Bram Stoker's Dracula 4K UHD (1992) (25th Anniversary Edition)

[Pyoko]

I don't know if it's been mentioned but I noticed a curious thing about this, namely that all the shots in the first chapter are either from a generationally inferior film source or upscaled from 2K.

It's a bit difficult to tell the difference between them but it seems like all the shots with opticals may be 4K scans of some film element worse than the OCN (obviously), but so are all the shots that originally had burned-in subtitles even though they're no longer there. All the shots that originally had no optical effects at all are definitely digitally upscaled.

Comparing to the iTunes version the upscaled shots are immediately apparent because they're in true 4K on that master, while on the UHD true OCN 4K detail and grain doesn't turn up until the Carfax Asylum sign.

I don't know why they would do it like this, the only reason I can think of is consistency and not having the resolution flip-flop constantly. It's unfortunate though because instead of having 1/3 of the shots as ~2K opticals and the rest 4K OCN (which they should have been able to do), all of them are now dumbed down and you don't even get the benefit of the styled, burned-in subtitles that are on the iTunes master.

It's a shame they so rarely bother to style the external subtitles and titles in cases like this, the Godfather and Avatar BDs (Papyrus!) are the only ones I can think of.

[OutOfBoose]

^It was mentioned before. By me included. There's something odd about softness on several shots in the prologue on UHD. Specifically on non-opticals. Online version and the mastered in 4K blu don't have this problem.

[Synchg]

Originally Posted by OutOfBoose

^It was mentioned before. By me included. There's something odd about softness on several shots in the prologue on UHD. Specifically on non-opticals. Online version and the mastered in 4K blu don't have this problem.

so they are "exclusives" to digital/online 4k releases only now?
what bollocks

[Thread_Astaire]

WTF are you on about?

[OutOfBoose]

Probably mastering error on UHD.

[RockyIII]

Are you guys saying that overall the digital version looks better than the UHD disc?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J320A using Tapatalk

[Pyoko]

Definitely not, the compression on the iTunes version is atrocious, it's just some of the shots in the opening are true 4K there instead of upscaled like on the UHD.

I popped in the old BD and some of the non-optical shots actually look better than they do on the UHD, although I think the issue may have been partly present already on that release as from about the time where he throws over the holy water font there are some suspiciously blurry shots as well.

[RockyIII]

Originally Posted by Pyoko

Definitely not, the compression on the iTunes version is atrocious, it's just some of the shots in the opening are true 4K there instead of upscaled like on the UHD.

I popped in the old BD and some of the non-optical shots actually look better than they do on the UHD, although I think the issue may have been partly present already on that release as from about the time where he throws over the holy water font there are some suspiciously blurry shots as well.

Compression issues is what to this day still drives me away from embracing streaming

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J320A using Tapatalk

[Thieves Dont]

Originally Posted by RockyIII

Compression issues is what to this day still drives me away from embracing streaming

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J320A using Tapatalk

Same goes for me.

[Synchg]

Originally Posted by Thread_Astaire

WTF are you on about?

YOU KNOW WHAT IM ON ABOUT!

Originally Posted by Pyoko

it's just some of the shots in the opening are true 4K there instead of upscaled like on the UHD.

thank god i saved my dracula 4K digital code, tried selling it on ebay before they shut me down

[pEgLeG]

Tread cautiously, blasphemers. The last person who questioned the holiness of the UHD was lambasted as a troll and rebuked for having the gall to question the divine experiences of the faithful.

[MechaGodzilla]

Originally Posted by pEgLeG

Tread cautiously, blasphemers. The last person who questioned the holiness of the UHD was lambasted as a troll and rebuked for having the gall to question the divine experiences of the faithful.

Moving too fast, this isn't a race mmm
Baby back off and lower the pace now
Slow it down and give me some space mmm
Moving too fast, this isn't a race ah ah

[LoSouL]

So the stream is compressed and the BD is 1080p + limited range and color.

Which leaves the UHD as the better because it's not compressed and the source quality is speculative.

You were right, Rocky III. The UHD is better because it's better. Excellent work.

[RockyIII]

Originally Posted by LoSouL

So the stream is compressed and the BD is 1080p + limited range and color.

Which leaves the UHD as the better because it's not compressed and the source quality is speculative.

You were right, Rocky III. The UHD is better because it's better. Excellent work.

No doubt!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J320A using Tapatalk

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Pyoko

I don't know if it's been mentioned but I noticed a curious thing about this, namely that all the shots in the first chapter are either from a generationally inferior film source or upscaled from 2K.

It's a bit difficult to tell the difference between them but it seems like all the shots with opticals may be 4K scans of some film element worse than the OCN (obviously), but so are all the shots that originally had burned-in subtitles even though they're no longer there. All the shots that originally had no optical effects at all are definitely digitally upscaled.

Comparing to the iTunes version the upscaled shots are immediately apparent because they're in true 4K on that master, while on the UHD true OCN 4K detail and grain doesn't turn up until the Carfax Asylum sign.

I don't know why they would do it like this, the only reason I can think of is consistency and not having the resolution flip-flop constantly. It's unfortunate though because instead of having 1/3 of the shots as ~2K opticals and the rest 4K OCN (which they should have been able to do), all of them are now dumbed down and you don't even get the benefit of the styled, burned-in subtitles that are on the iTunes master.

It's a shame they so rarely bother to style the external subtitles and titles in cases like this, the Godfather and Avatar BDs (Papyrus!) are the only ones I can think of.

I won't speak to Dracula's presentation specifically because I haven't watched it in its entirety yet, but as for scenes with optically-generated subtitles still having the generational loss even when presented 'clean', that's something which I've noticed over the years. Another recent example would be the UHD of Mummy '99, the worldwide edition has player-generated subs vs the originals seen on the US disc and yet the drop in quality is still blatantly obvious on the former's subtitled shots despite there being no burned in subs.

It's puzzled me for a long time - this kind of thing happens fairly regularly on European/worldwide releases, not just on UHD but BD and DVD before it so I'm talking 20 years here - and I've never quite been able to formulate a satisfactory answer as to why. Shirley the oneg should be cherry because subs aren't usually burned in at that point? Unless the 'clean' dupe is what was cut into the neg rather than the camera original, but what possible purpose would that serve? All the documentation that comes with a film w/ref to subtitle placements, edit lengths and so on should be enough to signify that x scene should have subtitles.

[OutOfBoose]

del.

[OutOfBoose]

Comparison digital vs. uhd:

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/130332
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/130333
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/130334

This crap is only in the prologue. The rest of the film on uhd looks like the digital version (grain, resolution), only without compression artifacts.

[s2mikey]

Originally Posted by RockyIII

Are you guys saying that overall the digital version looks better than the UHD disc?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J320A using Tapatalk

I sold this title due to it being a dodgy "upgrade". The way the film was shot just didnt ledn itself to a meaningful upgrade IMO. Its a great film but Im fine with the blu-ray version I have.

[Member-167298]

Originally Posted by outofboose

comparison digital vs. Uhd:

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/130332
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/130333
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/130334

this crap is only in the prologue. The rest of the film on uhd looks like the digital version (grain, resolution), only without compression artifacts.

yikes!

[Pyoko]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

It's puzzled me for a long time - this kind of thing happens fairly regularly on European/worldwide releases, not just on UHD but BD and DVD before it so I'm talking 20 years here - and I've never quite been able to formulate a satisfactory answer as to why. Shirley the oneg should be cherry because subs aren't usually burned in at that point? Unless the 'clean' dupe is what was cut into the neg rather than the camera original, but what possible purpose would that serve? All the documentation that comes with a film w/ref to subtitle placements, edit lengths and so on should be enough to signify that x scene should have subtitles.

I couldn't figure out a really logical explanation either. The only thing I can think of is that a clean dupe was created for international subtitling, and then the English titles and subtitles were all spliced into the negative. Essentially the negative for those parts would be gone or reside in the same place where negatives used for opticals go, and the dupe is the only clean version they have handy now.