The Exorcist (1973) (40th Anniversary Edition)

[slimdude]

Originally Posted by retablo

Well then that's YOU... but you're not everybody. So I'm happy you're happy with what you have, but don't rag on people who want something different.

Nobody has even seen this alleged 4k scan as yet. It may be only a marginal difference in picture quality, if at all on a 1080p monitor. Some people are unable to tell the difference between 720p and 1080p, lest 4k. To be able to see the full resolution of a 4k scan, aren't you suppose to have a 4k HDTV to process it anyway?

[BluProofie]

Originally Posted by slimdude

Nobody has even seen this alleged 4k scan as yet. It may be only a marginal difference in picture quality, if at all on a 1080p monitor. Some people are unable to tell the difference between 720p and 1080p, lest 4k. I've probably have seen a 4k scan image unknowingly, and thought it was 1080p. To be able to see the full resolution of a 4k scan, aren't you suppose to have a 4k HDTV to process it anyway?

It's still a different scan and will have new extras.

So yeah, It's a different release.

[Irrob]

Originally Posted by slimdude

I don't know why because, it's going to be the same version you already have. It'll be just a waste of money. But if you don't mind throwing your hard earned money away, then go for it. It's senseless to have multiple copies of the same movie! Now, what would I look like having 4 or 5 copies of The Exorcist in my collection. The first question people are going to ask me is: Why?

I've never seen so much presumptuousness in a single post. This has got to be an internet record.

[retablo]

Originally Posted by slimdude

Nobody has even seen this alleged 4k scan as yet. It may be only a marginal difference in picture quality, if at all on a 1080p monitor. Some people are unable to tell the difference between 720p and 1080p, lest 4k. To be able to see the full resolution of a 4k scan, aren't you suppose to have a 4k HDTV to process it anyway?

And your point? You stated as FACT that it would be the same, when in fact it is NOT. That makes you wrong.

I recall people saying the same thing about Casablanca, that it couldn't look better then voila - new 4K scan that killed the previous release. Shows how much people think they know.

[slimdude]

Originally Posted by retablo

And your point? You stated as FACT that it would be the same, when in fact it is NOT. That makes you wrong.

I recall people saying the same thing about Casablanca, that it couldn't look better then voila - new 4K scan that killed the previous release. Shows how much people think they know.

My point is: Without a compatible 4k TV, the video will still down convert to 1080p resolution on a 1080p HDTV, unless the viewer is equipped with a $25,000.00 4k UHD TV.

[Beast]

Originally Posted by Berek

This is getting to the point to where you just say 'whatever'.

I prefer 'Meh'. The news doesn't rate the extra letters.

[Blu-21]

Originally Posted by retablo

I recall people saying the same thing about Casablanca, that it couldn't look better then voila - new 4K scan that killed the previous release. Shows how much people think they know.

The Casablanca example is not a good one. Unlike like The Exorcist which is a highly rated transfer, the first release of Casablanca was so obviously an old scan with boosted contrast and DNR done in the early days of the format with lesser expectations. It didn't look terrible, but it didn't look great either. The new 4K scan was actuelly valid because they went back and restored it faithfully.

[mzupeman]

Originally Posted by Blu-21

The Casablanca example is not a good one. Unlike like The Exorcist which is a highly rated transfer, the first release of Casablanca was so obviously an old scan with boosted contrast and DNR done in the early days of the format with lesser expectations. It didn't look terrible, but it didn't look great either. The new 4K scan was actuelly valid because they went back and restored it faithfully.

Bingo. Casablanca needed a new transfer without any artificial tweaking done to it, such as the contrast boosting or DNR. The contrast boosting practically ruined the film as it was meant to be seen, and the new release corrected that. About time!

But The Exorcist looks great... how much better can it really get?

[rdodolak]

Originally Posted by slimdude

I don't know why because, it's going to be the same version you already have. It'll be just a waste of money. But if you don't mind throwing your hard earned money away, then go for it. It's senseless to have multiple copies of the same movie! Now, what would I look like having 4 or 5 copies of The Exorcist in my collection. The first question people are going to ask me is: Why?

Why would anyone else care about what or how many copies you have. Or more importantly why would you care what other people think. If it's what you want and you're happy then that is all that matters.

[saprano]

Originally Posted by slimdude

Nobody has even seen this alleged 4k scan as yet. It may be only a marginal difference in picture quality, if at all on a 1080p monitor. Some people are unable to tell the difference between 720p and 1080p, lest 4k. To be able to see the full resolution of a 4k scan, aren't you suppose to have a 4k HDTV to process it anyway?

Originally Posted by slimdude

My point is: Without a compatible 4k TV, the video will still down convert to 1080p resolution on a 1080p HDTV, unless the viewer is equipped with a $25,000.00 4k UHD TV.

It doesn't matter if the resolution is only 1080p. When you scan at a higher resolution you capture more information and detail.

Here is a post i made in response to a similar comment:

Originally Posted by saprano

You do realise working with higher resolution, 8K 4K, then downscaling to bluray results in a better picture right? You can have the same movie side by side, one from an old master and one from 4K/8K, the higher resolution one will look X% better.

Source, source, source. It matters alot.

EDIT-

Just look at the difference between the 35mm and IMAX shots of TDK and TDKR on bluray. Both were captured with different cameras at different resolutions and transferred to 1920x1080 on BD. Yet the IMAX shots looking significantly better.

[slimdude]

Originally Posted by rdodolak

Why would anyone else care about what or how many copies you have. Or more importantly why would you care what other people think. If it's what you want and you're happy then that is all that matters.

You should know all the tactics of posting on forum boards by now!

[Mr. Movie Fan]

I really doubt that the next release will be a different transfer and encode than the 2010 one.
The 2010 one had all kinds of supervision from Freidkin and other things, and was probably the only archival restoration they will do for quite a while.

The delta between Casablanca 2006 (HDDVD optimized) transfer and and the 2012 one is due to technology and time.

[Doomnaut]

Originally Posted by slimdude

My point is: Without a compatible 4k TV, the video will still down convert to 1080p resolution on a 1080p HDTV, unless the viewer is equipped with a $25,000.00 4k UHD TV.

You sure are dense.

[Doomnaut]

Originally Posted by retablo

I recall people saying the same thing about Casablanca, that it couldn't look better then voila - new 4K scan that killed the previous release. Shows how much people think they know.

Perfect example as to why it will look better. I don't own this yet so I'm looking forward to this release.

[slimdude]

Originally Posted by saprano

It doesn't matter if the resolution is only 1080p. When you scan at a higher resolution you capture more information and detail.

Here is a post i made in response to a similar comment:

Down scaling a 4k video, isn't near as good as seeing a genuine 4k UHD presentation. If I was interested enough to see a genuine 4k movie, I would go out, and buy a compatible 4k UHD TV, to see the full resolution (which I have no intentions on doing) To me, it's either having the Real McCoy, or nothing at all! But right now, I'm very well content with my current 1080p HDTV, and it looks absolutely beautiful, just the way it is.

[slimdude]

Originally Posted by Doomnaut

You sure are dense.

Don't throw stones at glass houses!

[saprano]

Originally Posted by slimdude

Down scaling a 4k video, isn't near as good as seeing a genuine 4k UHD presentation. If I was interested enough to see a genuine 4k movie, I would go out, and buy a compatible 4k UHD TV, to get the see the full resolution (which I have no intentions on doing) To me, it's either the Real McCoy, or nothing at all. But right now, I'm very well content with my current 1080p HDTV, and it looks absolutely beautiful, just the way it is.

Nevermind, man.

The point i was making is that 4K, and higher, scans results in a better picture.

[slimdude]

Originally Posted by saprano

Nevermind, man.

The point i was making is that 4K scans results in a better picture.

I understood you distinctively.

[Cortiz]

Originally Posted by retablo

It's not just a 4K scan, it's also new extras.

http://www.homemediamagazine.com/war...-blu-ray-27928

"In the case of The Exorcist, we released it on Blu-ray in 2010 (37 years old), we have plans although it has not been announced, to re-release The Exorcist in 2013 with new extra content. I cannot disclose what it is, but it's rich."

What I'm saying is I will only double dip IF the new transfer turns out better.... I don't really care about any new extras....

[Marv Inc.]

If they give us new commentary, all the behind the scenes footage instead of just 30 mins, and a nice retrospective documentary along the lines of dangerous days i might be intrest.