Ive started this thread based on a conversation that has began in the 'New Back to The Future transfer' thread
Here https://fanrestore.com/thread-1477-page-3.html

i was unsure of a thread title and although it began as a discussion on the restoration of 'Jaws' it also covered what films we're tempting us to make the UHD leap and upgrade our equipment.

There is a thread already devoted to 4K UHD and it has covered some of what we started talking about.
Here
But I thought it would be o.k to start this new one to carry on our conversation.

The upcoming Terminator UHD release has had me looking around at 4K equipment.
As most movies we're finished in 2k, the most exciting thing about this format for me is not the resolution boost but the Colour one.
I was personally going to wait until the copy protection is circumvented as I'm so used to having image / mkv files of my discs on the HTPC and I don't want to go back.
Having my collection all in one place contained on Hard Drives has changed how i consume my movies.

Which also brings me to how i think home cinema should evolve.
(I originally wrote a version of this in SpoRv Wonder Woman thread.)

It would be nice to get 'log' scans of the negative and apply our own LUT's depending on viewing circumstances or preferences.
It would come with a 'Director's Approved' set of parameters as a standard, but also be able to add additional variations to match the monitoring equipment being used.
This could also contain Aspect Ratio Variations with Pan and Scan Metadata where applicable.

Imagine putting T2 on and being able to watch open matte with it's original 1991 colour timing, or 2:35:1 with a personal colour pallet, then correctly matched to my TV sets capabilities by just changing a few settings on my player.

Take a look at this thread - I talked about the possibility to have multiple aspect raio, different color grading etc. in a single container: https://fanrestore.com/thread-1262.html - I think is technically possible to do some (or all) of that, but why studios would release a single "got-it-all-features" when they could force us to buy the same title again and again?

I don't want to jump into conclusions or anything but judging by the 4K screenshots I've seen, it looks like the new T2 release could not be a brand new transfer but an "improvement" based on the old 2K DI upscaled with DNR and EE applied to it instead. I'm not saying that it is what they actually did because I frankly don't know but I'm really not happy with what I'm seeing right now. Either they hired the worst remastering team ever or they didn't want to spend a lot of money and just updated the movie using an already existing transfer. Which wouldn't surprise me at all. I'd like to know what you guys think about that. Again, PM for link.

I think UHD has a lot going for it for various reasons.

It's good to see the studios all seem to be behind the format (except for MGM I think) in a time when everyone said that streaming would be the standard. Personally I think the studios like it right now because the encryption seems to be unbreakable. Which unfortunately means no ripping/muxing for the time being. But...

All the chatter I'm hearing about the UHD releases of recent obviously mentions the extra dynamic range and colour saturation (not to mention the lack of blanket tints) but also the increased prominence of grain (even in 2K upscales) vs 'standard' blu rays. This leads me to suspect that a UHD downconvert (if done properly with a good player which can handle the HDR>SDR) may yield more detail and a better grain structure than the retail blu (which has probably been lightly filtered to aid compression). Obviously 1080p HDMI capping is pretty mature tech now. Perhaps these may yield better sources for restorations/preservations in the years to come? I don't know about you guys but I doubt I'll have the computing horsepower any time soon to handle 4K or HEVC encoding.

(2017-07-29, 04:24 PM)zoidberg Wrote: This leads me to suspect that a UHD downconvert (if done properly with a good player which can handle the HDR>SDR) may yield more detail and a better grain structure than the retail blu (which has probably been lightly filtered to aid compression).

Yep, I talk about this here: https://fanrestore.com/thread-1141.html
look at the comparison: http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/191391 - was quick'n'dirt, and I'm pretty sure that using a better algorhythm would lead to even better result.

It's certainly something worth looking into, we may be able to get something approaching a DCP in terms of resolution. 

As for the atmos/object based audio I'm not keen on that, especially when they are not offering the original mixes for older films.

(2017-07-29, 02:42 PM)spoRv Wrote: Take a look at this thread - I talked about the possibility to have multiple aspect raio, different color grading etc. in a single container: https://fanrestore.com/thread-1262.html - I think is technically possible to do some (or all) of that, but why studios would release a single "got-it-all-features" when they could force us to buy the same title again and again?

I remember the thread well

From a monetary point of view, it would be cheaper to just release the flat LOG scan of the negative.
The LUT's and Metadata could be handled on a studio's department's needs I.E DCP, Home Video ect.
The interesting stuff would be when a label licenses a title and the Hardware manufactures start tweaking, not to mention the fans.
Some say Im a dreamer, but im not the only one

(2017-07-29, 05:54 PM)spoRv Wrote:

(2017-07-29, 04:24 PM)zoidberg Wrote: This leads me to suspect that a UHD downconvert (if done properly with a good player which can handle the HDR>SDR) may yield more detail and a better grain structure than the retail blu (which has probably been lightly filtered to aid compression).

Yep, I talk about this here: https://fanrestore.com/thread-1141.html
look at the comparison: http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/191391 - was quick'n'dirt, and I'm pretty sure that using a better algorhythm would lead to even better result.

That does indeed look better.
Your a smart cookie spoRv.

(2017-07-29, 04:06 PM)ilovewaterslides Wrote: I don't want to jump into conclusions or anything but judging by the 4K screenshots I've seen, it looks like the new T2 release could not be a brand new transfer but an "improvement" based on the old 2K DI upscaled with DNR and EE applied to it instead. I'm not saying that it is what they actually did because I frankly don't know but I'm really not happy with what I'm seeing right now. Either they hired the worst remastering team ever or they didn't want to spend a lot of money and just updated the movie using an already existing transfer. Which wouldn't surprise me at all. I'd like to know what you guys think about that. Again, PM for link.

It's worth having a look at these!
PM the man if you have not already.

With the following I could write "the past of home cinema" or "the vintage video returns?"

Well, finished to watch Cutthroat Island on PAL IT laserdisc; obviously a lower quality in comparison to DVD - but not too distant in resolution; no MPEG artefact but analog noise that is noticeable only in few shots; colors... are great, still today, and even if chroma resolution is low, it doesn't show, and the whole vision was pretty cinematic - apart a strange behaviour, that I've always noted also at the CRT times; it's like a... can't explain better... like watching a movie projected onto not a classic smooth screen, but like on a jute fabric, where plot is evident



well, not SO evident, but it gives you the idea... I strongly suspect it's a mixture of less-than-perfect PAL mastering and (most probably) bad PAL laserdisc circuitry.

So, watching a perfectly mastered NTSC laserdisc on a MUSE laserdisc player should still give a sort of "wow factor" - I'll take back my X9 in action ASAP!