GoodFellas 4K UHD (1990)

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by dukestravels07

I'll be passing. Mainly because I have BD and watch on a 1080p projector that does not do 4k. Will prob pick up when 4k projectors become the norm. From my reading, 4k on anything less than 80" is snake oil...

Your reading is faulty.

[DJJez]

Originally Posted by dukestravels07

I'll be passing. Mainly because I have BD and watch on a 1080p projector that does not do 4k. Will prob pick up when 4k projectors become the norm. From my reading, 4k on anything less than 80" is snake oil...

thats ridiculous. i have a 65 OLED and the detail is incredible. it all depends how far away you sit

[shesha]

Originally Posted by DJJez

thats ridiculous. i have a 65 OLED and the detail is incredible. it all depends how far away you sit

Yeah Snake oil is a bit much, When I went from 1080p to 4k even prior to HDR unlocking on my TV, it was quite a jump.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by dukestravels07

I'll be passing. Mainly because I have BD and watch on a 1080p projector that does not do 4k. Will prob pick up when 4k projectors become the norm. From my reading, 4k on anything less than 80" is snake oil...

I just watched a bit of Lucy UHD on my pokey little 55" and the difference in resolution compared to the already-stunning 1080p Blu-ray was immediately apparent.

[DJJez]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I just watched a bit of Lucy UHD on my pokey little 55" and the difference in resolution compared to the already-stunning 1080p Blu-ray was immediately apparent.

lucy is an incredible 4k disc. my fav

[Dubliner1]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

This should be a good test of how much spatial resolution the 4K version carries over versus the 2K. People talk about how film is capable of however many K's, but what it can do under the utmost optimal conditions and what is actually captured are two very different things, especially for a 1.85 show like this which was very likely shot on one of Kodak's faster emulsions of the time. So it'll be interesting to see just how much (or how little) extra res is gained from the 4K transfer alone.

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

I'll definitely be reading closely the reviews and reactions to this one. The reactions to Ghostbusters, ID4 and some others have me deeply skeptical of UHD's improvements on old 35mm films.

1st impressions of the new release....

https://www.hometheaterforum.com/com...lu-ray.350283/

[reaperx187]

I'm actually curious as to how this is going to look on 4K since it's an little bit of an older film i have the 25th Anniversary Edition and also the Steelbook version too so i'm not sure if i want another edition of this overall plus there are so many other titles that would be better to have the upgrade quality wise etc.

[MisterXDTV]

Originally Posted by Dubliner1

1st impressions of the new release....

https://www.hometheaterforum.com/com...lu-ray.350283/

Harris gives 5 to UHD Blu-rays every time. Reading his comment I think it's safe to say the upgrade from the 25th Anniversary Blu-ray is fairly minor

[imsounoriginal]

Originally Posted by dukestravels07

I'll be passing. Mainly because I have BD and watch on a 1080p projector that does not do 4k. Will prob pick up when 4k projectors become the norm. From my reading, 4k on anything less than 80" is snake oil...

Just bought a 40" 4K with HDR, but I had to go small because I'll be moving into a smaller place soon. Hopefully I can still see enough of an upgrade, even if I have to sit a bit closer to the screen.

[RJ MacReady]

Anybody know where to get this for less than $30 next week?

[bruceames]

Originally Posted by MisterXDTV

Harris gives 5 to UHD Blu-rays every time. Reading his comment I think it's safe to say the upgrade from the 25th Anniversary Blu-ray is fairly minor

For 90's catalog and earlier I'm afraid this will be the norm. They are going to use HDR sparingly if at all and most of the improvement will depend on resolution, which has been shown to be the least important upgrade in UHD. And unless you sit 1:1 from your display or less, the difference will be "fairly minor". Beyond 1080p the visual upgrade, resolution-wise, really gets into the diminishing returns category.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Dubliner1

1st impressions of the new release....

https://www.hometheaterforum.com/com...lu-ray.350283/

Whaddaya know, Geoff's armchair powers are occasionally correct. For 35mm movies of a certain vintage you're just gonna get more grain rather than more detail when moving into 4K. The film fanatics won't want to hear that, but it's the truth.

[bruceames]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Whaddaya know, Geoff's armchair powers are occasionally correct. For 35mm movies of a certain vintage you're just gonna get more grain rather than more detail when moving into 4K. The film fanatics won't want to hear that, but it's the truth.

Well you're going to get both, and that's why I don't mind grain if it's baked into the source. Hopefully the benefits of increased detail in GF (what there is) will more than offset the distraction of seeing even more grain.

[bruceames]

I wonder what display Mr. Harris is using. Perhaps he is not seeing all the HDR benefit.

[puddy77]

Originally Posted by bruceames

I wonder what display Mr. Harris is using. Perhaps he is not seeing all the HDR benefit.

He's using a Sony VPL-VW665ES.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by bruceames

Well you're going to get both, and that's why I don't mind grain if it's baked into the source. Hopefully the benefits of increased detail in GF (what there is) will more than offset the distraction of seeing even more grain.

But for me the point is that the source grain - as in from the negative - was never, ever intended to be seen in such unfettered form and for movies like ID4 and Crouching Tiger - both Super 35 widescreen rather than 1.85 like Goodfellas, admittedly - the grain is immensely distracting to me in UHD.

Don't get me wrongo: IF I was getting an uptick in detail of the same order of magnitude as the increase in grain then I'd have very little to complain about, but I'm just not getting a massive increase in detail on Ghostbusters or ID4 or CTHD. Ditto for a huge boost regarding WCG and/or HDR, if that was present then I'd also have little cause for complaint but it seems to me that there's just not a great deal of extra range on these older movies, or (as Penton hinted at in another thread) it is there but it's not being mastered with a significant amount of extra range for whatever reasons. (One being that the filmmakers may still want the movie to resemble the look that was originally intended, instead of throwing it under the HDR bus.)

[MisterXDTV]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

But for me the point is that the source grain - as in from the negative - was never, ever intended to be seen in such unfettered form and for movies like ID4 and Crouching Tiger - both Super 35 widescreen rather than 1.85 like Goodfellas, admittedly - the grain is immensely distracting to me in UHD.

Don't get me wrongo: IF I was getting an uptick in detail of the same order of magnitude as the increase in grain then I'd have very little to complain about, but I'm just not getting a massive increase in detail on Ghostbusters or ID4 or CTHD. Ditto for a huge boost regarding WCG and/or HDR, if that was present then I'd also have little cause for complaint but it seems to me that there's just not a great deal of extra range on these older movies, or (as Penton hinted at in another thread) it is there but it's not being mastered with a significant amount of extra range for whatever reasons. (One being that the filmmakers may still want the movie to resemble the look that was originally intended, instead of throwing it under the HDR bus.)

Thats what I said from the beginning: that fact that 35mm film could (very) theoretically support WGC and/or HDR, doesn't mean movies were meant to be seen that way. Same thing for grain baked in the OCN

[Geoff D]

And just to add: older movies remastered from the negative are put out as 4K DCPs (in SDR, natch) and no-one complains about the grain in the cinema but projection is a different beast to direct-view displays, and always has been.

[bruceames]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

But for me the point is that the source grain - as in from the negative - was never, ever intended to be seen in such unfettered form and for movies like ID4 and Crouching Tiger - both Super 35 widescreen rather than 1.85 like Goodfellas, admittedly - the grain is immensely distracting to me in UHD.

Don't get me wrongo: IF I was getting an uptick in detail of the same order of magnitude as the increase in grain then I'd have very little to complain about, but I'm just not getting a massive increase in detail on Ghostbusters or ID4 or CTHD. Ditto for a huge boost regarding WCG and/or HDR, if that was present then I'd also have little cause for complaint but it seems to me that there's just not a great deal of extra range on these older movies, or (as Penton hinted at in another thread) it is there but it's not being mastered with a significant amount of extra range for whatever reasons. (One being that the filmmakers may still want the movie to resemble the look that was originally intended, instead of throwing it under the HDR bus.)

Well we're already getting a shitload of "unintended" grain on 1080 Blu-ray, so it's pick your poison on whether you want it scrubbed away (meaning DNR and less detail as a result) or want to see the extra detail in spite of the grain. Of course this subject has been beaten to death apparently will be resurfaced as UHD gets more popular and more grainy catalog from film sources come out. IMO it's a balancing act but I prefer to see them err to the side of more grain than more DNR.

[bruceames]

Originally Posted by MisterXDTV

Thats what I said from the beginning: that fact that 35mm film could (very) theoretically support WGC and/or HDR, doesn't mean movies were meant to be seen that way. Same thing for grain baked in the OCN

What do you want them to do with the grain, scrub it away? We're already seeing movies in higher resolution that were never "intended" to be seen that way. It's ironic that some people are ok with revealing more of the resolution in the source but not the additional dynamic range or wcg elements.