The Amazing Spider-Man - Nov 09, 2012 Reviews

[TDSOTM]

Originally Posted by AngelGraves13

True, they both come from the same master. Sony made some changes in sharpness and aspect ratio, but that's about it for the 4K mastered disc.

Any thoughts on why the aspect ratio was altered? It went from 2.39 to 2.38.

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by hazelwu

Looking at the new review's 4k screenshots vs. the old one. The 4k looks obviously sharpened. Just look at the newspaper framegrabs.

It really is not

[TDSOTM]

Originally Posted by dvdmike

It really is not

Are you sure?

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by TDSOTM

Are you sure?

Yes thanks

[Sky_Captain]

I personally believe there's something afoot, but not sharpening, at least not in the sense of edge enhancement.

If I pause my Amazing Spider-Man disc at exactly 02:07:50 and put my Dynamic Contrast on Medium,(Samsung LCD, goes from Off-Low-Medium-High), it actually looks incredibly like the 4K screenshot of the same thing. Brings out the same areas, makes it appear sharper and more defined, but of coarse it isn't really sharper. It's all digital jiggery-pokery. I don't think that just an increase in bitrate, would cause certain highlights to pop more than others, compared to the original disc.

Give it a try, it takes two seconds. Okay, maybe ten.

Then do it at 00:17:48.

Who knows what dark magic Sony weave.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by Sky_Captain

I personally believe there's something afoot, but not sharpening, at least not in the sense of edge enhancement.

If I pause my Amazing Spider-Man disc at exactly 02:07:50 and put my Dynamic Contrast on Medium,(Samsung LCD, goes from Off-Low-Medium-High), it actually looks incredibly like the 4K screenshot of the same thing. Brings out the same areas, makes it appear sharper and more defined, but of coarse it isn't really sharper. It's all digital jiggery-pokery. I don't think that just an increase in bitrate, would cause certain highlights to pop more than others, compared to the original disc.

Give it a try, it takes two seconds. Okay, maybe ten.

Then do it at 00:17:48.

Who knows what dark magic Sony weave.

My question is why would they go to all that extra trouble? They scanned the original digital film at 4K so they already had it on-hand. Why would there even be a need to tinker with it?

[Sky_Captain]

Malibu Stacy has a new hat.

[double_l4488]

Originally Posted by GP Legend

While there is a difference, it's still marginal. The fact of the matter is people are getting way to obsessive over this. I watched the 2009 Ghostbusters bluray a few days ago, and I had no problems with it. I know there is a difference, but it isn't big enough to justify as re-purchase, especially since it's missing all the special features.

In the case of Ghostbusters and Raimi's Spiderman, I think it is worth upgrading. The other ones, particularly Taxi-driver, which I don't think it would matter, it probably just depends on what type of TV you have meaning do you have one of those 4k Sony TVs.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by double_l4488

In the case of Ghostbusters and Raimi's Spiderman, I think it is worth upgrading. The other ones, particularly Taxi-driver, which I don't think it would matter, it probably just depends on what type of TV you have meaning do you have one of those 4k Sony TVs.

Glory is also worth upgrading.

http://caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergleich...less=1#auswahl

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by Sky_Captain

I personally believe there's something afoot, but not sharpening, at least not in the sense of edge enhancement.

If I pause my Amazing Spider-Man disc at exactly 02:07:50 and put my Dynamic Contrast on Medium,(Samsung LCD, goes from Off-Low-Medium-High), it actually looks incredibly like the 4K screenshot of the same thing. Brings out the same areas, makes it appear sharper and more defined, but of coarse it isn't really sharper. It's all digital jiggery-pokery. I don't think that just an increase in bitrate, would cause certain highlights to pop more than others, compared to the original disc.

Give it a try, it takes two seconds. Okay, maybe ten.

Then do it at 00:17:48.

Who knows what dark magic Sony weave.

I am surprised you can see anything with Dynamic contrast on! ewww!

[Sky_Captain]

It's definitely not something I would encourage anyone to leave on turned on, lol

[TDSOTM]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

My question is why would they go to all that extra trouble? They scanned the original digital film at 4K so they already had it on-hand. Why would there even be a need to tinker with it?

For the 4K version, they just encoded the same master at a higher bitrate (25 Mbps vs. 35 Mbps). I just don't understand why they changed the aspect ratio.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by TDSOTM

For the 4K version, they just encoded the same master at a higher bitrate (25 Mbps vs. 35 Mbps). I just don't understand why they changed the aspect ratio.

If it is indeed the same master why would the AR change? Would anything unintentional cause it to change?

[TDSOTM]

Actually, I don't think there's any master at all. The film was shot digitally. They basically took the DI version of the film and encoded it to MPEG4-AVC.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by TDSOTM

Actually, I don't think there's any master at all. The film was shot digitally. They basically took the DI version of the film and encoded it to MPEG4-AVC.

So why would the AR be different for each release?

[TDSOTM]

There are some things that I don't understand either. The film was shot in 5K, but mastered in 4K in the DI. Red's official site suggests that Red Epic's aspect ratio is exactly 2.4:1. The previous release features the aspect ratio of 2.39 (by my calculations). The 4K remastered release is opened out to 2.38.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by TDSOTM

There are some things that I don't understand either. The film was shot in 5K, but mastered in 4K in the DI. Red's official site suggests that the Epic's aspect ratio is exactly 2.4:1. The previous release features the aspect ratio of 2.39 (by my calculations). The 4K remastered release is framed in 2.38.

Yeah, I made roughly the same estimation as well. I would just like to know what would cause a difference when both releases supposedly came from exactly the same master. They should be identical with the exception of clarity and color saturation.

[TDSOTM]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

They should be identical with the exception of clarity and color saturation.

My thoughts exactly.

[Deciazulado]

They whould be identical if they did it the same way.

Going from 4K DI to BD can have many paths

[TDSOTM]

I thought the production team just downscaled the 4K "master" to 1920x1080, encoded it to H.264, and adjusted the bitrate and contrast for the previous release. For the 4K release, they just encoded the master at a higher bitrate and adjusted contrast/sharpness. Absolutely no need to tamper with the aspect ratio, right?