Blade Runner 4K UHD (1982)

[aj2315]

Hi everyone, new poster but long time lurker. Quick noob question since the thread has a lot of pages and I don't know if this was discussed but what is the difference between this releases and the special release on 4K in a few weeks? On the amazon U.K. The price is a good $20 difference.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Mierzwiak

I just watched few scenes. What a GORGEOUS looking disc, and the grain... so organic, natural and beautiful.

Top photo - Blu-ray, bottom - UHD:

[Show spoiler]

Holy Jesus there's so much more detail there it ain't funny. It's not just the powah of 4K though, that old Blu-ray is filtered to balls which is kinda why several 2K upscales tend to show improvements in sheer detail. Sure, on paper there should be no more spatial detail but you simply don't know what's happened on the BD side. Equally, there are some upscales which filter off detail vs the BD but they're few and far between - although I do have one more to go on the list. Will post that in the aprops thread in a minute...

[Shalashaska]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Holy Jesus there's so much more detail there it ain't funny. It's not just the powah of 4K though, that old Blu-ray is filtered to balls which is kinda why several 2K upscales tend to show improvements in sheer detail. Sure, on paper there should be no more spatial detail but you simply don't know what's happened on the BD side. Equally, there are some upscales which filter off detail vs the BD but they're few and far between - although I do have one more to go on the list. Will post that in the aprops thread in a minute...

Yeah, better encoding + increased bit depth and higher dynamic range should provide a lot more detail.

[Geoff D]

I just mean spatial detail, actual resolution rather than whatever highlights/lowlights an HDR grade manages to squeeze out, but yeah, that stuff is nice too.

[Mierzwiak]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Holy Jesus there's so much more detail there it ain't funny. It's not just the powah of 4K though, that old Blu-ray is filtered to balls

You're right, but it's also the power of old school techniques. Miniature shots, even most obvious, will never get old, because what you see is REAL. The fact you can go back to 35 year old movie and make it, including FX shots, more impressive than ever to me as a person who loves movies is beyond words.

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by aj2315

Hi everyone, new poster but long time lurker. Quick noob question since the thread has a lot of pages and I don't know if this was discussed but what is the difference between this releases and the special release on 4K in a few weeks? On the amazon U.K. The price is a good $20 difference.

A booklet and a cardboard sleeve with different graphics. That seems to be the difference.

[UpsetSmiley]

So can anyone confirm if the UHD looks good on a TV which doesn't have HDR support? Thanks.

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by UpsetSmiley

So can anyone confirm if the UHD looks good on a TV which doesn't have HDR support? Thanks.

It depends on how well the player converts HDR to SDR. You may have to fiddle with the TV settings.

[Mierzwiak]

It should, the image quality itself, sharpness and grain structure are stunning.

[Dubliner1]

Originally Posted by UpsetSmiley

So can anyone confirm if the UHD looks good on a TV which doesn't have HDR support? Thanks.

...do you mean a 4K tv that does not have HDR?...I've yet to see a 4K disc on my non-HDR Panasonic 4K that does not look vastly superior to the bluray...even without HDR.

[Laserdisk]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Holy Jesus there's so much more detail there it ain't funny. It's not just the powah of 4K though, that old Blu-ray is filtered to balls which is kinda why several 2K upscales tend to show improvements in sheer detail. Sure, on paper there should be no more spatial detail but you simply don't know what's happened on the BD side. Equally, there are some upscales which filter off detail vs the BD but they're few and far between - although I do have one more to go on the list. Will post that in the aprops thread in a minute...

VC-1 was a mistake

[UpsetSmiley]

Originally Posted by Dubliner1

...do you mean a 4K tv that does not have HDR?...I've yet to see a 4K disc on my non-HDR Panasonic 4K that does not look vastly superior to the bluray...even without HDR.

Yes. That's brilliant to know. I was just a bit concerned but after seeing those caps it's a 100% no doubt pick-up! Cheers guys.

[DJR662]

I cannot wait to see this, fingers crossed I will find it in the mail tomorrow...

[Stanton]

Originally Posted by Adam_ME

The Terminator(the entire movie has new sound FX)

That's where the old LaserDisc copy (with it's mono soundtrack) comes in handy

[Laserdisk]

Originally Posted by Stanton

That's where the old LaserDisc copy comes in handy

That it does.

[curtw]

Originally Posted by UpsetSmiley

So can anyone confirm if the UHD looks good on a TV which doesn't have HDR support? Thanks.

I have an LG 55EG9600 4K OLED, with no HDR over HDMI. It does support HDR through streaming and USB, so I know what HDR can do. Not having any scenes with direct sunlight makes me wonder if HDR could even enhance Blade Runner all that much. In addition, all of the articles I see that talk about HDR mention that the capture capability needs to be built into the camera--that just didn't exist in 1982. It may be possible that the 4K scanners in the restoration picked up a little bit of dynamic range from the film that's outside of SDR, but I wouldn't make the buy/no-buy decision based on it.

Without the advantages of HDR, there is still significantly more detail visible on the UHD. In the Deckard/Rachel/Tyrell scene (which has a huge amount of glare, and probably the widest contrast range of any scene in the film), I flipped back and forth with the BD Final Cut and BD Theatrical cut. Can count Sean Young's freckles and the number of lights in the diagonal tower outside of the window. Things that were only blinking lights in the theatrical cut are obviously spinners, with a definite front and back. The textures on the interior columns are easily distinguishable, and I can't imagine that there's anything "lost" in blackness that wasn't pre-planned by Ridley Scott.

[Adam_ME]

Originally Posted by Stanton

That's where the old LaserDisc copy (with it's mono soundtrack) comes in handy

Funny you mention that. I have my own copy I created using remuxing software. Someone ripped the mono track from the LD and sent it to me. I then synced it to the rip of the remastered Blu-ray transfer and that's what I watch whenever I want to see The Terminator. Best video quality and best mono quality combined. Goes nicely with my copies of the Star Wars Trilogy Despecialized Editions.

And if I'm ever feeling sentimental, I still have the old Laserdiscs of The Terminator and Star Wars Trilogy: The Definitive Collection in storage.

[OutOfBoose]

Increase in detail is scary. I can't wait to see it myself.

[saprano]

Originally Posted by Mierzwiak

I just watched few scenes. What a GORGEOUS looking disc, and the grain... so organic, natural and beautiful.

Top photo - Blu-ray, bottom - UHD:

That's a big increase in detail and grain.

The bluray is a filtered low bitrate mess. Wish they did a new encode.

How anyone thought it was a good idea to back a 30GB limited format i have no idea. I watched Harry Potter recently and that's another dusty transfer. Love the gritty filmic look to it though.

[aj2315]

Originally Posted by FilmFreakosaurus

A booklet and a cardboard sleeve with different graphics. That seems to be the difference.

Thanks. I will just get the regular one.