The wording makes it sound like its the 2007 commentaries. The only thing new aside from the movie is the remastered original trailer.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Blade Runner 4K - The Final Cut - 9/5/17
- Thread starter BrokenFiction
- Start date
The wording makes it sound like its the 2007 commentaries. The only thing new aside from the movie is the remastered original trailer.
Beer Monkey
Member
What about Dangerous Days? Can we at least get it in 1080p instead of 480p?
In the 90s Robert Harris supervised a really awful new DTS surround soundtrack mix of Vertigo, complete with brand new foley effects, that substantially altered Hitchcock's artistic intent. He's a hypocrite. At the time he claimed the original mono track to have deteriorated too much to be used, which turned out to be completely untrue.
I don't put a lot of stock in what he says.
In the 90s Robert Harris supervised a really awful new DTS surround soundtrack mix of Vertigo, complete with brand new foley effects, that substantially altered Hitchcock's artistic intent. He's a hypocrite. At the time he claimed the original mono track to have deteriorated too much to be used, which turned out to be completely untrue.
I don't put a lot of stock in what he says.
but its not. Film has a lot more color that we can see, that our displays previously could not display. Its not crow baring 3d into a movie, which i dont care for 3d at all, its expanding the visible spectrum of colors for our screens. Think of it as going from 8 bit to 12 or 14 bit.
Does every movie ever need it? Probably not, but certain types of movies, even film ones could theoretically benefit depending on the type of film used, how the film was shot etc.
Rktk
Member
Yes but neither could projectors at the time the films were made, there's a clear argument that HDR is not as the film was intended. I take what you mean about the difference between 3D and HDR.
a Master Ninja
Member
You'll get a more faithful transfer barring some huge fuck up.
If you purchase UHD release, an ordinary BD disc will also be in the package.
Yes, it'll downsample to the 1080p display.
Xbox One S plays 4K Blu-ray.
Wag
Member
But in this case it is forcing something that wasn't intended to be part of the picture. Prior to this release existing nobody had ever watched Blade Runner in HDR, including the cinematographer (who is dead, so obviously he has no say in it) or the director. Nobody shot this movie thinking about how it would look in HDR.
Theonik
Member
That's not entirely true. Film projectors are capable of much higher dynamic range than Rec. 601 or Rec. 709 were capable of.
Beer Monkey
Member
Now I'm going to play devil's advocate even though I don't trust Robert Harris' judgment in general.
1) Is film capable of higher dynamic range than Rec.2020? I don't think it is but I'm not sure.
2) If not, wouldn't regular UHD (Rec.2020) be enough to capture the film accurately, no HDR required?
3) No consumer display device can even display the full gamut of Rec.2020 yet, right?
Edit: Regardless of the film itself, does the gamut of existing film scanners used to telecine negatives and interpositives exceed Rec.2020? Does it approach it?
I remember watching this on a like $20,000 projector playing the Blu-Ray at a showing, was so pumped to see it on the big screen
Some idiot forgot to turn off motion interpolation so it was all jerky and it made every miniature and special effects scene look absolutely "real"... as in not a future dystopia skyline of Los Angeles, but a couple of miniatures in front of a well-lit matte painting. So disappointing
again the colors are there, on the film. remastering them in this way is not adding anything that wasnt there already. Its simply expanding the available colors to be able to displayed on a better screen.
furthermore you can be all for "its not how it was intended to be seen" and all that, but where is that logical end? You going to get a proper film projector and ask the studio for a print so you can run it through that? No? ok then you're not technically viewing it how the directory originally intended. And oh yea no one should ever touch the film (remaster, edit or anything) again since the one who created it is no longer able to review and approve?
BotoxAgent
Member
I will gladly buy every ver of blade runner they put out. I am a sucker like that lol
Beer Monkey
Member
Again on the devil's advocate side but does the original film source, and the scanners used to telecine the film, have a gamut broad enough to utilize UHD spec versus regular HDR Rec.2020? I'm now leaning towards no after thinking about it.
If the original film and the scanners don't have the gamut to handle more depth than UHD spec the only way to make HDR is to modify the film, not scan it.
That sucks. The current DCP despite being 2K looks amazing on a good screen if projected properly.
TAJ
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
Nope. Until very recently standard practice was to intentionally reduce contrast in going from the camera negative to an interpositive.
And decisions about color timing were done while viewing a 55 nit image... the same 55 nits that audiences would see in theaters everywhere.
The information is in the negative but the negative was never the final product.
With what player? The results I saw around the launch of the format were awful.
Blackpuppy
Member
Films are scanned using up to 16 bit color. The information is definitely there. However, the final product won't necessarily use all that information.
The term "telecine" hasn't been used since the SD days. It used to be, you'd transform your film directly into the video format you're releasing it in (NTSC, PAL and early HD titles were scanned as so). Nowadays, it's scanned in 4k or higher and with a large color bit depth. This ensures they are squeezing out every possible piece of information. You take this file, color correct it, crop, stabalize, whatever, and make DCPs, blurays, DVDs, digital downloads etc.
Now what can HDR do for old movies? It prevents banding and can eliminate white/black crush. The trick it to avoid making these films look like those gaudy "hdr" photographs people like to make by combining 10 different exposures and combining them.
Beer Monkey
Member
So does UHD (Rec.2020).
I'm looking for a technical analysis or even just a damned chromaticity diagram that shows that the gamut of scanned film negatives exceeds Rec.2020 but I can't find a thing.
BrokenFiction
Member
That's how I got mine. Great deal for a really good player.
Blackpuppy
Member
I think people are confused here what HDR is: it's an encompassing term including a 10 bit color depth and a larger color gamut (rec 2020). So we get more colors and more steps between colors. This is a big upgrade from HDTV and Blurays which both used 8bit color depth and rec 709. We finally have a real upgrade beyond resolution this time which is great!
Film is an analogue medium and there isn't just one kind of film. There's negative film (typically low contrast), reversal film (typically high contrast), and there are god knows how many types were made. Off the top of my head I can think of Technicolor, Eastman, Fuji, LPP, Vision 1, 2, 3.
Now whether film surpasses rec2020 is something I would be curious in knowing, but it's definitely superior to rec709 and film definitely surpasses that older format (already, film doesn't have any color depth because it's an analogue format, but a modern film negative has about 11 to 13 stops of dynamic range whereas rec709 only has 5).
Even IF rec2020 is superior to film, and film's gamut triangle falls between 709 and 2020, that'd be great because we'd have every possible color available and we wouldn't have to worry about compressing color or detail.
Beer Monkey
Member
Lunarwhale
Member
This is an absurdly pessimistic perspective. HDR just allows for more color information. It can lead to more faithful transfers from film (although it may not always be the case that it was the director's intent for it to be seen as such). There are shitty HDR transfers full of Kinkade-like tackiness in coloration and contrast, but that isn't always the case and it doesn't have to be.
This version, Final Cut, is considered the best last I checked (I personally think it is). It and the Director's Cut lack the narration - which is for the best. The narration was tacked on at the studio's request and pretty poor.
Oh dear. Hopefully that is just their way of showing "HDR" in the trailer, because that looks even worse than the Final Cut Blu-ray. Just looks like someone turned up the saturation and contrast sliders.
I hate when they try to "modernize" the color palette of old films instead of restoring them. The Final Cut Blu-ray looked terrrible with muted colors and strong color tints on every scene.
The Director's Cut disc looks so much better - more natural, more detailed, richer colors.
SDR has a dynamic range of about 5-6 stops.
35mm film can capture a dynamic range of about 11-14 stops.
That is 11-14 stops of simultaneous dynamic range. Say one scene in a movie is exposed 4 stops brighter than another, your film's total dynamic range could now be ~18 stops, since a dark scene might cover "0-14" and the brighter scene might cover "4-18".
35mm film can also capture wider gamut color than BT.709 is capable of displaying.
So yes, old films should be released in HDR.
Well that's the opposite of what should happen. Motion interpolation is supposed to make everything smooth.
Here's the problem for people who are against using interpolation: if you project film without a shutter that flashes the image two or three times per frame, so it is being projected at 24Hz rather than 48/72Hz, motion is no longer "filmic". It is super smooth. Smoother than any interpolation you've ever seen.
The same thing happens if you use black frame insertion on a CRT to display movies at 24Hz rather than 48/72/96/120Hz.
The main downside to this, and the reason it isn't done, is that you also get significant flicker along with it, and have to view this at a very low brightness for it to be tolerable. (<50 nits)
So I reject the notion that using interpolation is a bad way to watch films, unless it's bad interpolation that is constantly juddering/artifacting.
It will never be perfect, like viewing film at a native 24Hz presentation (note: the "24Hz" mode on your TV is not the same thing) but it's the closest you can get to what was really captured on the film.
It's the same awful trailer as the 30th anniversary one, but with the colors all fucked up. lol@WB.
What are you talking about, man. I'm sure you know this, but the motion interpolation Fisty is talking about is the digital garbage that invents frames, not the technique used to reduce flicker when projecting film reels.
Blu-ray.com posted their review:
(pictures are from the old blu-ray release)
http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Blade-Runner-4K-Blu-ray/181637/#Review
The 4K disc uses the same 4K scan used on the regular blu-ray release, but the encode is far superior.
Unfortunatley the standard blu-ray included is just the older blu-ray release with its old, blurry encode. :| Oh well.
(pictures are from the old blu-ray release)
http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Blade-Runner-4K-Blu-ray/181637/#Review
The 4K disc uses the same 4K scan used on the regular blu-ray release, but the encode is far superior.
Unfortunatley the standard blu-ray included is just the older blu-ray release with its old, blurry encode. :| Oh well.
The original encode wasn't very good, so I'm glad that they have at least improved it, but it's disappointing that the color grading remains unchanged. I really dislike the look of the Final Cut compared to the Director's Cut Blu-ray. It's sharper too, as it doesn't have the excessive noise reduction applied that the Final Cut does.
Sorry, I missed this reply before.
When you display a 24 FPS movie on a CRT display that is flickering at 24Hz, or on a projector that flickers at 24Hz (no double/triple flash to reduce flicker) the motion gets really smooth. The same kind of smoothness that "videophiles" complain about when they see an HDTV with interpolation enabled; but achieved without any kind of interpolation being used. It's unreal.
Interpolation is actually the closest thing to the smoothness of film when it is presented at its native rate on a display that flickers like this, but interpolation achieves that same smoothness of motion without the flicker.
Of course, since the HDTV/Projector has to "guess" the intermediate frames the process is imperfect and you can get digital artifacts around the edges of objects in motion, but that smoothness it achieves when it works is how film really looks when you view it at a true 24Hz. As interpolation improves, it gets closer to the true look of what was captured on film.
I know that's difficult to believe, and I wish there was an easy way to demonstrate it to people. Once OLED TVs support 120 FPS playback, it should be possible to encode a video file that uses black frames spaced in-between the film frames, or software on a PC to do it automatically during playback, to achieve the same effect - though the flicker will be incredibly bad due to OLED's fast response times.
Paragon: all right.
Anyway, none of the so-called professionals made any comparisons between the 2007 BD and the 4K release. Literally nobody has posted even screencaptures. I had to make my own using this clip from Google Play's UHD store.
The picture has in fact been punched up slightly, seems brighter and with stronger contrast. Seems to be slightly less green so the grading might have been messed with again. I only have a small clip to work with unfortunately.
Anyway, none of the so-called professionals made any comparisons between the 2007 BD and the 4K release. Literally nobody has posted even screencaptures. I had to make my own using this clip from Google Play's UHD store.
The picture has in fact been punched up slightly, seems brighter and with stronger contrast. Seems to be slightly less green so the grading might have been messed with again. I only have a small clip to work with unfortunately.
Paragon: all right.
Anyway, none of the so-called professionals made any comparisons between the 2007 BD and the 4K release. Literally nobody has posted even screencaptures. I had to make my own using this clip from Google Play's UHD store.
The picture has in fact been punched up slightly, seems brighter and with stronger contrast. Seems to be slightly less green so the grading might have been messed with again. I only have a small clip to work with unfortunately.
Bluray.com's idea was that there was no feasible way to capture the actual 4K or something from a capture card I think.
Absolute bullshit this set was shipped with the shitty low bitrate HDDVD era bluray. Pissed me off so much I didn't even buy it.
Nevermind the fiasco where certain people were actually sent this set with the old Blade Runner cuts on it to, leading one to believe they could have actually included the old blurays for the normal cuts on a separate disc.
Instead doesn't this set have fucking DVDs or something?
What a shitty release lol.
I'll wait for the 2049 complete set or something on UHD. You know they are going to milk this to shit.
Honestly, why and the living fuck are there DVDs in a UHD set? This has to be the most incompetent bullshit set I have ever seen on UHD. Who the fuck is their right mind is buying UHD so they can OMG have an AWESOME DVD! Jesus. If you couldn't tell yes I am STILL pissed.
I totally disagree with this, and so does Ridley Scott per his interviews. He never had the chance to color correct the film at all. And his themes for Blade Runner fit right into the color scheme of the Final Cut per his own ideas and words.
Good for you that they have the old cuts on bluray.
Instead of issue those with the UHD they chose to give us.... DVDs! Thank you corporate overlords you fucking imbeciles. They could not even be bothered to remaster the bluray for the love of god. They don't deserve a sale on this if you ask me.
I also disagree that the DC is more natural or anything like that. It has a strong 80s red push, which honestly dates the film in seconds, and I feel it looks gross to be honest.
The new color timing gives the film a classic and timeless vibe, and even though the film is still 80s it not longer really looks like it was fully made in the 80s. It looks like the cyberpunk dream they originally intended it to be. IMO.
It's really hilarious that they're still repackaging those old DVDs. What lazy fucks. Breh I was pissed about it back in 2007. The BR 5-disc collection was one of my first BD purchases, I definitely didn't expect goddamn DVDs inside. This isn't anything new for WB either. Its LOTR Extended Edition package has nine DVDs in it. The menus in the blu-rays for the actual movies are all upscaled from the DVD release. Really cheap stuff.
Going back to Bade Runner, I also prefer the Final Cut color grading to be honest, even if the teal push is a tiny bit much.
Going back to Bade Runner, I also prefer the Final Cut color grading to be honest, even if the teal push is a tiny bit much.
Slackbladder
Member
I have the 4K UHD and it does look surprisingly good. The HDR is fine in my opinion. What hasn't been mentioned is the audio. It's excellent. Getting a Dolby Atmos a/v and speakers really paid off with this! Never sounded better.
I watched it on Vudu UHD and I had some issues with the audio quality. Often couldnt make the dialogue. I dont know if it was trying to use the Atmos track on my 5.1 set up
Slackbladder
Member
I watched this off the 4K disc (Samsung player) through a Marantz a/v and Kef speakers (British speaker manufacturers) which includes a large centre speaker. Sound is optimized via Audyssey. I had no issues with the dialogue. What stood out the most was the clarity and general 'width' of the sound stage. It was wide and yet very specific in how the effects were positioned. It had far more impact than the earlier blu-ray version I had seen. but then that was with different audio equipment.
Also, from what I remember, Atmos is part of the default audio but will only have an effect if you have the amp/av and speakers for it. I don't remember choosing an Atmos audio option on the film.
Lord Error
Insane For Sony
Thanks for the screencaps Jett. Grabbing them from the trailer may not be truly representative, as those are always re-encoded from the source material. Still, judging by them, it does look like they increased the levels throughout, which should reveal more shadow detail, but also probably increase film grain noise, which is already evident on two of your screens. And yes, they definitely toned down the green grading. I tried, and couldn't replicate the 'less-green' appearance just by changing the levels of the final cut screens. I think that's cool because final cut was a touch too green for my taste. Not sure I like the increased brightness, but that can always be toned down on the TV easily.
Still, I wish they'd release a director's cut color grade version with other refinements from the final cut. This is halfway there already though.
Still, I wish they'd release a director's cut color grade version with other refinements from the final cut. This is halfway there already though.
...lol I should check my 5 disc set if I got fucked.
I think the 4k transfer really falls down hard in Decker's apartment scenes. I wonder if that can be improved in the future or if it is the best the source material can provide.
TheChewyWaffles
Member
I have one in the mail from Best Buy.
Turns out I kept the screenshots that I took but never got around to sorting through and posting.
I'm not a fan of the color grading or the detail-killing noise reduction they applied. Directors Cut Blu-ray on the left and Final Cut Blu-ray on the right.
Not really seeing the "red push" - it's more like they made everything orange and teal in the Final Cut and boosted the contrast, crushing shadow detail.
Well that's stupid.