4K Blu-ray Confirmed, Coming in

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

that can be said about anything

But honestly I think the bigger titles have a better chance (more demand) and since the ones you mentioned were shot and manipulated on film stock (that has more resolution) I would put their chances even higher (unlike a film shot digitally on a 720p camera where the question of benefit could come up)

Well, sure, but I would much rather have some of these titles on HD of some sort than not having them at all.

When switching formats, I don't normally throw the baby out with the bath water. I've learned my lesson there. I only get rid of titles that stand a good chance of being re-released with an upgraded version.

[rdodolak]

Originally Posted by jono3000

Why would you do that? Do you think all your Blu-rays will get UHD releases?

Personally I would only trade in a Blu-ray if I have the UltraHD Blu-ray in hand.

People did the same with DVD. They were worried about cashing in before the new format arrived, to try and maximize the amount of money received for their discs, because they were concerned the discs would be worth less after the new releases were available.

[aaranmcr]

Is it not possible that these companies will release old films on uhd discs purely for profit. I had many blurays with terible transfers as we all have. Alien resurrection was a worse disk than my old compressed dvd shrink copy. I think they will release everything under the sun to make uhd happen $$$$

[AK65]

Originally Posted by aaranmcr

Is it not possible that these companies will release old films on uhd discs purely for profit. I had many blurays with terible transfers as we all have. Alien resurrection was a worse disk than my old compressed dvd shrink copy. I think they will release everything under the sun to make uhd happen $$$$

This is probably a stupid question but will it be harder for studios to release bad transfer on 4KBD? Does the technology make it idiot proof or does that added complexity of HDR and stuff make more things possible to screw up?

[jono3000]

Originally Posted by rdodolak

People did the same with DVD. They were worried about cashing in before the new format arrived, to try and maximize the amount of money received for their discs, because they were concerned the discs would be worth less after the new releases were available.

One thing I've learnt in movie collecting through different formats is not to worry what it's "worth" at any point, unless it's a limited edition or special packaging version it's unlikely to hold its value. I've 200 odd DVDs that have not yet had Blu-ray releases and some of them never will. There trade in value is so low that if they ever get a Blu-ray release the DVD will just go in the bin. Even now with Blu-rays where I have double dipped and got a steelbook or new transfer version the trade in value for the original is about 1/3 of the price I paid for it.

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by aaranmcr

Is it not possible that these companies will release old films on uhd discs purely for profit. I had many blurays with terible transfers as we all have. Alien resurrection was a worse disk than my old compressed dvd shrink copy. I think they will release everything under the sun to make uhd happen $$$$

They'll probably only release titles that they think would benefit an from an HDR overhaul, new releases, and tried and true catalog titles.

I don't think you'll see something like camp classics Vampire Lesbos or other obscure titles show up this time with a 4k master.

Titles that ended up getting crapped on by the studios and sent to languish with Twilight Time or other hidden distribution companies (only known to forum members) probably will never see the light of day on UHD.

The title count will be much slimmer on UHD Blu-ray, mark my words.

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by AK65

This is probably a stupid question but will it be harder for studios to release bad transfer on 4KBD? Does the technology make it idiot proof or does that added complexity of HDR and stuff make more things possible to screw up?

Studios always find a way to screw up. Welcome to home video.

[aaranmcr]

I dont think they even care to be honest. When showing off you set up at home you reach for a disc you know to have the best possible image and sound. Why do we have reference discs at all. All hd films should have a standard quality but they dont. I think this problem will bleed over to uhd. And whats will grain! 300 looks better broadcasted than my horrible grainy bluray ever did..

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by aaranmcr

I dont think they even care to be honest. When showing off you set up at home you reach for a disc you know to have the best possible image and sound. Why do we have reference discs at all. All hd films should have a standard quality but they dont. I think this problem will bleed over to uhd.

Oh, of course they don't care. Why do you think you're getting the movies, especially summer titles, that you are?

The stock holders want quick, assured profit from overseas distribution and could care less about the U.S. market. That's why they're mostly churning out retreads, reboots, safe and non-challenging boardroom-level created scripts, and superhero films up the wazoo with razor thin plots and lots and lots of special effects?

Those attributes translate easily to a foreign market.

[Brightstar]

Originally Posted by FilmFreakosaurus

You did, especially if your collection consisted of deep catalog and/or classics that didn't include the "big" ones (Casablanca, Wizard of Oz, GWTW, Lawrence of Arabia, etc.).

Those may never show up on UHD disc.

I have movies on dvd that might never come out on blu ray let alone UHD

[aaranmcr]

Originally Posted by FilmFreakosaurus

They'll probably only release titles that they think would benefit an from an HDR overhaul, new releases, and tried and true catalog titles.

I don't think you'll see something like camp classics Vampire Lesbos or other obscure titles show up this time with a 4k master.

Titles that ended up getting crapped on by the studios and sent to languish with Twilight Time or other hidden distribution companies (only known to forum members) probably will never see the light of day on UHD.

The title count will be much slimmer on UHD Blu-ray, mark my words.

I mean about quality. Only half of the discs i ever owned really looked truly hd. Im not suprised casuals couldnt see the diff between sd and hd because they werent watching the right releases. And so bluray didnt take off as well as it should have because of the lack of image quality.

[rdodolak]

Originally Posted by aaranmcr

I dont think they even care to be honest. When showing off you set up at home you reach for a disc you know to have the best possible image and sound. Why do we have reference discs at all. All hd films should have a standard quality but they dont. I think this problem will bleed over to uhd. And whats will grain! 300 looks better broadcasted than my horrible grainy bluray ever did..

All film has grain and 300 is intentionally very grainy. More than likely the broadcast version is less like the source material.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by FilmFreakosaurus

Well, sure, but I would much rather have some of these titles on HD of some sort than not having them at all.

When switching formats, I don't normally throw the baby out with the bath water. I've learned my lesson there. I only get rid of titles that stand a good chance of being re-released with an upgraded version.

I Don't get rid of old formats (did a bit of trade and save and gave away some others to friends and family), so I agree with you on that. I just disagree with the notion that popular titles won't make it to UHD BD(assuming it survives)

[aaranmcr]

Originally Posted by rdodolak

All film has grain and 300 is intentionally very grainy. More than likely the broadcast version is less like the source material.

I literally dont see any grain when i view 300 on tv. The walking dead and any of the alien films and man of steel are other examples. They look great on tv (man of steel on the big screen). Some arty types are making the decision to grain up these films. Every release should have an oblivion quality image and nothing less. No wonder br didnt fly.

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by aaranmcr

I literally dont see any grain when i view 300 on tv. The walking dead and any of the alien films and man of steel are other examples. They look great on tv (man of steel on the big screen). Some arty types are making the decision to grain up these films. Every release should have an oblivion quality image and nithing less.

Not all movies were shot on super clean digital video, but those that are are often tweaked to emulate film because the image is so clean.

Grain is a part of the natural characteristic of film negatives.

They're not all going to look like Oblivion and shouldn't. Predator on the re-released Blu-ray and some titles that were heavily de-grained make people look like wax dummies. There is no detail left.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by rdodolak

All film has grain and 300 is intentionally very grainy. More than likely the broadcast version is less like the source material.

exactly, even though it was very digital (in composition and work flow) they added a lot of artificial grain to get that look. They felt grain gave it a look that resembled the graphic novel more.

Anyone that makes the comment that they liked the broadcast better because it was missing it, is missing the point since in that instance it was there by design (not even an artifact) and so the loss ruins the integrity of the composition.

[aaranmcr]

Originally Posted by FilmFreakosaurus

Not all movies were shot on super clean digital video, but those that are are often tweaked to emulate film because the image is so clean.

Grain is a part of the natural characteristic of film negatives.

They're not all going to look like Oblivion and shouldn't. Predator on the re-released Blu-ray and some titles that were heavily de-grained make people look like wax dummies. There is no detail left.

Thats a good point my friend and i do agree. Its just that it can be distracting to me personally. There are other styles they could use like warm or cold filters. I like man of steels cold blue but not the (im going to say it again, sorry) grain. I just find that heavy use of grain distracts from what hd is meant to be.

[rdodolak]

Originally Posted by aaranmcr

I literally dont see any grain when i view 300 on tv. The walking dead and any of the alien films and man of steel are other examples. They look great on tv (man of steel on the big screen). Some arty types are making the decision to grain up these films. Every release should have an oblivion quality image and nothing less. No wonder br didnt fly.

The TV masters may have been slathered with DNR. Not everything is supposed to look like it was shot on clean, crisp video. HD is meant to try and replicate the original source, as best as it can as it, and as it was originally shown in theaters.

[aaranmcr]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

exactly, even though it was very digital (in composition and work flow) they added a lot of artificial grain to get that look. They felt grain gave it a look that resembled the graphic novel more.

Anyone that makes the comment that they liked the broadcast better because it was missing it, is missing the point since in that instance it was there by design (not even an artifact) and so the loss ruins the integrity of the composition.

Agreed but there are different levels. Its like they crank it up to 100% when a subtle 30% would be better

[aaranmcr]

Originally Posted by aaranmcr

Agreed but there are different levels. Its like they crank it up to 100% when a subtle 30% would be better

All comes down to personal taste i guess.