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

[Xen11]

Originally Posted by The Fallen Deity

Looks like some of us here need to educate themselves better on how HDR works.

And that would be you.

[wright96d]

Originally Posted by Xen11

And that would be you.

The thing I'm trying to get fixed is a mistake that should not have happened. The thing you're ranting about was a creative decision made by whoever color graded the film. It's not going to be changed. Not to mention, skin tones really shouldn't be perfectly placed on the skin tone line when it's pouring rain at night.

[Xen11]

Originally Posted by wright96d

The thing I'm trying to get fixed is a mistake that should not have happened. The thing you're ranting about was a creative decision made by whoever color graded the film. It's not going to be changed. Not to mention, skin tones really shouldn't be perfectly placed on the skin tone line when it's pouring rain at night.

I'm not trying to fix or change anything. I'm not ranting about anything. I said that I prefer the color-timing of the 25th anniversary addition. Then UHD-enthusiasts start touting that HDR images are too awesome to be seen by any capturing, therefore I must not know how HDR works (which is false). HDR is not going to change the color-timing. It's clear between the two regular blu-ray pictures that the two transfers are two different color timings. An HDR enhanced version of the UHD capture is not going to magically change the color-timing to be like the 25th anniversary edition's color-timing.

But let's smug away because this lowly regular-blu-loving fool likes his old-school color-timing.

[wright96d]

Originally Posted by Xen11

I'm not trying to fix or change anything. I'm not ranting about anything. I said that I prefer the color-timing of the 25th anniversary addition. Then UHD-enthusiasts start touting that HDR images are too awesome to be seen by any capturing, therefore I must not know how HDR works (which is false). HDR is not going to change the color-timing. It's clear between the two regular blu-ray pictures that the two transfers are two different color timings. An HDR enhanced version of the UHD capture is not going to magically change the color-timing to be like the 25th anniversary edition's color-timing.

But let's smug away because this lowly regular-blu-loving fool likes his old-school color-timing.

I will admit that people were too quick to condemn you for not knowing how HDR works. Perhaps you should've just posted the old Blu and the Remastered Blu and left the UHD out of it so there wouldn't be this big argument over HDR to SDR conversions. Especially since the difference you're trying to show is clear in the Blu-Ray, without much need to reference the 4K.

Though, I would also say I don't think this is big enough to bring up in the forums. Color grading changes happen from edition to edition all the time. This is nothing new.

[DJ Mike]

I won't say you're wrong, but the old Blu has a purplish push for me in that shot. Think I personally prefer the grade in the remaster.

[Xen11]

Originally Posted by DJ Mike

I won't say you're wrong, but the old Blu has a purplish push for me in that shot. Think I personally prefer the grade in the remaster.

Exactly. You can judge from those shots. You can see that the UHD is not going to look anything like that 25th Anniversary's high saturation push. And there is no wrong, it's just a preference. I bet the UHD color-timing and overall look and actual motion is gorgeous. But I prefer that old saturated look. I'm not saying I want the UHD to be that. I'm just saying that out of all the versions to compare from Blurays, I like that look the most. I don't care about the "realistic skin tone" look a lot of people seem to clamor for. I mean I like and appreciate it and will be glad to own that version, but I just prefer the look (color-timing) of the previous blu.

[Jay H.]

[DJ Mike]

Originally Posted by Xen11

Exactly. You can judge from those shots.

I'm judging from Blu to Blu there, though, because I can rely on two versions graded for SDR by the studio. That said, I gather the remastered Blu was given a rather naff HDR->SDR conversion, so who knows.

[SpazeBlue]

Originally Posted by Xen11

And that would be you.

So tell us then, how does it work?

[Bellicose]

Definitely feel the UHD is much improved. I just got this set, so I was curious about that 720p claim. That seems like quite an oversight. I don't understand at all how that could be possible considering the other 1080p films out there already. A 720p master from where lol?

[wright96d]

Originally Posted by Bellicose

Definitely feel the UHD is much improved. I just got this set, so I was curious about that 720p claim. That seems like quite an oversight. I don't understand at all how that could be possible considering the other 1080p films out there already. A 720p master from where lol?

Not a 720p master. 720p* proxies. Proxies are small files meant to make editing (or color grading) playback smoother. For almost 20 minutes of the movie, from 18:25 to 37:25, low res proxies were used in the final render instead of the full res 4K files. Most apparent in screencaps 6 and 7 from caps-a-holic. Not sure how this could've happened, but my guess is the full res files were somehow misplaced and Resolve just rendered out the available proxies instead of notifying the user (or perhaps they saw a pop-up and just ignored it)

*Just checked Resolve, and the choices for "optimized media" aren't in resolution, but in fractions. They must've chosen "quarter" resolution, making proxies of 540p resolution. That makes this even worse.

**Okay, I checked by downscaling in Photoshop, and scaling back up, and it's not actually 540p bad. It's still closer to around 720p resolution.

[Maxwell Everett]

Originally Posted by wright96d

Not a 720p master. 720p* proxies. Proxies are small files meant to make editing (or color grading) playback smoother. For almost 20 minutes of the movie, from 18:25 to 37:25, low res proxies were used in the final render instead of the full res 4K files. Most apparent in screencaps 6 and 7 from caps-a-holic. Not sure how this could've happened, but my guess is the full res files were somehow misplaced and Resolve just rendered out the available proxies instead of notifying the user (or perhaps they saw a pop-up and just ignored it)

*Just checked Resolve, and the choices for "optimized media" aren't in resolution, but in fractions. They must've chosen "quarter" resolution, making proxies of 540p resolution. That makes this even worse.

**Okay, I checked by downscaling in Photoshop, and scaling back up, and it's not actually 540p bad. It's still closer to around 720p resolution.

You're definitely right about shots 6 and 7 from caps-a-holic, but how certain are you about the rest? I'm having a hard time seeing the same issue in the rest of that nearly 20 minute span you're talking about. In particular, I don't see a sudden change in clarity before and after those times you mentioned.

Most of it seems pretty typical in terms of resolution for a film shot on Eastman 400T 5294 and 125T 5247 in 1.85 format. That is, I see about 1000 lines of vertical resolution. I would say it's a little bit sharper than 720p. 5294 and 5247 could resolve around 100 lines per millimeter on the negative according to Kodak and a lot of that 20 minutes was shot at night (it switches to 5247 around 33:47 after Marty hits the brakes and back to 5294 when Marty enters the diner.)

[wright96d]

Originally Posted by Maxwell Everett

You're definitely right about shots 6 and 7 from caps-a-holic, but how certain are you about the rest? I'm having a hard time seeing the same issue in the rest of that nearly 20 minute span you're talking about. In particular, I don't see a sudden change in clarity before and after those times you mentioned.

Most of it seems pretty typical in terms of resolution for a film shot on Eastman 400T 5294 and 125T 5247 in 1.85 format. That is, I see about 1000 lines of vertical resolution. I would say it's a little bit sharper than 720p. 5294 and 5247 could resolve around 100 lines per millimeter on the negative according to Kodak and a lot of that 20 minutes was shot at night (it switches to 5247 around 33:47 after Marty hits the brakes and back to 5294 when Marty enters the diner.)

I am sure, and I'll tell you how I came to the conclusion that those timestamps are correct.

https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?d1=14...87&i=3&l=0&a=0

This is screencap 4 from caps-a-holic. While it doesn't have the same drastic decrease in sharpness as 6 and 7, you can certainly tell the 4K is a little bit worse. As it's 4K, you'd expect it to be better, whether by a little or by a lot. And it's not. In screencap 3, the difference is as expected. The 4K is a stunner, and the Blu-Ray is less so.

I split the difference, and found that the first shot to exhibit the problems I'll go on to describe later to be when Marty skates up to Einstein. And I had to do very little work to find the end, since the grain structure goes from practically non-existent to rich and lively the split second Marty enters the diner. (But more importantly, the 4K once again starts winning hand over fist from this shot onward)

The difference I found in most shots without an abundance of hard edge detail was the film grain. Save for a few shots where the compression of Blu-Ray struggles to keep up, the grain on the 4K is no better than it is on the Blu-Ray, if not a little worse. During the true 4K scenes, the film grain is absolutely beautiful, and more importantly, it's resolved better than it is on Blu-Ray.

If you compare the Blu-Ray to the 4K at any point between those timestamps, you'll either find the drastic decrease in detail you see in caps 6 and 7, or the less apparent, but still visible lack of refinement that you can see in 4 and 5.

Edit: I've done some more testing in Resolve and I can confirm that with both Resolve generated proxies, and externally created linked proxies, the video will successfully render out with the proxies when the original media is deleted/moved. It does, however, warn you that you're exporting with offline media, which I could totally see a seasoned, but tired engineer, or an intern just press okay on and move on with their day.

[Maxwell Everett]

Originally Posted by wright96d

I am sure, and I'll tell you how I came to the conclusion that those timestamps are correct.

https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?d1=14...87&i=3&l=0&a=0

This is screencap 4 from caps-a-holic. While it doesn't have the same drastic decrease in sharpness as 6 and 7, you can certainly tell the 4K is a little bit worse. As it's 4K, you'd expect it to be better, whether by a little or by a lot. And it's not. In screencap 3, the difference is as expected. The 4K is a stunner, and the Blu-Ray is less so.

I split the difference, and found that the first shot to exhibit the problems I'll go on to describe later to be when Marty skates up to Einstein. And I had to do very little work to find the end, since the grain structure goes from practically non-existent to rich and lively the split second Marty enters the diner. (But more importantly, the 4K once again starts winning hand over fist from this shot onward)

The difference I found in most shots without an abundance of hard edge detail was the film grain. Save for a few shots where the compression of Blu-Ray struggles to keep up, the grain on the 4K is no better than it is on the Blu-Ray, if not a little worse. During the true 4K scenes, the film grain is absolutely beautiful, and more importantly, it's resolved better than it is on Blu-Ray.

If you compare the Blu-Ray to the 4K at any point between those timestamps, you'll either find the drastic decrease in detail you see in caps 6 and 7, or the less apparent, but still visible lack of refinement that you can see in 4 and 5.

Edit: I've done some more testing in Resolve and I can confirm that with both Resolve generated proxies, and externally created linked proxies, the video will successfully render out with the proxies when the original media is deleted/moved. It does, however, warn you that you're exporting with offline media, which I could totally see a seasoned, but tired engineer, or an intern just press okay on and move on with their day.

I think your proxy hypothesis is probably dead on in regard to shots that have obvious aliasing issues on diagonal lines, but with regard to those other shots you mention, it's less clear (to me anyway) if that hypothesis also explains what we're seeing in those shots. Could they have accidentally used a 1080p proxy for shots like cap #4? Possibly.

The change in grain structure when Marty enters the diner could simply be because they switched to using 5294 indoors versus the 5247 they used outdoors. The 5294 would be grainier because it's larger-grained, higher-speed film (400 ASA vs 125 ASA).

Although, I will admit that the outdoor shots that directly precede Marty entering the diner do look curiously "grain-managed" and not much like the later shots of Marty running through Lorraine's neighborhood looking for George. Something definitely happened to many of those early town square shots. Either egregious use of DNR or your proxy hypothesis.

[wright96d]

Originally Posted by Maxwell Everett

I think your proxy hypothesis is probably dead on in regard to shots that have obvious aliasing issues on diagonal lines, but with regard to those other shots you mention, it's less clear (to me anyway) if that hypothesis also explains what we're seeing in those shots. Could they have accidentally used a 1080p proxy for shots like cap #4? Possibly.

The change in grain structure when Marty enters the diner could simply be because they switched to using 5294 indoors versus the 5247 they used outdoors. The 5294 would be grainier because it's larger-grained, higher-speed film (400 ASA vs 125 ASA).

Although, I will admit that the outdoor shots that directly precede Marty entering the diner do look curiously "grain-managed" and not much like the later shots of Marty running through Lorraine's neighborhood looking for George. Something definitely happened to many of those early town square shots. Either egregious use of DNR or your proxy hypothesis.

Since those shots on the remastered Blu-Ray look substantially less blurry or "grain managed", I assume it's the proxy hypothesis through and through. If it was DNR, I would expect that sort of decision to carry through to the Blu-Ray.

[bleakassassin]

Originally Posted by wright96d

When disc replacements have been done because a power window turned someone's face red for a few frames, I would expect that 20 minutes of a 4K movie being in 720p would be enough for one to be done.

Look, you're absolutely right that there's something wrong with the transfer for that portion of the movie. I'm just saying that you shouldn't count on Universal to issue a replacement for this. The disc has gotten rave reviews across the board, and the amount of people that have remarked on this dwarfs in comparison to the vast, vast majority of people that either didn't notice the issue or just don't care about it. And it's not like the disc is a case of false advertising like Psycho was with the original audio, so you can't even use that as an example.

BTW, that "replacement" disc from Paramount for Grease that you're alluding to is actually worse than the release disc with the red face error.

[wright96d]

Originally Posted by bleakassassin

Look, you're absolutely right that there's something wrong with the transfer for that portion of the movie. I'm just saying that you shouldn't count on Universal to issue a replacement for this. The disc has gotten rave reviews across the board, and the amount of people that have remarked on this dwarfs in comparison to the vast, vast majority of people that either didn't notice the issue or just don't care about it. And it's not like the disc is a case of false advertising like Psycho was with the original audio, so you can't even use that as an example.

BTW, that "replacement" disc from Paramount for Grease that you're alluding to is actually worse than the release disc with the red face error.

I completely understand that and I see where you're coming from. I would just really like to try my damnedest to get Universal's attention and try to get it fixed, or at least get some sort of response. I know it's unlikely that anything will come of it, but I don't want that to stop me from at least trying. I'll probably give up after a month or two. Not after 2 weeks.

Also, that sucks to hear about Grease. What made it worse?

[SpazeBlue]

Originally Posted by wright96d

Also, that sucks to hear about Grease. What made it worse?

An issue with fluctuating brightness, I believe.

[david_blu]

I'm not completely convinced by the suggestion that it is using the wrong files.

https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?a=1&x...0&l=0&i=6&go=1

In the frame above I highlighted the clock face, look at how the the blu ray has sort of furry circle edge but the 4k is perfectly round. If a 720 file had been used wouldn't that be full of jaggered edges?

[nick4Knight]

Originally Posted by Xen11

There's no nice way to say I'm wrong because there is no way to say I'm wrong, because I'm not wrong. The colors do not change. The pictures are there for you to see. There's even a regular Blu-ray version of the same transfer right there for you to see.

Is what I'm saying to you a nice way of showing that you're in total denial because you can't handle the fact that the original blu-ray had a better color-timing than the newer blu-ray and HD blu-ray you sank all your money, hopes, and dreams into?

The "regular Blu-ray version" is a converted approximation of the HDR master and grading. Just because a studio did it does not mean it's accurate in the slightest. History tells us that is a fact. And we are STILL viewing all these representations beside one another in SDR which no one should be claiming is correct, nor accurate to judge. They are technical guesses and are flawed in nature even done by experts.

For anyone who doesn't know this stuff I can understand why they wouldn't think they're wrong. But it's ludicrous to have the stance you have.

Also that last part of your message is so telling psychologically of why you would go so hard on this train of thought that the blu-ray colours are better representing this title, nor any that has led you to maintain the money you sunk into your BD collection is where salvation lies.

Delude on, christian soldier, marching as to war!