First Blood / Rambo: First Blood Part II / Rambo III 4K UHDs (1982-1988)

[Neo4K]

It was already asked previously but I don't think it was answered: Is there a difference between the EU and the US versions of these?

[DR Herbert West]

Originally Posted by Neo4K

It was already asked previously but I don't think it was answered: Is there a difference between the EU and the US versions of these?

No difference.

[coffeeman]

I just watched it, the 4k release.
I found it had quite a bit of grain.

was this intentional? if so thats fine..
or is the 4k version supposed to be grain free, saturated colors? popping?

I found my version to resemble the DVD version, has that late 70s early 80s feel, some grain, and the natural cold bland colors which is how it was suppose to look ..cold, dark etc , winter etc..

[StrayButler91]

Originally Posted by coffeeman

I just watched it, the 4k release.
I found it had quite a bit of grain.

was this intentional? if so thats fine..
or is the 4k version supposed to be grain free, saturated colors? popping?

[wjasoncul]

Originally Posted by StrayButler91

What about the grain on that gif then?

[PuppetMasterBlu]

Well I got Best Buy to send a replacement for First Blood and surprisingly it actually fixed the problem. I watched the "problem" scenes 4 times just to be sure and no picture distortions this time.

I did notice something today on Rambo 3. When the kid hands Rambo his stick fighting gloves at 1:10 did anyone notice a little squiggly nonsense at the bottom of the screen for a split second?

[bwshihtzu]

Originally Posted by Gacivory

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...riple+frontier

Thank you for the link.Much appreciated.

[TheWalkingDead]

Can someone post a screenshot of 40:58? Can be from your phone. Thanks

[TheWalkingDead]

Originally Posted by coffeeman

I just watched it, the 4k release.
I found it had quite a bit of grain.

was this intentional? if so thats fine..
or is the 4k version supposed to be grain free, saturated colors? popping?

I found my version to resemble the DVD version, has that late 70s early 80s feel, some grain, and the natural cold bland colors which is how it was suppose to look ..cold, dark etc , winter etc..

The opening scene I thought looked but right when he talks to the lady about Delmare Berry, it looks beautiful from there on (or so far at least, Im 40 minutes in). I honestly have not noticed any grain.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by TheWalkingDead

I honestly have not noticed any grain.

Uh, it has plenty of grain, because it's supposed to.

[TheWalkingDead]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

Uh, it has plenty of grain, because it's supposed to.

Uh, never said it didn't, I said I did not notice it...unlike Predator.

[singhcr]

This is very odd.

I watched First Blood Part II today. The good news is that I didn't have any freezing at the layer break like I had with First Blood or what others have stated with Part II.

The bad is that again I can't see much if any grain on this release. Towards the latter quarter of the film when

[Show spoiler]Rambo is escaping the POW camp

you start to see fine grain even in the bright outdoors shots, like when Rambo is on the boat or when he

[Show spoiler]returns the POWs to the base.

The shots with him in prison at the beginning or when we first see the base are essentially grainless, as is the vast majority of the feature. Yet this site's review mentions a constant and at times heavy grain field, which I didn't see at all. Virtually every scene with Trautman was like this, for example. The worst I thought was when Rambo was gearing up to go on his mission at night, and when he was on the helicopter. Most of the closeups of Sly's face lacked sharpness. The HDR seemed tastefully applied, although some of the dark scenes where the

[Show spoiler]Vietnamese are hunting down Rambo

or when Rambo and his contact got onto the boat took on an odd tint and the dynamic range seemed to go away as the image looked thin and grey. Perhaps this was just a damaged portion of the negative as I didn't notice this during the majority of the film.

I can still notice a fine grain field on my TV despite sitting farther away than is ideal and it was hardly ever there in Part 2. A good example of visible grain even in bright environments is Predator 2. I was wondering if my TV had some DNR or something that was automatic after my firmware update, but I just spot checked Predator 2 again a few minutes ago and it looks as I remembered it. Die Hard would be another good example given its anamorphic photography and most likely used similar film stocks given that it came out just 3 years after this did. Grain was much more prevalent and naturally rendered.

[Geoff D]

I did mention how curiously grainless they look vs the restored Blu-ray versions. The thin black levels are what they are, these were restored by Eclair in Paris who unfortunately have a very Ritrovita-esque look to their output: strong yellowy green tints and piss poor gamma that makes blacks look like grey murk.

I love the diffused jungle exteriors though, Jack Cardiff was very much part of the British Cinematographer's Pantyhose Club.

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I did mention how curiously grainless they look vs the restored Blu-ray versions. The thin black levels are what they are, these were restored by Eclair in Paris who unfortunately have a very Ritrovita-esque look to their output: strong yellowy green tints and piss poor gamma that makes blacks look like grey murk.

I love the diffused jungle exteriors though, Jack Cardiff was very much part of the British Cinematographer's Pantyhose Club.

Yes you did, I remember that. I thought you were just talking about First Blood and not the sequels. I just find it funny how the reviewer here has a very different idea of what heavy grain looks like compared to me. Most of the time the gamma seemed okay (many older movies are a bit grey in the blacks at least when projected on film), but other times it was flat, yellow, and washed out.

I agree that the iungle shots looked really cool, it gave an etheral quality to the footage.

[Geoff D]

A lack of grain doesn't necessarily mean a lack of a film-like look though (paging JohnCarpenterFan), I never once for a second thought that I was watching something that'd been smacked with the DNR stick. It's the horrible compression that's more my concern, especially on Part II.

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

A lack of grain doesn't necessarily mean a lack of a film-like look though (paging JohnCarpenterFan), I never once for a second thought that I was watching something that'd been smacked with the DNR stick. It's the horrible compression that's more my concern, especially on Part II.

How can a movie made in 1985 have almost no visible grain throughoutand not be DNRd?

[iplayadoctorontv]

Originally Posted by singhcr

How can a movie made in 1985 have almost no visible grain throughoutand not be DNRd?

i think they rescan the original film print. I have the predator on 4k and its cleaner but still has some film grain in some close ups.

[StingingVelvet]

I can't say these lacked grain at ALL for me. I do sit damn close to my screen though.

[oscardacouch]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

I can't say these lacked grain at ALL for me. I do sit damn close to my screen though.

i have a 50 inch tv like 5 feet from my bed and when i watch an older 4k movie i usually get that door screen effect. not all the time

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by singhcr

How can a movie made in 1985 have almost no visible grain throughoutand not be DNRd?

I said smacked with the DNR stick, not a light tap. How they've approached the grading would also play it up or down according. But answer me this: there's barely any grain, yet how come it doesn't look waxy or smeary?