logo Sign In

Harmy's RETURN OF THE JEDI Despecialized Edition HD - V3.1 — Page 124

Author
Time
 (Edited)

I don’t know enough about it but perhaps it’s a bad grade but the fact that it’s HDR has little to do with it being good or bad.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

CatBus said:

With SD to HD, the biggest difference to me was the reduction in compression artifacts (many of the initial HD sources were just recycled SD masters, so the difference in detail wasn’t as big as it could have been on a lot of titles, yet they were still distinctly better). From what I’ve seen of 4K (streaming demos), the difference in the demos seems almost entirely due to a better-quality 4K stream–possibly due to better compression, fewer artifacts, etc, but also quite likely due to higher bitrates too. Maybe there’s something perceptible in the resolution itself, but there’s so much apples-to-oranges in the comparisons I’ve seen (e.g. their 2K stream absolutely never has the same bitrate and encoding as their 4K stream) that I’m not sure I’ll ever know if I can see the difference on the resolution alone, under normal viewing circumstances.

I’m always skeptical of technology demos. They are specifically created to look as good as the technology possibly can. How many actual full length releases will stand up to that quality? Only time will tell.

That being said, the HDR demos at CES this year were fairly amazing (as was 8k). And I welcome the advances in compression technology (with reduction in artifacts) as well. I still have a couple of the original recalled Fifth Element BDs sitting around from the early days of Blu-ray.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

HDR on LED technology is what bothers me. Unless there’s 1:1 Pixel to LED ratio, you’re always going to struggle with abnormalities due to light bleed. Plasma was far better suited to HDR than LED, so it’s a shame to see it go. OLED seems promising but I’m hesitant to buy piggybacking new technologies.

My complaint with 4K Bluray (which was my complaint with Blu Ray in general) is that the push is resolution almost exclusively.

Most of the films being released on 4KBD were mastered in 2k. That means that all of that larger 100GB disc space and H265 compression efficiency is being wasted on an upscaled image. Blurays have consistently done that with older tv shows and especially anime - 1080p upscales of 480p material. I’d much rather see the bitrate that is being wasted on Pseudo Picture information piped into the best possible representation of the source.

Star Wars is going to be affected it a LOT due to image quality disparities between films -
Ep 1 was mastered at 2k, but has the potential to be remastered at higher quality if the original film sources are available.
Eps 2 and 3 are limited to their 2k masters, which themselves are upscales from 1080p digital sources.
Eps 4-6 have multiple masters, depending on which version is released. The original negatives have the potential to go even beyond 4k if they’re available in good enough condition - if not, Legacy has shown (well, hinted) that a 4k version is very attainable.
Sadly, we’re more likely to get Special Editions, which were scanned at 2k in the 90s, printed to a film negative, which were then rescanned at 4k in the early 2000’s.
Ep 7 (and presumably 8 and 9 will be) is already mastered at 4k.

With that in mind… everyone knows we’re going to get a 9 film, 4k Bluray Set.
And despite everything above… all 9 will be 4k, H265 encodes. So much wasted space on imaginary “extra detail” at the expense of the actual source material. Your average viewer wouldn’t even know that the film on the disc is only encoded at 2k, but I think there’s a good chance they would notice when watching that it had double the bits per pixel.

Preferred Saga:
1/2: Hal9000
3: L8wrtr
4/5: Adywan
6-9: Hal9000

Author
Time

ToasterBoy said:

Harmy said:

ToasterBoy said:

I know. But- not necessarily you, Harmy- a lot of fans will simply refuse to be satisfied and will always find something to bitch about. Lucasfilm refuses to release the originals- that’s something to get angry about. The colors for the TFA BD are slightly different from the theatrical version? People get angry. It’s the nature of nerds.

Sure but HDR has absolutely nothing to do with it.

People are bitching about the HDR grade on the 4K Blu-ray for Ghostbusters. It’s a sad truth.

Where at? I cant seem to find it.

What’s the internal temperature of a TaunTaun? Luke warm.

Author
Time

nightstalkerpoet said:

HDR on LED technology is what bothers me. Unless there’s 1:1 Pixel to LED ratio, you’re always going to struggle with abnormalities due to light bleed. Plasma was far better suited to HDR than LED, so it’s a shame to see it go. OLED seems promising but I’m hesitant to buy piggybacking new technologies.

My complaint with 4K Bluray (which was my complaint with Blu Ray in general) is that the push is resolution almost exclusively.

Most of the films being released on 4KBD were mastered in 2k. That means that all of that larger 100GB disc space and H265 compression efficiency is being wasted on an upscaled image. Blurays have consistently done that with older tv shows and especially anime - 1080p upscales of 480p material. I’d much rather see the bitrate that is being wasted on Pseudo Picture information piped into the best possible representation of the source.

Star Wars is going to be affected it a LOT due to image quality disparities between films -
Ep 1 was mastered at 2k, but has the potential to be remastered at higher quality if the original film sources are available.
Eps 2 and 3 are limited to their 2k masters, which themselves are upscales from 1080p digital sources.
Eps 4-6 have multiple masters, depending on which version is released. The original negatives have the potential to go even beyond 4k if they’re available in good enough condition - if not, Legacy has shown (well, hinted) that a 4k version is very attainable.
Sadly, we’re more likely to get Special Editions, which were scanned at 2k in the 90s, printed to a film negative, which were then rescanned at 4k in the early 2000’s.
Ep 7 (and presumably 8 and 9 will be) is already mastered at 4k.

With that in mind… everyone knows we’re going to get a 9 film, 4k Bluray Set.
And despite everything above… all 9 will be 4k, H265 encodes. So much wasted space on imaginary “extra detail” at the expense of the actual source material. Your average viewer wouldn’t even know that the film on the disc is only encoded at 2k, but I think there’s a good chance they would notice when watching that it had double the bits per pixel.

Source for the 2K and 4K scans info? AFAIK the original trilogy was scanned only in 1080p

Author
Time
 (Edited)

pittrek said:

nightstalkerpoet said:

HDR on LED technology is what bothers me. Unless there’s 1:1 Pixel to LED ratio, you’re always going to struggle with abnormalities due to light bleed. Plasma was far better suited to HDR than LED, so it’s a shame to see it go. OLED seems promising but I’m hesitant to buy piggybacking new technologies.

My complaint with 4K Bluray (which was my complaint with Blu Ray in general) is that the push is resolution almost exclusively.

Most of the films being released on 4KBD were mastered in 2k. That means that all of that larger 100GB disc space and H265 compression efficiency is being wasted on an upscaled image. Blurays have consistently done that with older tv shows and especially anime - 1080p upscales of 480p material. I’d much rather see the bitrate that is being wasted on Pseudo Picture information piped into the best possible representation of the source.

Star Wars is going to be affected it a LOT due to image quality disparities between films -
Ep 1 was mastered at 2k, but has the potential to be remastered at higher quality if the original film sources are available.
Eps 2 and 3 are limited to their 2k masters, which themselves are upscales from 1080p digital sources.
Eps 4-6 have multiple masters, depending on which version is released. The original negatives have the potential to go even beyond 4k if they’re available in good enough condition - if not, Legacy has shown (well, hinted) that a 4k version is very attainable.
Sadly, we’re more likely to get Special Editions, which were scanned at 2k in the 90s, printed to a film negative, which were then rescanned at 4k in the early 2000’s.
Ep 7 (and presumably 8 and 9 will be) is already mastered at 4k.

With that in mind… everyone knows we’re going to get a 9 film, 4k Bluray Set.
And despite everything above… all 9 will be 4k, H265 encodes. So much wasted space on imaginary “extra detail” at the expense of the actual source material. Your average viewer wouldn’t even know that the film on the disc is only encoded at 2k, but I think there’s a good chance they would notice when watching that it had double the bits per pixel.

Source for the 2K and 4K scans info? AFAIK the original trilogy was scanned only in 1080p

The original trilogy can be rescanned (yay film), especially the OUT which has no “2k” digital imagery. The Special Editions are a little trickier. The 97 version would be a good candidate even if the new effects were done at 2k. If they wanted 4k masters of the bluray versions, that would be a bit difficult, but not impossible. They could rescan the 97 version and rebuild the changes by splicing in footage from the old masters or re-doing the effects.

As for the prequels: episode 1 is in the same situation at the 97 SE: shot on film in anamorphic widescreen and sfx done at 2k. Episodes 2 and 3 were filmed on 1st generation HD cinema cameras which shot at 1080p. To make the situation worse: in order to maintain the series’ habitual aspect ratio of 2.35, they simply hard cropped the image to 817p. So those two films are eternally stuck at those resolutions.

What’s the internal temperature of a TaunTaun? Luke warm.

Author
Time

Mavimao said:

ToasterBoy said:

Harmy said:

ToasterBoy said:

I know. But- not necessarily you, Harmy- a lot of fans will simply refuse to be satisfied and will always find something to bitch about. Lucasfilm refuses to release the originals- that’s something to get angry about. The colors for the TFA BD are slightly different from the theatrical version? People get angry. It’s the nature of nerds.

Sure but HDR has absolutely nothing to do with it.

People are bitching about the HDR grade on the 4K Blu-ray for Ghostbusters. It’s a sad truth.

Where at? I cant seem to find it.

Blu-ray.com forums.

Author
Time

ToasterBoy said:

Mavimao said:

ToasterBoy said:

Harmy said:

ToasterBoy said:

I know. But- not necessarily you, Harmy- a lot of fans will simply refuse to be satisfied and will always find something to bitch about. Lucasfilm refuses to release the originals- that’s something to get angry about. The colors for the TFA BD are slightly different from the theatrical version? People get angry. It’s the nature of nerds.

Sure but HDR has absolutely nothing to do with it.

People are bitching about the HDR grade on the 4K Blu-ray for Ghostbusters. It’s a sad truth.

Where at? I cant seem to find it.

Blu-ray.com forums.

I can’t find any discussion of anyone complaining about this specific version. The UHD isn’t even out yet!

I see people complaining about HDR thinking that the studios are going to crank the effect like those cheesy HDR effects people are doing with stills. But nothing about Ghostbusters.

What’s the internal temperature of a TaunTaun? Luke warm.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

pittrek said:

nightstalkerpoet said:

HDR on LED technology is what bothers me. Unless there’s 1:1 Pixel to LED ratio, you’re always going to struggle with abnormalities due to light bleed. Plasma was far better suited to HDR than LED, so it’s a shame to see it go. OLED seems promising but I’m hesitant to buy piggybacking new technologies.

My complaint with 4K Bluray (which was my complaint with Blu Ray in general) is that the push is resolution almost exclusively.

Most of the films being released on 4KBD were mastered in 2k. That means that all of that larger 100GB disc space and H265 compression efficiency is being wasted on an upscaled image. Blurays have consistently done that with older tv shows and especially anime - 1080p upscales of 480p material. I’d much rather see the bitrate that is being wasted on Pseudo Picture information piped into the best possible representation of the source.

Star Wars is going to be affected by it a LOT due to image quality disparities between films -
Ep 1 was mastered at 2k, but has the potential to be remastered at higher quality if the original film sources are available.
Eps 2 and 3 are limited to their 2k masters, which themselves are upscales from 1080p digital sources.
Eps 4-6 have multiple masters, depending on which version is released. The original negatives have the potential to go even beyond 4k if they’re available in good enough condition (quite possible with modern color tools) - if not, Legacy has shown (well, hinted) that a 4k version is very attainable.
Sadly, we’re more likely to get Special Editions, which were scanned at 2k in the 90s, printed to a film negative, which were then rescanned at 4k 1080p in the early 2000’s.
Ep 7 (and presumably 8 and 9 will be) is already mastered at 4k.

With that in mind… everyone knows we’re going to get a 9 film, 4k Bluray Set.
And despite everything above… all 9 will be 4k, H265 encodes. So much wasted space on imaginary “extra detail” at the expense of the actual source material. Your average viewer wouldn’t even know that the film on the disc is only encoded at 2k, but I think there’s a good chance they would notice when watching that it had double the bits per pixel.

Source for the 2K and 4K scans info? AFAIK the original trilogy was scanned only in 1080p

You’re correct about the 4k - it was only a 1080p scan. (Must’ve been thinking the Reliance scan) The 97SE was digitally mastered at 2k though.

Preferred Saga:
1/2: Hal9000
3: L8wrtr
4/5: Adywan
6-9: Hal9000

Author
Time

nightstalkerpoet said:
You’re correct about the 4k - it was only a 1080p scan. (Must’ve been thinking the Reliance scan) The 97SE was digitally mastered at 2k though.

No, the only shots that were mastered digitally for the 97 were the shots with CG in them. It was assembled as a traditional negative, though, as DIs weren’t very widespread at the time.

Author
Time

I think 4k displays are a great thing. I think 4k (or higher) preservations of of titles is awesome. I think 4k home media is largely a waste. For most titles, DVD is still good. For high detail films, Blu-ray is pretty much all you need. Going higher produces diminishing returns and it won’t help most titles. Most titles aren’t 4k ready. I believe that 4k maxes out what 35mm film can capture. Higher is good for things shot on larger film stock, but those aren’t as common. I don’t think the average person is going to be able to tell the difference between 1080p and 4k. I think the extra display pixels will do more for the content than increasing the resolution of the content.

I know there are many people out there who will have a setup that enables them to really tell the difference, but they are a minority (though I’m not so sure that this site doesn’t lean the other way). 4k is more suited to 3D and gaming than motion pictures.

Author
Time

yotsuya said:

I think 4k displays are a great thing. I think 4k (or higher) preservations of of titles is awesome. I think 4k home media is largely a waste. For most titles, DVD is still good. For high detail films, Blu-ray is pretty much all you need. Going higher produces diminishing returns and it won’t help most titles. Most titles aren’t 4k ready. I believe that 4k maxes out what 35mm film can capture. Higher is good for things shot on larger film stock, but those aren’t as common. I don’t think the average person is going to be able to tell the difference between 1080p and 4k. I think the extra display pixels will do more for the content than increasing the resolution of the content.

I know there are many people out there who will have a setup that enables them to really tell the difference, but they are a minority (though I’m not so sure that this site doesn’t lean the other way). 4k is more suited to 3D and gaming than motion pictures.

Just as a counter, I find DVD to be a last-ditch when (a) a Blu-Ray is not available and I really want to see a movie or (b) the Blu-Ray is of worse quality than the DVD.

“You don’t really mean you’ll kill me, do you?” - Juror 8
“Silence, Earthling! My name is Darth Vader. I am an extra-terrestrial from the planet Vulcan!” - Calvin “Marty” Klein

Author
Time

Colson said:

yotsuya said:

I think 4k displays are a great thing. I think 4k (or higher) preservations of of titles is awesome. I think 4k home media is largely a waste. For most titles, DVD is still good. For high detail films, Blu-ray is pretty much all you need. Going higher produces diminishing returns and it won’t help most titles. Most titles aren’t 4k ready. I believe that 4k maxes out what 35mm film can capture. Higher is good for things shot on larger film stock, but those aren’t as common. I don’t think the average person is going to be able to tell the difference between 1080p and 4k. I think the extra display pixels will do more for the content than increasing the resolution of the content.

I know there are many people out there who will have a setup that enables them to really tell the difference, but they are a minority (though I’m not so sure that this site doesn’t lean the other way). 4k is more suited to 3D and gaming than motion pictures.

Just as a counter, I find DVD to be a last-ditch when (a) a Blu-Ray is not available and I really want to see a movie or (b) the Blu-Ray is of worse quality than the DVD.

Used DVDs are cheap as dirt. Thus, I have ten times as many DVDs as BDs.

Author
Time

yotsuya said:

I think 4k home media is largely a waste. For most titles, DVD is still good.

I read those two things and decided not to read on.

Author
Time

yotsuya said:

4k is more suited to 3D and gaming than motion pictures.

Which is why they didn’t include 3D in the 4K Blu-ray specs…

Author
Time
 (Edited)

TV’s Frink said:

yotsuya said:

I think 4k home media is largely a waste. For most titles, DVD is still good.

I read those two things and decided not to read on.

Most movies weren’t made with such detail in mind. Most don’t need that level of detail to tell the story. New movies look great in 1080p, but 720p for HD broadcast for fine for most. For those who sit far across room from the screen and are more interested in the story, 480p is plenty. I still watch DVD’s And I don’t bother with Blu-ray from Netflix. Now a movie like Interstellar… that is a Blu-ray movie. When you watch for the visuals then more pixels becomes important. Vital. I’d love to see Lawrence of Arabia in a 4k or higher projection. But for the latest comedy or a typical silver screen classic… DVD works.

Author
Time

yoda-sama said:

yotsuya said:

4k is more suited to 3D and gaming than motion pictures.

Which is why they didn’t include 3D in the 4K Blu-ray specs…

3D’s biggest problem is a lack of detail at depth. It needs 4k to look good. Right now it is pretty crappy.

Author
Time

Plus 3D sucks.

Hello Roger,

I read your review of “Green Hornet” and though I haven’t seen the film, I agree with your comments about 3D.

The 3D image is dark, as you mentioned (about a camera stop darker) and small. Somehow the glasses “gather in” the image – even on a huge Imax screen – and make it seem half the scope of the same image when looked at without the glasses.

I edited one 3D film back in the 1980’s – “Captain Eo” – and also noticed that horizontal movement will strobe much sooner in 3D than it does in 2D. This was true then, and it is still true now. It has something to do with the amount of brain power dedicated to studying the edges of things. The more conscious we are of edges, the earlier strobing kicks in.

The biggest problem with 3D, though, is the “convergence/focus” issue. A couple of the other issues – darkness and “smallness” – are at least theoretically solvable. But the deeper problem is that the audience must focus their eyes at the plane of the screen – say it is 80 feet away. This is constant no matter what.

But their eyes must converge at perhaps 10 feet away, then 60 feet, then 120 feet, and so on, depending on what the illusion is. So 3D films require us to focus at one distance and converge at another. And 600 million years of evolution has never presented this problem before. All living things with eyes have always focussed and converged at the same point.

If we look at the salt shaker on the table, close to us, we focus at six feet and our eyeballs converge (tilt in) at six feet. Imagine the base of a triangle between your eyes and the apex of the triangle resting on the thing you are looking at. But then look out the window and you focus at sixty feet and converge also at sixty feet. That imaginary triangle has now “opened up” so that your lines of sight are almost – almost – parallel to each other.

We can do this. 3D films would not work if we couldn’t. But it is like tapping your head and rubbing your stomach at the same time, difficult. So the “CPU” of our perceptual brain has to work extra hard, which is why after 20 minutes or so many people get headaches. They are doing something that 600 million years of evolution never prepared them for. This is a deep problem, which no amount of technical tweaking can fix. Nothing will fix it short of producing true “holographic” images.

Consequently, the editing of 3D films cannot be as rapid as for 2D films, because of this shifting of convergence: it takes a number of milliseconds for the brain/eye to “get” what the space of each shot is and adjust.

And lastly, the question of immersion. 3D films remind the audience that they are in a certain “perspective” relationship to the image. It is almost a Brechtian trick. Whereas if the film story has really gripped an audience they are “in” the picture in a kind of dreamlike “spaceless” space. So a good story will give you more dimensionality than you can ever cope with.

So: dark, small, stroby, headache inducing, alienating. And expensive. The question is: how long will it take people to realize and get fed up?

All best wishes,

Walter Murch

Author
Time
 (Edited)

I love 3D - I have it at home and on a 10ft screen viewed from 10ft away, 3D feels much larger than 2D does - I suppose, it’s because when watching 2D, the brain realizes that the screen is still quite tiny compared to a real cinema but in 3D, the comparative distance is not so easy to discern.
Also, the image quality looks better to me in 3D - I would appreciate 4K in my projector when watching 2D, because I can still see the individual pixels but I can’t see them at all when watching a movie in 3D - I suppose it’s because the brain is getting twice as much picture information in 3D. I never had a problem with headaches or anything.
Actually, the 3D setup I have at home is better than in both local multiplexes - it produces nice, bright image and has no ghosting whatsoever, which is a problem I always had in the cinema, so now I don’t really go see 3D movies in cinema, see the 2D version and if it looks like it would be good 3D, I buy the 3D Blu-Ray, which is why I’m quite terrified by the news of BD3D losing support.

As for DVD, sure, for some movies, it is perfectly serviceable, if you’re watching on some tiny screen, but HD will still look better, which will then make the entire experience better.

Author
Time

Harmy said:

I love 3D - I have it at home and on a 10ft screen viewed from 10ft away, 3D feels much larger than 2D does - I suppose, it’s because when watching 2D, the brain realizes that the screen is still quite tiny compared to a real cinema but in 3D, the comparative distance is not so easy to discern.
Also, the image quality looks better to me in 3D - I would appreciate 4K in my projector when watching 2D, because I can still see the individual pixels but I can’t see them at all when watching a movie in 3D - I suppose it’s because the brain is getting twice as much picture information in 3D. I never had a problem with headaches or anything.
Actually, the 3D setup I have at home is better than in both local multiplexes - it produces nice, bright image and has no ghosting whatsoever, which is a problem I always had in the cinema, so now I don’t really go see 3D movies in cinema, see the 2D version and if it looks like it would be good 3D, I buy the 3D Blu-Ray, which is why I’m quite terrified by the news of BD3D losing support.

As for DVD, sure, for some movies, it is perfectly serviceable, if you’re watching on some tiny screen, but HD will still look better, which will then make the entire experience better.

Totally agree with you on 3D, Harmy, and I watch 3D on a 51" plasma.

“You don’t really mean you’ll kill me, do you?” - Juror 8
“Silence, Earthling! My name is Darth Vader. I am an extra-terrestrial from the planet Vulcan!” - Calvin “Marty” Klein

Author
Time

Harmy said:

I love 3D

Well I guess 3d is like cilantro. Some love it, but to others it tastes like soap.

I don’t like it, and I really shouldn’t have a problem with others liking it, but it does affect me somewhat because the imax near my house tends to always show features in 3d, and rarely in 2d. So I almost never go anymore, and I miss the big screen and powerful sound.

This is probably the main reason I dislike 3d so much, it like a virus taking over cinema.

Author
Time

Similar things that are now said about 3D are very similar to things that used to be said when sound was introduced to film. And when color was introduced.

I think 3D will one day become the standard. It will keep getting better until one day we’ll wonder why anybody ever doubted it.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Darth Lucas said:

Similar things that are now said about 3D are very similar to things that used to be said when sound was introduced to film. And when color was introduced.

And the several other times when 3D was introduced to film unsuccessfully 😄

Sound and color don’t bother, nauseate, or distract a large portion of movie-goers. Whether or not 3D in its current form is here to stay to some degree, it’s not going to be ubiquitous or the default movie experience. Color and sound probably took some getting used to and accepting, but anyone who has issues with 3D at this point is probably not just unaccustomed. It’s been around for a bit now.

Author
Time

Well I mean color was introduced in film multiple times unsuccessfully. There were hand painted cells, then various two-strip processes, abd it wasn’t until the technicolor 3-strip process that color film was taken seriously, even though it wasn’t practical enough to be used on every production. I feel like this is where we are now with 3D. It’s good enough that we’ve done away with a lot of the major issues 3D has had in the past, but not quite good enough for the average viewer to accept it.
It wasn’t until the Eastman color stock came along that color film began to replace black and white as the standard. I think we’re still waiting for that new 3D process that will make it mainstream and standard.

Author
Time

dahmage said:

Harmy said:

I love 3D

…but to others it tastes like soap.

That’s me 😄.

Army of Darkness: The Medieval Deadit | The Terminator - Color Regrade | The Wrong Trousers - Audio Preservation
SONIC RACES THROUGH THE GREEN FIELDS.
THE SUN RACES THROUGH A BLUE SKY FILLED WITH WHITE CLOUDS.
THE WAYS OF HIS HEART ARE MUCH LIKE THE SUN. SONIC RUNS AND RESTS; THE SUN RISES AND SETS.
DON’T GIVE UP ON THE SUN. DON’T MAKE THE SUN LAUGH AT YOU.