Back to the Future Trilogy 4K UHD (1985-1990)

[levcore]

There's obviously a lot of room for improvement but it's perfectly watchable.

[moreorless]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

A lot of BTTF was shot on the dreaded 5294 stock of Aliens infamy for interiors and night exteriors, using the slower 5247 for the VistaVision plates and any bluescreen shots (as 5294 was apparently dreadful for bluescreen according to Ken Ralston of ILM), so by rights any 4K transfer would have it be some sort of hellishly grainy monstrosity - if you drink the Kameron Kool-Aid that is. .

With Cameron's films(well post Terminator anyway) I can see more where the dislike of grain comes from though, there is still grit there I spose but also of the time he seems to be aiming for cold exactitude in the visuals perhaps not well served by grain.

BTTF really doesn't seem like a film that should have the same issues, I mean if anything the 50's Americana seems very well suited to a bit of grain akin to say the recent Paris Texas 4K remaster BR.

[ilovenola2]

Originally Posted by Flash3000

Mate, my post was pure sarcasm. You seriously couldn't see that? I was being sarcastic to the guy who said that they should still have the back to the Future ride over all those outdated 70 year old characters. Jesus Christ
.

Sorry I misunderstood your post.
But I find that sarcasm (and I am prone to it as well) is hard to glean on threads without, say, an appropriate emoji to illustrate the fact. A well-placed or or even puts the period (".") on it.

So, as sarcasm, your post is great!! And so correct! Peace. LOL

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by moreorless

With Cameron's films(well post Terminator anyway) I can see more where the dislike of grain comes from though, there is still grit there I spose but also of the time he seems to be aiming for cold exactitude in the visuals perhaps not well served by grain.

BTTF really doesn't seem like a film that should have the same issues, I mean if anything the 50's Americana seems very well suited to a bit of grain akin to say the recent Paris Texas 4K remaster BR.

I think Cameron certainly oversimplified the issue for the sake of the audio commentary on Aliens, my jab was also at the people who think he's some kind of grain-hating weirdo. He shot his Super 35 movies nice and thick so that the grain would be minimised, sure, but that was due in part to wanting as clean a source as possible owing to the extra optical processing needed to create anamorphic prints from spherical S35, rather than some sort of underlying grain hate. And yet even though Aliens was throughly degrained by Lowry as part of their patented restoration process they still added some grain back in anyway. Ditto for Abyss. And yet T2 - the one shot on some of Kodak's new EXR stocks with finer grain - keeps getting DNR'ed on disc, first the Skynet edition then the recent debacle. Huh.

As for BTTF I totally agree, although even the '80s set stuff is its own slice of preserved American life 35 years later so the grain is a good fit there too. I doubt this will be SUPER grainy anyway owing to Universal's penchant for nibbling at the grain, but if it does end up looking like a movie shot on the premium fast stock used in the mid '80s then, well, I hope it's more Predator than Gremlins - otherwise the hordes of social media morons who wouldn't know what film looked like even if it bit them on the arse are going to have a field day.

Not that I don't love Gremlins on 4K, it's a beautifully realised rendition of the film as shot, but as it doesn't "pop" and has the softer, diffuse look as shot by the cinematographer then some douchenozzles think it's just an upscale of the old Blu. I mean, WTF? BTTF shouldn't be as soft because Cundey never really used a lot of filtration but even so, I'd caution against anyone expecting BTTF to look amazingly sharp and colourful on UHD. And I'll bet some people will still prefer the BD because of the sharpening weaving its magic

[PonyoBellanote]

Well, I usually don't trust Universal with transfers, but couldn't be as bad if they're new remasters. I think the BDs were from ancient masters lol. Couldn't look as worse.

[mike962]

Originally Posted by Ben_UK

The BD is and always has been awful. Universal should be embarrassed they put out that trash.

for some reson part 1 is inclined towards the left , you can easy notice this on the opening and final credits

part 1






part 2




part 3

[Agent Kay]

Originally Posted by PonyoBellanote

Screencaps? I'd like to see that.

It's pure garbage

https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?a=2&x...3&l=1&i=4&go=1

[PonyoBellanote]

Originally Posted by Agent Kay

It's pure garbage

https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?a=2&x...3&l=1&i=4&go=1

I know the Blu-ray is, I was asking screencaps for the DCP to see how much better it looks. It's still not perfect because it's still an ANCIENT master, but still much bearable to the eyes.

Still no matter how Universal has its hands on it there's no way the 4K version can be worse than this, considering how the new masters are from fresh new scans, and the BD come from scans that are... well, ANCIENT.

[moreorless]

You could argue having a dodgy Bluray release can actually help a UHD releases sales I spose since you'll probably have more buyers who are going all the way from DVD.

[The Edge]

Originally Posted by PonyoBellanote

Well, I usually don't trust Universal with transfers, but couldn't be as bad if they're new remasters. I think the BDs were from ancient masters lol. Couldn't look as worse.

Thankfully, Universal has changed its ways as of recently.

[tvine2000]

hopefully they went back and did a total Restoration. Not just a remaster. 4K can be wonderful however some studios take short cuts.

[dallywhitty]

Originally Posted by tvine2000

hopefully they went back and did a total Restoration. Not just a remaster. 4K can be wonderful however some studios take short cuts.

Provided the negatives are in good shape, then the films don't need a restoration.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by tvine2000

hopefully they went back and did a total Restoration. Not just a remaster. 4K can be wonderful however some studios take short cuts.

What do the two terms mean to you, i.e. what does a "total restoration" entail as opposed to a "just a remaster"?

[batman2000]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

What do the two terms mean to you, i.e. what does a "total restoration" entail as opposed to a "just a remaster"?

he means making the movies looks like they're new again.

[Geoff D]

What, "new" as in how they were shot (grain and all) or "new" as in something that 'pops' with sharpness and detail and colour?

I'd still like to hear it from him

[batman2000]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

What, "new" as in how they were shot (grain and all) or "new" as in something that 'pops' with sharpness and detail and colour?

I'd still like to hear it from him

no as in like the way they look when they were in theaters or a bit better

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by mike962

for some reson part 1 is inclined towards the left , you can easy notice this on the opening and final credits

part 1

Note that the "DCP" transfer also corrects that bizarre zoom out on the credits for BTTF on the Blu: https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?go=1&...37285&i=15&l=0

They still appear to be off centre but I *think* the idea is that the actors/filmmakers' names (IN CAPS) starts where the middle of the screen is, so it still looks strangely balanced in a way. As an example, look at the centred 'power of love' credit in your bottom example, it's not got some massive shift to it at all.

[TXMoviebuff77]

If they did a total restoration then wouldn’t we end up with another Terminator 2 debacle?

[Geoff D]

Again, that's what I mean about what "total restoration" means to different people.

[TXMoviebuff77]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Again, that's what I mean about what "total restoration" means to different people.

I figured that’s what you meant.