Blade Runner 4K UHD (1982)

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

I don't think consumer video has peaked by any means, but I do think there's only so much you can do with 35mm before the return ain't worth any kind of investment. 4k, maybe downsampled from a 6 or 8k scan, is probably that tipping point.

Yep.

And there is also an economic point-of-diminishing-returns as regards consumer interest. While it is certainly possible to continue improving consumer video and audio, we're at a standard of quality at which fewer and fewer consumers will discern or be motivated by improvements, giving the industry less financial incentive to further invest in realizing those improvements.

[grodd]

The detail on some of these models were amazing. I briefly worked with one of the model builders on a small film when he came to my local college a while back.

They would work so hard on a pieces that would often get a second or two of screen time. Not to mention these were pieces had a much larger viewing than what appeared on screen.

[jh901]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

I don't think consumer video has peaked by any means, but I do think there's only so much you can do with 35mm before the return ain't worth any kind of investment. 4k, maybe downsampled from a 6 or 8k scan, is probably that tipping point.

Sure, for resolution. Probably. My point was directed at others.

You do recall upgrading your display recently? Wasn't that fun? Did you find yourself enjoying screening films all over again? Image quality improvement enhance the overall experience? (ChadB pro ISF calibration will enhance it all over!)

Many seem to be so wedded to their current set-up that they refuse to accept the fact that the experience can get "night & day" better. It's a lesson which should be appreciated and applied accordingly. My current set-up will blow any number of minds and I absolutely love it, but I have no doubt that periodic upgrades will have me screening everything all over again!

[Marcuslaw]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

Yep.

And there is also an economic point-of-diminishing-returns as regards consumer interest. While it is certainly possible to continue improving consumer video and audio, we're at a standard of quality at which fewer and fewer consumers will discern or be motivated by improvements, giving the industry less financial incentive to further invest in realizing those improvements.

Don't forget that this will feature a new ATMOS mix. Can you imagine hearing the Blimp advert passing over your head?

[Marcuslaw]

This will mark the first time I have ever pre-ordered a movie from amazon with one-day shipping while it is listed at the full SRP.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Marcuslaw

Don't forget that this will feature a new ATMOS mix. Can you imagine hearing the Blimp advert passing over your head?

I'm sure it's gonna be really nifty, but I'm a bit of a purist- I just want the original release audio format represented as well as possible.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by jh901

Sure, for resolution. Probably. My point was directed at others.

You do recall upgrading your display recently? Wasn't that fun? Did you find yourself enjoying screening films all over again? Image quality improvement enhance the overall experience? (ChadB pro ISF calibration will enhance it all over!)

Many seem to be so wedded to their current set-up that they refuse to accept the fact that the experience can get "night & day" better. It's a lesson which should be appreciated and applied accordingly. My current set-up will blow any number of minds and I absolutely love it, but I have no doubt that periodic upgrades will have me screening everything all over again!

Fair points but it seems like we're having two parallel discussions here. We're talking about 8K as a delivery medium, you're now talking about display tech in general which can encompass any number of improvements.

Originally Posted by KMFDMvsEnya

I am excited for this release but I have a few concerns that perhaps if fans respectfully engage with WBHV we might have enough time to improve this release or a future version.

CDL has commented on his twitter account that he has not been approached to work on this release at all. There are some things he would correct and improve if extended the opportunity. He did not state any specifics on which material has the rough edges but those may be exclusive his stellar Dangerous Days documentary.

https://twitter.com/Lauzirika/status/879529300814376960

A shame but not altogether unsurprising, and I'm not gonna write this edition off sight unseen. Charlie did all the donkey work on the previous editions so Warners don't feel the need to get him involved this time. It'd be nice if Ridley approved the HDR pass mind you, perhaps someone should ask Charlie if he knows anything on that front? (It'd be cheeky, asking him to dig up dirt on something he had no involvement in, but he's still gotta be in pretty tight with Ridley even if he's not producing his discs any more.)

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

I'm sure it's gonna be really nifty, but I'm a bit of a purist- I just want the original release audio format represented as well as possible.

Me too, but in this case we're talking about a revised version of the film that already has a significantly altered (but in a good way) 5.1 remix so I'm not bothered in the least by a further Atmos upmix. The Atmos will carry a TrueHD 7.1 bed that should resemble the 5.1 mix pretty closely, and my AVR can switch between Atmos and the 7.1 core.

[Marcuslaw]

I respect the purist viewpoint. I really do. However, isn't being a purist from the audio mix standpoint a bit inconsistent with a futuristic film like BR? There is zero doubt in my mind that if the technology had existed, Ridley, Bud Alper, Peter Pennell and Vangelis himself would have recorded and mixed this film in object based surround. To argue otherwise, is like taking a cutting knife to the segments of the film in the Bradbury when Deckard looks up to the roof to watch and listen as the Blimp flies over or as Roy's wolf howls echo around the viewer as he later pursues him. I can't think of a better film to have its audio mix upgraded to ATMOS.

Oh, I love the idea of hearing a Spinner fly overhead. Now I'm getting "shivers up my spine" (LOL!). WB better do this right.

[Geoff D]

The audio really did get rebuilt for the Final Cut anyway, the foley & effects track has been completely overhauled. When I was watching the FC in the cinema I'm like "those shot glasses didn't clink before!" when Bryant gets Deck a drink in the office for example, but look at how little this side of things actually gets discussed whenever the Final Cut is talked about. It's such a respectful remix that most people don't even realise it, which is how such things should be done.

[KMFDMvsEnya]

Definitely going to pick this up. Hopefully WBHV offers a different set that includes the other cuts. Also DD better be in HD and not just the SD DVD.

I prefer the Final Cut for enjoying the film. Haven't watched the other cuts in years but glad to have them for historical purposes and it is fascinating to see the iteration process.

Indirectly related but I am mildly surprised Fox has not decided to release Alien on UHD with AC and Prometheus.

[Geoff D]

Yeah, Covenant seemed like an ideal tie-in opportunity but then the 40th anniversary is only a couple of years away, so while they're happy to release Prometheus on UHD as part of the Alien prequel 'universe' I think they'll keep their powder dry for the original movies. (Gonna be interesting to see how they handle Alien³, which would need an entirely new transfer for 4K.)

[Vangeli]

Fox loves to do re-releases on anniversaries. And also every year with new covers.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Me too, but in this case we're talking about a revised version of the film that already has a significantly altered (but in a good way) 5.1 remix so I'm not bothered in the least by a further Atmos upmix.

We're not talking about a revised version of the film; we're talking about the original version of "The Final Cut" release, as it was presented theatrically when it was released in 2007.

[KMFDMvsEnya]

You are likely right Geoff, they are probably going to hold off till the 40th anniversary and release the rest as well. Also likely waiting on the numbers for BO and home release to determine whether to go ahead with at least one more prequel film and hold off on the anthology till then.

A3 currently is interesting since the deleted/extended material was rescanned and looks better than the rest of the film.

Wonder if Blade Runner will be just HDR10 or DV. Also be nice if the blu-ray of BR:FC finally receives a nice reencode along with the Atmos track.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Marcuslaw

However, isn't being a purist from the audio mix standpoint a bit inconsistent with a futuristic film like BR?

How? I don't see any correlation.

Originally Posted by Marcuslaw

There is zero doubt in my mind that if the technology had existed, Ridley, Bud Alper, Peter Pennell and Vangelis himself would have recorded and mixed this film in object based surround.

Enjoy your supposition, but that's all it is. I want to remove layers of translation between me as an audience and artists' decisions, while supposition on my part, instead, adds them. I'm not interested in what they might've done in an alternate universe; I'm interested in what they did do in this one.

[Marcuslaw]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

How? I don't see any correlation.

BR represents the pinnacle of VFX constrained by the technology available at the time, sometimes painfully so. Why not use today's technology to better tell the original story?

Enjoy your supposition, but that's all it is. I want to remove layers of translation between me as an audience and artists' decisions, while supposition on my part, instead, adds them. I'm not interested in what they might've done in an alternate universe; I'm interested in what they did do in this one.

Which "one" are you referring to? Work print, theatrical, Int'l, Director's, or Final Cut? It's difficult to identify another film that its creator wished could have made in an "alternate universe" than Blade Runner. The Final Cut is indisputable proof of this. When the technology become available, Ridley approved of the digital removal of the cables holding up the Spinner, digitally replacing Zhora's stunt woman's face with Cassidy's own, and removing the daylight surrounding the dove flying up out of Roy's hands during his death scene. I'm not interested in just what Ridley did back in 1982, but rather what else he can do in 2017 to further pull us into his dystopian LA.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Marcuslaw

BR represents the pinnacle of VFX constrained by the technology available at the time, sometimes painfully so. Why not use today's technology to better tell the original story?

Because I'm not one of the filmmakers and can't hope to accurately suppose that they would do things differently, let alone how.

Also, one of the most revealing aspects of a piece of art is the limitations imposed upon it by the circumstances in which it was created. I don't want to change that; I want to savor it.

Originally Posted by Marcuslaw

Which "one" are you referring to?

The "one" on this disc- "The Final Cut".

Originally Posted by Marcuslaw

When the technology become available, Ridley approved of the digital removal of the cables holding up the Spinner, digitally replacing Zhora's stunt woman's face with Cassidy's own, and removing the daylight surrounding the dove flying up out of Roy's hands during his death scene. I'm not interested in just what Ridley did back in 1982, but rather what else he can do in 2017 to further pull us into his dystopian LA.

Yes, Ridley Scott assembled a new version of the movie and released it in 2007. I want that version to be accurately represented here. That is not the same as someone going in and creating a new sound mix.

If Ridley Scott wants to create a new sound mix, that's fine, as long as the 2007 sound mix is available (and well-presented) on the disc as well. I don't want someone else going in and creating it without his authority, though, and especially not if it comes at the expense of the original sound mix.*

Sorry to blather on with this minutia... it's my favorite movie.





* And, again, when I say original sound mix, I'm referring to the 5.1 mix original to the 2007 "The Final Cut" version this disc purports to be presenting.

[Marcuslaw]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

Because I'm not one of the filmmakers and can't hope to accurately suppose that they would do things differently, let alone how.

Also, one of the most revealing aspects of a piece of art is the limitations imposed upon it by the circumstances in which it was created. I don't want to change that; I want to savor it.

I want to see (and hear) whatever Ridley wants me to. Apparently he doesn't want that to be what was released in 1982. If Ridley wants to digitally enhance his vision in order to break free of pre-existing limitations, then so be it.

Yes, Ridley Scott assembled a new version of the movie and released it in 2007. I want that version to be accurately represented here. That is not the same as someone going in and creating a new sound mix.

Yet the 5.1 mix featured in the 2007 release isn't faithful to what audiences heard due to "the limitations imposed upon it by the circumstances in which it was created", so why would a remix to ATMOS be any different?

If Ridley Scott wants to create a new sound mix, that's fine, as long as the 2007 sound mix is available (and well-presented) on the disc as well. I don't want someone else going in and creating it without his authority, though, and especially not if it comes at the expense of the original sound mix.*

Sorry to blather on with this minutia... it's my favorite movie.

Please pardon my blabbering also. I share your sentiment as it is also my favorite film. However, unlike you, I would accept an ATMOS remix not approved by Ridley. An ATMOS mix will in all likelihood not be substantially different from the 5.1 he already approved and so wouldn't, IMO, run afoul of his intention or vision.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Marcuslaw

Yet the 5.1 mix featured in the 2007 release isn't faithful to what audiences heard due to "the limitations imposed upon it by the circumstances in which it was created", so why would a remix to ATMOS be any different?

The 5.1 mix is what audiences heard- I'm talking about "The Final Cut".

Originally Posted by Marcuslaw

An ATMOS mix will in all likelihood not be substantially different from the 5.1 he already approved and so wouldn't, IMO, run afoul of his intention or vision.

It would be defining a literal dimension of sound without the creators' input. To me, this would be no different (although maybe on a less profound scale) than someone who isn't one of the original filmmakers colorizing a black-and-white movie or converting a 2D movie to 3D. An intriguing curiosity, perhaps, but not the original artists' art.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

The 5.1 mix is what audiences heard- I'm talking about "The Final Cut".

Very few saw that theatrically, most people saw it on TV with tinny stereo speakers.

It would be defining a literal dimension of sound without the creators' input. To me, this would be no different (although maybe on a less profound scale) than someone who isn't one of the original filmmakers colorizing a black-and-white movie or converting a 2D movie to 3D. An intriguing curiosity, perhaps, but not the original artists' art.

That's being hyperbolic since were not talking about different sounds. Your 5.1 setup will have a downmix to that anyway.