Master and Commander 4K UHD (2003)

[Zack83]

Can't even get an estimated shipment date from Amazon. I still just have the "order received" notification.

[WhiskeyGnome]

Originally Posted by Galiocerdo

For $40, we get a BD-66 and a bitrate of 48.53 Mbps, no new extras, and most of the DVD extras missing. It’s the price that makes it a dubious purchase.

Indeed. I have been saying no and not caring anymore. I will not pay these Hollywood sluts absurd prices for slop jobs. Not anymore unless the film is absolutely something I need. I already have the blu here. It never looked great then, and I don't expect it to look great here either. Certainly, it's obvious Disney just does not care about anything but profit.

[WhiskeyGnome]

Originally Posted by Galiocerdo

I was complaining about the BD-66, and I stand by that, but I’ll add that a video bitrate of 48.53 Mbps (44.850 + 3.682 DV), by itself, doesn’t have to be a deal-breaker for me. Some Dolby Vision titles with similar base layer sizes include:

The Matrix (48.844+0.066)
The Godfather Part II (46.796+5.280)
Titanic (46.209+3.768)
Star Wars: The Last Jedi (45.913+0.073)
Skyfall (45.529+0.065)
Annihilation (44.914+5.068)
Gladiator (43.319+6.826)
Spectre (42.468+0.067)
Avatar 2 (42.324+4.738)
Shutter Island (39.353+4.456)

and some of those look great. Gladiator and The Matrix are nearest the same vintage, as far as source elements.

Man some of these are just pathetic. Shutter Island holy cow.

[Spearmint701]

Originally Posted by singhcr

Thank you for the caps. Sadly this looks like a pass for me. Even if it was filmed with the softest lenses shot wide open with diffusion filters and fog galore this isn't natural looking at all. Of the few caps I looked at, nothing seems in focus. It's covered in some odd-ish mix of what looks like video noise or compression, or some combination of it. Faces have that clay-like appearance to them at times, sometimes not even that level of "detail". If you told me this was an old Blu-ray source but with improved compression I'd believe you.

For those who don't shoot or view film much, the grain on a new scan would look sharp even if the entire thing was completely out of focus. You would expect to see more of it especially in these foggy scenes, but even zoomed in I can't see a speck of it in most of these shots. I do see some compression artifacts instead.

No way in hell this is a new scan. Here Bill Hunt is either an idiot, or just a straight up shill because no way does a new scan, even one with a good bit of DNR look like this. I've not seen the film since it came out in theaters and I know it was never a stunner in terms of fine detail but this simply doesn't look natural to me. Of all the caps, this one looks the most natural as there is some grain visible but again not much and with minimal detail.

If we give Kino shit for their encodes, we should be stomping all over this. An old DI combined with some form of DNR and/or compression and you want to charge $40 USD and change for this?

As per the poster a few pages back, the head of 20th century studios called this a 4K restoration, whatever that means. I’ll hold my judgement until I see it with my own eyes.

[Led Zappa]

Originally Posted by Zack83

Can't even get an estimated shipment date from Amazon. I still just have the "order received" notification.

I've had several Order Received titles finally get shipped. Only one that I didn't was 3 months late and I finally cancelled, since I was able to get somewhere else.

I was just able to get the sold out Amazon Exclusive Ballerina steel and it says order received, so I'm concerned about that one. Especially since the Superman steel boxset I was just able to get today has a delivery date for now, but even that I'm worried about lol.

Good luck!

[RobertR]

Originally Posted by sbjork

It doesn't need to be graded on a curve, but it does need to be judged while taking a lot of things into account and tempering expectations accordingly.

Your comments help mitigate whatever criticisms people may have of the visual aspect of the disc, but there is no excuse for what was done to the audio. The infrasonic bass extension is flat out missing on the UHD, and is a big part of the sea battles, especially the cannon shots.

[GrouchoFan]

Received my Wal-Mart order this afternoon!

I am neither a pixel-peeper, nor a sound engineer, nor a metallurgist. I simply intend to fully enjoy this beautiful SteelBook and the movie therein.

[RobertR]

You don't have to be an engineer to want awesome bass.

[Gretiem]

Originally Posted by RobertR

Your comments help mitigate whatever criticisms people may have of the visual aspect of the disc, but there is no excuse for what was done to the audio. The infrasonic bass extension is flat out missing on the UHD, and is a big part of the sea battles, especially the cannon shots.

Ugh that sucks .. seems like a lot of the time when a movie gets a 4k release the soundtrack is lackluster compared to the bluray in the bass department.

[rocknblues81]

Ok. I first watched this film for the first time around 2008 on dvd and I was bored by the film.

However, I got the urge to watch it again a few months ago. So, I bought the Blu ray in an auction in what turned out to be like 1 day before it was announced on 4k.I enjoyed it more this time. Good performances, good battle scenes, good dialogue and all of that. I can't give it a 5/5 though. It has a lot of strengths, but I was not as emotionally engaged as I would have liked to be. The story just isnt overly compelling.

However, I'd give it a solid 4/5. It's flawed, but good.

[Paul Cordingley]

Couldn’t ask for a better transfer. Excellent colours, density, detail and grain. Russel Crowe in his prime.

The scene where they are toasting to “the lesser of two weevils” is amazing. The shadow detail amidst the candle light - chef’s kiss.

Full disclosure - I just replaced my ageing Epson TW-9400 with an LS-12000 and W.O.W. :-)

[Nepenthe]

Originally Posted by WhiskeyGnome

Man some of these are just pathetic. Shutter Island holy cow.

Wonder what Heat is, it's an almost 3-hour movie on a 66.

[MisterXDTV]

Originally Posted by singhcr

An old DI combined with some form of DNR and/or compression and you want to charge $40 USD and change for this?

Master & Commander NEVER had a full DI in 2003 and the BD uses the same master of the original DVD (an HD telecine probably)

https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?go=1&...=13861&i=6&l=0

The 4K UHD is clearly a new scan, actually the first film scan ever for this movie...

[sanjuro_61]

People are getting used to the modern razorsharp digital, and Cameron's and Co. AI shit that we have forgotten how a nice filmic 4K looks like?

[sbjork]

Yeah, like I said earlier, there's no way that those other screenshots that were posted previously were just an upscale of the old 1080p master. That top shot of Aubrey looks more like what I would expect if it had been a simple upscale. And no, the evidence shows that it was never a full DI in the first place. Looking at some of that batch of screenshots, the two shots of the ship and the shot on Galapagos are all effects shots, and they look like scans of the film out IN, not the original digital files. So, probably a full 4K scan of the original negative/internegative.

Compression issues on the BD-66, maybe (although we are talking about a 'Scope film with roughly a third of each frame consisting of black bars, so there's less data involved in the first place). Excessive digital tinkering with the scans, maybe. But an upscale of a DI that never existed in the first place, no, not really. I think that people do need to see the disc with their own eyes on their own systems before stoking the fires of the outrage machine and making accusations.

Mine's on its way, and I'm looking forward to settling in with it next weekend!

[MisterXDTV]

Originally Posted by sbjork

So, probably a full 4K scan of the original negative/internegative.

Yeah they basically scanned the full cut/conformed negative of the movie as Disney told Billy Hunt:

"Master and Commander was shot by cinematographer Russell Boyd (Gallipoli, Picnic at Hanging Rock) on 35 mm film in Super 35 format using Panavision Panaflex Platinum, Gold II, Lightweight Panaflex, Arriflex 35-III, and Arriflex 435 cameras, with Panavision Primo and Cooke lenses. (Kodak Eastman EXR 200T 5293 stock was chosen for daylight exteriors to achieve a less saturated, muted look, while Kodak Vision 500T 5279 was employed for night and interior scenes to render cooler tones and improve contrast control.)

Portions of the film containing visual effects (around 400 shots in all) were finished in a partial 2K Digital Intermediate process by Pioneer EFILM, filmed out to internegative stock, and combined with original camera negative to create the finished master interpositive at the 2.39:1 aspect ratio. Note that many VFX shots (produced by Asylum and ILM) involve plates of real oceanscapes shot at sea on 35mm film aboard the replica vessel Endeavor as it made an actual run around Cape Horn. A 25 foot model of Surprise (built by Weta Workshop) was also employed for effects work.

For the film’s debut on Ultra HD, original camera negative and VFX internegative was scanned in 4K and the image was digitally remastered and graded for high dynamic range (compatible with both Dolby Vision and HDR10). It’s been encoded for a 66GB disc, with video data rates averaging around 50 Mbps. The result falls shy of reference quality, yet is a marvel nonetheless, and it’s a substantial improvement over the 2008 Blu-ray.

[Rollo Tomassi]

Originally Posted by sanjuro_61

[Show spoiler]People are getting used to the modern razorsharp digital, and Cameron's and Co. AI shit that we have forgotten how a nice filmic 4K looks like?

Originally Posted by sbjork

[Show spoiler]Yeah, like I said earlier, there's no way that those other screenshots that were posted previously were just an upscale of the old 1080p master. That top shot of Aubrey looks more like what I would expect if it had been a simple upscale. And no, the evidence shows that it was never a full DI in the first place. Looking at some of that batch of screenshots, the two shots of the ship and the shot on Galapagos are all effects shots, and they look like scans of the film out IN, not the original digital files. So, probably a full 4K scan of the original negative/internegative.

Compression issues on the BD-66, maybe (although we are talking about a 'Scope film with roughly a third of each frame consisting of black bars, so there's less data involved in the first place). Excessive digital tinkering with the scans, maybe. But an upscale of a DI that never existed in the first place, no, not really. I think that people do need to see the disc with their own eyes on their own systems before stoking the fires of the outrage machine and making accusations.

Mine's on its way, and I'm looking forward to settling in with it next weekend![

Finally, some reasonable posts! We'll just have to wait and see on our own systems, before we succumb to negativity and hyperbole!
Just the webs being the webs I guess...
The screenshot above doesn't even look half bad!

[CrimsonLegionVMCXIX]

My copy is coming today. Haven't seen this film since I saw it on TV a few years after its theatrical release, and never owned it on home video, so looking forward to basically seeing it for the first time. Napoleonic era is always fascinating, need more films taking place during that era.

[Rollo Tomassi]

Originally Posted by CrimsonLegionVMCXIX

My copy is coming today. Haven't seen this film since I saw it on TV a few years after its theatrical release, and never owned it on home video, so looking forward to basically seeing it for the first time. Napoleonic era is always fascinating, need more films taking place during that era.

In the novel, so I heard, the ship they're after is not a French, but an American vessel. But for obvious reasons, the makers changed the script to make it French! So, I guess the time setting was also changed from late 18th to early 19th century?

[sbjork]

Originally Posted by MisterXDTV

Yeah they basically scanned the full cut/conformed negative of the movie as Disney told Billy Hunt:

"Master and Commander was shot by cinematographer Russell Boyd (Gallipoli, Picnic at Hanging Rock) on 35 mm film in Super 35 format using Panavision Panaflex Platinum, Gold II, Lightweight Panaflex, Arriflex 35-III, and Arriflex 435 cameras, with Panavision Primo and Cooke lenses. (Kodak Eastman EXR 200T 5293 stock was chosen for daylight exteriors to achieve a less saturated, muted look, while Kodak Vision 500T 5279 was employed for night and interior scenes to render cooler tones and improve contrast control.)

Portions of the film containing visual effects (around 400 shots in all) were finished in a partial 2K Digital Intermediate process by Pioneer EFILM, filmed out to internegative stock, and combined with original camera negative to create the finished master interpositive at the 2.39:1 aspect ratio. Note that many VFX shots (produced by Asylum and ILM) involve plates of real oceanscapes shot at sea on 35mm film aboard the replica vessel Endeavor as it made an actual run around Cape Horn. A 25 foot model of Surprise (built by Weta Workshop) was also employed for effects work.

For the film’s debut on Ultra HD, original camera negative and VFX internegative was scanned in 4K and the image was digitally remastered and graded for high dynamic range (compatible with both Dolby Vision and HDR10). It’s been encoded for a 66GB disc, with video data rates averaging around 50 Mbps. The result falls shy of reference quality, yet is a marvel nonetheless, and it’s a substantial improvement over the 2008 Blu-ray.

I'm well aware of what Bill said. But that's been called into question here, in favor of the theory that the whole disc is nothing more than an upscale of a 2K DI (that doesn't even exist in the first place). I'm just calling the questions into question.