GoodFellas 4K UHD (1990)

[Pieter V]

BD-100.

[zakzak]

Originally Posted by Opips3

Please...FOX century. Predator (1987) UHD 4K give me damned!

No DNR!

YES ! YES ! Anyway, FWIW, there is a re-release of the restored movie in France
I really wish they do a proper mastering this time.

[Poya]

Can they ever get the aspect ratio right?

[ROSS.T.G.]

Why would they change the image by adding HDR. I really don't like this and this is why I don't support this new format. The bluray looks incredible.

[RealorFake4K]

Originally Posted by ROSS.T.G.

Why would they change the image by adding HDR. I really don't like this and this is why I don't support this new format. The bluray looks incredible.

They aren't adding HDR. They are finally giving us the same image we saw in theaters. Film has a larger color space than standard Blu and HDTV.

[ROSS.T.G.]

The front cover lists HDR. Who says it's the same image as seen in theatres?

[legends of beyond]

Originally Posted by ROSS.T.G.

Why would they change the image by adding HDR. I really don't like this and this is why I don't support this new format. The bluray looks incredible.

Well if used like the Ghostbusters films and Labrynth (which is too say barely used at all), then the image could be closer to the original 35mm print.

[ROSS.T.G.]

HDR is simply put a re-grade. Re-grading a movie for HDR is a form of revisionism that the filmmakers did not intend when they originally shot the movie. There is no getting around it.

[Jimmy Smith]

Originally Posted by ROSS.T.G.

HDR is simply put a re-grade. Re-grading a movie for HDR is a form of revisionism that the filmmakers did not intend when they originally shot the movie. There is no getting around it.

No the movies are shot on film and film naturally has higher dynamic range than digital video has had. So its simply seeing more of the contrast in the image

[ROSS.T.G.]

Yes it is. I've worked with 35mm and 16mm film as well as digital. I understand film has more range than BD. What I am saying is adding HDR is re-grading the image.

[MisterXDTV]

Originally Posted by ROSS.T.G.

Yes it is. I've worked with 35mm and 16mm film as well as digital. I understand film has more range than BD. What I am saying is adding HDR is re-grading the image.

Agreed big time, wide color gamut is not the same thing as HDR.

HDR for movies shot on film makes no sense IMO especially for those released before HDR became a thing (Last year).

[ROSS.T.G.]

Originally Posted by MisterXDTV

Agreed big time, wide color gamut is not the same thing as HDR.

HDR for movies shot on film makes no sense IMO especially for those released before HDR became a thing (Last year).

You sir just earned yourself a high five!

[SexySamSosa67]

So big is the improvement over the current version?

[ROSS.T.G.]

Originally Posted by SexySamSosa67

So big is the improvement over the current version?

Like most it will be marginal. The standard BD already looks incredible.

[I KEEL YOU]

Originally Posted by ROSS.T.G.

The front cover lists HDR. Who says it's the same image as seen in theatres?

The 2015 remastered blu ray is already better than anything you would've experienced theatrically in 1990, without a question.

That "HDR" on the front cover can only scare purists away.

When they release older movies which were shot on film on UHD, they should stick to advertising:

1. Wider color gamut
2. 4 x the resolution
3. Never HDR

[kristoffer]

Can you switch HDR off via the Panasonic player?

[dunnbluray]

Does anyone even have the 4k blu-ray in hand? If not, how about waiting until you see/read reviews about the product before passing judgement.

[ROSS.T.G.]

Originally Posted by dunnbluray

Does anyone even have the 4k blu-ray in hand? If not, how about waiting until you see/read reviews about the product before passing judgement.

The reviewer can say it's the greatest catalogue title released since Lawrence Of Arabia, I still wouldn't buy it because it's altering one of my all time favourites. Too me it's the same as the changes Lucas made to the trilogy.

[dunnbluray]

Originally Posted by ROSS.T.G.

The reviewer can say it's the greatest catalogue title released since Lawrence Of Arabia, I still wouldn't buy it because it's altering one of my all time favourites. Too me it's the same as the changes Lucas made to the trilogy.

Great. I can't wait to see the HDR presentation. My point is you are already calling it before it's been seen. Labyrinth was just released on 4K and the HDR presentation is getting high remarks from most.

I think calling it the same as Lucas edits is extreme. Seems like no matter what, people just want to nitpick everything.

[ROSS.T.G.]

Originally Posted by dunnbluray

Great. I can't wait to see the HDR presentation. My point is you are already calling it before it's been seen. Labyrinth was just released on 4K and the HDR presentation is getting high remarks from most.

I think calling it the same as Lucas edits is extreme. Seems like no matter what, people just want to nitpick everything.

I think it's great you are excited for the disc and that you are supporting physical content. I'm not saying it's going to "look bad". I'm saying it's going to look differently because it's regarded with HDR. I don't want higher Contrast or brighter colours. I don't think that's nitpicking. Nitpicking would be complaining about a scene with black crush or DNR which I find equally offensive. Comparing it to the trilogy is extreme but this is my favourite film and they are changing the look. HDR for newer films shot digitally is great but not for beloved catalogue titles that I have seen many times.

A few people say they barely use HDR on older catalogue titles. This reminds me of when My wife adds ingredients to dishes I don't like. She tells me "you can't even taste it". My response is "then why even add it"? Just to say you did?