Starship Troopers 4K UHD (1997) (20th Anniversary Edition)

[brainofj72]

Originally Posted by emgesp

Well, is it not true that a good majority are 2K upscales, or are you saying the majority are true 4K?

It's about 50/50, I'd estimate. In my personal collection, 29 are true 4K and 34 are upscales. But, again, it doesn't matter that much, because plenty of upscales look incredible. In no way, shape, or form are they the kind of cash-grab rip-offs the "Fake 4K!" crowd tries to claim they are.

[BluM3]

Originally Posted by emgesp

Well, is it not true that a good majority are 2K upscales, or are you saying the majority are true 4K?

What I was saying is you should educate yourself. Click the hyperlink. Yes, there are a good bit of 2k upscales. But, I think you’ll be surprised at how many are true 4k. For example, SST is true 4k. So, you’re kinda crapping in the wrong thread man.

[brainofj72]

Not to mention that pretty much every film released before 2002 is "true" 4K. The more catalog titles we get, the more full 4K releases we'll have.

[Laserdisk]

Originally Posted by brainofj72

Not to mention that pretty much every film released before 2002 is "true" 4K. The more catalog titles we get, the more full 4K releases we'll have.

Kinda

[emgesp]

Originally Posted by BluM3

What I was saying is you should educate yourself. Click the hyperlink. Yes, there are a good bit of 2k upscales. But, I think you’ll be surprised at how many are true 4k. For example, SST is true 4k. So, you’re kinda crapping in the wrong thread man.

I know not every release is an upscale. I'm just saying its hard to justify getting into the format when like 50% of the current releases aren't even true 4K.

Yes, HDR and all, but is HDR the way the Director meant the film to look, or is it just some weird enhancement to make the colors pop more? I'm still on the sidelines when it comes to HDR being applied to movies.

[emgesp]

Originally Posted by brainofj72

Not to mention that pretty much every film released before 2002 is "true" 4K. The more catalog titles we get, the more full 4K releases we'll have.

Yes and No. Sure you can scan those 35mm and higher film elements in 4K, but that doesn't mean the film itself will aways resolve 4K worth of detail. Some of that "detail" might just be extra grain/noise. Film Stock in the 70's took a hit, so who knows how much an improvement 4K Remasters really makes on some of those movies. A 2K Scan is probably more than enough for some of those movies to be honest if we are just talking about actual resolved detail of the negatives.

[Nicolawicz]

Maybe not "detail," but you get texture. Definitely worth it.

[Vogmudet]

Some people on this forum (well ok, not just this one) are killing me with their comments.

This disc looks amazing. The movie still holds up extremely well and is a wonderful watch.

Nuff' Said.

[kidglov3s]

Originally Posted by Vogmudet

Some people on this forum (well ok, not just this one) are killing me with their comments.

This disc looks amazing. The movie still holds up extremely well and is a wonderful watch.

Nuff' Said.

It's shocking that a movie from 1997 filled with CG holds up so well visually 20 years later, especially on this UHD where it's not noise reduced and sharpened for the first time on home video.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by kidglov3s

It's shocking that a movie from 1997 filled with CG holds up so well visually 20 years later, especially on this UHD where it's not noise reduced and sharpened for the first time on home video.

It was designed to hold up on a very high-quality medium (35mm) and to be shown on a giant screen so it's not a shock to me at all. Sure, not all CG from that era is as good but that's an issue of aesthetics and/or cost and/or execution (*cough* Mummy Returns) rather than 1997 itself being the dark ages, you know? Bad CG will always look like bad CG no matter what format, but good CG will stand the test of cinematic time.

[kidglov3s]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

It was designed to hold up on a very high-quality medium (35mm) and to be shown on a giant screen so it's not a shock to me at all. Sure, not all CG from that era is as good but that's an issue of aesthetics and/or cost and/or execution (*cough* Mummy Returns) rather than 1997 itself being the dark ages, you know? Bad CG will always look like bad CG no matter what format, but good CG will stand the test of cinematic time.

But how many other mid 90s effects movies have CG that looks sort of OK, let alone are cohesive great looking movies? Most look a lot worse than ST. I think that's to the credit of the filmmakers who approached what was available to them as the limited tool it was at the time when most productions overextended themselves.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by kidglov3s

But how many other mid 90s effects movies have CG that looks sort of OK, let alone are cohesive great looking movies? Most look a lot worse than ST. I think that's to the credit of the filmmakers who approached what was available to them as the limited tool it was at the time when most productions overextended themselves.

That's what I tried to say above: blame the talent, not the tools. Phil Tippett masterminded the CG bugs and he did a stunning job but, as with Jurassic Park and T2, the success of the VFX comes from not using it as a crutch but only to do something you literally couldn't get in-camera - so in a way you're forced to make the CG look as good as it possibly can. Sony Pictures Imageworks, ILM, Boss Film (headed by Dick Edlund) and VCE (helmed by Peter Kuran) all contributed various practical and digital elements to the show and it's a testament to their work that all of it holds up so incredibly well in 4K.

[Vogmudet]

It's shocking that a movie from 1997 filled with CG holds up so well visually 20 years later, especially on this UHD where it's not noise reduced and sharpened for the first time on home video.

Agreed, the CGI in this film is top notch, and highly impressive how good it looks today.

[Laserdisk]

Mine showed up, will look after 2049 tomorrow

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

That's what I tried to say above: blame the talent, not the tools. Phil Tippett masterminded the CG bugs and he did a stunning job but, as with Jurassic Park and T2, the success of the VFX comes from not using it as a crutch but only to do something you literally couldn't get in-camera - so in a way you're forced to make the CG look as good as it possibly can. Sony Pictures Imageworks, ILM, Boss Film (headed by Dick Edlund) and VCE (helmed by Peter Kuran) all contributed various practical and digital elements to the show and it's a testament to their work that all of it holds up so incredibly well in 4K.

Yeah we've had this discussion before. I think when you're adding CG stuff to a real location, or alongside real puppets, it has to be blended in and made to appear more real. Too many movies nowadays just use a large green-screen set, or make the image look so saturated with CG that it all looks fake.

There are some rough shots in this flick for sure, but most of it holds up because it's filmed in real locations and blended with real puppets, IMO.

[Laserdisk]

I said in this thread and for ages, the CGI was never the issue.
The cheap looking sets tho...
Watching it now and I wish the got rid of all the grain, it looks bad

[Mierzwiak]

Enemies of the grain need their own forum. Seriously.

[cynatnite]

Originally Posted by Laserdisk

I said in this thread and for ages, the CGI was never the issue.
The cheap looking sets tho...
Watching it now and I wish the got rid of all the grain, it looks bad

[gkolb]

Originally Posted by Laserdisk

I said in this thread and for ages, the CGI was never the issue.
The cheap looking sets tho...
Watching it now and I wish the got rid of all the grain, it looks bad

Watched this on my Oppo and Sony Z9D and grain was barely an issue.

On the other hand, The opening of CE3K seemed grainy/ noisy until the jeep appeared in scene and the noise seemed to calm down.

[brainofj72]

Originally Posted by Mierzwiak

Enemies of the grain need their own forum. Seriously.

It's a nice way to know whose opinions I don't need to pay attention to regarding PQ.