Back to the Future: 30th Anniversary Trilogy / The Complete Adventures (1985-1990)

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by BillieCassin

This is one of those films that is going to always be a poster-child problem, because the higher resolution it's scanned in, the "worse" it looks. 70's/80's effects films have a specific weakness in this area. That's a major reason why BTTF uses such after-processing for digital encodes - not because they want to piss people off, but because of the nature of digital video, matte lines, models, etc. become way more obvious, and it's partially to mitigate making it look antiquated and fake.

It's by no means a perfect solution, nor one that I would choose - but as folks demand higher and higher resolutions, things like this are going to become more and more common.

Having watching it both in the cinema and the non dnr version I can day the effects look amazing

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by grrrarg

I doubt they had to post-process with DNR back in 1985 for theater viewers who were watching actual film on a giant screen though

The average viewer may not mind the DNR and EE, but it is also unlikely they would notice or care about matte lines/models/wires either.

To be fair, that's where the generational loss of theatrical prints came into play, which would obfuscate things like wires, and the non-linear curve of film kept the right gamma response for the optical effects which helped to reduce transparencies, garbage mattes and so on, unlike video which can be far too bright and tends to highlight every little flaw.

And as much as I like the familiarity of seeing wires 'n' stuff in old favourites like War Of The Worlds, there's definitely something to be said for properly managing the appearance of a movie as it's migrated from film to video (over and above standard things like colour correction). But Universal's goals weren't that lofty when they decided to give BTTF (and many, many others) the DNR/EE treatment, they simply wanted to tart it up for Blu-ray, using the video mastering tools like sledgehammers instead of scalpels.

[BillieCassin]

Originally Posted by grrrarg

I doubt they had to post-process with DNR back in 1985 for theater viewers who were watching actual film on a giant screen though

The average viewer may not mind the DNR and EE, but it is also unlikely they would notice or care about matte lines/models/wires either.

That's what folks always say (regarding seeing it on the "big screen"), but it's one of those "sound bite" things that seem like a good argument but really don't follow logically.

When you are looking at it on a cinema screen, being projected across that large a physical space, the matte lines, etc. diffuse somewhat and appear more natural, more like a halo. When you take that image at high resolution and then shrink it down to the size of our screens, those lines become more dense and prominent and clearly outline the object.

F/X heavy films of this era are always going to be problematic like this. Optical effects are fabulous on the big screen, and when we were just watching them in SD at home this wasn't an issue. But as resolution density keeps increasing, it's just going to become more of an issue. It also affects miniatures and the like - the effect comes from blowing it up and when we are then shrinking it back down from it's intended presentation while maintaining resolution, it is easy for it to lose effectiveness.

In no way do I think that BTTF cannot be done better, and I hope it is - I was just replying to that knee-jerk thought folks have that they want everything in higher and higher resolution, and don't realize that the higher resolution certain materials like this are going to increasingly have this challenge.

I really don't think folks want to see BTTF completely raw and with zero DNR or digital manipulation; I don't think they realize what that would look like, I don't think it matches the image in their mind that they want. What would likely be most successful is a very well-done, as light as possible job done with attention on a scene-by-scene, even shot-by-shot basis. Unfortunately, it seems too many studios just flip on some settings and do the whole thing on auto-pilot.

[tylergfoster]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Gale - who did more on BTTF than simply writing it and who's been "the keeper of the flame" in recent years - certainly seemed like he knew his stuff in 2002 though tyler, he's the one who said they did 2K scans from brand-new IPs, he said that they did tests for 2K and 4K and couldn't see any benefit so they went with 2K, he said it looked so good that they had to paint the wires out on the hoverboard flying rigs etc.

I never heard those comments, but those are the kind that would've made me put faith in Gale's word.

[Maggot]

Quite frankly, in general and considering the increase in resolution and screen sizes., Blu-ray has been somewhat of a disappointment. You may call my argument "unworkable" or "in a perfect world", but every title coming to Blu-ray should have a Jaws or Wizard of Oz or Ben-Hur level of commitment attached to the project. At this resolution level(1080), let alone 4K and whatever even larger screens show up with that increase in resolution, it should have been mandatory. The studios rarely put their best foot forward. All too often, we get old scans, low bit-rates, faddish teal color schemes, etc. Certainly, Universal's BTTF and Jurassic Park treatments demonstrate that all too present lack of commitment. The, "if we do put some work into this, lets put the settings on auto" approach is the norm. Universal is utterly and infamously notorious for DNR. So much so that perhaps their name should be changed to DNR studios. So much so that the saying "If the shoe fits, wear it" perfectly applies to Universal's DNR use. Does that make me a grain lover.....absolutely! Does that mean I like my resolution intact within the grain structure.......absolutely!

[motorheadache95]

Originally Posted by Maggot

Quite frankly, in general and considering the increase in resolution and screen sizes., Blu-ray has been somewhat of a disappointment. You may call my argument "unworkable" or "in a perfect world", but every title coming to Blu-ray should have a Jaws or Wizard of Oz or Ben-Hur level of commitment attached to the project. At this resolution level(1080), let alone 4K and whatever even larger screens show up with that increase in resolution, it should have been mandatory. The studios rarely put their best foot forward. All too often, we get old scans, low bit-rates, faddish teal color schemes, etc. Certainly, Universal's BTTF and Jurassic Park treatments demonstrate that all too present lack of commitment. The, "if we do put some work into this, lets put the settings on auto" approach is the norm. Universal is utterly and infamously notorious for DNR. So much so that perhaps their name should be changed to DNR studios. So much so that the saying "If the shoe fits, wear it" perfectly applies to Universal's DNR use. Does that make me a grain lover.....absolutely! Does that mean I like my resolution intact within the grain structure.......absolutely!

I wonder if the supposed Ultra-HD Blu-Ray format would duck this issue-- you'd think any film release on that format would have to be top notch, because it would primarily be film and home theater enthusiasts using the format.

I can see Blu-Ray being kind of a mixed bag, as you've described. When the format started out there was a learning curve as to what constitutes "proper HD." It wasn't so much detail at first as it was all about the "3D pop" effect that HD had.

Not only that but you had most studios already creating HD scans of their movies ahead of time when they were releasing them on DVD in order to "future-proof" them. Now that didn't work out because the technology to scan films into 2K or 4K was much better by the time Blu-Ray rolled around. Some studios remastered their films, but a lot of the time (Universal probably the worst offender) just used those old HD masters they already made and slapped them onto a Blu-Ray, or worse, decided they needed to be "polished" a bit so added more DNR and EE.

I honestly wouldn't be surprised if the thinking at the time was that Blu-Ray was merely the first HD format, and eventually when the next format rolled around (4K) THEN they would remaster their titles, making them look all the better compared to the "old vanilla" Blu-Ray edition. I mean, even some of the worst offenders like Tremors still look "HD," and better than the DVD. So good enough to release and sell, right?

Of course now the demand for physical formats is starting to go down, so who knows at this point how much support 4K Ultra Blu-ray will even get.

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by motorheadache95

I wonder if the supposed Ultra-HD Blu-Ray format would duck this issue-- you'd think any film release on that format would have to be top notch, because it would primarily be film and home theater enthusiasts using the format.

I can see Blu-Ray being kind of a mixed bag, as you've described. When the format started out there was a learning curve as to what constitutes "proper HD." It wasn't so much detail at first as it was all about the "3D pop" effect that HD had.

Not only that but you had most studios already creating HD scans of their movies ahead of time when they were releasing them on DVD in order to "future-proof" them. Now that didn't work out because the technology to scan films into 2K or 4K was much better by the time Blu-Ray rolled around. Some studios remastered their films, but a lot of the time (Universal probably the worst offender) just used those old HD masters they already made and slapped them onto a Blu-Ray, or worse, decided they needed to be "polished" a bit so added more DNR and EE.

I honestly wouldn't be surprised if the thinking at the time was that Blu-Ray was merely the first HD format, and eventually when the next format rolled around (4K) THEN they would remaster their titles, making them look all the better compared to the "old vanilla" Blu-Ray edition. I mean, even some of the worst offenders like Tremors still look "HD," and better than the DVD. So good enough to release and sell, right?

Of course now the demand for physical formats is starting to go down, so who knows at this point how much support 4K Ultra Blu-ray will even get.

You can still DNR 4k

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by Maggot

Quite frankly, in general and considering the increase in resolution and screen sizes., Blu-ray has been somewhat of a disappointment. You may call my argument "unworkable" or "in a perfect world", but every title coming to Blu-ray should have a Jaws or Wizard of Oz or Ben-Hur level of commitment attached to the project. At this resolution level(1080), let alone 4K and whatever even larger screens show up with that increase in resolution, it should have been mandatory. The studios rarely put their best foot forward. All too often, we get old scans, low bit-rates, faddish teal color schemes, etc. Certainly, Universal's BTTF and Jurassic Park treatments demonstrate that all too present lack of commitment. The, "if we do put some work into this, lets put the settings on auto" approach is the norm. Universal is utterly and infamously notorious for DNR. So much so that perhaps their name should be changed to DNR studios. So much so that the saying "If the shoe fits, wear it" perfectly applies to Universal's DNR use. Does that make me a grain lover.....absolutely! Does that mean I like my resolution intact within the grain structure.......absolutely!

I really think the tired old masters so many movies used in the begining were the cause of all the "looks the same as DVD" reactions. I know people who only buy new release movies on BD because they say old movies look the same as DVD. This is all down to watching poor releases. The studios really shot themselves in the foot.

Hopefully UBD only gets real 4k remasters for catalog material. If it even takes off.

[ceeece]

Good thing I only paid $15 for the 25th Anniversary. But I'm happy to wait this one out for a lower price point. Hopefully it will be a worthy upgrade from the 25th release. Otherwise I'll stick to one of the cheapest blu-ray sets I ever scored.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by Maggot

Quite frankly, in general and considering the increase in resolution and screen sizes., Blu-ray has been somewhat of a disappointment. You may call my argument "unworkable" or "in a perfect world", but every title coming to Blu-ray should have a Jaws or Wizard of Oz or Ben-Hur level of commitment attached to the project. At this resolution level(1080), let alone 4K and whatever even larger screens show up with that increase in resolution, it should have been mandatory. The studios rarely put their best foot forward. All too often, we get old scans, low bit-rates, faddish teal color schemes, etc. Certainly, Universal's BTTF and Jurassic Park treatments demonstrate that all too present lack of commitment. The, "if we do put some work into this, lets put the settings on auto" approach is the norm. Universal is utterly and infamously notorious for DNR. So much so that perhaps their name should be changed to DNR studios. So much so that the saying "If the shoe fits, wear it" perfectly applies to Universal's DNR use. Does that make me a grain lover.....absolutely! Does that mean I like my resolution intact within the grain structure.......absolutely!

Universal and Paramount for that matter have been the worst, but if every catalog title got "Oz" treatment (which means going back to the original negative with clean-up, etc.), we would be lucky to have a 100-200 catalog titles if that. Don't get me wrong, it would be nice, but there are financial realities and who is going to mandate to studios what they can and cannot do in this regard? I really don't want to see that. You have to understand, 99% of the viewing population doesn't give a sh*t about any of this which is why bandwidth limited streaming will eventually take over one day. It's just the 1% of us videophiles who care. Almost all of the population is fine with 480p to 720p resolution. You mentioned Jaws which looks very good and is sourced from 4K, but Universal still added a bit of DNR to it.

[motorheadache95]

Originally Posted by dvdmike

You can still DNR 4k

Definitely, but I would like to think that any Ultra Blu-Ray release wouldn't have it, or very little, because any catalog title on it would have to be remastered for 4K. None of it would be old outdated masters that were made for DVD back in the day. Plus studios would (or at least should) realize that the market for UHD Blu-ray would primarily be enthusiasts who don't want a DNR-filled "grain-free" picture.

[d514]

No, DNR and EE is not necessary to make optical effects less obvious. The DCP for Part I looks great.
Part II has many optical effects because of all the actors playing multiple versions of themselves in the same scene. Those scenes look weaker than the rest but you can spot them just as easily on the Blu-ray of part II so the DNR and EE doesn't help here either...

Originally Posted by dvdmike

You can still DNR 4k

Yes, just watch amazon instant prime UHD. They DNR their stuff to lower the bitrate. Netflix isn't perfect either but much better than amazon.

[K1NG J0RDAN]

Just finished watching a double feature of BTTF 1 & 2, and we definitely need a 4K remaster. While I can live with how it is currently, it can certainly look and sound much better.

[HeavyHitter]

If Universal would have just laid off the contrast boosting, EE, and DNR these discs would look fine.

[The Edge]

Some sad news from an inside source that would like to remain anonymous:

There are definitely plans in to re-release the trilogy for the 30th Anniversary.

Sadly, it will not be restored in 4k, as I would have hoped. Perhaps a public petition would raise some eyebrows.

Time for people to go into a tirade about no 4K.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by The Edge

Some sad news from an inside source that would like to remain anonymous:

Time for people to go into a tirade about no 4K.

No 4K = not the end of the world. No new transfer at all = that's ****ed up. I'm not buying this again just for a new set of extras where we're told the same anecdotes by the cast for a third time.

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

No 4K = not the end of the world. No new transfer at all = that's ****ed up. I'm not buying this again just for a new set of extras where we're told the same anecdotes by the cast for a third time.

Agreed.

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by The Edge

Some sad news from an inside source that would like to remain anonymous:

Time for people to go into a tirade about no 4K.

It should be, since 4K is the best thing for 35mm film. And since it's a big catalog title, it WILL be scanned in 4K eventually, so it's a waste of money for them not to do it now. Doing a 2K scan wouldn't benefit the studio or the customers, and in the long run be a waste of money.

[tyler2tall147]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

It should be, since 4K is the best thing for 35mm film. And since it's a big catalog title, it WILL be scanned in 4K eventually, so it's a waste of money for them not to do it now. Doing a 2K scan wouldn't benefit the studio or the customers, and in the long run be a waste of money.

Are they for sure doing a new scan? They wouldn't waste money if they use the old transfer. I think if they really want to move these without a remaster, they just have to include all the Eric Scoltz footage

[GenPion]

If they are 2K re-releases but without the DNR, edge enhancement, and other digital alterations then I'll still welcome it.

If it's the same exact presentations, Universal clearly isn't realizing how much demand there is for these films to receive new presentations. 4K is obviously my preference but new and improved presentations would be a plus, period.