Best 4K Blu-ray Deals


Best Blu-ray Movie Deals, See All the Deals »
Top deals | New deals  
 All countries United States United Kingdom Canada Germany France Spain Italy Australia Netherlands Japan Mexico
The Transformers: The Movie 4K (Blu-ray)
$21.99
2 hrs ago
Indiana Jones: 4-Movie Collection 4K (Blu-ray)
$74.94
 
The Lord of the Rings: The Motion Picture Trilogy 4K (Blu-ray)
$70.96
2 hrs ago
First Man 4K (Blu-ray)
$7.95
6 hrs ago
Godzilla vs. Kong 4K (Blu-ray)
$29.96
 
Stand by Me 4K (Blu-ray)
$14.99
1 day ago
Smokey and the Bandit 4K (Blu-ray)
$17.99
 
The Goonies 4K Gift Set (Blu-ray)
$42.50
5 hrs ago
Chernobyl 4K (Blu-ray)
$26.99
 
Dune 4K (Blu-ray)
$43.99
 
Rambo III 4K (Blu-ray)
$7.50
 
The Karate Kid 4K (Blu-ray)
$14.99
1 day ago
What's your next favorite movie?
Join our movie community to find out


Image from: Life of Pi (2012)

Go Back   Blu-ray Forum > Ultra HD Blu-ray and 4K > Ultra HD Blu-ray and 4K Movies

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-09-2021, 04:40 PM   #361
ToEhrIsHuman ToEhrIsHuman is offline
Expert Member
 
ToEhrIsHuman's Avatar
 
Jun 2007
San Diego, CA USA
290
828
2
Default

Maybe you shouldn't be sitting so close to the screen.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2021, 04:41 PM   #362
JEArgumedo JEArgumedo is offline
Senior Member
 
Sep 2013
1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fendergopher View Post
There's no way you could recreate the increased chroma resolution using off-the-shelf software.
It's a 4:1:1 master, there's not much chroma resolution to begin with.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2021, 05:03 PM   #363
JEArgumedo JEArgumedo is offline
Senior Member
 
Sep 2013
1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cleeve View Post
Youíre going to lose detail if you use a post-processing anti aliasing solution. It is what it is. Itís a product of itís time, no need to ďupdateĒ it.
I get that, but we have really advanced AA these days, and I'm not asking for a real-time AA filter to be slapped on and call it a day. Shrek is in the National Film Registry as of this year, I feel like this should be presented better than an upscale and a "fake" HDR pass that I could have made myself if I had a copy of the Blu-ray. I mean, older Pixar films like "A Bug's Life" and "Toy Story" look better in 4K than Shrek. I don't think I'm asking for too much.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2021, 07:09 PM   #364
samlop10 samlop10 is offline
Blu-ray Guru
 
samlop10's Avatar
 
Dec 2010
Denver, CO
53
349
1852
9
56
1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JEArgumedo View Post
I get that, but we have really advanced AA these days, and I'm not asking for a real-time AA filter to be slapped on and call it a day. Shrek is in the National Film Registry as of this year, I feel like this should be presented better than an upscale and a "fake" HDR pass that I could have made myself if I had a copy of the Blu-ray. I mean, older Pixar films like "A Bug's Life" and "Toy Story" look better in 4K than Shrek. I don't think I'm asking for too much.
A Bug’s Life had twice the budget of Shrek, and if I remember correctly, Pixar re-rendered Toy Story for the 3D cinema re-release, then used that re-render for the 4K. Shrek had a smaller budget and it never got re-rendered. And I’m sure Dreamworks did not consider re-rendering it in a higher res since the profit margins of home video are way smaller than theater ones. Hence why the box office is looked at way more critically than home media.

Basically, it wouldn’t make sense financially for Shrek to get re-rendered.

As far as AA filters go, they’d still take away fine detail no matter how advanced they are. I’ve yet to see an AA filter work well enough that it doesn’t take away fine detail.

And if we’re talking about HDR being fake, then all films prior to like 2015 have fake HDR. None of them were made with home-video as the primary form of exhibition. But then people don’t watch their films with actual cinema equipment. And even if they have a cinema environment, the projector won’t be an actual cinema projector anyway. The point of HDR/WCG is that it can render the higher gradations of film, as well as the wider color, for a home environment, not a theater environment.

That’s what you’re getting with the 4K disc of Shrek. Less compromise in colors and gradations, as well as a bump in clarity even if it makes the limitations of its time more apparent. I’d rather have that than-a-softer-than-the-standard-blu-ray image. If anything, I’m glad Dreamworks/Universal respected the source, instead of applying a filter, while providing an upgrade in pretty much everything despite the age of the film. The only way to avoid the aliasing without compromising fine detail would have been to re-render the whole film. And again, for a 4K home video release that doesn’t make sense financially.

Please don’t give studios any ideas about applying filters to these kinds of films. They do it enough already with other films when it’s absolutely not necessary.
  Reply With Quote
Thanks given by:
AndyMT (05-09-2021), bleakassassin (05-12-2021), brainofj72 (05-10-2021), DAT_JB (05-10-2021), daycity (05-10-2021), Geoff D (05-10-2021), gkolb (05-09-2021), IXOYE1989 (05-10-2021), JEArgumedo (05-09-2021), JG7 (05-09-2021), Misioon_Odisea (05-10-2021), professorwho (05-10-2021), reanimator (05-09-2021), SpazeBlue (05-09-2021), StrayButler91 (05-10-2021), tama (05-09-2021), TheDarkBlueNight (05-10-2021), Wes_k089 (05-10-2021), woodley56 (05-10-2021), ZeeCobra (05-11-2021)
Old 05-09-2021, 08:22 PM   #365
JEArgumedo JEArgumedo is offline
Senior Member
 
Sep 2013
1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by samlop10 View Post
A Bug’s Life had twice the budget of Shrek, and if I remember correctly, Pixar re-rendered Toy Story for the 3D cinema re-release, then used that re-render for the 4K. Shrek had a smaller budget and it never got re-rendered. And I’m sure Dreamworks did not consider re-rendering it in a higher res since the profit margins of home video are way smaller than theater ones. Hence why the box office is looked at way more critically than home media.

Basically, it wouldn’t make sense financially for Shrek to get re-rendered.
I understand the finances of re-rendering, and not every film is going to get the Pixar treatment of getting re-rendered to 2K (aka, everything before Cars). I get the argument of just upscaling it as is and not messing with the source but this feels like one of those cases where a little more should have been done. Shrek isn't exactly an unpopular film and probably the streaming license alone would have covered production costs on doing something like re-rendering (assuming the software and assets were properly archived).

Quote:
Originally Posted by samlop10 View Post
As far as AA filters go, they’d still take away fine detail no matter how advanced they are. I’ve yet to see an AA filter work well enough that it doesn’t take away fine detail.
I don't know if the few fine detail's we'd lose is worth keeping all those sharp jagged edges that might shimmer across the screen (haven't seen the movie in motion yet)

Quote:
Originally Posted by samlop10 View Post
And if we’re talking about HDR being fake, then all films prior to like 2015 have fake HDR. None of them were made with home-video as the primary form of exhibition. But then people don’t watch their films with actual cinema equipment. And even if they have a cinema environment, the projector won’t be an actual cinema projector anyway. The point of HDR/WCG is that it can render the higher gradations of film, as well as the wider color, for a home environment, not a theater environment.
Well, hold up here, to get an HDR picture you need to capture or render your footage at a minimum of 10-bit color with 4:2:2 chroma subsampling in a wider color gamut than Rec. 709/sRGB, and it's been confirmed that Shrek has an 8-bit 4:1:1 master. Film scans have been done at 16-bit color with no subsampling for a few decades now and digital cameras going back as far as the Collateral and Revenge Of The Sith shoot in at least 10-bit color (with Arri and RED releasing cameras that can 12 and 16-bit later on). If they're not going back to re-render the film, which it's clear they didn't, they have to "fake" an HDR picture here. The only thing we don't know for sure is the color gamut it was done in, but my guess is maybe sRGB, since DCI-P3 wasn't a thing until the mid-to-late 2000's. I'm hesitant to use the word "fake" HDR since it brings up that whole thing with Vincent Teoh that I bluntly don't agree with, but in this case, the studio must be basically artificially adding color and brightness because it doesn't exist in the source. I don't have a problem with taking a swing at making a SDR picture into an HDR one if done well, but there's nothing in the master source that an SDR Blu-ray couldn't replicate already. EDIT: Rec. 709, not sRBG was the color gamut. Jonathon Gibbs confirmed it on Twitter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by samlop10 View Post
That’s what you’re getting with the 4K disc of Shrek. Less compromise in colors and gradations, as well as a bump in clarity even if it makes the limitations of its time more apparent. I’d rather have that than-a-softer-than-the-standard-blu-ray image. If anything, I’m glad Dreamworks/Universal respected the source, instead of applying a filter, while providing an upgrade in pretty much everything despite the age of the film. The only way to avoid the aliasing without compromising fine detail would have been to re-render the whole film. And again, for a 4K home video release that doesn’t make sense financially.

Please don’t give studios any ideas about applying filters to these kinds of films. They do it enough already with other films when it’s absolutely not necessary.
I don't think the approach they've taken is necessarily wrong, it's an old CG movie, let it be an old CG movie. I get it, I do. I do think that with some proper care, even if we're starting from that old JPEG sequence, there's some work that could have been done to make the film look much better than this.

Last edited by JEArgumedo; 05-10-2021 at 03:43 AM. Reason: EDIT: Rec. 709, not sRBG was the color gamut. Jonathon Gibbs confirmed it on Twitter.
  Reply With Quote
Thanks given by:
professorwho (05-10-2021)
Old 05-09-2021, 08:30 PM   #366
Poya Poya is offline
Blu-ray Ninja
 
Poya's Avatar
 
Jun 2011
North Hollywood, CA
1
9
Default

We should start a GoFundMe to beg DreamWorks to re-render Shrek.

Last edited by Poya; 05-10-2021 at 07:40 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Thanks given by:
professorwho (05-10-2021), Wes_k089 (05-10-2021)
Old 05-10-2021, 01:35 AM   #367
samlop10 samlop10 is offline
Blu-ray Guru
 
samlop10's Avatar
 
Dec 2010
Denver, CO
53
349
1852
9
56
1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JEArgumedo View Post
I understand the finances of re-rendering, and not every film is going to get the Pixar treatment of getting re-rendered to 2K (aka, everything before Cars). I get the argument of just upscaling it as is and not messing with the source but this feels like one of those cases where a little more should have been done. Shrek isn't exactly an unpopular film and probably the streaming license alone would have covered production costs on doing something like re-rendering (assuming the software and assets were properly archived).
Not necessarily. Rendering something is actually quite expensive. It requires a lot of computer power for long periods of time. Even though Shrek is popular I don’t think any licensing would make up for the re-rendering expenses, especially at higher resolutions. There’s a reason why CGI films have yet to get rendered at 4K res, even when they’re brand new films. Re-rendering older films without a wide release (even at just 2K) isn’t financially viable.

Quote:
I don't know if the few fine detail's we'd lose is worth keeping all those sharp jagged edges that might shimmer across the screen (haven't seen the movie in motion yet)
Guess that’s a matter of taste and awareness. It’s mild for the most part, even on my 77” display it wasn’t enough to annoy me.

Quote:
Well, hold up here, to get an HDR picture you need to capture or render your footage at a minimum of 10-bit color with 4:2:2 chroma subsampling in a wider color gamut than Rec. 709/sRGB, and it's been confirmed that Shrek has an 8-bit 4:1:1 master. Film scans have been done at 16-bit color with no subsampling for a few decades now and digital cameras going back as far as the Collateral and Revenge Of The Sith shoot in at least 10-bit color (with Arri and RED releasing cameras that can 12 and 16-bit later on). If they're not going back to re-render the film, which it's clear they didn't, they have to "fake" an HDR picture here. The only thing we don't know for sure is the color gamut it was done in, but my guess is maybe sRGB, since DCI-P3 wasn't a thing until the mid-to-late 2000's. I'm hesitant to use the word "fake" HDR since it brings up that whole thing with Vincent Teoh that I bluntly don't agree with, but in this case, the studio must be basically artificially adding color and brightness because it doesn't exist in the source. I don't have a problem with taking a swing at making a SDR picture into an HDR one if done well, but there's nothing in the master source that an SDR Blu-ray couldn't replicate already.
Technically, you can get away with more ‘gradations’ with dithering. You can expand the range using it. Not sure if they used that when they rendered Shrek. Regardless, the HDR here looks very natural and never forced. There’s no banding despite the 8 bit source either. The range definitely looks more natural on the 4K.

Quote:
I don't think the approach they've taken is necessarily wrong, it's an old CG movie, let it be an old CG movie. I get it, I do. I do think that with some proper care, even if we're starting from that old JPEG sequence, there's some work that could have been done to make the film look much better than this.
Eh, maybe. But again, not without making it financially unfeasible.
  Reply With Quote
Thanks given by:
Misioon_Odisea (05-10-2021)
Old 05-10-2021, 01:55 AM   #368
tehill tehill is offline
Special Member
 
tehill's Avatar
 
Jan 2010
1
Default

I only have Shrek on 3D so Iíll probably pick this up.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2021, 02:16 AM   #369
JEArgumedo JEArgumedo is offline
Senior Member
 
Sep 2013
1
Default

I noticed my copy on iTunes upgraded to the 4K version. Gave it a watch and it is shimmer city. Shrek's shirt, Donkey's fur, Fiona's hair, and nearly everything else just shimmers across the frame, especially when the camera moves. It's really distracting to me, I think it could have been reduced without re-rendering the film while at the same time keeping more detail intact than the Blu-ray.

As for HDR, it's a respectful grade, but there's nothing there that one could not make themselves with a Blu-ray, a copy of Final Cut Pro or Davinci Resolve to do the "HDR" grade, a copy of Topaz Video Enhance AI to upscale it, and some free time.

I mean, if this was Antz, I think this would be acceptable, but for Shrek, I really wish a little more effort was put into a film that is pretty culturally influential. It's not a bad way to watch the film but I can't help but wish for more on this one.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2021, 02:17 AM   #370
Geoff D Geoff D is online now
Blu-ray King
 
Geoff D's Avatar
 
Feb 2009
Swanage, Engerland
698
2023
5
30
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JEArgumedo View Post
I understand the finances of re-rendering, and not every film is going to get the Pixar treatment of getting re-rendered to 2K (aka, everything before Cars). I get the argument of just upscaling it as is and not messing with the source but this feels like one of those cases where a little more should have been done. Shrek isn't exactly an unpopular film and probably the streaming license alone would have covered production costs on doing something like re-rendering (assuming the software and assets were properly archived).



I don't know if the few fine detail's we'd lose is worth keeping all those sharp jagged edges that might shimmer across the screen (haven't seen the movie in motion yet)



Well, hold up here, to get an HDR picture you need to capture or render your footage at a minimum of 10-bit color with 4:2:2 chroma subsampling in a wider color gamut than Rec. 709/sRGB, and it's been confirmed that Shrek has an 8-bit 4:1:1 master. Film scans have been done at 16-bit color with no subsampling for a few decades now and digital cameras going back as far as the Collateral and Revenge Of The Sith shoot in at least 10-bit color (with Arri and RED releasing cameras that can 12 and 16-bit later on). If they're not going back to re-render the film, which it's clear they didn't, they have to "fake" an HDR picture here. The only thing we don't know for sure is the color gamut it was done in, but my guess is maybe sRGB, since DCI-P3 wasn't a thing until the mid-to-late 2000's. I'm hesitant to use the word "fake" HDR since it brings up that whole thing with Vincent Teoh that I bluntly don't agree with, but in this case, the studio must be basically artificially adding color and brightness because it doesn't exist in the source. I don't have a problem with taking a swing at making a SDR picture into an HDR one if done well, but there's nothing in the master source that an SDR Blu-ray couldn't replicate already.



I don't think the approach they've taken is necessarily wrong, it's an old CG movie, let it be an old CG movie. I get it, I do. I do think that with some proper care, even if we're starting from that old JPEG sequence, there's some work that could have been done to make the film look much better than this.
Meh. Given that the final result is encoded in 4:2:0 onto disc anyway then I don’t think the chroma subsampling rate matters at all when it comes to HDR. Range is independent from chroma resolution, and it’s a myth that you need WCG for it as well. We experience HDR intertwined with WCG because that’s literally how the Perceptual Quantizer EOTF works with its 10k nit 2020 container, granted, but if one were to encode an HDR image with a 709 gamut you’d still get the benefit of greatly increased colour volume.

And while it’s true that an 8-bit source is pushing it when it comes to being able to capture a ‘high’ dynamic range, who’s to say that the image mastered to the current Blu-ray is a bit-perfect representation of everything on that master? That’s the ultimate assumption that people have about SDR and Blu-ray and I’m not sure it’s actually true. Attack of the Clones was ultimately captured at 8-bit 3:1:1 on HDCAM and yet the HDR grade was able to turn this

BD



into this

UHD



(In fact it’s actually something of a drawback in several of those bright white Kaminoan interiors, it’s revealing a bit too much as Obi-wan now has some EE around him that wasn’t visible before, and in Jango's apartment the white walls now have some frozen grain schmutz here and there, all of it being revealed by the extra range.)

So if you haven’t actually seen what Shrek's UHD looks like in motion on your TV then I’d save the ‘what ifs’ until then. Same goes for the jaggies, the eye is generally more forgiving of them in motion and screen size/viewing distance will also play its part in how apparent they may be.
  Reply With Quote
Thanks given by:
bleakassassin (05-12-2021), DAT_JB (05-10-2021), IXOYE1989 (05-10-2021), JG7 (05-10-2021), Leonidas King (05-11-2021), Mr. Forest (05-11-2021), professorwho (05-10-2021), samlop10 (05-10-2021), StrayButler91 (05-10-2021), tama (05-10-2021), Wes_k089 (05-10-2021)
Old 05-10-2021, 02:30 AM   #371
JEArgumedo JEArgumedo is offline
Senior Member
 
Sep 2013
1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoff D View Post
So if you haven’t actually seen what Shrek's UHD looks like in motion on your TV then I’d save the ‘what ifs’ until then. Same goes for the jaggies, the eye is generally more forgiving of them in motion and screen size/viewing distance will also play its part in how apparent they may be.
Seen it now, stand by most of what I said. It's not a bad way to watch the film, but I think more could have and should have been done, and I'm not even suggesting re-rendering it.
  Reply With Quote
Thanks given by:
Geoff D (05-10-2021)
Old 05-10-2021, 02:33 AM   #372
Geoff D Geoff D is online now
Blu-ray King
 
Geoff D's Avatar
 
Feb 2009
Swanage, Engerland
698
2023
5
30
Default

What else did you want them to do, if not re-render? That’s not a snarky rhetorical question.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2021, 02:53 AM   #373
JEArgumedo JEArgumedo is offline
Senior Member
 
Sep 2013
1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoff D View Post
What else did you want them to do, if not re-render? Thatís not a snarky rhetorical question.
From the looks of it, the upscale they did is just a simple bicubic uprez, something you could just do in Premiere or Avid. Topaz Labs Video Enhance AI has an outstanding scaler in their model sets called Gaia, that does amazing work. There's even one called Gaia-CG meant for animation. It has a really good AA filter and keeps detail intact. I've taken stuff from SD into the HD realm using it and gotten really good results. Shrek is sub-2K, but more than 720p resolution. I feel like there's enough to work with there.

I mean, I could do this kind of upscale with a literal SD source containing CGI that's much more primitive than the kind that Shrek contains and there's no shimmering (granted Shrek also has much finer details throughout, but Shrek also has entire character models shimmer):

I would think a studio like Dreamworks or Universal would have access to better tools than something I can just grab off the shelf, but maybe they didn't want to mess with it and rather just leave it. I wish they would have re-rendered it to 2K like Pixar did with their catalog, but I completely understand why that wouldn't be in the cards necessarily for Shrek. I also don't think it needed to be like this. Who knows? Maybe they did try the method I suggested and it wasn't good enough, the only people who will actually know are the people who handled the source. Just as an outsider looking in, I can't help but think, "what if?"

Again, I'd like to reiterate, this isn't a completely unwatchable way to watch the film. Overall, I think this is a respectable transfer.
  Reply With Quote
Thanks given by:
Geoff D (05-10-2021)
Old 05-10-2021, 03:45 AM   #374
Geoff D Geoff D is online now
Blu-ray King
 
Geoff D's Avatar
 
Feb 2009
Swanage, Engerland
698
2023
5
30
Default

You’ve seen it, you’re not overly impressed, that’s good enough for me. Thanks. (But my points also still stand re: HDR origination.)
  Reply With Quote
Thanks given by:
JEArgumedo (05-10-2021)
Old 05-10-2021, 05:05 AM   #375
samlop10 samlop10 is offline
Blu-ray Guru
 
samlop10's Avatar
 
Dec 2010
Denver, CO
53
349
1852
9
56
1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JEArgumedo View Post
From the looks of it, the upscale they did is just a simple bicubic uprez, something you could just do in Premiere or Avid. Topaz Labs Video Enhance AI has an outstanding scaler in their model sets called Gaia, that does amazing work. There's even one called Gaia-CG meant for animation. It has a really good AA filter and keeps detail intact. I've taken stuff from SD into the HD realm using it and gotten really good results. Shrek is sub-2K, but more than 720p resolution. I feel like there's enough to work with there.

I mean, I could do this kind of upscale with a literal SD source containing CGI that's much more primitive than the kind that Shrek contains and there's no shimmering (granted Shrek also has much finer details throughout, but Shrek also has entire character models shimmer): Toonami Video Game Review - IGPX [Topaz Labs Video Enhance AI Upscale] - YouTube

I would think a studio like Dreamworks or Universal would have access to better tools than something I can just grab off the shelf, but maybe they didn't want to mess with it and rather just leave it. I wish they would have re-rendered it to 2K like Pixar did with their catalog, but I completely understand why that wouldn't be in the cards necessarily for Shrek. I also don't think it needed to be like this. Who knows? Maybe they did try the method I suggested and it wasn't good enough, the only people who will actually know are the people who handled the source. Just as an outsider looking in, I can't help but think, "what if?"

Again, I'd like to reiterate, this isn't a completely unwatchable way to watch the film. Overall, I think this is a respectable transfer.
I looked into those upscalers with AA filters you mentioned (like Gaia-CG), and going by the discussions in different forums, they boil down to the same problems upscalers have had since forever. They introduce artifacts because it’s impossible for a computer to tell what is real (is supposed to be part of the image), and what is a byproduct that was not meant to be there. Essentially ‘enhancing’ (making more visible) some objects that were never meant to be there. Or they ’fix’ the aliasing but take away fine detail. So they might smooth out the aliasing, but they either take away detail and avoid other artifacts, or they keep the detail while adding artifacts.

You just can’t add detail when it’s not there in the first place. You can add fake detail but not without other drawbacks. The only reason 2K masters usually upscale fine in 4K is because the jump between 2K and 4K to the naked human eye (and in motion) is minimal (hence why many of us think HDR/WCG are bigger upgrades than the resolution). Basically making 2K the ‘sweet spot’ to upscale. If any artifacts are introduced, they’re not very noticeable. Not to mention the fact you actually get the full chroma resolution from a 2K master on a 4K blu-ray due to how the compression codecs work. But going from something that is below 2K (closer to 720p), and upscaling it would have introduced that problem from above. You upscale to smooth out the aliasing but you either take away detail or you add fake detail and introduce artifacts, with the latter risking introducing even more aliasing in some objects. For AA the former seems to be more popular, but I’ve seen how that smooths over the image.

All in all, neither option is better than just maintaining the integrity of the source imo. Other than a full re-render, any filtering and/or upscaling with current tech is going to be a trade off no matter how advanced it is.

Edit: Some transfers used for 4K discs are not even upscaled to 4K when the source is lower than 4K. They leave the detail ‘as-is’ from the source and simply allow the higher compression to better render what is originally from the source. Essentially giving you more detail on 4K discs than 1080p discs thanks to the better compression even though the source is ‘only’ 2K, for example. That’s, I believe, basically what they did here even though the source is even lower than 2K. And imo, that was the better option as it does improve the picture in all aspects even if it reveals the age of its source more.

Last edited by samlop10; 05-10-2021 at 05:21 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Thanks given by:
bleakassassin (05-12-2021), SpazeBlue (05-10-2021)
Old 05-10-2021, 06:53 AM   #376
Poya Poya is offline
Blu-ray Ninja
 
Poya's Avatar
 
Jun 2011
North Hollywood, CA
1
9
Default

Even if they did a full-rerender, you're gonna get purists cry over "revisionism" so lose-lose.
  Reply With Quote
Thanks given by:
Misioon_Odisea (05-10-2021)
Old 05-10-2021, 07:26 AM   #377
DiccalfEgnaro DiccalfEgnaro is offline
Member
 
Oct 2017
3
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Poya View Post
We to start a GoFundMe to beg DreamWorks to re-render Shrek.
I'm sure if we ask nicely enough they'll drop several million dollars to re-render it
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2021, 08:03 AM   #378
Vashetti Vashetti is online now
Special Member
 
Vashetti's Avatar
 
Nov 2010
Wales, United Kingdom
34
140
3
10
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by samlop10 View Post
Not necessarily. Rendering something is actually quite expensive. It requires a lot of computer power for long periods of time. Even though Shrek is popular I donít think any licensing would make up for the re-rendering expenses, especially at higher resolutions. Thereís a reason why CGI films have yet to get rendered at 4K res, even when theyíre brand new films. Re-rendering older films without a wide release (even at just 2K) isnít financially viable.
All of Pixar's stuff from Toy Story 4 on is native 4K.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2021, 04:36 PM   #379
samlop10 samlop10 is offline
Blu-ray Guru
 
samlop10's Avatar
 
Dec 2010
Denver, CO
53
349
1852
9
56
1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vashetti View Post
All of Pixar's stuff from Toy Story 4 on is native 4K.
Do you have a source for that? It seems thereís speculation it was rendered at higher than 2K, but not quite 4K either. But Iíve yet to see a source that specifies the actual exact resolution.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2021, 10:12 PM   #380
punisher punisher is offline
Blu-ray Ninja
 
punisher's Avatar
 
May 2010
MSG CHASE BRIDGE
2
179
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Poya View Post
We should start a GoFundMe to beg DreamWorks to re-render Shrek.
there is one..when you buy this disc you are contributing to next/ better release
  Reply With Quote
Reply
Go Back   Blu-ray Forum > Ultra HD Blu-ray and 4K > Ultra HD Blu-ray and 4K Movies


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:43 PM.