Forrest Gump 4K UHD (1994)

[ROSS.T.G.]

Originally Posted by imsounoriginal

Bourne Identity, Grease (but I thought it looked alright), and every Disney disc that's been Atmoused.

I can’t believe I forgot Bourne...

[Fat Phil]

Originally Posted by ROSS.T.G.

I can’t believe I forgot Bourne...

You wisely purged it from your mind. Attaboy.

[notops]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Leibman hasn't exactly been at the forefront of championing UHD, lol

Gotta' love Liebman. He's also still reviewing 2.0 stereo tracks on two speakers. Wow... just wow...

[Frank@Chicago]

Originally Posted by I KEEL YOU

My guess is that the new BD doesn't look as good as the UHD looks at the parts where the DNR isn't too heavy, but looks better than the parts where it is, and it offers an overall more consistent viewing experience.

Don't forget that the new BD costs less than half of the UHD (which was poorly received).

Some of the people attacking the 25th BD don't seem to recommending the UHD either.

I'm very happy with the 25th BD, but I'm cool with keeping my old Sapphire copy too.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by sperezmore

I think the reviewer is clearly right.

Kind regards,

No, he's definitely wrong. There is loads more detail on the UHD.

[sperezmore]

Originally Posted by Frank@Chicago

Don't forget that the new BD costs less than half of the UHD (which was poorly received).

Some of the people attacking the 25th BD don't seem to recommending the UHD either.

I'm very happy with the 25th BD, but I'm cool with keeping my old Sapphire copy too.

Agree and also keeping the 4K BD until the next 8K UHD Super Deluxe Edition

King regards,

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by notops

Gotta' love Liebman. He's also still reviewing 2.0 stereo tracks on two speakers. Wow... just wow...

I may not be arsed with surround sound any more (though I don't 'review' that side of things, after all ) but yes, it bakes my noodle that people won't apply a surround DSP to 2.0 tracks from the Dolby Stereo era, that they think it's somehow incorrect to do so.

[rwc]

Everyone seems to be discussing the new blu-ray, and questioning whether or not it's a remaster, and saying it lacks the detail of the 4K, but no one seems to be mentioning the new 4K release. Surely this is the comparison that matters, or am I missing something?

[joenostalgia23]

The 4K discs are the exact same.

[ratedRron]

Originally Posted by rwc

Everyone seems to be discussing the new blu-ray, and questioning whether or not it's a remaster, and saying it lacks the detail of the 4K, but no one seems to be mentioning the new 4K release. Surely this is the comparison that matters, or am I missing something?

It's the same 4k disc in both these releases.
The older one has the 2009 Blu included, the new one has a remaster on the Blu which is the 4k transfer in 1080p.
Basically people are pissed that there isn't a great Forrest Gump 4k transfer to be had and arguing about the merits of the Blu vs the 4k.
Hope this helps.

[rwc]

Originally Posted by ratedRron

It's the same 4k disc in both these releases.
The older one has the 2009 Blu included, the new one has a remaster on the Blu which is the 4k transfer in 1080p.
Basically people are pissed that there isn't a great Forrest Gump 4k transfer to be had and arguing about the merits of the Blu vs the 4k.
Hope this helps.

Yeah I assumed the initial 4K release included a remastered blu-ray - rookie mistake. It's just never something I need to look out for: if a 4K disc was worth buying, then the only reason I'd play its accompanying blu is to watch extras.

However I can't find any post here confirming that the 4K discs are identical, except this one:

Originally Posted by TauHeel05

Received mine this morning. I briefly skimmed the disc and the 4k appears to be the exact one in the previous release from 2018.

Which is helpful but IMO isn't definitive. The best way to confirm is to compare the production codes visible on the actual 4K discs.

[LMFAObros]

Hopefully someone or our good friends capsaholic can upload screenshots of the new edition so we can compare them detail wise, looking at how the heavy dnr on the 4k has been reduced or accentuated on the new disc

[lilboyblu]

Originally Posted by LMFAObros

Hopefully someone or our good friends capsaholic can upload screenshots of the new edition so we can compare them detail wise, looking at how the heavy dnr on the 4k has been reduced or accentuated on the new disc

MisterXDTV posted some comparisons yesterday:

Originally Posted by MisterXDTV

Just made this: the SDR grading is different of course but it's the same transfer

BD 2019 vs UHD BD 2018

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/135580
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/135581

[MassiveMovieBuff]

Odd that the sapphire transfer is being left out of the screencap comparisons.

Out of curiousity has anyone seen a 4K stream of Forrest Gump and if so are the same issues from the UHD and new blu ray present on the streaming version? Been wondering if this might be intentional by Paramount to possibly make the streaming version look better if so since Paramount hasn't ever really seemed on board with HD physical media for nearly a decade now if not even longer.

[notops]

Originally Posted by MassiveMovieBuff

Odd that the sapphire transfer is being left out of the screencap comparisons.

Out of curiousity has anyone seen a 4K stream of Forrest Gump and if so are the same issues from the UHD and new blu ray present on the streaming version? Been wondering if this might be intentional by Paramount to possibly make the streaming version look better if so since Paramount hasn't ever really seemed on board with HD physical media for nearly a decade now if not even longer.

Yeah. And if you act now when you buy the stream, Paramount will throw in a complimentary tinfoil hat.

[MisterXDTV]

Screenshot comparison deleted the database

Originally Posted by MassiveMovieBuff

Odd that the sapphire transfer is being left out of the screencap comparisons.

I re-did the comparison, this time also with the 2009 BD

https://diff.pics/3JUgtR3qbvwj/1
https://diff.pics/5QLW1x7YEJup/1

[joenostalgia23]

Originally Posted by wormraper

ummmm, any reviewer worth his salt will only review a stereo track on 2 speakers. "upmixing" won't give you an accurate reading of the original source material as it's now been cut apart and remixed artificially.

A lot of 2.0 tracks on DVD and Blu-ray are designed for matrix decoding. Obviously most older (pre-70s) films in mono or stereo are meant to be heard just like that, but look at the back of the box for Criterion’s releases of films like Brazil, Mishima, or Three Colors Trilogy. Those films are “2.0 Surround” because they’re meant to be matrixed. There’s a difference between what Criterion labels as “stereo” and what’s on those discs.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by wormraper

ummmm, any reviewer worth his salt will only review a stereo track on 2 speakers. "upmixing" won't give you an accurate reading of the original source material as it's now been cut apart and remixed artificially.

dafuq are you talking about? If the track was encoded LCRS - as the vast majority of these 2.0 mixes are from movies made in the last 40-odd years - then applying a surround DSP isn't "upmixing" in the sense of creating something that was never there before. It's not a 'novelty', it's what it's supposed to be and too many 'reviewers' are clueless about this.

Any Lt/Rt mix was done with the express intent of being run through a matrix decoder to extract the LCRS channel layout, and while not many people have an actual theatrical Dolby Stereo decoder in their home - though some folks have! - we're not using theatrical decoders for any other formats either so there's nothing inherently "wrong" with doing this using a more modern DSP, particularly if you're using one with the Dolby name on it anyway (and IT DOES NOT MATTER IF THE AUDIO IS ENCODED IN DTS either).

Heck, something I noticed about the latest 'Dolby Surround' a.k.a. Atmos upmixer on my Denon AVR was that when it was fed discrete multi-channel content then it would steer sounds into the heights but when it was fed a two-channel source then it would apply a more straightforward channel-based matrixing and didn't employ the heights at all.

[MisterXDTV]

Exactly, You should always use something like Dolby Pro Logic II or something similar for stereo tracks... That's the right way to "decode" the track

[Geoff D]

BTW, Dolby Surround EX when it first debuted in the cinema and in the home was based around a MATRIXED centre rear encoded across the two rear channels (just like how the centre channel is encoded across front left and front right in a Dolby Stereo mix). But the actual physical 'EX' audio track was recorded as 5.1 discrete channels, so does that mean it should be played in 5.1 only? Of course not. It can be played in 5.1 without incident, just as 2.0 LCRS mixes can be played back in actual stereo, but applying the relevant processing to either doesn't violate the original "intent", FAR from it. That's what makes this fear/refusal of matrixed 2.0 LCRS tracks so mystifying to me because it's such a simple thing to understand.