from Universal, the same studio that was more than happy to reuse a creaky old HD telecine transfer that was just shy of its 15th birthday for the UHD of Bourne Identity rather than do a new capture from film elements, that movie having had a photochemical finish, so it would be the ultimate perversion for them to ignore that but do a transfer from film for something that wasn't even shot on celluloid.

Then there are actual visual elements to consider, e.g. the geometry of the two versions is identical. Not the framing, seeing as they've tightened up the black bars to cover the ringing, but the actual geometry which would be different between the two if one had first been lasered out to film and then scanned back in later. (You might think that Yuma's geometry is identical at first glance but it's not, the image 'leans' to the left slightly on the UHD. Subtle, but definitely there.) And then there's the lack of any artefacts and instability related to film, there's no dirt or scratches and not a hint of any 'wobble'. Those things can be corrected after the fact of course, but it seems like an awful lot of effort when you've got the pristine DI right there. Same can be said of Lionsgate, but as we know they don't bother with much dirt/scratch removal on their filmout transfers

Basically this was one of Universal's very first UHDs and IMO whoever was doing it got a bit spooked by how it looked when it was upscaled, i.e. there's a definite layer of grain/noise on the BD and it may not have reacted kindly to the upscaling & HDR. So they decided to filter off the noise (which I think is still happening with a lot of UHDs today) but whoever was doing it turned the dial up to 11, unfortunately.

[gnj1958]

Yep I just compared and the BD definitely has more definition.

This has made me even more determined not to by 4K's of movies I already own.

Waste of $15.

[Geoff D]

Well, they're not all like this one, you know?

[Vangeli]

There's gotta be less than 10 UHD discs (out of hundreds if not close to a thousand UHD discs at this point) that are generally agreed to be worse than the Blu-ray. Odds are good.

[JimDiGriz]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Well, they're not all like this one, you know?

Im sticking with my Blu-ray steelbook on this one as I really like how it looks.

[wesslan]

I put the atmos on my blu-ray, best of both worlds for now

[RockyIII]

Originally Posted by gates70

Rocky III should be chiming in any minute about how it's the bestest UHD out there...in 3....2....1....

So many memorable UHD highlights from this lovely UHD...Top 3 demo for sure

[aetherhole]

I don't even need to read what Rocky said to know I should just shake my head...

[ROSS.T.G.]

Once the ridiculous comments are seen they cannot be unseen.

[bradnoyes]

I like it when he says something that is wrong, then gets corrected, and then a few pages later posts the corrected information like he came up with it himself.

[nick4Knight]

Originally Posted by Vangeli

There's gotta be less than 10 UHD discs (out of hundreds if not close to a thousand UHD discs at this point) that are generally agreed to be worse than the Blu-ray. Odds are good.

I agree with you about the starkly small amount of disappointments. And how we are in reality spoiled (good thing!). I mean just compare to early couple years on blu-ray?... mpeg2 encodes... flooded market with 90's HDTV quality scans... lossy audio in the dozens (often still not rectified)... 25GB discs. Etc

Not sure there's anywhere near a thousand UHD yet, though

[RockyIII]

There is always room for improvement, nevertheless this title is still my go-to demo when I want to impress folks

[DJR662]

Originally Posted by ROSS.T.G.

Once the ridiculous comments are seen they cannot be unseen.

I've read your post three times and I still laughed.

[Bishop_99]

Along with the softness that is clearly visible on playback of the UHD, I also strongly prefer the color tone of the Blu-ray. I upgraded the BD releases to the UHD version, but I don't like the warmer look of the UHD vs the really cool tone of the Blu-ray release which gives the movie a unique look in my opinion. Maybe it's do to the fact that I've seen the color tone of the Blu-ray version for so many years, it feels that is the way the movie should look.

I don't regret the update as I can have the UHD and BD vs a DVD version I never use. Even so, I will rarely watch the UHD version. I really enjoy this movie and it has a high replay value for me. The BD will continue to be my choice.

[RockyIII]

Originally Posted by Bishop_99

Along with the softness that is clearly visible on playback of the UHD, I also strongly prefer the color tone of the Blu-ray. I upgraded the BD releases to the UHD version, but I don't like the warmer look of the UHD vs the really cool tone of the Blu-ray release which gives the movie a unique look in my opinion. Maybe it's do to the fact that I've seen the color tone of the Blu-ray version for so many years, it feels that is the way the movie should look.

I don't regret the update as I can have the UHD and BD vs a DVD version I never use. Even so, I will rarely watch the UHD version. I really enjoy this movie and it has a high replay value for me. The BD will continue to be my choice.

The same difference in color temperature is noticeable in Ghost in The Shell when going from bluray (blue push) to UHD (no blue push)

[Bishop_99]

Originally Posted by RockyIII

The same difference in color temperature is noticeable in Ghost in The Shell when going from bluray (blue push) to UHD (no blue push)

I haven't seen that movie, so I can't comment on it. With Oblivion, it had a really cool tone to it for years, then the UHD version is released with a warmer tone as noted. I don't know why the Director would push for one color temperature on the first release if it wasn't his intent, yet they decide to change the color for the UHD release. I think the director could have gone for the warmer colors from the start if that is the look he wanted.

I bought the movie on release, that's almost 5 years of watching the very cool color tone of the Blu-ray release. To me, it just gives it a unique look as I mentioned. I'm not sure why did they change that on the UHD, but it's another factor that doesn't motivate me to watch the UHD over the BD.