You're Next 4K UHD (2011) (Second Sight Films) (UK)

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by ArieS

Probably not as much as video bitrate and compression but it's obviously more compressed so of lesser quality.

Is that true though with DTS-HD Master Audio? With flac for example, you can choose how much compression is done, but whether you choose the least or most or somewhere in the middle, it's still lossless. So with flac it doesn't matter in terms of audio quality.

Not sure if that applies the same to DTS-HD Master Audio though.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by ArieS

Probably not as much as video bitrate and compression but it's obviously more compressed so of lesser quality.

Does it sound half as good? Aksing for a friend

[Filmmaker]

Originally Posted by mar3o

Is that true though with DTS-HD Master Audio? With flac for example, you can choose how much compression is done, but whether you choose the least or most or somewhere in the middle, it's still lossless. So with flac it doesn't matter in terms of audio quality.

Not sure if that applies the same to DTS-HD Master Audio though.

Let me proceed by recognizing that I may be fully displaying my total ignorance on these matters here, but this makes zero sense to me. To move something from being lightly compressed to medium compressed, one must remove data, yes? And to move from a medium level of compression to highly compressed, still more data must be removed. Wouldn’t this removal of data be the very definition of “loss”?

Oh, and this has yet to ship to me from Atomic Movie Store. Should I be worried? Did the release date change?

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Filmmaker

Let me proceed by recognizing that I may be fully displaying my total ignorance on these matters here, but this makes zero sense to me. To move something from being lightly compressed to medium compressed, one must remove data, yes? And to move from a medium level of compression to highly compressed, still more data must be removed. Wouldn’t this removal of data be the very definition of “loss”?

Oh, and this has yet to ship to me from Atomic Movie Store. Should I be worried? Did the release date change?

And yet, lossless audio comes in different shapes and sizes nonetheless. I won't even pretend to know the science involved, but as with the visual side of things if there isn't a detectable, discernible difference between more bits or less bits then it seems silly to base every decision one makes around bit, bits and moar bits. Not saying you are, but the bitrate junkies be cray cray

[Filmmaker]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

And yet, lossless audio comes in different shapes and sizes nonetheless. I won't even pretend to know the science involved, but as with the visual side of things if there isn't a detectable, discernible difference between more bits or less bits then it seems silly to base every decision one makes around bit, bits and moar bits. Not saying you are, but the bitrate junkies be cray cray

Oh, sure, sure. I’m merely confused by the implication that you can compress audio into a pancake and still call it lossless. Maybe I’m comparing apples to oranges but there’s a quantitative and qualitative difference between a 192 kbps mp3 file and a 320 kbps one. Where is the point reached where something can’t fairly be considered lossless anymore because too many data bits have been removed? If it’s lossless at 3,596 kbps and still lossless at 2,090 kbps, what got taken out of the zeroes and ones of the data? Just a bunch of zeroes?

[Geoff D]

You're absolutely right to question it. Sometimes it's just bit depth (16 vs 24, tho that's its own area of contentious discussion as to human perception) but in this case it wouldn't appear to be, so maybe the encoder just works harder at lower bitrates with its psycho-acoustic calculations to throw away everything we can't perceive and to mask the artefacts therein.

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by Filmmaker

Let me proceed by recognizing that I may be fully displaying my total ignorance on these matters here, but this makes zero sense to me. To move something from being lightly compressed to medium compressed, one must remove data, yes? And to move from a medium level of compression to highly compressed, still more data must be removed. Wouldn’t this removal of data be the very definition of “loss”?

Oh, and this has yet to ship to me from Atomic Movie Store. Should I be worried? Did the release date change?

FLAC is always lossless. You can set the compression algorithm anywhere from 1-8. The more it's compressed, the smaller the file size, but the more computational power and time it needs to decompress when playing. But it's always lossless. Long ago, portable players that could handle FLAC could have issues decompressing the maximum-compressed file sizes, so less compression (bigger file size) was advised to make decompression and playback in real time easier. These days that's not really a thing to worry about.

MP3 is a different beast altogether and the lower the bitrate, the more audio information is thrown out, which is why low-bitrate MP3's sound awful. 320 which is the max bitrate for MP3 is still lossy compressed, but throws away a lot less info than, say, 128, so to most human ears it sounds reasonably transparent, despite it being lossy.

But yeah, FLAC is lossless no matter what. So is APE (a less-common lossless audio format).

As far as DTS-HD Master Audio, I always thought no matter the bitrate, it was still lossless. But then that makes me wonder why the bitrate can vary so much between releases. So I'm not sure how that works for DTS-HD.

[professorwho]

It’s just a 16-bit track in a 24-bit container as one can clearly tell by the bitrate alone. Super common. While that will bother some, so long as the mastering of the track is the same, it shouldn’t be any worse.

[NLScavenger]

Originally Posted by mar3o

As far as DTS-HD Master Audio, I always thought no matter the bitrate, it was still lossless. But then that makes me wonder why the bitrate can vary so much between releases. So I'm not sure how that works for DTS-HD.

If the input was processed beforehand, that would affect the bitrate.

[TwinCitiesBluFan]

My standard copy arrived from Amazon UK today and I've already watched it, possibly for the first time since the film originally came out (it had certainly been several years, at least). Still a fun ride and a solid horror flick! As for the 4K release, my non-expert eyes and ears were happy with it.

[deatheats]

Originally Posted by Filmmaker

Oh, sure, sure. I’m merely confused by the implication that you can compress audio into a pancake and still call it lossless. Maybe I’m comparing apples to oranges but there’s a quantitative and qualitative difference between a 192 kbps mp3 file and a 320 kbps one. Where is the point reached where something can’t fairly be considered lossless anymore because too many data bits have been removed? If it’s lossless at 3,596 kbps and still lossless at 2,090 kbps, what got taken out of the zeroes and ones of the data? Just a bunch of zeroes?

Specifically with FLAC, compressing above level 5 does very little to reduce the size of the file, just increases the amount of time to encode the FLAC. Decoding takes about the same amount of time regardless of the compression level…thanks Wikipedia

So no, it basically won’t let you compress the file size down further and break its lossless designation.

[Vizsla]

Originally Posted by Steel76

It was shot with RAW in 4.5K, but ended up with a 2K DI.
So when it comes to the "4K restoration", I really hope they went back to the 4.5K source, and not just upscaled/HDR graded the 2K DI.

I was also wondering how they handled this. The Second Sight website describes it as a "new 4K restoration", but they never specify the source they went back to - the raw 4.5K files, or the original 2K DI.

Second Sight did the same thing when they released "It Follows" on 4K last year. It originally had a 2K DI, but was marketed as having a "Second Sight Films 4K master", even though the raw files appear to be primarily 2K.

Being vague about the source material seems sketchy. If they had gone back to the original raw files, I would think they'd want to advertise that fact pretty clearly with these higher-priced limited editions. Regardless, the picture quality of both is impressive.

[Rusty100]

Both releases still look great, but I'd wager they only went as far back as the 2K di and added the grain and colour corrections there. Source: just my eyes and no proof

[stigdu]

Watched this last night. Great film!

[Jexes23]

Blind Buy, I just got mine from the UK yesterday and watched it tonight, awesome!!

This movie was so much fun!

[CelestialAgent]

LE is OOS on Zavvi/Second Sight though assume it will be restocked

[lazerface]

Watched last night and was pleasantly reminded how goddamn well shot and lit this movie is.

[ko8ebryant24]

Lionsgate BD vs Second Sight UHD HDR10

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...postcount=1987

[Graphic_Delusions]

Do you think Second Sight will ever restock the limited edition? It doesn't say 'Out Of Print' yet.

[Eric_Hendershot]

Originally Posted by CelestialAgent

LE is OOS on Zavvi/Second Sight though assume it will be restocked

I wouldn't count on it being restocked. I've yet to see a limited edition come back in stock on Second Sight's site once it's out of stock.