Crank 4K UHD (2006)

[Geoff D]

You know when people compare something and they say it's "not better, but it's different"? That's Crank's UHD right there. Yes, it loses quite a bit of detail vs the BD. The expansion of the dynamic range at the upper end is minimal, at the lower end the gamma is considerably higher than the BD so it crushes shadow detail. Colour is much of a muchness, for while the movie has this kinetic visual style they didn't opt for a supremely whacked out colour grading to begin with and the UHD doesn't do much to upset that apple cart. Oh, and those horizontal lines (visible in some caps) stay there for like 20 minutes of the movie, I suspect that one of the reels wasn't filmed out too good.

So....did I like it or not? I liked it, mainly because the usage of a filmout for transfer counteracts that harshly digital 'shot on a camcorder look', toning down the rampant sharpness and giving it some texture via the light layer of grain. Some would say that that was the whole point of shooting it on cheapy digital like that, to give it that sharp 'you are there' sense of immediacy, and yet it doesn't lose any of its inherent craziness. It's also worth mentioning that the 35mm prints we'd have seen in theaters in 2006 would have been FAR closer to the UHD than the BD, what with the softened detail and very high gamma, creating a very contrasty image. It's even got a bit of telecine wobble as well, just to add to the printy-fresh flavour.

Something I noticed with this and with other LG filmout transfers is the dirt, not just white specks from the negative but black specks too - which means that these transfers aren't even being done from the "original" filmout negative, they're being done from an interpositive that's been contact printed from that filmout neg. With smaller movies like this they simply couldn't afford to record out multiple digital negatives (say, $50K each) for creating theatrical prints from, so they did one or two then took them through the traditional IP -> IN stages, using the INs to run off the prints as per the norm.

"Okay then, so you liked it. Why don't you like Dredd or Kick-Ass or the other LG filmouts?"

Why, that's a great question Timmy! The thing about Dredd is that it looks like boiled shit no matter how its viewed, but there's an undeniable 'pop' to the colour on the 3D version that's simply not there on the UHD, which looks even duller than the proper 2D 1080p transfer on the French BD. Without that then even the added texture via the filmout doesn't amount to much because some of the source material is just soooo badly shot. As for Kick-Ass, it was shot on film so the filmout transfer adds nothing in that respect, there's no screamingly 'digital' look there to start with that the filmout is toning down, and it's another movie that looks so bad anyway (Vaughn even laments the DI on the commentary IIRC) that filmout or not it's just not a great advert for 4K UHD. Edit: jump cut to four years later, and I quite like the UHDs of Dredd and Kick-Ass!

Crank itself is not UHD visual demo material in any way, shape or form. It loses a bunch of detail vs the BD. And if it's the last filmout transfer I ever see then I won't be sorry. But in this ONE case the cock-eyed way that Lionsgate produces some of their UHD transfers has resulted in something that is at least giving a very different 'feel' to the imagery. One version looks VERY digital, the other looks VERY filmic. Pick your poison...just don't inject it into Chev's neck!

[Sky_Captain]

I liked it, mainly because the usage of a filmout for transfer counteracts that harshly digital 'shot on a camcorder look', toning down the rampant sharpness and giving it some texture via the light layer of grain.

This.

[LegacyCosts]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Crank itself is not UHD visual demo material in any way, shape or form. It loses a bunch of detail vs the BD. And if it's the last filmout transfer I ever see then I won't be sorry. But in this ONE case the cock-eyed way that Lionsgate produces some of their UHD transfers has resulted in something that is at least giving a very different 'feel' to the imagery. One version looks VERY digital, the other looks VERY filmic. Pick your poison...just don't inject it into Chev's neck!

Almost always will choose filmic unless were talking Michael Mann or some other freakish outlier. Great insight like usual, I couldn't resist and I bought it yesterday. I don't like the lead's other franchises or films very much, transporter, death race etc but for a guy who struggles with low energy CRANK is a nice shot of adrenaline I like to indulge in. I kind of miss amy smart, what a fox.

Update: Watched it tonight, Geoff is right on the money. Looks completley different than I remember but in a good way. I have no clue why this got a 4k release but I'm grateful, I loved revisiting this trashy film.

[Agent Kay]

Originally Posted by Sky_Captain

This.

So what I said then

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Agent Kay

So what I said then

[4Dblu]

watched this thought the PQ was a little dark but mostly PQ was good.

[DVD Josh]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

You know when people compare something and they say it's "not better, but it's different"? That's Crank's UHD right there. Yes, it loses quite a bit of detail vs the BD. The expansion of the dynamic range at the upper end is minimal, at the lower end the gamma is considerably higher than the BD so it crushes shadow detail. Colour is much of a muchness, for while the movie has this kinetic visual style they didn't opt for a supremely whacked out colour grading to begin with and the UHD doesn't do much to upset that apple cart. Oh, and those horizontal lines (visible in some caps) stay there for like 20 minutes of the movie, I suspect that one of the reels wasn't filmed out too good.

So....did I like it or not? I liked it, mainly because the usage of a filmout for transfer counteracts that harshly digital 'shot on a camcorder look', toning down the rampant sharpness and giving it some texture via the light layer of grain. Some would say that that was the whole point of shooting it on cheapy digital like that, to give it that sharp 'you are there' sense of immediacy, and yet it doesn't lose any of its inherent craziness. It's also worth mentioning that the 35mm prints we'd have seen in theaters in 2006 would have been FAR closer to the UHD than the BD, what with the softened detail and very high gamma, creating a very contrasty image. It's even got a bit of telecine wobble as well, just to add to the printy-fresh flavour.

Something I noticed with this and with other LG filmout transfers is the dirt, not just white specks from the negative but black specks too - which means that these transfers aren't even being done from the "original" filmout negative, they're being done from an interpositive that's been contact printed from that filmout neg. With smaller movies like this they simply couldn't afford to record out multiple digital negatives (say, $50K each) for creating theatrical prints from, so they did one or two then took them through the traditional IP -> IN stages, using the INs to run off the prints as per the norm.

"Okay then, so you liked it. Why don't you like Dredd or Kick-Ass or the other LG filmouts?"

Why, that's a great question Timmy! The thing about Dredd is that it looks like boiled shit no matter how its viewed, but there's an undeniable 'pop' to the colour on the 3D version that's simply not there on the UHD, which looks even duller than the proper 2D 1080p transfer on the French BD. Without that then even the added texture via the filmout doesn't amount to much because some of the source material is just soooo badly shot. As for Kick-Ass, it was shot on film so the filmout transfer adds nothing in that respect, there's no screamingly 'digital' look there to start with that the filmout is toning down, and it's another movie that looks so bad anyway (Vaughn even laments the DI on the commentary IIRC) that filmout or not it's just not a great advert for 4K UHD.

Crank itself is not UHD visual demo material in any way, shape or form. It loses a bunch of detail vs the BD. And if it's the last filmout transfer I ever see then I won't be sorry. But in this ONE case the cock-eyed way that Lionsgate produces some of their UHD transfers has resulted in something that is at least giving a very different 'feel' to the imagery. One version looks VERY digital, the other looks VERY filmic. Pick your poison...just don't inject it into Chev's neck!

Reading this I think I'll just keep my BD. I had strong doubts UHD would do much for this title anyway.

[Geoff D]

Yeah, it's a "pick 'em" fight for sure. Go with what you like.

[ApeRyan10]

I always loved Crank and I did finally pop in the 4k disc. It isn't leaps and bounds but it does look nice on 4k. Some nice details in faces, clothing, buildings, cars etc, HDR gives the presentation a natural side but there is a few things that will pop, The Atmos was the best part of the movie. For $14 bucks it was a no brainer. Now we need Crank 2.

[andreasy969]

I received mine today, took a very brief look and have some thoughts as well.

In general, I think I prefer the look of the UHD despite its flaws, which is extremely subjective though (and yes, I'm well aware of the fact that the BD is truer to the source). Both look like crap. The main issue I have with the UHD are the crushed blacks, not the loss of detail.

I also took a look at the odd lines introduced by the UHD, which I mentioned before re. caps. The UHD has those not only in this shot, but throughout (#3 and #4 and less pronounced examples being #5 and #6) and I don't really think they do belong there. Then again, I see a glimpse of it with #5 and #6 on the BD as well, so don't know...

EDIT: Initially skipped over the part of Geoff's review where he mentioned them as well. So yes, they are there for quite some time.

#1 and #2 are there to show that the HDR actually does nothing here detail wise - it actually reduces the highlight detail.

tl/tr: I think the release is utter crap, but I will still look both and had to see it for myself (especially since I didn't own the TC yet).

BD (upscaled) | UHD (100 nits)

1. (#3 279 nits)

2. (#3 406 nits)

3.

4.

5.

6.

[KilljoyEX]

$9.99 at Best Buy right now. Going to pick this up.

[Zoland2020]

Just snagged this from Amazon for $9.99 earlier this mourning!

[Eschenpod]

Originally Posted by Zoland2020

Just snagged this from Amazon for $9.99 earlier this mourning!

Me too and my copy arrived today. Sampled various scenes and overall this disc looks pretty damn good to me and definitely better than the regular blu.

[Leonidas King]

Originally Posted by Eschenpod

Me too and my copy arrived today. Sampled various scenes and overall this disc looks pretty damn good to me and definitely better than the regular blu.

Did you get a slip with it? Mine arrives tomorrow.

[Eschenpod]

Yep, with slip.

[StingingVelvet]

This is tempting at $10 but I feel like the ugly aesthetic of the BD fits the movie better, judging by caps-a-holic.

[thediscman]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

This is tempting at $10 but I feel like the ugly aesthetic of the BD fits the movie better, judging by caps-a-holic.

YMMV, but now that I have the UHD, I'll never watch the BD again.

[levcore]

Originally Posted by thediscman

YMMV, but now that I have the UHD, I'll never watch the BD again.

Well to be fair why would you?

[Leonidas King]

This may not be the best DV demo material but it was certainly a decent looking one given the source material of the film. Lionsgate continues to do great transfers.

[SRJ1975]

Anyone want to purchase the digital Code for this ?