UHD Titles Worth/Not Worth Upgrading [Archive]

[nicolas]

Received my Carlotta SteelBook of The Heroic Trio + Executioners today. 2x BD-66, Dolby Vision, 5.1 and 2.0 sound with optional French subtitles. Aspect ratio 1.78:1.

I hate to be the bearer of not the best news but unfortunately we have another unfortunate situation on our hands here. MediaAsia supplied two rather processed 4K masters to Carlotta.

Please don't panic, it's not as bad as Infernal Affairs. In The Heroic Trio's OCN-shots, grain is mostly intact and looks alright, but, like with Toho's Kurosawa UHDs, high frequency detail has been filtered. Before I continue, I need to make clear that this is NOT due to the encode, which looks like a Fidelity in Motion encode when you watch it and while ripping, I saw that DV MEL has been used. So, we can probably assume it for certain. David M has very likely done the best with what he'd been given. (Another case of having the best encodes for subpar masters and not the other way round.)

Shots that weren't OCN-sourced (and when spot-checking, I noticed quite a few), are more processed and filtered, but still not to an unwatchable degree. I consider the Infernal Affairs trilogy worse than these two films. I haven't seen them before, so can't comment on anything else apart from that.

Executioner also looks worse (but not by much) across the board than The Heroic Trio in terms of the filtering. You can just see that they've treated this one with even less love.

And to top it off, both films are in 1.78:1. I hate cropped (or opened up) masters when they aren't in their original aspect ratio. Sure, the difference to 1.85 is small but I perceive 1.78 films as cheaper and more "TV"-looking than cinematic. Remuxing will take care of this but still annoying.

As always, no comment on the sound. I don't have other editions of the films to compare nor the proper equipment.

Based on what I saw, I doubt that Criterion will issue both films in 4K. If they chose BDs for Infernal Affairs, they will choose BDs here too. These will likely be our best versions of the two films for the time being. The only shame is the lack of English subtitles, so hopefully you can remux your preferred version.

Screenshots and packaging pictures over here: https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.php? ... stcount=18

[tenia]

Carlotta has a Credits page. If FiM did the encode, you'll find David and/or FiM mentioned. If not, it's not from there.
The BDs are from FiM (I checked).

I overall agree with you about the masters : they're DNRed; Executioners is clearly worse than Heroic Trio, with much more shots filtered and possibly a filter applied in a slightly more intense level; both however aren't Infernal Affairs or WKW type disasters. I too have the issue with 1.78 opened-up presentations : the movies get a TV-film feeling than I tend to dislike, which is silly because it's only 1.85 vs 1.78 but still. Days of Being Wild and As Tears Go By French releases are also 1.78 instead of 1.85, and yup, same effect for me.

[mhofmann]

That definitely sounds like something went wrong on the DVD… but notwithstanding that disc’s lossy compression if there’s more dynamic range than in the new one, something is clearly faulty with that one too. Still, the new UHD has such great PQ that I’m almost willing to forgive Spectrum, just turn up the volume and move on to the next one.

Regarding Millennium Mambo, I haven't done a direct comparison against the UHD, but I noticed how unnaturally low the mix on the Spectrum Blu-ray is...

[tenia]

Again, based on my random spot check, I couldn’t see any faults in the encode apart from one shot of an office building (?) near the end. A small portion of the image gets slightly blocky there (on the corners) but it’s really no big deal at all in the grand scheme.

I originally missed this but if you're talking of the outside shot of an office building with a train passing-by below (at 92 minutes 04), I took a screenshot of it from the BD because I liked this shot and it also is blocky.

[nicolas]

Again, based on my random spot check, I couldn’t see any faults in the encode apart from one shot of an office building (?) near the end. A small portion of the image gets slightly blocky there (on the corners) but it’s really no big deal at all in the grand scheme.

I originally missed this but if you're talking of the outside shot of an office building with a train passing-by below (at 92 minutes 04), I took a screenshot of it from the BD because I liked this shot and it also is blocky.

I’m not sure if we’re talking about the same shot but it seems so. The one I described and made a screenshot of is the only one I noticed. If there’s another, I missed it as it was really only a quick first check. Still, one or two in total is forgivable when the rest looks that beautiful.

[tenia]

I’m not sure if we’re talking about the same shot but it seems so. The one I described and made a screenshot of is the only one I noticed.

I just checked you BR.com post, and it's indeed the same shot.
I also think it's overall negligible, but I was surprised to see the compression quality dropping so much just here, and am also surprised to see it's exactly the same issue in the same place in both formats.

[nicolas]

I’m not sure if we’re talking about the same shot but it seems so. The one I described and made a screenshot of is the only one I noticed.

I just checked you BR.com post, and it's indeed the same shot.
I also think it's overall negligible, but I was surprised to see the compression quality dropping so much just here, and am also surprised to see it's exactly the same issue in the same place in both formats.

Exactly how I felt too. I almost assume the average bitrate was set too high similar to Curzon’s Wings of Desire UHD (the bitrate there doesn’t fall below 30 Mbps if I remember correctly, causing blocky skies and mushy blacks) that it wasn’t enough overall for that particular shot to render organically. I have another example like this, A24’s Aftersun Blu-ray. Excellent encoding and almost a 4K-quality image on a BD in almost every shot yet once in a while there is glaring macroblocking in the skies (zoom lens or telephoto shots) that isn’t on the less “sharp” MUBI BD. I think it’s the similar with Millennium which looks like a DCP on UHD. That encode seems to have been optimized for the darker scenes to have these come across perfectly with the few brighter shots suffering.

[patreig]

I too have the issue with 1.78 opened-up presentations : the movies get a TV-film feeling than I tend to dislike, which is silly because it's only 1.85 vs 1.78 but still. Days of Being Wild and As Tears Go By French releases are also 1.78 instead of 1.85, and yup, same effect for me.

They are not opened-up presentations. The sides have been slightly cropped, which is much much worse. This is quite apparent at caps-a-holic, see for example https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?go=1&a=0 ... 48&i=3&l=0.
The french edition looks identical to the german one (compare with https://testsbluray.com/2023/06/25/test ... usel-27791).

[tenia]

My bad, then.

[Finch]

Manchurian Candidate caps

The Kino looks better but the 2.0 stereo track is no good, according to user feedback on BR.com.

edit: Ronin (Kino): excellent restoration, HDR10 encoding is merely okay. No one has sampled the DV yet.

[rrenault]

Finch:

Would it be fair to label Criterion’s Rules of the Game 4K as solid compared to the 2011 Blu-ray but disappointing compared to BFI’s 4K-sourced FiM-encoded Blu ray?

[nicolas]

Manchurian Candidate caps

The Kino looks better but the 2.0 stereo track is no good, according to user feedback on BR.com.

edit: Ronin (Kino): excellent restoration, HDR10 encoding is merely okay. No one has sampled the DV yet.

This is the first time I’m hearing negative feedback regarding Ronin. My copy arrives tomorrow, so I can take a look. I expected a top-notch disc based on a few reports I’ve seen.

[Finch]

Rrenault, I think it should be a solid upgrade over the old BD but Pixelogic's encoding of Criterion's 4k would have to be a lot worse than the BFI BD to call it disappointing in comparison, I reckon. We all expected Criterion's Seventh Seal to be worse than the BFI 4k and the PQ gains of the DV layer of the UK disc turned out to be insignificant while the US UHD was a more comprehensively stacked disc. I for one would certainly pick the CC Bergman over the BFI.

If it turns out that Pixelogic have applied the low pass filter again on the Renoir and the encoding is appreciably worse than David's, then I can see an argument for declaring the 4k disappointing against the BD. Chris's review on the front page doesn't mention the low pass filter and he liked the encode so this may be one of their better efforts.

[nicolas]

Manchurian Candidate caps

The Kino looks better but the 2.0 stereo track is no good, according to user feedback on BR.com.

edit: Ronin (Kino): excellent restoration, HDR10 encoding is merely okay. No one has sampled the DV yet.

This is the first time I’m hearing negative feedback regarding Ronin. My copy arrives tomorrow, so I can take a look. I expected a top-notch disc based on a few reports I’ve seen.

I’ve now received Ronin and watched the entire film in DV. It’s a flawless presentation. Literally not even remotely any issues (apart from a number of white specks and even occasional hairs in the restoration which weren’t cleaned up but that hasn’t got anything to do with the encoding). In my opinion, an absolute reference disc, audio is excellent as well.

[Finch]

How was it in HDR10?

[nicolas]

How was it in HDR10?

I gave the disc another spin to check in HDR10 and honestly, I haven’t noticed much that stands out negatively. Yes, it’s not as refined as in DV, meaning the DV layer adds to where HDR10 lacks but I couldn’t see a big macroblocking mess. For comparison, I’d rate the DV presentation 5/5 (reference) and HDR10 4/5. You really have to be up close to your TV / screen to see some occasional inconsistencies. If they’re there, it’s never the entire frame, even very rarely in tricky highlights like lamps and skies or smoke. To anybody only capable for HDR10 and still on the fence, I can only recommend the disc.

[nicolas]

Also a few words on The Manchurian Candidate. It‘s a bummer that the audio is affected because the picture quality is astonishing in both DV and HDR10. Another case of what I assume is another flawless DV presentation and only a little “worse” in HDR10. The difference might be an ever-so-subtle increase in detail and grain exposure. Some moments are so sharp and detailed it’s almost baffling. If it weren’t for the audio, another A+ disc. I hope Kino improves their audio workflow soon as the image quality provides exactly what us enthusiasts long for. Can’t wait for their upcoming UHDs.

[Finch]

Revising the rating for Ronin then as that seems to have excellent DV playback AND very good audio.

Manchurian Candidate (reference video but lousy 2.0 audio)

The self-proclaimed Best Label In The World (BLITW) needs to put in more effort to earn that cred.

Forgot to add: Waterworld (Arrow) (if compared to their own BD) Chris's review

[Finch]

Early feedback on The Truman Show suggests that Paramount fixed the geometry issues from the Blu-Ray and that the UHD overall looks appreciably better but, but, but the encoding is, yet again, bad in HDR10 and better if not wonderful in Dolby Vision (akin to Deep Impact and Saturday Night Fever).

That said, if Chinatown turns out the same, I'll still upgrade because the BD is ancient. On the other hand, I'm not selling my Criterion BD of Rosemary's Baby prematurely.

Sony's Cliffhanger re-issue is not a reference disc by all accounts, and some BR members prefer the Italian Eagle disc or even the Studio Canal while others swear by the Sony. With this film, it seems like a pick your poison scenario. Reactions to their Insidious disc are also mixed so far.

[kekid]

A question from a non-technical person:
If we find a flaw in the picture quality, how can we tell if that is due to poor restoration or bad encoding?
In other words, what are the signs of poor restoration, and what are the signs of bad encoding?
Thank you.

[therewillbeblus]

This may seem like an annoying ask (certainly one that could open the floodgates if too many expectations are attached), but would it be possible to include an asterisk for the films with solid/appreciable upgrades if a significant extra is dropped and flagged - or perhaps a link to where that's pointed out, even just on this site (i.e. "*See this post/Chris' review for details")? I was about to pull the plug on Mallrats' 4k until I read Chris' review, which mentions they dropped the TV edit and the upgrade isn't even that substantial, so it seems like a situation where the LE blu-ray may be preferable to the UHD. I know we're primarily focusing on A/V presentation here, but that seems like an important aspect to consider for determining if something is a solid/appreciable "upgrade"

[Finch]

I'm open to that, and Chris giving the Seventh Seal extras full marks was the main reason I labelled the Criterion 4k of that film superior to the BFI version as there was little to separate the two regarding video and audio.

Adding a caveat to the Mallrats 4k now in the OP.

[swo17]

Fear and Loathing also drops some extras.

If you already own the Ingmar Bergman's Cinema set that has the extras, is there any reason to favor the Criterion 4K of Seventh Seal over the BFI?

[M-A]

Fear and Loathing also drops some extras.

If you already own the Ingmar Bergman's Cinema set that has the extras, is there any reason to favor the Criterion 4K of Seventh Seal over the BFI?

The encoding is a little bit better on the BFI, but it is definitely one of Criterion's better efforts. The audio on Criterion's disc also has a bit more filtering and sounds a bit worse, but the subtitle track on BFI's release is noticeable worse than Criterion's, unfortunately.

[nicolas]

A question from a non-technical person:
If we find a flaw in the picture quality, how can we tell if that is due to poor restoration or bad encoding?
In other words, what are the signs of poor restoration, and what are the signs of bad encoding?
Thank you.

I would say that a poor restoration would leave significant film damage, such as large scratches, tram lines and color fluctuations intact as well as bad color grading, all of which can’t be fixed by the encode. But that’s to be taken into relation because there are some films, particularly older ones and those which haven’t got first-generation film elements any more, which are too damaged to be “properly” restored. I’d say that today, bad restorations when dealing directly with the scanned film are rarely happening any more but bad color grading is the main point which makes many new masters disappointing.

On the other hand, if an encode is bad, you see that the (normally) organically resolving layer of grain shows traces of blocking in parts of the image, which makes the restoration look like you’re seeing a digital projection and not “film”. This is technically untrue because it’s obviously all a digital presentation on disc but a good encode hides that fact by having it appear that you look at a film print.
Other factors could be that the very top layer of grain (high-frequency detail) is subtly taken off by the encoder using mild noise reduction in order to make encoding easier but at the expense of an ever-so-subtle (or more) decrease in overall detail. You can observe this with many Criterion UHDs when comparing with international alternatives of the same film.

Another scenario, though less likely, is that a 4K restoration (better term 4K digital master) has been pre-encoded before handing it over to an authoring house which normally does the disc encoding. This then could result in the above culprits like various sorts of blocking being baked into the master which no authoring house could then reverse for the final disc encode as they can only work with what they’re given and not go back to the raw files.

Hope this helps! Feel free to ask if you have other questions.