Sony "Mastered in 4K" Blu-ray Titles May 14 and July 16

[wormraper]

Originally Posted by reanimator

The 4k remaster of GLORY is breathtaking -- a clear improvement over the first BD.

gosh damnit. now I'm gonna have to upgrade

[BrandonJF]

Originally Posted by ricster

You have to have a xvYCC TV and blu ray player to view the full 24 bit colour picture depth and not the usual RGB coding. This leads to more gradients of colour and leads to higher quality reds etc.,.

Luckily, I am able to view this expanded colour. I am watching ghostbusters now and this is the best it has ever looked. I am we'll impressed with this version. The colors and vivid and the contrast is not too high. The streams from the proton packs is spot on. Also grain is visible and has not been dnr'd out. The outdoor scenes in daylight, you can now make out the clouds in the sky. The night shots have a pop about them too.

When rick moranis is running away towards the cafe, he runs passed some shrubs. The green is vivd and the red roses shine.

Sound is standard Dolby true hd 5.1 with a rate of 1.5 Mbps, so I'm guessing its 16 bit?????

None of my other blurays in my collection transmit x.v. Color or xvvYCC 24 bit or deep color, and reading, this isn't in the BDA specifications. I take it these are the first discs to support this then ?

Have you tried turning off x.v.color and seeing if there is a difference? I am betting you won't find one. I'm not sure what you're referring to when you say "xvvycc 24 bit or deep color". Sony hasn't claimed these support deep color, so I'm not sure where you're getting that these discs somehow support 24 bit. "Deep Color" is not the same thing as "xvycc".

xvycc is just an expanded color space. Someone at AVS did an analysis on the Spider-Man disc and this "expanded" space amounted to a handful of scenes and I can't imagine the degree of...umm... "expansion" that was occurring would even be noticeable.

[IndyMLVC]

Originally Posted by reanimator

The 4k remaster of GLORY is breathtaking -- a clear improvement over the first BD.

screen comparisons?

[nagysaudio]

Originally Posted by IndyMLVC

screen comparisons?

Jesus Christ! It's only $15. Buy it, watch it, if you don't like it toss it into the the garbage.

P.S. The mastered in 4K Glory transfer is flawless.

[marine92104]

Originally Posted by reanimator

The 4k remaster of GLORY is breathtaking -- a clear improvement over the first BD.

If you notice the people that are complaining haven't seen these at all.

They're going off of computer screenshots & what they think they know about mastering & how transfers are done.

Big mistake.

I hope I'm not breaking any rules by mentioning another forum but you might want to follow the thread over at avsforum about these movies. A lot of those guys also have high end equipment & it's easier to see the difference.

Mods if I shouldn't have mentioned another forum you are welcome to remove my comment.

[Sky_Captain]

Originally Posted by wormraper

that's about 3x what I pay for most catalog BD's soooooooooooooooooo, not gonna happen unless we get verifiable proof.

Tramp.

[wormraper]

Originally Posted by nagysaudio

And who cares?

lol, show your true colors why don't ya ?

[Sherlock_Jr]

Originally Posted by marine92104

When you're talking about Avatar that is a whole different ball game. If I remember correctly on that title it was shot with an all digital camera (possible red one) & was done in IMAX.

The titles we are talking about were not.

The differences that I see on my equipment are the way that grain is handled & the colors are different than the original. The transfers are sharper without any halos or ringing. The transfers are more film like.

It was very easy for me to spot from the beginning to the end of the movie. There is a clear difference on the ones I have seen so far.

It may be a case of the better your display is the more you'll be able to see any differences. People with projectors will would be able to see it even more.

That has nothing to do with what i said though. Blu-ray, as a 1080p format has limitations. And maxing out a bitrate is often unnecessary, because you won't benefit from it at 40 mbs than you would at 28 mbs in pretty much every case. Which is why Ghostbusters doesn't take up the entire disc — it simply doesn't need to.

On the new Ghostbusters disc, the feature is around 30 gb... and on the 2009 disc, the feature is also around 30 gb. Same size, yet a pretty substantial improvement — not because of bitrate or how big the feature size is, but because the transfer was done properly.

And Avatar wasn't "done in IMAX". It was shot normally and finished at 2K. It was just blown up for IMAX.

[nagysaudio]

Originally Posted by Sherlock_Jr

That has nothing to do with what i said though. Blu-ray, as a 1080p format has limitations. And maxing out a bitrate is often unnecessary, because you won't benefit from it at 40 mbs than you would at 28 mbs in pretty much every case. Which is why Ghostbusters doesn't take up the entire disc — it simply doesn't need to.

Or the movie is not long enough to max out a BD50 at max bitrate.

[rickah88]

Originally Posted by Sherlock_Jr

Again, the same could be said for every disc out there that has "empty space" on it, which is 99.9% of them. So no, I didn't miss the point at all.

I don't think that's true. As long as those discs included and/or retained the special features. The issue isn't the space, the issue was not taking advantage of the space, at all.
Even if you threw a commentary track on there, or some deleted scenes, something....anything...would show some effort was, at least, taken in terms of bonus content.
I don't profess to know everything there is to know about authoring discs, but transferring existing extras can't be that time consuming or costly.

[reanimator]

Well -- in my case I never purchased the original BDs of GLORY or SPIDERMAN (2002) because I didn't think the transfers looked very good. Same goes for PATTON, TERMINATOR and lots of other films.

There is something to be said for patience. It saves $$$

[reanimator]

Originally Posted by IndyMLVC

screen comparisons?

Wish I had the software to do that. Someone else will get to it, soon enough. Until then, take my word for it -- the 4k remaster for GLORY looks a lot better than the screencaps show for the original BD. (if someone wants to PM me about how I can create screengrabs, go for it)

In particular this website has a frame of a parade scene, with American flags waving -- the difference in detail on the 4K remaster was quite obvious in that particular shot.

[rdodolak]

Originally Posted by marine92104

If you notice the people that are complaining haven't seen these at all.

They're going off of computer screenshots & what they think they know about mastering & how transfers are done.

Big mistake.

I hope I'm not breaking any rules by mentioning another forum but you might want to follow the thread over at avsforum about these movies. A lot of those guys also have high end equipment & it's easier to see the difference.

Mods if I shouldn't have mentioned another forum you are welcome to remove my comment.

And where do you think those screenshots came from.

[IndyMLVC]

Originally Posted by nagysaudio

Jesus Christ! It's only $15. Buy it, watch it, if you don't like it toss it into the the garbage.

P.S. The mastered in 4K Glory transfer is flawless.

Wow. I was asking a simple question.

If you don't like it, block me. But knock off the constant attitude you have.

[MovieManiac82]

Will these movies work with a current Blu ray player and Full HD TV?

[42041]

Originally Posted by Sherlock_Jr

Regardless, there's still limitations of 1080p. Maxing out the bitrate isn't going to change something that substantially, so you're still getting the best quality possible for the format.

The original Avatar release maxed out the disc and bitrate and was reference quality. Then the special edition came along, added 3 cuts via seamless branching (and an added 16 minutes) plus audio commentary, and the review states that "despite the addition of 16-minutes of new high definition footage, the quality of the image hasn't dropped in the slightest. I popped in my copy of the standalone disc to spot check several scenes, and I really couldn't make out any negligible differences." Not to mention, the original movie only disc maxed out at 28.81 Mbps, which isn't great by any means — there are quite a few discs that hit the 30s and some even the 40s.

Digitally photographed stuff tends to be considerably more compressible than stuff shot on film, especially grainy 80s film. Less noise, more data redundancy between frames, less data needed. For Taxi Driver and Ghostbusters, going to 40mbps from 20mbps could potentially improve the grain rendition significantly. Bitrate is only one piece of the compression quality puzzle, however.

[JohnnyPresley21]

Originally Posted by MovieManiac82

Will these movies work with a current Blu ray player and Full HD TV?

YES.But if you had a 4K TV(which are hugely expensive) and a 4K blu ray player they would look even better.

[motorheadache95]

The bottom line is that if the movie could have used a remastering in the first place, the new 4K titles are mild to substantial upgrades (Ghostbusters, Glory, and Spider-Man).

Then there are the titles that there was nothing wrong with in the first place, and those predictably are going to look the same unless you stare inches away from your screen looking for improvements (Amazing Spider-Man, Total Recall, and Taxi Driver, etc.).

Personally, the only 4K title thus far I'll be picking up is Ghostbusters, because the contrast issues on the old disc have always really bugged me. I'd considered Spider-Man, but honestly I don't mind the transfer of the original disc and I don't really care about the movie enough to buy it again.

[Dragun]

Originally Posted by motorheadache95

The bottom line is that if the movie could have used a remastering in the first place, the new 4K titles are mild to substantial upgrades (Ghostbusters, Glory, and Spider-Man).

Then there are the titles that there was nothing wrong with in the first place, and those predictably are going to look the same unless you stare inches away from your screen looking for improvements (Amazing Spider-Man, Total Recall, and Taxi Driver, etc.).

Exactly. The problems with Ghostbusters, Glory, and Spider-Man had less to do with bitrate or even 4K, and more to do with proper mastering in general. I bet those titles would have looked fine on Blu-Ray, even with new 2K masters, as long as the color and contrast were done properly. But its good that they're creating 4K masters for titles that didn't have them yet.

The M4K discs look good, from the screenshots I've seen, but if they've decided that using more disc space wouldn't benefit the image, why not use the leftover space for some supplements? Clearly maxing out a disc would be overkill for most titles.

[TheHighRoller]

Originally Posted by Patsfan123

The difference for Spiderman is not negligible. I have both the original (boxset edition) and this release.. the difference is mind-blowing. The 4K remaster looks like the movie was filmed this year.

I also have both the original release of Ghostbusters and the 4K remaster and the upgrade is substantial.

I have never seen Glory but may look into it if the 4K remaster falls to $10 or below.

I saw the screen comparisons for Ghostbusters, and I can definitely see a difference. Although I prefer the original's color timing better to some extent. The brightness levels were upped, so detail was lost. That's a no. But to me, it looks a bit more vibrant than the M4K release. The M4K release looks a bit darker. I'd still get it over the regular release though! Hopefully they also release Ghostbusters 2.