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

[TDSOTM]

Originally Posted by GenPion

This is all all besides the point in regards to the 4K release of Spider-Man 2. Sony likely did not save the materials for Spider-Man 2.1 where it even COULD be transferred as a 4K release.

This is absurd.

Originally Posted by GenPion

The extended cut was probably edited together using inferior methods which would prevent a 4K scan from being possible.

There's no such thing as "inferior methods".

Originally Posted by GenPion

The materials for the extended cut were likely edited post production.

Everything was edited in post-production.

There's no such thing as "the materials for the extended cut". The entire footage was shot on 35mm film which can be easily scanned at 4K. Why Sony didn't do this is a different topic.

[Bolty]

Originally Posted by TDSOTM

This is absurd.


There's no such thing as "inferior methods".


Everything was edited in post-production.

There's no such thing as "the materials for the extended cut". The entire footage was shot on 35mm film which can be easily scanned at 4K. Why Sony didn't do this is a different topic.

So true.

Making up/assuming all that BS rather than just admit they should have included both cuts while still bashing 2.1 as in some way illegitimate.

Isn't including all the available cuts something we can agree on rather than just using the lack of same as a reason to tout your preferred version. That's lame.

[The Fallen Deity]

Surely if both cuts were done through seamless branching, the bitrate wouldn't have been that badly affected.

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by Bolty

So true.

Making up/assuming all that BS rather than just admit they should have included both cuts while still bashing 2.1 as in some way illegitimate.

Isn't including all the available cuts something we can agree on rather than just using the lack of same as a reason to tout your preferred version. That's lame.

It is, it was marketing and that is it. How to sell to people who already had the original disc
No Rami no legitimacy

[TDSOTM]

The theatrical version was done by editing out some scenes from 2.1 if I'm not mistaken i.e. 2.1 was done before the threatrical version. I could be wrong.

Originally Posted by dvdmike

It is, it was marketing and that is it. How to sell to people who already had the original disc
No Rami no legitimacy

Huh? 2.0 and 2.1 were released at the same time on Blu. They could've released both films on separate discs and cash in extra money, but they didn't.

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by TDSOTM

The theatrical version was done by editing out some scenes from 2.1 if I'm not mistaken.

Nope these were mostly alternate takes added back in, Rami had final cut his choices were made.
And seriously as it obviously needs to be said again.
This line is not about extras, not about extended cuts, deleted scenes it is about the original cuts with the best quality master re-transferred well.
If that is not what you are looking for, these are no the discs for you.

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by TDSOTM

The theatrical version was done by editing out some scenes from 2.1 if I'm not mistaken i.e. 2.1 was done before the threatrical version. I could be wrong.



Huh? 2.0 and 2.1 were released at the same time on Blu. They could've releases both films on separate discs and cash in extra money, but they didn't.

Not on dvd, where 2.1 premiered

[GenPion]

Originally Posted by TDSOTM

There's no such thing as "inferior methods". Everything was edited in post-production. There's no such thing as "the materials for the extended cut". The entire footage was shot on 35mm film which can be easily scanned at 4K. Why Sony didn't do this is a different topic.

Yes, everything is edited in post-production. That was not a good choice of words. What I meant was that everything added back in for 2.1 was added after the best methods were already utilized to make Spider-Man 2.

What was shot on film doesn't mean it was edited using the best means possible, in regards to 2.1's creation.

Inferior methods = editing the deleted footage from the film back into it using software tools not designed for presenting film on film even with the footage being filmed in 35mm. A lot of deleted scenes are materials never finished for the theatrical release. Hence, deleted. So when they do an extended cut it requires re-inserting the footage, making video/audio tweaks, etc. Editing the materials with certain programs or computers won't necessarily output with the same level of detail available and Sony probably didn't bother to save the materials used for 2.1 in the same exact quality.

They probably could have but I doubt the studio actually did. It sort of reminds me of how many older television shows are filmed on FILM then edited on videotape. Or are done all on film, but special effects are done with lower output resolution tools.

[Bolty]

Yeah, I remember everybody remarking how the FX in the 2.1 sequences were inferior when it came to BLU-RAY

[GenPion]

Originally Posted by TDSOTM

The theatrical version was done by editing out some scenes from 2.1 if I'm not mistaken i.e. 2.1 was done before the threatrical version. I could be wrong.



Huh? 2.0 and 2.1 were released at the same time on Blu. They could've released both films on separate discs and cash in extra money, but they didn't.

2.1 was created after Spider-Man 2. They used deleted footage ("unfinished footage") and did additional work on that footage to add some scenes back.

The work done for 2.1 was done specifically with DVD in mind.

[GenPion]

Originally Posted by Bolty

They did finish the FX for the added in sequences--that was mentioned at the time of the 2.1 DD release

Yes, but these effects were completed after work was done for Spider-Man 2. This was work done for the Spider-Man 2.1 DVD release. And they likely didn't use the same equipment/programs to finish the effects, etc. because at the time it was just planned for DVD.

It's actually quite impressive that it got a decent Blu-ray upgrade in the first place. But what I have been trying to say is that I doubt they preserved the materials in such a way as to easily create a 4K scan, where the previously deleted materials would actually show the same level of improvement.

[Bolty]

Originally Posted by GenPion

2.1 was created after Spider-Man 2. They used deleted footage ("unfinished footage") and did additional work on that footage to add some scenes back.

The work done for 2.1 was done specifically with DVD in mind.

True, in 2008 they had no idea HD was on the horizon!

[GenPion]

Originally Posted by Bolty

True, in 2008 they had no idea HD was on the horizon!

Clearly, they did. Hence a decent upgrade for the first Blu-ray.

But it doesn't mean the material was preserved in a way that a 4K scan would have benefited it.

[Bolty]

We need more people apologizing for and theorizing why Sony couldn't give us the 2.1 in this edition and we need more folks saying that it's a bogus desire as it is an illegitimate version. That's what the world has just too little of.

Yeah "most cut footage from 2007 movies have been lost and can't be easily located"---that's my favorite excuse every time we don't get deleted scenes or multiple versions of catlogue titles.

[GenPion]

They could have given us both versions on one disc, but the 2.1 edit would probably have contained scenes not mastered in 4K.

They also could give us additional bonus materials but they have decided not to do so even though there is empty space on the discs.

I think the reason no extended cuts are included has more to do with the source, but I could be wrong. I already have the Spider-Man 2 Blu-ray with 2.1 included so I'm OK it just contains the theatrical version, which is Raimi's director's cut. So I still have both versions on Blu-ray.

I kept the DVD's too because I wanted to keep the bonus features. The reason bonus materials were left off seems simple: Sony wants these to seem like Super-Bit DVD's, which never had bonus materials (besides commentaries). And they can get fans to purchase multiple editions if they want complete editions. It's annoying, but that is Sony's release pattern on home media for a long time.

[Bolty]

Originally Posted by GenPion

They could have given us both versions on one disc, but the 2.1 edit would probably have contained scenes not mastered in 4K.

They also could give us additional bonus materials but they have decided not to do so even though there is empty space on the discs.

I think the reason no extended cuts are included has more to do with the source, but I could be wrong. I already have the Spider-Man 2 Blu-ray with 2.1 included so I'm OK it just contains the theatrical version, which is Raimi's director's cut. So I still have both versions on Blu-ray.

I kept the DVD's too because I wanted to keep the bonus features. The reason bonus materials were left off seems simple: Sony wants these to seem like Super-Bit DVD's, which never had bonus materials (besides commentaries). And they can get fans to purchase multiple editions if they want complete editions. It's annoying, but that is Sony's release pattern on home media for a long time.

I wonder if it's possible that they could have included both cuts and on the back said--- *"footage from extended cut NOT remastered in 4k"

That's truth in packaging and gives the fans who want both 4k and the extended cut choice and notice of the situation.

I would have bought it.

That's what the Star Trek Next Gen Blu-rays do ---- even down to mentioning *2 seconds from episode ______ are upscaled to 1080p.

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by Bolty

I wonder if it's possible that they could have included both cuts and on the back said--- *"footage from extended cut NOT remastered in 4k"

That's truth in packaging and gives the fans who want both 4k and the extended cut choice and notice of the situation.

I would have bought it.

That's what the Star Trek Next Gen Blu-rays do ---- even down to mentioning *2 seconds from episode ______ are upscaled to 1080p.

These discs have 4k masters, you want the 2.1 stuff buy the old disc.
There is not 35mm version of 2.1 to scan at 4k these are 4k master discs.
These are 4k master discs, these discs have 4k masters.

[gotexas872]

Originally Posted by Pieter V

Spider-Man 2 4K vs regular Blu-ray:

http://www.caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergl...D=1812#auswahl

Did they get the screen caps reversed? The old transfer has more detail than the new one. The pink tint in the old transfer is also a little discouraging.

Nevermind. After looking at all the screen caps thoroughly, I find the comparison to be a mixed bag of results. Some look better in the new transfer while others look better in the old transfer. Although, better is one's own personal taste.

[tylergfoster]

I don't think it would've been complicated for Sony to add 2.1. I just found it surprising anyone cared about 2.1. Raimi pretty much dismissed it and I didn't really see any fanfare when it came out. That's not a judgment on anyone who does like it, like Bolty. It's just that Spider-Man 2 is routinely hailed as one of the better superhero movies and I've never read anyone bringing up 2.1 until now.

It may not be an "illegitimate" cut, but there's something to be said about the director's lack of interest or investment in it beyond a curiosity piece because the studio pushed him to do it.

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by gotexas872

Did they get the screen caps reversed? The old transfer has more detail than the new one. The pink tint in the old transfer is also a little discouraging.

Nevermind. After looking at all the screen caps thoroughly, I find the comparison to be a mixed bag of results. Some look better in the new transfer while others look better in the old transfer. Although, better is one's own personal taste.

Shaprening is not detail