Hancock 4K UHD (2008)

[Pieter V]

Hancock (2008) 4K Blu-ray

[Tns49]

Strange choice for 4k. So are some of the other ones Sony announced.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Tns49

Strange choice for 4k. So are some of the other ones Sony announced.

Not really, for if one desires to be honestly faithful to filmmaker intent (scroll to Q&A at 38min. 16sec. timestamp of the linked videoclip at the top of this post further elaborating upon that executive session from the professional conference last spring -
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...b#post10855136 ),

you should consider that it’s a selective process as to who’s available, can be brought in for consultation and approval of the HDR iteration.

[Geoff D]

Well, seeing as it might be kinda difficult to get a hold of that David Lean fella, couldn't they have put the SDR version of Lawrence in there too? Something with a bit of freakin' class that isn't just a succession of pretty images would be nice for launch instead of that lot.

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Well, seeing as it might be kinda difficult to get a hold of that David Lean fella, couldn't they have put the SDR version of Lawrence in there too? Something with a bit of freakin' class that isn't just a succession of pretty images would be nice for launch instead of that lot.

I am sure they don't care about David's HDR views any more than Peter's on this

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Well, seeing as it might be kinda difficult to get a hold of that David Lean fella, couldn't they have put the SDR version of Lawrence in there too? Something with a bit of freakin' class that isn't just a succession of pretty images would be nice for launch instead of that lot.

lol, here I thought that David Lean was reincarnated and now living thru another fella on the east coast doing Blu-ray reviews. Nevertheless, Lawrence is the crown jewel, did you really expect the studio to offer that up right at UHD BD launch? That’s not how marketing executives think.

Remember the last rodeo?..... https://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=86

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by dvdmike

The Scott Bros. do no wrong

http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/e...iere/75562640/

review….
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/welcome/

Peter cares about everything …
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...p#post11248614

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

lol, here I thought that David Lean was reincarnated and now living thru another fella on the east coast doing Blu-ray reviews. Nevertheless, Lawrence is the crown jewel, did you really expect the studio to offer that up right at UHD BD launch? That’s not how marketing executives think.

Remember the last rodeo?..... https://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=86

Eh, perhaps certain people are getting sick of this bullshit having gone through so many format upgrades over the years, instead of treating people like they've never bought a movie before why can't they give up a triple A title straight away to get some buzz going on a format that will have the toughest of tough sells anyway?

Hell, given the length of the film and the ongoing question marks over 100GB discs (any info on that front?) they could squeeze a bare bones version onto a 66GB platter which would leave them enough scope to unleash dat HDR in a fancier package later on...'Mastered in 8K', anyone?

As for that early list of BD titles, there's some dross there but Fifth Elephant and House of Flying Bladders are better than all the Sony-announced UHD crap put together IMO.

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Eh, perhaps certain people are getting sick of this bullshit having gone through so many format upgrades over the years, instead of treating people like they've never bought a movie before why can't they give up a triple A title straight away to get some buzz going on a format that will have the toughest of tough sells anyway?

Hell, given the length of the film and the ongoing question marks over 100GB discs (any info on that front?) they could squeeze a bare bones version onto a 66GB platter which would leave them enough scope to unleash dat HDR in a fancier package later on...'Mastered in 8K', anyone?

As for that early list of BD titles, there's some dross there but Fifth Elephant and House of Flying Bladders are better than all the Sony-announced UHD crap put together IMO.

Some of the streaming films are 100gb in avc.
LOA needs room to spread out, maybe two discs.
Maybe LOA and other 70mm discs should wait for the pointless 8k formats, well there won't be any but you know.

And I kinda like Salt

[Geoff D]

100GB because they've been re-encoded, the actual downloads are nowhere near that much. (How efficient must that eyeIO codec be in order to pull that off??)

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

100GB because they've been re-encoded, the actual downloads are nowhere near that much. (How efficient must that eyeIO codec be in order to pull that off??)

Actually I was talking the actual films on the service, Lawrence is on the service.
I have not encoded anything over 2hours in HEVC really

[Geoff D]

I heard most were in the 40-50GB range on the service, unless they've stopped using the eyeIO tweaked AVC and just reverted to plain old AVC?

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I heard most were in the 40-50GB range on the service, unless they've stopped using the eyeIO tweaked AVC and just reverted to plain old AVC?

I was under the impression LOA was close to 70-100gb
Not sure on that it's all gone quiet over there since they had their issues.
They are not as compressed as Samsung's "4k" content tho

[Geoff D]

Weren't there studies that showed HEVC was 60-something-percent more efficient at encoding UHD than AVC? If Lawrence is up to 100GB in straight AVC then using proper VBR HEVC encodes should result in enough of a drop in size to fit onto a 66GB without a lot of extras (special features, alt. languages etc).

[Geoff D]

Ah, just clocked that the Russian re-encodes are 10-bit (the Sony downloads are 8-bit AFAIK), it's no wonder they're so big with the CBR too.

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Weren't there studies that showed HEVC was 60-something-percent more efficient at encoding UHD than AVC? If Lawrence is up to 100GB in straight AVC then using proper VBR HEVC encodes should result in enough of a drop in size to fit onto a 66GB without a lot of extras (special features, alt. languages etc).

Indeed, but they would be much better encoded.
There is no reason to cram extras on there, jut pop them on the included bluray and make sure the bitrate is maximised

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Ah, just clocked that the Russian re-encodes are 10-bit (the Sony downloads are 8-bit AFAIK), it's no wonder they're so big with the CBR too.

Yeah, they were great at cracking it. But not so great at encoding.
Mind you the sizes vary a lot.
They go from Men in black 2 at 40gb to Ghostbusters 2 at 115gb ish

[Geoff D]

Of course they would be better encoded, that's kinda the point. But I didn't mention anything specifically because I figured I'd get a sarky comment from you about how you're a much better encoder than the professionals.

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Of course they would be better encoded, that's kinda the point. But I didn't mention anything specifically because I figured I'd get a sarky comment from you about how you're a much better encoder than the professionals.

Than a pro? God no I have no idea how people like Lyris do it.
Than these Russian numpties? I can do better than them

[Geoff D]

Da, tovarisch.

[dvdmike]

Maybe the Samsung rips are diffrent