[Canceled] Solo: A Star Wars Story (2018)

[schorman]

If anyone is interested in the theatrical subtitles, they seem to only be available on streaming platforms. I've done captures at 1080p and 2160p, if anyone is interested in using them.

[captainsolo]

It looked horrible via DCP to the point where I gave up cringing at just how unwatchable it looked. I don't think there's very much you can do because of the style they shot and timed it. Just awful.
If this same thing had been shot in the 90's it would look gorgeous. Or at least in pre-2010's it would have been competently done.

[PDB]

Theatrically, this was a mess. I'm sure I wasn't alone in hoping the Blu-ray (and/or 4k) release would fix the problem. Alas, it was not to be. Fortunately, PDB is on the job!
Much better, my friend! If you end up taking it on, is there any chance it could include the Atmos track from the 4k disc? That would be the ultimate!

I could upload that by itself for people to mux in.

I think that's doable

I agree and your changes are an improvement. But then, the movie is hardly anything to write home about. Doubt I'll be watching it a second time, ever.

It looked horrible via DCP to the point where I gave up cringing at just how unwatchable it looked. I don't think there's very much you can do because of the style they shot and timed it. Just awful.
If this same thing had been shot in the 90's it would look gorgeous. Or at least in pre-2010's it would have been competently done.

I'm not disagreeing. This is my second time watching and its not good when I can't get past the video's look at the start. I figure might as well see if I can do anything to improve it before I give it a full second look. Judge it on the merits of the film (mediocre at best) and not the camera and color grading work.

If anyone is interested in the theatrical subtitles, they seem to only be available on streaming platforms.  I've done captures at 1080p and 2160p, if anyone is interested in using them.

I might be interested in at least the 1080p if this project goes anywhere. I prefer burned in subs. Can you post what they look like? I'm trying to remember how many subs were in the film.

[schorman]

Here are a couple examples. There are 16 different subtitled lines and 17 shots from the film that have subtitling.

[PDB]

Hmmmmm...

Those hard subs would be better then player generated subs. Anyway I might be able to get copy at least of those parts, schorman?

[Beber]

I wonder if you maybe went a little too far in contrast boosting regarding the highlights.

As to the subtitles, I'm sure you can identify the font and generate PGS with Bronan *.ass to *.sup tool that'll look just like those, and that'll allow foreigners to add their own without having to deal with 2 sets of subtitles on screen at the same time. Also, they oddly went for yellow subs while the other Star Wars movies always went for white subs.

[PDB]

That's possible and can be pulled back a bit. This was just a test with on setting for the whole film. To see how far I can get with it.

Problem is with the vignetting it makes any changes semi-inconstant over the whole frame, so I need more contrast to make the edges appear similar to the center and the changes universal over the frame and that's even after running an anti-vignetting effect.

As for the subs, I'm not a sub guy but let me see what I can come up with.

[Beber]

What about the UHD? Might be a better starting point. I've read on Blu-ray.com's review that one scene is uglier on it compared with the BD, but that overall it's better.

[PDB]

What about the UHD? Might be a better starting point. I've read on Blu-ray.com's review that one scene is uglier on it compared with the BD, but that overall it's better.

Tried it, it appears to me in 10 bit + HDR or converting to 10 bit + SDR to have the same general issues all around. Muddy blacks and muted colors, basically like unprocessed RAW or log files. The HDR DCP I saw looked basically the same. I remember it clearly, since I was shocked that a professional movies turned out looking like that.

I'm not against using the 4K but in this case I didn't want to add the extra layer of processing. Since it's most likely an up-convert, I'd only be missing the 10 bit and HDR. And having visited the HDR, it looks like the 10 bit is the only thing worth saving.

BTW, what was the one scene? Might as well compare that... I noticed some bad artifacting in a few scenes like the recruitment scene but they are in every version I looked at. I believe that was from the camera.

Basically it's just a crappy looking film. This is trying to get blood from a turnip (if that translates)

[Beber]

This UHD's most readily apparent differential compared to the Blu-ray is a generally darker color scheme. The mud pit scene transitions the mud from a light gray to a very dark, absorbing gray. Every color is more solidified, even Lando's yellow shirt and the Falcon's similarly colored appointments. But HDR does render an already bleak movie more so, which in some cases is not a bad thing. When Val, Beckett, and Han are scouting the train heist, lying on a snow bank below overcast skies, the UHD tightens the image, rendering it a bit darker, a little more foreboding, the sky more intensely gray and the snow a little less intensely bright. The increased darkness at least helps alleviate, but not entirely remedy, the pale blacks that run throughout the movie and that were the most problematic feature on the Blu-ray. But the UHD does see a rise in macroblocking. Nowhere is it more pronounced than at the 27:38 mark, a shot that looks like a chunky Internet stream of the movie, but it's certainly a regular eyesore throughout. Curiously the macroblocking in that scene is not particularly problematic on the Blu-ray, which is instead struggling through some of the most washed-out blacks in the entire movie.

Texturally, the movie is hopelessly flat as a rule. Whether tight shots or long vistas, there's almost no sense of apparent depth, no separation between objects. There are some essential gains to clarity and sharpness, but even for what is reportedly a 4K digital intermediate (shot at resolutions of 3.4K and 6.5K), there's just not much in the way of striking textural improvements to be found. It certainly handles all of the dense locations, grime, wear, and tear very well but not substantially over the Blu-ray, and upticks in facial and fabric definition are modest at best. The increase in clarity and color depth do aid some scenes. Take a look at a shot of the yacht in chapter 17 at the 42:42 mark. There's a marked increase in clarity, detail, and color density on the UHD. The shot is much more eye-catching, sharper and more refined. There are some interesting small examples throughout, too. At the 50:35 mark the UHD settles down some harsh backlighting and allows for a little more definition of both the foreground characters and the basic shape of whatever is outside the window at some distance. Regardless of incremental improvements, the movie is very stark as a rule and there are precious few scenes that aren't absorbingly dark or, like those scenes on the yacht, harshly backlit. Those scenes that do escape both are amongst the best on the UHD, but again the primary benefits are color stability and an increase in general clarity and sharpness, not raw textural gains. The UHD helps settle the movie on the whole. It basically boils down to Solo being a natively flat, bland movie that just doesn't lend itself to classic eye candy on either format. Both the Blu-ray and UHD are problematic on top of what they have to work with, but this UHD is the better bet overall if for no other reason than more stable clarity and better, though not perfect, blacks.