The Amazing Spider-Man - Nov 09, 2012 Reviews

[Geoff D]

Peter, GB wasn't an atrocity, but I never liked it. It's not just about the blown out highlights, the hyped-up contrast gives the image an aggressive sharpness that exacerbates the grain something chronic. I've always found it to be uncomfortable to watch. You know from my comments in the Trek movie threads that I despise overdone DNR - but, on the flipside, if I say a movie is too grainy then you know something's amiss.

[AngelGraves13]

Originally Posted by Nick666

Is it just me or did they squeeze in some sharpening ? Is that real extra detail I wonder ?



Here's another 4k screen, something doesnt look right.

[/URL]

It's sharper, as I said a page or two ago. Most 4K masters look sharp compared to their 2k counterparts. Since this wasn't filmed but shot digitally, there's no grain, which makes everything look soft.

Film is still really dark though. I'm a photographer, and if I was to show this as a final product to a customer...I'd be out of work. Both shots look underexposed, but I can tell they were shot right and adjusted in post.

This is how the film should have looked...and was likely shot.

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by Nick666

Is it just me or did they squeeze in some sharpening ? Is that real extra detail I wonder ?

High Def Digest thinks it might have been artificially sharpened:

With that said, as the included screenshots demonstrate, there actually is an increase in apparent clarity and contrast in this transfer (though it looks like this was likely accomplished through artificial sharpening).

[AngelGraves13]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

High Def Digest thinks it might have been artificially sharpened:

There's no way to know how sure. They could have softened the image in post production for the original blu-ray. They definitely darkened it, so there's just no way of knowing.

I prefer the 4K mastered disc over the regular one because of the sharpness.

[Sherlock_Jr]

Originally Posted by AngelGraves13

It's sharper, as I said a page or two ago. Most 4K masters look sharp compared to their 2k counterparts. Since this wasn't filmed but shot digitally, there's no grain, which makes everything look soft.

Film is still really dark though. I'm a photographer, and if I was to show this as a final product to a customer...I'd be out of work. Both shots look underexposed, but I can tell they were shot right and adjusted in post.

This is how the film should have looked...and was likely shot.

Presumptuous, and most likely incorrect. You don't know how it was shot or how it *should* look. If we're getting into "most likelys", the blu was probably taken directly form the DI, which would be the finished, director-approved version that showed in theaters. So it would be exactly how it is supposed to look.

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by AngelGraves13

There's no way to know how sure. They could have softened the image in post production for the original blu-ray. They definitely darkened it, so there's just no way of knowing.

I prefer the 4K mastered disc over the regular one because of the sharpness.

Both are 4K mastered discs

[Geoff D]

If those caps are accurate then the M4K does look like it's been sharpened. Looking at Ms Stone's cheek against the dark background, I can clearly see a faint white halo running down her jawline. And no, I'm not zooming in to 1000% or whatever, it's the first thing that caught my eye when tabbing between the two.

[AngelGraves13]

Originally Posted by Sherlock_Jr

Presumptuous, and most likely incorrect. You don't know how it was shot or how it *should* look. If we're getting into "most likelys", the blu was probably taken directly form the DI, which would be the finished, director-approved version that showed in theaters. So it would be exactly how it is supposed to look.

I highly doubt they're going to shoot the movie underexposed. You underexpose it all you want in post.

You shoot it correctly and then do whatever you want to it in post, as you may not know how you want the film to look.

I'm assuming that's probably what it looked like when it was shot before the DI.

Also, I don't like the DI for Traffic whatsoever, but it's the director's decision..not mine. Still, I'm entitled to my opinion.

[AngelGraves13]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

Both are 4K mastered discs

True, they both come from the same master. Sony made some changes in sharpness and aspect ratio, but that's about it for the 4K mastered disc.

[Sky_Captain]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

High Def Digest thinks it might have been artificially sharpened:

It honestly wouldn't surprise me. A bit naughty though, claiming increased detail, etc, when the perception of such, is fake.

[Geoff D]

That's what I was thinking, it's a bit of a cheeky thing to do. Other releases derived from the same 4K master have shown actual improvements, however minor they may be (e.g. Taxi Driver), but adding sharpening to TAS smacks of desperation. Instead of arsing about with that one, Sony should've redone Spidey 2 instead.

[Sherlock_Jr]

Originally Posted by AngelGraves13

I highly doubt they're going to shoot the movie underexposed. You underexpose it all you want in post.

You shoot it correctly and then do whatever you want to it in post, as you may not know how you want the film to look.

I'm assuming that's probably what it looked like when it was shot before the DI.

Also, I don't like the DI for Traffic whatsoever, but it's the director's decision..not mine. Still, I'm entitled to my opinion.

Opinion is one thing. Passing it off as fact — "This is how the film should have looked" — is another. No, it shouldn't have. It looks the way it's supposed to, and did in the theater.

And who says they shot it underexposed?

[AngelGraves13]

Originally Posted by Sherlock_Jr

Opinion is one thing. Passing it off as fact — "This is how the film should have looked" — is another. No, it shouldn't have. It looks the way it's supposed to, and did in the theater.

And who says they shot it underexposed?

Where did I pass it off as a fact? The word "should" implies opinion.

WTF is wrong you?

[MifuneFan]

[jacksonwalker]

Isn't the character of Peter Parker into photography...or something?

[psychomugs]

If you err with exposure in movies, I'm pretty sure they try to err on the side of underexposure. It's better to crush some blacks than to blow the whites. They both lose detail in the extremes of the dynamic range but crushed blacks is nowhere near as distracting and can be passed of much easier.

Originally Posted by AngelGraves13

Where did I pass it off as a fact? The word "should" implies opinion.

WTF is wrong you?

By using "should" coupled with the statement of you being a photographer undeniably shows that you were trying to pass it off as a fact. Don't try to veil what you were intending to do because someone called you out.

[eastx]

Originally Posted by AngelGraves13

Where did I pass it off as a fact? The word "should" implies opinion.

WTF is wrong you?

Agreed. He is being... I guess eccentric is the nice way to say it?

And your edited image looked much nicer than the actual film, IMO.

[GP Legend]

Originally Posted by marine92104

Peter I seriously put the Blu-ray in 3 different Blu-ray players to find out what was wrong with the picture in Ghostbusters with the first release.

When I put it in to start with I thought something was wrong with my Blu-ray player or that I had lost my ISF settings.

It has been repeated several times in the Ghostbusters thread that the contrast was way off for that release.

It wasn't a few clouds. It was all the way through the movie.

Have you checked the side by side comparisons in the other thread. Look at the final scene with the bright lights coming out of the gateway. Very easy to see the difference there.

I had both releases & I'm glad that Sony finally gave us a corrected PQ on it. I was happy to give my other one away.

But to each his own if your happy with the contrast on the 1st release by all means keep it.

While there is a difference, it's still marginal. The fact of the matter is people are getting way to obsessive over this. I watched the 2009 Ghostbusters bluray a few days ago, and I had no problems with it. I know there is a difference, but it isn't big enough to justify as re-purchase, especially since it's missing all the special features.

[marine92104]

Originally Posted by GP Legend

While there is a difference, it's still marginal. The fact of the matter is people are getting way to obsessive over this. I watched the 2009 Ghostbusters bluray a few days ago, and I had no problems with it. I know there is a difference, but it isn't big enough to justify as re-purchase, especially since it's missing all the special features.

If you're happy with it then I would say stick with it.

I just can't stand the overblown contrast. Have you tried the 2 different versions on your display to see the difference. It's easy to call something minimal without looking at both versions.

The new one is a completely different transfer. They didn't just up the bitrate. Even the grain is handled differently.

This youtube video shows a side by side comparison. Look at the difference in contrast. You would have to see the two on your display to see how the grain goes with the movie in the new version. On the previous version the picture is really noisy with the grain & it looks like it was overlayed over the top of the movie because of the contrast.

To me the youtube video showing the side by side difference isn't minimal. It's very easy to see. But to each his own. If your happy with the high contrast on the 1st release & the noisy grain then I would tell anyone to stick with what they have.

Ghostbusters 2009 Blu-Ray Vs 2013 Mastered in 4K Blu-Ray Comparison - YouTube

[hazelwu]

Looking at the new review's 4k screenshots vs. the old one. The 4k looks obviously sharpened. Just look at the newspaper framegrabs.