The Incredibles 4K UHD (2004)

[jh901]

Originally Posted by The Edge

That is SO lame. What’s the point in even releasing on 4K UHD if the transfer isnt going to be native 4K?

Stop posting about this subject matter. You've convinced yourself that you are right and there isn't anything that anyone can do about it.

Revel in mediocrity. Don't expect the rest of us to join you.

[jh901]

Originally Posted by Dubstar

if they continue compressing audio dynamic range on their discs, they truly are stupid.

Disney? Pixar? Or both?

Are there noteworthy examples where there is an informed consensus that sound quality should be meaningfully more dynamic?

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by jh901

Revel in mediocrity.

You can accuse this guy of a lot of things, but this is not one of them. He's the only one here complaining about what he perceives to be mediocrity.

[bbeck]

Originally Posted by jh901

Disney? Pixar? Or both?

Are there noteworthy examples where there is an informed consensus that sound quality should be meaningfully more dynamic?

Right now people are upset about Thor Ragnarok, which is dredging up bad memories about Avengers: Age of Ultron and (maybe? I don't recall) CA: Civil War. Plus the fact that the DTS track on the Pirates DMTNT Blu-ray is more dynamic/forceful than the Atmos track on the 4K. Then people look at the Pixar films, which haven't had a track memorable for its LFE content since Finding Nemo in 2004. Disney being the parent company involved, naturally there has to be some conspiracy involved to neuter the audio of all their physical media releases to cater to the mobile device users and moms with soundbars.

[jala12]

I use a soundbar but even I thought that the audio in Age of Ultron and Ragnarok sounded less dynamic than usual.

[Havenbull]

Love this movie, and fully understand the UHD is getting released due to its upcoming sequel. Day 1 buy for me.

However, I think that Wall-E is more in need of a 4K release. I popped in the blu recently and man, it looked flat as hell. No pop to the colors whatsoever.

[Staying Salty]

Originally Posted by The Edge

A 2K scan with all the technological bells and whistles is not the same as a TRUE 4K scan, and people here know it.

But the 2K scan with all technological bells and whistles is better than the SDR Blu-ray and people here know it.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

You can accuse this guy of a lot of things, but this is not one of them. He's the only one here complaining about what he perceives to be mediocrity.

It'd sure be nice if that perception was at least driven by experiencing these discs on a decent HDR setup, rather than looking at a number and deciding that's all there is to the experience, that that's the only factor in play. Yes, that number is the one plastered all over the packaging as you pointed out in the SW thread so people who are expecting 4K here, there and everywhere are bound to feel like they're being gypped - but what is it that Coop says in Interstellar? "You need two numbers to tell the size of your ass but only one to decide my daughter's future"? Just looking at the one number alone does a huge disservice to this format and has done from the start. "realorfake" can kiss my ass.

[Space_Butler]

Originally Posted by The Edge

Whatever.

When you buy 4K with your hard-earned money, don't you expect to be given 4K?

As a common buyer, I do.

I was sorely disappointed w/ Terminator 2's 4K transfer. I'm baffled by those who complain about the Back to the Future trilogy BDs receiving what they deem to be inferior transfers, but are perfectly okay with movies on a 4K physical format not having native 4K transfers. Seems like a double standard to me.

Blu-ray: "The Look and Sound of PERFECT".

Whatever happened to that?

So you start with "You may as well".
Then all the you's go "nah, this is cool and good."
And now you are at "Well *I*".

Just say I from the beginning, dude. Stop trying to speak for the crowd and then wasting everyone's time getting to your core argument of me me me me me.

PS: You can do what you want. Doesn't mean we gotta love hearing about you NOT doing things, though.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

It'd sure be nice if that perception was at least driven by experiencing these discs on a decent HDR setup, rather than looking at a number and deciding that's all there is to the experience, that that's the only factor in play. Yes, that number is the one plastered all over the packaging as you pointed out in the SW thread so people who are expecting 4K here, there and everywhere are bound to feel like they're being gypped - but what is it that Coop says in Interstellar? "You need two numbers to tell the size of your ass but only one to decide my daughter's future"? Just looking at the one number alone does a huge disservice to this format and has done from the start. "realorfake" can kiss my ass.

100%. I just thought it was amusingly ironic to accuse of reveling in mediocrity the one guy in the thread who was running as loudly as possible in the other direction.

[The Edge]

Originally Posted by newtonp01

Secondly, T2 is actually a true 4K scan, as mentioned earlier. The majority of 2K upscales look better than it.

So if T2:4K is a true 4K scan, why are there shots where skin is waxy?

[The Edge]

Originally Posted by jh901

Stop posting about this subject matter. You've convinced yourself that you are right and there isn't anything that anyone can do about it.

Revel in mediocrity. Don't expect the rest of us to join you.

Excuse me? You say that as if I've complained more than once about that topic on multiple occasions throughout the months. I've only expressed concern about 2K on UHD once, and for this film. I think you meant to direct that comment at someone else.

"Revel in mediocrity"

Why? When we can have better? Shouldn't we as consumers expect better for our money? I mean, that is the attitude on many other discs throughout the years. Best example I can think of is the BTTF BDs. Loaded with video problems and I haven't seen one post from anyone here about how they took the issue to the respective home video departments with examples.

[The Edge]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

It'd sure be nice if that perception was at least driven by experiencing these discs on a decent HDR setup, rather than looking at a number and deciding that's all there is to the experience, that that's the only factor in play. Yes, that number is the one plastered all over the packaging as you pointed out in the SW thread so people who are expecting 4K here, there and everywhere are bound to feel like they're being gypped - but what is it that Coop says in Interstellar? "You need two numbers to tell the size of your ass but only one to decide my daughter's future"? Just looking at the one number alone does a huge disservice to this format and has done from the start. "realorfake" can kiss my ass.

Well, at least YOU can understand my position on this matter: that I feel like we are being gypped.

[bluescholar]

Originally Posted by The Edge

So if T2:4K is a true 4K scan, why are there shots where skin is waxy?

Because the grain that composed the original image was destroyed by technology.

[mzupeman]

Originally Posted by The Edge

Well, at least YOU can understand my position on this matter: that I feel like we are being gypped.

And you’re not.

[mzupeman]

Originally Posted by The Edge

So if T2:4K is a true 4K scan, why are there shots where skin is waxy?

Because they slathered DNR all over it for the theatrical 3D release.

Do you even know what you’re going on about?

[s_har]

Originally Posted by mzupeman

And you’re not.

He is not, but it's not too hard to understand how people might feel that way.

[mzupeman]

Originally Posted by s_har

He is not, but it's not too hard to understand how people might feel that way.

But it is difficult to understand, at least for me. With all the films that have had 2K DI’s over the years, I’m not sure why anyone thought they were going to get anything but upscales of those sources on the format. And the people who DO complain are merely saying, “But it’s not REAL 4K because the numbers don’t match! It says 4K on the box, why is it 2K!” I don’t have enough life left in me to let out all the groans I’d like to whenever that point gets made.

This format is able to deliver every single detail as seen in theaters… and in cases where we’re seeing something projected on film, we’re actually getting a BETTER experience at home, because we’re not dealing with a reel that’s a generation removed from the source. The fact that people still find a reason to complain about that… even when they’re getting far better black levels and highlights and color than ever on top of the resolution bump… is way, way beyond me.

I’ve said it time and time and time again, there’s so many other factors to consider. John Wick 1 was 4K and John Wick 2 had a 2K DI and pretty much everyone will tell you John Wick 2 looks better. I mean… that specific number in and of itself means nothing.

[weberrygt]

So, Incredibles 4k? I'm pumped! It's funny because my son watched this at daycare this week (they are on 'spring break'), and I told him that it is coming out on 4k! He has no clue what that means, he's 4, but he's pumped too!

Can we not focus on being pumped about incredibles in 4k?

"Ah, mr. incredible" haha.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by mzupeman

But it is difficult to understand, at least for me.

Really?! It's difficult for you to understand that when the outside of the box says 4K, someone who doesn't spend all their time on AV forums like we do might expect that what's inside the box might also be... 4K?

The format is great and with very few exceptions the 2K stuff we're seeing on it is stuff that was made in 2K. The problem is that the format is branded as 4K which creates an expectation. It's not the problem of the average consumer, receiving that message; it's the problem of the packaged video media industry, sending that message.