or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › Back to the Future
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Back to the Future - Page 31

post #901 of 1061
Finally watching part 2 and i have to say that overall this is the best that this film has looked. All the soft DNR looking shots are special effects shots...any shot that doesnt have a special efffect looks great IMO.
post #902 of 1061
I just wish they would've gotten Dean Cundey or Robert Zemeckis involved instead of Bob Gale. While Bob has an idea of what the movie's intended look is/was, fact is he was the writer/producer of the film. He didn't shoot anything. He likely wasn't involved in the color correction process during the original production. He may have watched the dailies, peeked his head into the edit bay from time to time between dealing with paper work/permits/etc. I would go so far as to say he's one of the least qualified on the crew to be involved in a remaster.
post #903 of 1061
I wonder if writing a letter to Steven Spielberg, Robert Zemeckis, and/or Dean Cundey would help. Not sure about the others, but Mr. Spielberg seems to care a great deal about the quality of the BDs for his films, so he might be able to help influence getting a new transfer and a replacement program done (like with Gladiator), even though he didn't direct BTTF.
post #904 of 1061
Quote:
Originally Posted by jd213 View Post

I wonder if writing a letter to Steven Spielberg, Robert Zemeckis, and/or Dean Cundey would help. Not sure about the others, but Mr. Spielberg seems to care a great deal about the quality of the BDs for his films, so he might be able to help influence getting a new transfer and a replacement program done (like with Gladiator), even though he didn't direct BTTF.

A spielberg approved transfer would be amazing (ie Minority report)...but does the source material lend itself to achieve that quality? Will all those processed shots look good? Would the opticals have to be redone?
post #905 of 1061
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hector.B View Post

A spielberg approved transfer would be amazing (ie Minority report)...but does the source material lend itself to achieve that quality? Will all those processed shots look good? Would the opticals have to be redone?

A new 4k scan with some cleanup, minus any processing like unnecessary DNR or EE is all it would take to make me happy. I don't think anyone's expecting miracles out of an 80's film with a bunch of optical effects but it doesn't have to look like this, either.
post #906 of 1061
Quote:
Originally Posted by deviation View Post

a new 4k scan with some cleanup, minus any processing like unnecessary dnr or ee is all it would take to make me happy. I don't think anyone's expecting miracles out of an 80's film with a bunch of optical effects but it doesn't have to look like this, either.

+1
post #907 of 1061
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kram Sacul View Post

Where was Robert Zemeckis in all this or even more importantly Steven Spielberg?

Unlike George Lucas, they have better things to do than tinker around with movies they made decades ago.
post #908 of 1061
I wonder if the engineers handling Universal's mastering are at all competent to be in the business?

Going by the screenshots, it seems that (as usual) they have added EE to compensate for the DNR, and the EE not only causes severe ringing but also brings back out what grain has not obliterated by the DNR. The end result just looks artificial, without any net gain.

If they hadn't used DNR, they wouldn't have needed the EE and if they hadn't used EE, they wouldn't have needed this much DNR. *sigh*

Sometimes I wish I had accepted that experimental lobotomy so I could be happy with stuff like this...
post #909 of 1061
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that part II looks better than part I...part two has way more opticals...but overall i like the presentation of part II...anyone else agree?
post #910 of 1061
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deviation View Post

A new 4k scan with some cleanup, minus any processing like unnecessary DNR or EE is all it would take to make me happy. I don't think anyone's expecting miracles out of an 80's film with a bunch of optical effects but it doesn't have to look like this, either.

Based on the supplemental features (deleted scenes, outtakes), I would have been happy enough with their 2K scan (though I still would have preferred a 4K scan) had they just not DNR'd & EE'd it!
BTW, does anyone agree with me that the "Back to the Future: The Ride" special feature on BTTF III is a great inclusion. I have alot of nostalgia surrounding that ride at Universal Studios, and this special feature totally lets me relive it. Could be awesome with D-Box...
post #911 of 1061
They need a 6k scan from the original elements. If Universal gave 2 sh-ts about one of their classic franchises maybe they'd digitally re-composite the optical effects besides restoring all three films and get Zemeckis involved.

Warner Brothers, for all their home video department faults, did digital composite clean up for the Final Cut of Blade Runner using the original 65mm special effects optical "plates."
post #912 of 1061
can't believe Back to the Future is out on blu-ray (after a 10 year wait to see these in high-def) and i'm not going to buy it because Universal have done such a lousy job. bloody studios ! well, one in particular. your spinny globe doesn't look so impressive now. and weren't these idiots responsible for the original gladiator release ? ...

for the love of God, Universal, stop releasing catalog titles !!! please. enough ! you don't care. we get it. but we do care. just wait it out until blu-ray is more popular and you can justify the cost of doing things properly. and you'll probably end up selling more units. it's a win win situation isn't it ?
post #913 of 1061
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

They need a 6k scan from the original elements.

Nuh uh. Anything short of a 250,000k scan is UNACCEPTABLE UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES!!!!!!!!!!!



Oh, also, 4k, 6k, 8k, etc. are mostly "marketing pixels."
post #914 of 1061
You're still trolling this thread, Josh? Bravo.
post #915 of 1061
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

Oh, also, 4k, 6k, 8k, etc. are mostly "marketing pixels."

Ehm, I think you didn't really understand that article.

Galt talks about digital movie cameras and how misleading their marketing resolution numbers are. And he talks about movie theaters and how 4K projection doesn't have much benefit in his opinion unless you have a rather large viewing angle. Neither has much to do with at which resolution film should be scanned for Blu-Ray authoring.
post #916 of 1061
Sad thing is if reviewers were more competent and were harsher on this release, then maybe in a few months we'd be hearing this from Universal:

We are implementing a limited exchange program. This program is only for those consumers that may have preferential issues with some of the technical DVNR (digital video noise reduction) and EE (edge enhancement) choices made in the original source transfer, and so would prefer to exchange it for one that addresses those preferences in a different manner.

While the version that we originally distributed was of the highest quality, some enthusiasts may prefer to view it without the Edge Enhancement and DVNR implemented as standard process in bringing the film to hi-def. This new master resolves those issues.


Yes that is the original annoucement form Paramount on Gladiator. If whining worked once, it can work again.
post #917 of 1061
The problem with that is that reviewers praised the original Gladiator release as well. Not to mention the ****ing disaster that was the original Gangs of New York release. I quite literally stopped visiting sites that gave that crap release a good review.
post #918 of 1061
Using advanced cinemasquid.com technology, I see that the Weighted Average for the video scores of the original release of Gladiator is 63, so they didn't exactly praise it, but they didn't trash it either. However the video average for the BTTF trilogy is 83, so most "reviewers" are quite happy with how it looks.
post #919 of 1061
Quote:
Originally Posted by deviation View Post

you're still trolling this thread, josh? Bravo.

+1
post #920 of 1061
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deviation View Post

The problem with that is that reviewers praised the original Gladiator release as well. Not to mention the ****ing disaster that was the original Gangs of New York release. I quite literally stopped visiting sites that gave that crap release a good review.

Even the beloved Ralph Potts gave it a score of 78. Puzzling since the actual review isn't very favorable.
post #921 of 1061
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deviation View Post

You're still trolling this thread, Josh? Bravo.

Anyone who disagrees with you or the groupthink here is automatically a troll, then?
post #922 of 1061
Quote:
Originally Posted by madshi View Post

Ehm, I think you didn't really understand that article.

Galt talks about digital movie cameras and how misleading their marketing resolution numbers are. And he talks about movie theaters and how 4K projection doesn't have much benefit in his opinion unless you have a rather large viewing angle. Neither has much to do with at which resolution film should be scanned for Blu-Ray authoring.

I guess you missed the part where he begins, "Let's go back to scanning a film frame."

Whether talking about a photo sensor or film scanner, the point he's making is exactly the same. (How do you think a film scanner scans the film? It uses CCD or CMOS sensors.) Most equipment labeled as "4k" is nothing of the sort, because most of the pixels are interpolated.

You've bought into the marketing hype that anything with a higher number must automatically be better, no matter the circumstances. "But it's 4k! 4 is twice as much as 2, so it must be twice as good, duh!" The reality is much more complex than that.
post #923 of 1061
Exactly. It is complex. Also, what's the use of Universal scanning something in 4k, 6k, or 8k if they can't even get HD right.
post #924 of 1061
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

I guess you missed the part where he begins, "Let's go back to scanning a film frame."

Let's check the paragraph you're refering to:

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Galt View Post

Let's go back to scanning a film frame. The aspect ratio of a full 35mm film frame is basically 4x3. So if you have 4096 photo sites across the width of the film, in red and green and blue, and 3K along the height, you would have 4K by 3K. You'll have 12 million green photo-sites, 12 million blue photo-sites, 12 million red photo-sites.

That's 36 million photo-sites. A 36 mega-pixel image is what you get from a 4K scan.

In these two paragraphs he talks about scanning. But he only mentions film scanning to get a reference to what a true 4K image should ideally be (and what 4K film scanners actually do deliver) - namely a 36 mega-pixel image. He uses film scanners as the gold reference here! The very next paragraph goes back to digital movie cameras:

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Galt View Post

Now you know very well that you cannot take a 8.3 million pixel sensor and create 36 million out of that without interpolation. You are up-converting, and there's really no value to the up-conversion. There's no new information.

So 4K is not these 8 mega pixel or 9 mega pixel or 10 mega pixel CMOS images for the Bayer pattern where they add up all the pixels in a row and say hey, we got 4K. The great perpetrators of that mythology have been RED and Dalsa. That's why I call these “marketing pixels." It's intentional obfuscation. Because they really do nothing to improve image quality. They may improve sales volume. But they don't do anything to quality.

Here he's saying that those digital movie cameras with 8-10 mega pixel Bayer pattern sensors which claim to be 4K actually are less than 4K, because they don't have a true resolution of 36 mega-pixel (as film scanners do).

All his criticism is about manufacturers of digital movie cameras who claim to deliver 4K although in reality they don't. There's no part here which in any way says anything negative about 4K film scanning.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

Whether talking about a photo sensor or film scanner, the point he's making is exactly the same. (How do you think a film scanner scans the film? It uses CCD or CMOS sensors.) Most equipment labeled as "4k" is nothing of the sort, because most of the pixels are interpolated.

Sorry, but you're wrong here. John Galt criticizes digital movie cameras, not film scanners. Most digital movie cameras are using Bayer pattern sensors which do not have a true 36 mega pixel resolution. But film scanners do not use a Bayer pattern and have true 36 mega pixel.

Basically you seem to think that film scanners use a Bayer pattern, too, but you're wrong. In the paragraph next to the one you mentioned he clearly states that a 4K scan delivers 36 mega-pixel:

> "A 36 mega-pixel image is what you get from a 4K scan."

Some more background reading for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_...e_film_scanner

Quote:
Originally Posted by wikipedia View Post

A prism and/or dichroic mirrors or colour filters are used to separate the light into the three: red, green and blue, imaging pick up devices.

This would all not make any sense with a Bayer pattern, so I think it's pretty obvious that film scanners do not use a Bayer pattern. Which means that film scanner produce true full information scans with no interpolation involved.

http://www.optoiq.com/index/machine-...tize_film.html

There you can see that the Spirit 4K/2K film scanner uses "linescan CCDs" which totally rule out any Bayer pattern solution.
post #925 of 1061
Looks like Zyber just got his ass handed to him again and quite obviosly has absolutely no clue what he is talking about! I have to say I am amazed he hasn't been banned due to the lowhanded comments he constantly makes on this forum toward members. Are there no moderaters on AVS?

One of the real experts in the field John Lowry started doing 4K scans back in the dvd era. I think it goes without saying he has forgotten more about proper film restoration than Zyber will ever know(except in Josh's own mind that is). Leading experts all state you need a 4-5K scan from the best elements possible if it is from 35mm film. John Lowry believes that a 4K scan is needed to capture very bit of detail that is on the frame. Stating a 2K scan is just as good as a 4K scan is like saying dvd doesn't need anything more than 525i masters and look just as good as HD mastered titles.



2K-4K That's a little more than twice as good, DUH! Finally studios don't like to waste money, period! If the 4K scans were a waste they wouldn't be doing them. Let's be clear the 2005 dvd of King Kong used a 4K master before there ever was a high def format. Bond titles same deal in 2004 when Lowry remastered them for the with the Ultimate Edition DVD's. Warner is currently using 8K scans on many of their classic titles. Upcoming titles that are using 4k or higher masters include 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea and Ben Hur which are being worked on for bluray next year. If this was a waste of resources they wouldn't use them! 4K scans will become more and more prevalent as the life of the format continues.

Going to Back to the Future the picture is extremely processed. There isn't a stunning level of detail in any of the 3 films. They all look average at best. The EE isn't near as prevalent in the 2 sequels thank god. Again due to the fact the effects were done in Vistavision there will be no massive loss in detail if any at all or increased grain with the opticals. 4K scan and no DNR or EE needed. If the 2K scan was good enough why did they add EE to make it look like the film has increased sharpness and detail?
post #926 of 1061
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
Anyone who disagrees with you or the groupthink here is automatically a troll, then?
I never said or implied anything of the sort. But go ahead and try to play self righteous and independent. It's pretty hilarious.
post #927 of 1061
HighDefDigest's Review of BTTF:

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/3287...retrilogy.html

Bolded for hilarity:

The Video: Sizing Up the Picture

One of the most anticipated movie trilogies finally arrives on Blu-ray with a wonderful and impressive 1080p/VC-1 encode (1.85:1), except for Part III, which has been done using the AVC MPEG-4 encode. According to an interview, producer Bob Gale participated in the restoration process, which was done from an interpositive using a 2k resolution scan. And the results are first-rate, as the movies have never looked this good on any other format. Since all three films received the same treatment and appear identical in terms of quality, they are being graded as one complete package.

All three movies display great definition and clarity, whether we're watching Marty narrowly escape the clutches of Biff/Griff in the town square or riding the wild plains of the Wild West. Granted, there is some minor noise reduction applied and some slight digital tampering used to sharpen and clean the picture a bit, but it's nothing so objectionable as to ruin the quality of the film. We've seen much worse done to other favorites, and only the most discerning of viewers are likely to notice. The image still retains a very fine layer of grain and shows several strong moments of dimensionality. Fine object and textural details are exceptional for a catalogue title of this age. They're not always consistent, which is understandable, but it's much better than anyone could have expected. The worst instances are during the optical effects, where matte lines and softness are made more apparent. But again, this is a normal result of the available technology.

Contrast is spot-on and brightness levels are well balanced with deep, accurate blacks and brilliant whites. Facial complexions aren't very revealing, but they appear natural and healthy in all three films. The color palette is vibrant and dramatic, especially during scenes of the 1950s in the first two movies. Primaries are lush to give the transfer some great pop, but it never feels gaudy or artificial. Part III, of course, places more attention on the secondary hues and earth tones, showing a very pleasing range and also providing the video with a cool, gritty impression. Taken as a whole, the classic 80s trilogy looks terrific on Blu-ray.

The sad news, is our review at AVS looks very similar. Maybe we are just wrong...

Does the boxset come with your own personal strumpet for a short while or something?
post #928 of 1061
Quote:
Originally Posted by deviation View Post
i never said or implied anything of the sort. But go ahead and try to play self righteous and independent. It's pretty hilarious.
+1
post #929 of 1061
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

You've bought into the marketing hype that anything with a higher number must automatically be better, no matter the circumstances. "But it's 4k! 4 is twice as much as 2, so it must be twice as good, duh!" The reality is much more complex than that.

I don't think the people on here fall for the numbers. I think the point is this: a proper 4K scan will always be as good or better than a proper 2K scan. Of course a badly managed 4K scan will be worse than a properly managed 2K scan. Just like with a display, a good 720p display will look better than a bad 1080p display. Just like with video games -- people would rather play a low res game that is actually good rather than a high res piece of garbage.

Either way -- I'm curious now -- have you watched it yet? If you have, do you believe that Universal could have produced something better? Does it appear to have received the same treatment that other high profiles movies have received on blu-ray?
post #930 of 1061
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
You've bought into the marketing hype that anything with a higher number must automatically be better, no matter the circumstances. "But it's 4k! 4 is twice as much as 2, so it must be twice as good, duh!" The reality is much more complex than that.
Of course it's more complex than that, and nobody here has been disputing that. However, let's look at the quote below, Josh:

Quote:
Originally Posted by PRO-630HD View Post
Stating a 2K scan is just as good as a 4K scan is like saying dvd doesn't need anything more than 525i masters and look just as good as HD mastered titles.

Going to Back to the Future the picture is extremely processed. There isn't a stunning level of detail in any of the 3 films. They all look average at best. 4K scan and no DNR or EE needed. If the 2K scan was good enough why did they add EE to make it look like the film has increased sharpness and detail?
The first part of this quote is very interesting... because it's a valid point. Just because you're scanning at a level that's good enough to match your display, doesn't mean you won't be getting better results with 4k. Sure, as been said, there are plenty of things that can go wrong when using 4k that could make something end up looking worse than a proper 2k scan... but when done right, 4k certainly yields better results.

Another valid point is that all three of these films don't look fantastic. The first film shows that it has the POTENTIAL to be great, but it isn't. The second and third BTTF flicks are a little worse due to DNR and still some EE, and you can defend this release until you're blue in the face... it doesn't make this set any better of a product. Are they WAY better than the DVD's? Yes. Am I sorry I bought them and replaced my DVD's? Not at all. Does that mean I'm going to jump on the 'it's good enough' bandwagon? Absolutely not. This is one of the most beloved movie trilogies of all time, and it deserved better. You know this, Josh. I think you're extremely knowledgeable about all this stuff and on so many different discussions I tend to agree with you more often than not, but I think this thread shows your selectiveness. You've crucified the new color timing in the Alien Anthology Blu-ray set, yet you're willing to defend the Back to the Future Trilogy for what's OBVIOUSLY a 'less than' product. Throw in all the logistics and techniques you want... it doesn't matter. This set should have been of a higher quality than this, and that's really the bottom line no matter how you try to rationalize it.

And just to comment on Pro's comment about 'why do they use EE and DNR', it's because the studios think that the average Joe Six-Pack won't buy into HD if they see 'grain'. They also use EE because they think it makes the image look 'sharper', thus 'enhancing' the picture quality for the viewers at home. In short, they don't care about recreating the cinematic experience. They only care about catering to the masses, and unfortunately that means doing whatever they can to make the image look as clean as possible (just look at Predator, for example). Of course, they know they have to deal with the people who actually CARE about this stuff (like us), so they try to find a happy medium... which is more often than not ruins the picture more than it 'helps'.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Blu-ray Software
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › Back to the Future