It's all about money I guess, re-authoring a regular BD might cost money they are not sure to recoup?
Putting out any Blu commercialy costs a lots in copyrights and stuff for the Blu specs, so re-releasing the old bypass that and it's budget you can put in the 4K mastering instead.
I don't mind, I think people should switch to 4K, period.

(2018-02-10, 10:15 PM)Stamper Wrote: It's all about money I guess, re-authoring a regular BD might cost money they are not sure to recoup?
Putting out any Blu commercialy costs a lots in copyrights and stuff for the Blu specs, so re-releasing the old bypass that and it's budget you can put in the 4K mastering instead.
I don't mind, I think people should switch to 4K, period.

I'm finding switching to 4K tricky.
To do it properly would entail a complete replacement of all my equipment.

Bar the purchase of a good 10bit screen, it would of been nice if it was just a graphics card replacement. But No.

With the added fact most productions are finished in 2K, I'm holding on a little longer.

It's not about the resolution but the color space. I agree you probably should wait as 4K 3D without glasses screens are coming, but they will be around 6000 bucks at launch. As of currently you can get a 4K up to date player for about 700/800 (old generations players are about 280 or 200 but they lack in sound and color space specs), and a good TV will be about 1200 so very cheap.

It's very tech like LD was at launch so you need to prospect what you will buy, but the end results is just eyes blowing. Rec 709 looks like shitte once you've gone over the edge.

You realise regrades like KK750 or whomever he is, are only about bringing the films back to Rec 709 video color space (not film). BT2020 looks like film. I saw Starship Troopers at a friend's, then he put the great Blu on and it looked video in comparison, like DV video whereas the 4K is film.

Absolutely sir
The most exciting thing about it has been the color and contrast reproduction.
Resolution is just a nice add on really.

I still may skip this one though

It seems to me that the UHD is not the remaster that Netflix had and which looked like the 4K DCP, at least colorwise. It seems to me that it's just a UHD presentation of the old master. I guess that'll need further investigation, like screen caps comparisons.

Blu-ray vs. UHD Blu-ray

http://www.caps-a-holic.com/c.php?d1=117...798&c=4650

I think the softness is due to the film being shot with anamorphic lenses. Does the new 4K is close to the Netflix version? I wanna know if I should retire this one from a hard drive or not.

All right, maybe it is, then. Colors looked dull, bland when I checked it. Probably because of the HDR to SDR conversion via MadVR. I was expecting more saturation, some golden hue and cyan. However, the Powell shot shows a more squished aspect ratio than the Blu-ray that looks a bit stretch-- no idea which is more geometrically correct. And we see more on the right and less on the left, so that points to a new master. Also, the beginning titles skake a bit and I thought the remaster was more stable there. It will need a comparison between the 3: Blu-ray, Netflix and UHD.

Can anyone confirm whether the 2.0 track on the UHD is a mixdown of the 5.1 and not the original stereo? Thanks!

^ According to nirbateman, it 'appears to be'.